University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Improving conditions for innovation in magnet and charter schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Improving conditions for innovation in magnet and charter schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
IMPROVING CONDITIONS FOR INNOVATION IN MAGNET AND
CHARTER SCHOOLS

by
Deborah Elder

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

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Deborah Elder

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Only God could have intersected the timing, technology, and the words of family,
friends, and colleagues to pave the path that brought me to this achievement. God’s hand has
been evident every step of the way, from the decision to have children instead of pursue doctoral
work in 1999 to the last press of the “submit” button in 2020. It is no accident that the finish line
of this journey culminates in Los Angeles, the City of Angels.
To Scott, my awesome husband, thank you for taking care of the life logistics for the last
few years. You’ve been supportive even with your own very full plate. I haven’t thanked you
enough but please know that I am truly grateful. Can’t wait to see what the future brings for us.
To Sam and David, I hope that I’ve set an example for you both to never stop learning,
that you are never too old to pursue your dreams, and that the most worthwhile undertakings
require roll-up-your-sleeves effort. Sam, you’ve transitioned from high school senior to college
sophomore during this process, and I couldn’t be more proud of the young man you are
becoming. David, I will miss our mom-and-son “academic productivity” time when you are
away at college next year more than you’ll ever know. Boys, I hope that I will someday call you
both “Dr.”. Love you to infinity and beyond.
I’m blessed with four amazing parents by birth and marriage. Mom, I appreciate all that
you juggled, including your own aging parents, as a grad school student in the 1980’s. You made
it look easy and I sure appreciate now that it was not! Thank you for setting the example. Dad,
you blazed the trail for our family to pursue higher education and set the standard of work ethic
and commitment. Your unwavering support is appreciated beyond measure. Judy, when this was
just a budding idea, your words tipped the scale. You’ve been the consummate cheerleader, and
I’m so grateful. Jack, you are missed tremendously. Your contribution to this effort makes your
iii
presence powerfully felt. All four of you have given me the confidence and drive to reach higher,
thank you.
Janet, you make all the adventures of life fun, and this one is no exception! Chris, thank
you for your 100% support. Caitie, Amanda, and Taylor, I’ve learned that the only way we attain
something higher than we think we are capable of is to reach higher. It took me a long time to
figure that out, so maybe these words will give you a lead.
Carol and Chris, family turned Trojan Family. I never would have learned about OCL
without you. The time in LA with you has been a delightful enhancement to the USC experience.
An individual who is a working professional, mom, and doctoral student has limited
bandwith for a social life. Thank you to all of my dear friends and family that allowed me to
sandwich short visits when I could without taking offense.
Dr. Ott, you started as my chair and have turned into my mentor. I aspire to emulate the
way you hold the highest expectations with encouragement and grace. Your late-night feedback
is just one example of the lavishly generous nature of your mentorship. I can only hope that my
career follows your footsteps and leaves the powerful imprint of intellect and heart on others as
you have on me.
Dr. Bewley, thank you for your laser eye to which I owe the refinement of the written
word. Your feedback has taken the work beyond what I was capable of. Thank you.
Dr. Robles and Dr. Stowe, I am honored to have your fingerprints on this work. The two
of you have challenged me to think more deeply and write more clearly. You have made me a
better scholar, practitioner, and person.
Cohort 10, we have finished the race and have kept the faith (2 Timothy 4:7). I will miss
your faces and voices on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings! Although we are flung across the
iv
geography of this world I know that our network will remain strong beyond OCL. Together, we
embody the Trojan qualities; faithful, scholarly, ambitious, skilled, and courageous. We have
each changed the world in small ways and I know that we will go forth and change it in great
ways to the benefit of many. FIGHT ON!
Thank you to the inspiring individuals behind the citations, especially Clayton
Christensen, who passed from this world as I wrote the last chapter.

“ L e t us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.” Hebrews 12:1
Heartfelt thanks to each of you for pushing me to the finish line.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x
Abstract xi
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 1
Organizational Context and Mission 3
Organizational Performance Status 6
Related Literature 6
Importance of Addressing the Problem 8
Organizational Performance Goal 9
Description of Stakeholder Groups 9
Stakeholder Performance Goals 9
Stakeholder Group for the Study 11
Purpose of the Project and Questions 12
Research Questions 12
Methodological Framework 13
Definitions 13
Organization of the Study 14

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 15
Understanding Organizations 15
Theoretical Basis of Change, Improvement, and Innovation 19
Overview of Organizational Change 19
Overview of Organizational Improvement 21
Overview of Organizational Innovation 22
Distinguishing Change, Improvement, and Innovation 23
Innovation Through School Choice in K-12 Education 25
School Choice Through the Political Frame Lens 26
Theory of Choice as Innovation 27
Design Process in Innovative Educational Organizations 28
Innovation in Magnet and Charter Schools 29
School Choice as an Equity Strategy 37
Racial and Socio-Economic Integration 38
Achievement Gap 39
Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework 41
Innovative School Leader’s Knowledge and Motivation Influences 42
Innovative Leadership for Innovation 42
Knowledge 43
vi
Motivation 49
Organizational Influences on Innovation 53
Organizational Innovation 54
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings 54
Organizational Autonomy to Innovate 54
Remove Bureaucratic Barriers 55
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context 60
Conclusion 64

Chapter Three: Methodology 65
Purpose of the Project and Questions 65
Methodological Approach and Rationale 65
Participating Stakeholders 66
School Leader Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale 67
School Leader Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale 67
School Leader Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 68
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale 69
Explanation for Choices 70
Data Collection and Instrumentation 71
Interviews 71
Data Analysis 73
Credibility and Trustworthiness 74
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 75
Survey Instrument 75
Validity and Reliability 76
Ethics 77
Limitations and Delimitations 80

Chapter Four: Results and Findings 82
Participating Stakeholders 82
Survey Participants 82
Interview Participants 85
Determination of Assets and Needs 87
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 88
Research Question 1 88
Factual and Conceptual Knowledge 88
Procedural Knowledge 93
Procedural and Metacognitive Knowledge 95
Research Question 1 102
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes 103
Results and Findings for Organization Causes 111
Research Question 2 111
Summary of Results and Findings 130

vii
Chapter Five: Recommendations, Implementation, and Evaluation 132
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 132
Knowledge Recommendations 132
Motivation Recommendations 137
Organization Recommendations 139
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 146
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 146
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 147
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 148
Level 3: Behavior 150
Level 2: Learning 154
Level 1: Reaction 159
Evaluation Tools 160
Data Analysis and Reporting 161
Summary 162
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 163
Limitations and Delimitations 164
Future Research 165
Conclusion 166

References 170

Appendix A Survey 185
Appendix B Interview Protocol 189
Appendix C Information Sheet 192
Appendix D Evaluation Instrument for Use Immediately Following Program Implementation 194
Appendix E Evaluation Instrument for 4 Weeks After Program Implementation 195
Appendix F Digitally-Administered Evaluation Instrument for 4 Weeks After Program
Implementation 197

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: WISD and CGCS Student Demographics 4
Table 2: Organizational Mission, Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goals 10
Table 3: Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment 47
Table 4: Motivation Influences and Assessment 52
Table 5: Organization Influences and Assessment 56
Table 6: Summary Table of Assumed Influences on Performance 60
Table 7: Survey Respondents by School Type 83
Table 8: Total Years of Experience at Current School of Survey Participants 84
Table 9: Number of Survey Participants by Years of Experience and School Type 85
Table 10: Number of Survey Participants by School Level 85
Table 11: School Characteristic Representation 86
Table 12: Leader Experience Representation 87
Table 13: Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of Innovative School Components 89
Table 14: Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of Stated Purpose for School Innovation 90
Table 15: Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge of the Utility of Requirements in
Innovative Schools 97
Table 16: Metacognitive Knowledge of Application of Innovator’s Skills 99
Table 17: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 102
Table 18: Indicators of Self-Efficacious Leaders 104
Table 19: Empowering Others 105
Table 20: Indicators of Leader’s Motivational Attribution 109
Table 21: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 111
Table 22: Charter School Autonomies 114
Table 23: Magnet School Autonomies 115
ix
Table 24: Leader Rating of District-Provided Professional Learning to Equip Innovative
Leadership 124
Table 25: Organizational Influences Summary 130
Table 26: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 133
Table 27: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 138
Table 28: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 141
Table 29: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 149
Table 30: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 150
Table 31: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 152
Table 32: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 158
Table 33: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 159

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual framework: interaction of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on innovation. 63
Figure 2. Percentage of Respondents by School Type 83
Figure 3. Degree to which leaders believe the role of their school as an innovative choice is
valued, range of all respondents and mean of magnet and charter leaders. 113
Figure 4. Degree to which leaders believe they have adequate autonomy to innovate. 113
Figure 5. Degree to which leaders believe they have unmet potential to innovate due to
district/authorizer barriers. 119
Figure 6. Advocacy to support school leaders experiencing barriers to innovation. 119
Figure 7. Responsiveness to support school leaders requests for customized support. 120
Figure 6. Sample aligned data report. 162

xi
ABSTRACT
This study applies a knowledge, motivation, and organizational conditions framework to assess
the needs of magnet and charter school leaders to develop and implement innovation in
education. The purpose of the study was to improve the support for magnet and charter school
leaders and the organizational conditions to accelerate innovation in public education for the
purpose of increasing equity, decreasing the achievement gap, and promoting diversity. The
study utilized a concurrent mixed-methods approach comprised of quantitative surveys and
qualitative interviews. The surveys were administered to all 50 magnet and charter leaders in
Western Independent School District and the interviews were conducted with a purposeful
sample of six leaders. The deductive process of quantitative survey analysis coupled with the
inductive process of the qualitative methodology through interviews informed substantive
recommendations. This study found critical areas to address to advance innovation in public
education. Specific areas of need include supporting school leaders with knowledge in applied
innovative strategies, increasing leaders’ attribution of their actions to results, and removing
organizational barriers. Based on the findings, this study recommends a four-fold program to
address the stated needs of school leaders with corresponding organizational supports to advance
the implementation of innovation in magnet and charter schools.
Keywords: Innovation, leadership, magnet schools, charter schools, school autonomy

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
The disparity between the status quo in education and the innovation necessary for
countries to thrive in today’s global context impedes social and economic progress across nations
(International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity [ICFGEO], 2016).
Inequities in educational policy and implementation result in negative consequences on
individuals, future social development, and economic stability throughout the world
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2012). Across the globe,
the most significant impact of inequity in education is on students living in poverty and
immigrant students (OECD, 2012). A systemic shift requires innovative approaches to ensure
equity in education in all countries (OECD, 2016). The United States, along with all nations,
bears the social and economic consequences of failure to equitably educate all children for
success in a rapidly changing world.
The United States’ Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) prioritizes innovation as
an avenue to improve equity of educational opportunities for all students. Innovation in
education in the United States is necessary to prepare all students to thrive in a competitive
global economy and to strengthen our nation (US Department of Education, 2015). The
importance of actualizing innovation so that all students are well prepared for the future is
underscored by the achievement gap. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
defines an achievement gap as a significant difference in standardized test scores between
student groups. With few exceptions, no significant reduction of the achievement gap in reading,
math, and science occurred between 2003 and 2017 between students in poverty and those not in
poverty, between White and Black students, and between White and Hispanic students (NAEP,
2
2017). Poor, Black, Hispanic, Native and English-learning students consistently demonstrate
lower achievement than their White middle-class counterparts (NAEP, 2017). The achievement
gap suggests that the dominant system of educating young people may be perpetuating social and
economic inequity.
Lynch and Oakford (2014) posit that closing the achievement gap could have
significant impact on the growth of tax revenue, earnings, gross domestic product, and standards
of living in one generation. The projected economic impact of closing the achievement gap by
2050 is an increase of $2.3 trillion, which translates to a 5.8% increase in the US economy
(Lynch & Oakford, 2014). Furthermore, if all countries were to match the progress of the top
25% of countries that improve education, transformative results would impact an entire
generation of learners (ICFGEO, 2016). The ICFGEO (2016) suggests that transformation of
educational systems to become high-performing is possible with a focus on innovation,
inclusion, and finance. Consequently, the urgency to promote innovation in public education has
never been greater to improve educational outcomes for all students.
Magnet and charter schools provide options for parents to choose schools with a
specific innovative approach. Both types of schools were founded with innovation as the
premise (Lubienski, 2003; Magnet Schools of America, 2016; Meier, 2012; Metz, 2003; National
Alliance for Public Charter Schools, n.d.). As such, charter and magnet schools should serve as
beacons of innovation with the focus of developing new approaches to solve modern education’s
greatest challenges (Lubienski, 2003; Magnet Schools of America, 2016; Meier, 2012; Metz,
2003). However, all magnet and charter schools do not deliver the expected innovative learning
experience. Failure to demonstrate innovation in schools that are designed to innovate
contributes to Lubienski’s (2003) observation of the perception that the bureaucratic nature of
3
public education is unable to innovate. Supporting, developing, and providing the systems to
equip magnet and charter school leaders to become leaders of innovation is necessary to cultivate
innovation in a subset of public schools.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Council of Great City Schools (CGCS) consists of the 74 largest urban school
districts in the United States. In response to the need for innovation in K–12 public education,
51 CGCS member districts have created innovation offices and departments. This study
examined one such office in the western United States, Western Independent School District
(WISD, a pseudonym).
WISD is one of the largest employers in the region, with 14,000 employees. WISD’s
diverse population of over 80,000 students are served in 150 schools, 18 of which are magnet
schools, and 29 locally authorized charter schools. The district is spread over 1,000 square miles
and encompasses multiple municipalities and tribal nations. Table 1 displays a comparison of
CGCS’s aggregate student demographics and WISD’s student population. Large urban school
districts serve diverse populations with a wide variety of needs. WISD’s student population
mirrors the diversity of the CGCS as a whole, with several notable distinctive features.

4
Table 1
WISD and CGCS Student Demographics
WISD’s Student Population CGCS’ Student Population
66% Hispanic 40%
23% Caucasian/White 20%
5.5% American Indian 1%
3.2% African American 29%
2.3% Asian 8%
16% English Learners 17%
17% Students with Disabilities 14%
68%
Students Eligible for Free or
Reduced Lunch
70%

Table 1 compares WISD’s student population with the combined demographics of CGCS
districts. As typical of large urban school districts, WISD serves a high concentration of students
who meet the federal poverty indicator of free or reduced-price lunch (68%), who are learning
English (16%), and who qualify for an individualized education program under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (17%) (WISD [pseudonym]). The racial makeup of WISD students reflects
the local community, with 66% Hispanic, 3.2% African American, 23% White, 2.3%
Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5.5% American Indian (WISD.edu [pseudonym]). Notable
differences between the WISD student population and the overall CGCS demographics include a
higher percentage of Hispanic and American Indian students and lower percentage of African
American and Asian students than average. The nature of meeting a wide variety of student
needs and family desires in population-dense geographic areas makes innovation and school
choice a critical component of district strategy.
5
The vision of WISD is for, “all students to attend high-quality community responsive
schools,” (WISD.edu). A steering committee of superintendent’s appointees solicited extensive
input from practitioners, parents, and the public throughout the development of the vision and
goals that comprise the district’s academic master plan. The district goal of career and college
readiness includes expanding equity and access to school and specialized program choice and
blended learning throughout the district. The Office of Innovation and School Options (OISO) is
charged with establishing a strategic portfolio of innovative quality K–12 choice pathways of
magnet and charter schools. The vision for a successful portfolio of choice options includes
geographic equity, high-quality, distinctly innovative schools that complement the traditional
neighborhood schools while supporting the city’s workforce needs (WISD, 2018). OISO’s goals
were developed with extensive collaboration and input from magnet school principals, parents,
charter school leaders, the superintendent’s leadership team, the board of education, and
numerous external partners.
OISO’s mission is to apply an entrepreneurial approach to developing a portfolio of
innovative magnet and charter school choices to meet the needs of students and families and
support Western state’s economic ecosystem. The OISO oversees charter school authorization,
supports magnet school implementation and development, and partners with local industry to
develop a continuum of innovative school models. The implementation of national standards for
charter school authorization (National Association of Charter School Authorizers [NACSA],
2015) and national standards for magnet schools (Magnet Schools of America [MSA], 2016) is
key to OISO strategy and gives a criterion-reference for benchmarking performance.

6
Organizational Performance Status
The organizational goal of focus for the dissertation was to improve the support for
leaders of magnet and charter schools to provide innovative and high-quality school options that
substantially contribute to the WISD portfolio. The study sought to provide recommendations
for improving leadership development approach to grow the unique knowledge, skills, and
motivation of innovative leaders and the organizational conditions necessary to meet the goal.
Currently, some magnet and charter schools do not deliver an innovative experience.
Others do not demonstrate better student learning outcomes than their traditional school
counterparts. Only one magnet school currently meets national criteria, and one charter school
meets all performance indicators. When individual schools that are labeled as innovative deliver
a notably traditional school experience, the reputational capital of all innovative schools is
compromised. The consequence of failure to make publicly demonstrable progress in this goal
results in lost credibility with parents and students who trust charters and magnets to deliver a
specialized learning experience. Additionally, failure to meet the goal results in lost opportunity
to retain students, keep students on track for graduation, close the achievement gap, and
demonstrate the benefits of a diverse student learning community. Identifying factors to support
the development of innovative leadership in contrast to the development needs of the leaders of
traditional schools is paramount to achieving the organizational goal.
Related Literature
Scholarly research on the preparation and support of leaders of innovation in K–12 public
education is limited, leaving much room for future research. Although innovation in K–12 is
often associated with the implementation of technology, this literature review focuses on
innovation research from a variety of fields and specifically applies innovation theory to school
7
choice. Innovation through school choice requires policy, school autonomy, and leadership to
actualize the potential to realize the social and economic benefits of a system that closes the
achievement gap.
Firestone and Shipps (2005) describe school choice as a mechanism to empower families
to select from a variety of desirable educational options in place of the traditional model of
education provided by privileged and influential leaders and politicians. Development of
innovative schools requires changes in systemic conditions, including policy shifts at the global,
federal, state, district, school and classroom levels (Fullan, 2004; OECD, 2016; Schoen &
Fusarelli, 2008). Policy that grants individual schools the autonomy to implement an agile,
responsive, and personalized instructional approach is necessary for innovation to thrive
(Noguera, Darling-Hammond, & Friedlaender, 2015).
Innovative leadership is linked to the development of systemic and organizational
conditions for innovation. Leaders who foster innovation have qualities, characteristics, and
methodologies that are distinct from those of change agents (Akomolafe, 2011; Černe, Jaklič, &
Škerlavaj, 2013; Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2011; Zenger & Folkman, 2014). Social
innovation through school choice shows promise to accelerate education toward increasing
equitable learning outcomes in a student’s social and academic development (Darling-
Hammond, Rothman, & Cookson, 2017). Academic and social development are enhanced for
students in schools with a focus on diversity (Braddock, Dawkins, & Trent, 1992; Frost, 2007;
Mickelson, 2005). Furthermore, desegregation of schools has proven to decrease the
achievement gap in public school districts in the United States (Braddock et al., 1992; Frost,
2007; Mickelson, 2005). School choice holds the potential to address the factors that contribute
8
to the achievement gap, including desegregation, diversity, and equity of learning outcomes that
can increase the US economy by 5.8% by 2050 (Lynch & Oakford, 2014).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to effectively support magnet and charter school leaders to increase
educational innovation for a variety of reasons. Education has an important role as a vehicle for
global economic and social development (OECD, 2016). Failure to address the lack of
innovation in education may result in risks not just to education but to future global economic
growth, social progress, and well-being (OECD, 2016). The Partnership for 21st Century
Learning, a multi-state advocacy organization, highlights innovation as key to creating the 21st
century skills for leadership and success in a global economy (McLeod, 2017). The call for
innovation in education is not new. In 1994, Tyack and Tobin (1994) called for large-scale
reexamination of assumptions about the role of schooling in a global economic and social
landscape to make way for innovation.
Magnet and charter school models were founded on innovation (Lubienski, 2003; MSA,
2016; Meier, 2012; Metz, 2003; National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, n.d.) and have not
yet actualized their potential as learning labs that elevate innovative practice throughout the
system. Failure to invest in the development of school leaders’ capacity to provide innovative
choice options for students and families will perpetuate inadequate academic, social, and
economic outcomes (Lewis, 2011; Meier, 2012; Metz, 2003; Waters & Cameron, 2007).
Schools of choice provide a subset of schools to develop innovative practices (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2017). The leaders of innovative schools have unique needs that the traditional
system may not address that must be met in order for innovative schools to flourish.

9
Organizational Performance Goal
The goal of focus for the dissertation was to ensure that every charter and magnet school
leader has the necessary supports to grow as a leader of innovation in the public school setting.
Meeting this goal will equip leaders to deliver an innovative and high-quality learner experience
that substantially contributes to the WISD portfolio of school options. The timeline of 5 years
was selected because it coincides with the typical renewal cycle for charter schools.
Additionally, national magnet school certification is on a 4-year cycle. Thus, the 5-year timeline
would coincide with charter renewals and a self-study year for magnet certification applications.
The achievement of this goal will be guided in part by the application of NACSA standards and
MSA Standards of Excellence.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholders who contribute to the goal of innovative quality choices include school
leaders, teachers, and district administrators. School leaders hold the ultimate authority for
driving innovation and ensuring that schools that are designed to be innovative deliver the
promised experience. Teachers have an important role in active participation in the design
process of innovative schools, implementation of the school-wide instructional approach in their
classroom, and contribution to the refinement of the design (Pounder, 2006). The OISO and the
district offices hold important roles in creating the organizational conditions for school leaders to
innovate through the provision of autonomy, accountability, and support.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 2 shows the relationship among the organizational mission, global goal, and the
performance goals of school leaders, OISO, and teachers in magnet and charter schools.

10
Table 2
Organizational Mission, Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goals
Organizational Mission
All students will attend high-quality community responsive schools.
Organizational Performance Goal
In five years, the OISO will ensure that every charter and magnet school delivers an innovative
and high-quality learner experience that substantially contributes to the WISD portfolio of
school options.
School Leaders/ Principals OISO Teachers
By August of 2021, 60% of
charter school leaders and
magnet school principals will
implement innovative
leadership practices to
articulate and implement an
innovative and high-quality
approach that results in
attracting a diverse student
body that reflects the WISD
community, measured by 60%
of magnet schools receiving
certification or award status
from MSA and 60% of charter
schools meeting criteria of the
academic performance
framework.

By January of 2021, OISO
will design and implement a
leadership development
system to transition school
leaders from the traditional
role to a leader of innovation
in magnet and charter schools.

By January of 2022, 90% of
the teachers in 30% of
innovative charter and magnet
schools will implement
practices consistent with the
school’s mission of innovation
in application to teaching and
learning.

The organizational mission for all students in WISD is supported by the OISO’s goal to
ensure that all magnet and charter schools that the district offers are of high-quality and deliver
an authentically innovative student experience. The role of school leaders and teachers is central
to meeting OISO’s goal. OISO’s focus on developing leaders of innovative schools with the
11
knowledge, motivation, and organizational conditions for successful implementation is expected
to support the organizational goal.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, magnet school principals and charter school leaders were the stakeholder group of
focus for this study. The role of school leaders is well established in scholarly literature as the
key factor in student learning and school improvement (Mendels, 2012; National Policy Board
for Educational Administration, 2015; Waters & Cameron, 2007). School leaders fit Lewis’
(2011) profile of definitive stakeholders who hold a high level of power and legitimacy along
with a high sense of urgency in the leadership role. Leaders of innovative schools must utilize
strong leadership capacity for improvement in addition to the application of distinct qualities of
innovators described by Dyer et al. (2011) and an entrepreneurial mindset (Taulbert &
Schoeniger, 2010). Schools that are designated as innovative schools cannot have leaders who
only improve. Leaders of innovative schools must develop and utilize the characteristics,
qualities, habits, and identity of innovators. It is important to note that innovative leadership
does not apply exclusively to leaders of magnet and charter schools. Certainly, leaders of
traditional schools can exhibit innovative capacity and succeed in implementing innovation.
However, this study focused specifically on leaders of a subset of schools with the organizational
autonomy and public expectation to deliver innovative school experience resulting in improved
learning.
The goal of improving the organizational supports for school leaders is to ensure that all
designated innovative schools deliver the experience that accompanies a unique mission. The
consequence of failure to make publicly demonstrable progress in this goal will mean lost
12
credibility with parents and students who trust charters and magnets to deliver a specialized
learning experience, lost opportunity to retain students and keep them on track for graduation,
lost opportunity to close the achievement gap, and lost opportunity to grow schools of choice as
diverse communities (ICFGEO, 2016; Lynch & Oakford, 2014; OECD, 2012, 2016; US
Department of Education, 2015). Goals were developed with extensive collaboration and input
from magnet school principals, parents, charter school leaders, the superintendent’s leadership
team, the board of education, and community partners. Measures to track progress toward the
goal are based on MSA’s standards of excellence for magnet schools and a newly-developed
academic performance framework based on NACSA’s principles of quality authorizing for
charter schools.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organizational influences on magnet and charter school leaders’ ability to
deliver an innovative and high-quality student experience in their schools. The analysis began
by generating a list of possible influences and then examined each influence. Subsequently,
influences were categorized as assets or needs. While a complete gap analysis would focus on
all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis was
magnet and charter school leaders. As such, the questions that guided this study follow.
Research Questions
1. What knowledge and motivation must charter and magnet school leaders apply to lead
innovative schools?
2. What is the interaction between a public school district and school leaders’ knowledge
and motivation to foster innovation in their charter or magnet school?
13
Methodological Framework
This study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model to analyze the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational needs of school leaders to innovate in their charter or magnet
schools. Identified needs informed recommendations to improve the leadership development
system to transition school leaders from the traditional role to a leader of innovation along with
organizational supports. A review of the literature informed the construction of assumed
influences of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational support needs of school leaders to
innovate. A mixed-methods design allowed the researcher to collect multiple types of data from
surveys and interviews to inform a comprehensive understanding (Creswell, 2018) of the
influences in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational supports (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Definitions
Charter school: The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (n.d.) defines charter
schools as unique public schools that are given the autonomy to innovate along with increased
accountability for student learning results.
Innovation: Innovation is the implementation of something new to an organization that
yields improved results (Keely, Pikkel, Quinn, & Walters, 2013; Kezar, 2001; Rogers, 1983).
Magnet school: Magnet schools are public schools designed to spark innovation, equity,
excellence, integration, and choice by attracting a diverse student body with a theme-based
curriculum (Cookson, Darling-Hammond, Rothman, & Shields, 2018; Frankenberg, Siegel-
Hawley, & Orfield, 2008; Meier, 2012; MSA, 2016; Wang & Herman, 2017; Wang, Herman, &
Dockterman, 2018).
14
School of choice: This term encompasses public magnet and charter schools that students
and families select to attend instead of the assigned traditional neighborhood school (Cookson et
al., 2018). The term is also used to refer to vouchers in states with policy that allows public
money to fund private school. Of note, Western state does not have a voucher policy.
Furthermore, Western state does not permit charter management organizations. All charter
schools in Western state are grown within local communities.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One describes the global impact of
the lack of innovation in public education and introduces school choice as an unactualized
avenue to accelerate innovation in the public education sector. Chapter Two synthesizes the
literature on an organizational backdrop of organizational frames and the distinctions between
change, improvement, and innovation, then explores innovation through school choice in charter
and magnet schools. Chapter Two concludes with a description of a gap analysis model to assess
the presumed influences on leaders of innovative schools of choice. Chapter Three describes the
methodology for the study. Chapter Four presents the findings of the research. Chapter Five
provides recommendations and an integrated implementation and evaluation plan.

15
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review examines the theoretical basis of innovation and applies innovation
to the setting of public education in the United States. The review begins with general research
that grounds the analysis of organizations through a multi-lens framework and distinguishes
among organizational change, improvement, and innovation. This is followed by an overview of
innovation research specific to K–12 education. Although innovation in K–12 has many facets,
this study focused on innovation as it is actualized through school choice in charter and magnet
schools. Research on the organizational conditions, purposes, leadership demands, and market
accountability of charter and magnet schools is presented. After the general literature review, the
chapter concludes with an explanation of Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences gap analysis framework. The chapter concludes with applying the
Clark and Estes (2008) framework to charter and magnet school leaders’ implementation of
innovative teaching and learning practices.
Understanding Organizations
Organizations are complex and multifaceted. Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames
provide distinct yet overlapping perspectives of organizations. The four frames are useful to
analyze leader’s knowledge and motivation as they relate to innovation and to analyze
organizational conditions for innovation. Bolman and Deal (2017) frame the interconnected
facets of organizations in four categories: structural, human resources, political, and symbolic.
Effective leaders orchestrate their work across all four frames to achieve success (Bolman &
Deal, 2017). Tyack and Tobin’s (1994) concept of the “grammar of schooling,” (p. 454) defines
the organizational framework that creates the conditions for teaching and learning. Taken
together, the four frames and the grammar of schooling frameworks provide organizational and
16
historical context to understand the reasons behind the status quo of modern public K–12
education. Additionally, the frameworks provide contrast to the organizational innovation of
school choice later in this chapter.
The underlying assumption of the structural frame is that organizations’ primary purpose
is to accomplish stated goals (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Coordination of work, definition of roles,
and ensuring efficiency are the core tenets (Bolman & Deal, 2017). As such, effective leadership
in the structural frame is evidenced by clear systems and processes (Bolman & Deal, 2017). A
metaphor for the structural frame is a factory where clear delineation and coordination of roles,
goals, policies, environment, and technology are expected to yield maximum efficiency (Bolman
& Deal, 2017). The public education system was built primarily through the lens of the
structural frame (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Structural conformity is evident through the basic
tenets of schooling, such as grouping students by age into graded classrooms, dividing
knowledge into courses that are taught in isolation, setting a time period for learning specific
content to earn credits, hierarchical supervision structure, and accreditation standards (Tyack &
Tobin, 1994). Standardization of the structures serves the functions of uniform expansion to
meet the increase in student population and allows for local differentiation by adding new
features within the standard system, such as electives (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). While the
structural frame defines organizational systems, the human resources frame defines the
interaction between organizations and the human beings that exist within them.
The human resources frame emphasizes the fit between organizational and personal
objectives (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Effective leaders in human resources hire the right people,
retain them, develop them, empower them, promote diversity, and hold people accountable
(Bolman & Deal, 2017). The core tenets include the alignment between needs, skills, and
17
relationships to empower employees at all levels to thrive (Bolman & Deal, 2017). A metaphor
for the human resources frame is a family where the tension between individual and group needs
can be aligned and result in mutual benefit and collective success or misaligned and result in
mutual frustration and collective failure (Bolman & Deal, 2017). When individuals experience a
lack of personal investment in organizational goals and structures, they respond with physical
and or psychological withdrawal, resistance, escape, forming alliances to address power
imbalances, and pass on hopelessness to the next generation (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
Tyack and Tobin (1994) posit that the relationship between the educational organization
and the human beings inside the system is defined by structures. The constraints of the structural
frame can result in the role of human interaction in schools presenting not as family but as a
relationship based in monitoring, control, task assignment, and evaluating work (Tyack & Tobin,
1994). For example, the Learning Policy Institute (LPI, 2018) identifies the structures of
classroom autonomy, collegiality within a school, testing related job security, pupil teacher ratio,
and administrative support as valued working conditions that attract teachers to an organization.
When the structural conditions are poor, states experience higher levels of teacher shortages
(LPI, 2018). Undesirable structural conditions such as testing and class size can be offset by
desirable working conditions in the human resources frame such as collegiality and
administrative support. The friction between the educational structural frame’s goal of efficiency
and the human resources frame’s goal of congruence between individual and organizational
goals is a constant balance. The inherent friction can be exacerbated by the political frame.
The political frame highlights the organizational interplay of power, coalitions, and
competition for finite resources (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Bolman and Deal (2017) describe the
central challenge in the political frame as the development of an agenda and power base in an
18
environment of ongoing conflict between differing individuals and interests. Navigating this
frame requires leaders to bargain, negotiate, influence, cultivate coalitions, and overcome
resistance to change behaviors in others (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Bolman and Deal (2017)
recognize public education as an arena of political conflict over divergent agendas and interests
with varying groups exerting dominance. The roots of the structural framework of public
education were planted by coalitions with powerful influence who leveraged the political arena
to actualize their values of standardization and efficiency (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Today, we see
the ongoing polarity between differing ideologies around public school curriculum in light of
changing social conditions as interest groups battle one another (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Tyack &
Tobin, 1994). The imbalance of power between groups that press for change and those that hold
status quo plays out in the political frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Tyack & Tobin, 1994).
Furthermore, the political influence in the structural design of the education system has defined
standards of social hierarchy where students are categorized by the pace of performance (Tyack
& Tobin, 1994). Despite the rhetoric of generations of politicians, the foundational concept of a
one-size-fits-all model of educational opportunity has resulted in a striated system by race,
socioeconomic status, neighborhood location, and home language (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
This reality is accepted as status quo (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Tyack and Tobin (1994)
emphasize the need for challengers of the organizational status quo to recognize that innovation
requires political maneuvering for resources and coalition of influential groups. Powerful
political tools can become evident through symbolic actions.
The symbolic frame deals with building a unified organizational identity by creating
shared meaning (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Effective symbolic leaders deploy ritual, ceremony,
myths, and story to communicate the organizational values, vision, and culture (Bolman & Deal,
19
2017). Tyack and Tobin (1994) confirm the role of ceremonial categories and processes in
establishing the legitimacy of an institution. Society equates education with the symbols, rituals,
and ceremonies of the traditional structure, or “grammar,” of school (Tyack & Tobin, 1994).
Examples include promotion to the next grade culminating in graduation, transitioning when the
bell rings, report cards, homecoming festivities, sports events, summer break, yearbooks, and
textbooks for each subject. Tyack and Tobin (1994) maintain that the political intent behind the
structural grammar of schooling was to equate the perception of equity in education through the
presence of all of the features and procedures associated with the traditional model. The
presence of symbolic and structural components is used to foster an assumption that a suitable
education is provided, thus serving as a symbolic illusion of equity (Bolman & Deal, 2017;
Tyack & Tobin, 1994).
Tyack and Tobin’s (1994) history of the grammar of schooling viewed through Bolman
and Deal’s (2017) four frames provides multiple lenses that clarify the status quo of public
education as a system. The interplay between the structural, human resource, political, and
symbolic frames influences organizational change, improvement, and innovation.
Theoretical Basis of Change, Improvement, and Innovation
Organizational change, improvement, and innovation are often used as interchangeable
terms. A review of the literature grounded this study with a framework for understanding
organizations followed by distinctions between the often interchangeably used terms of
organizational change, improvement, and innovation.
Overview of Organizational Change
Organizational change is an inevitability; however, the sources, types, and assumptions
vary. Kezar (2001) notes that Burnes (1996) defines organizational change as internal alterations
20
in an organization among various configurations of people, while Van de Ven and Poole (1995)
describe organizational change as an observation of single or multi-dimensional variance.
Change originates either externally or internally to the organization (Kezar, 2001).
Within the categories of internal and external change are numerous sub-categories, each
with unique features. Three categories are described here that apply to the study. The least active
change type is life cycle. Life cycle change in an organization occurs through a natural
progression despite the people involved (Kezar, 2001). Individuals and groups in the life cycle
change process often do not see the need or express the desire for change, and view change
passively as it occurs in a natural progression (Kezar, 2001). Teleological change is typically
driven by internal leaders and change agents to keep the organization purposeful and adaptive
(Kezar, 2001). Teleological change is intentional, rational, and linear and is often executed
through the creation of a purposeful goal and the subsequent implementation, evaluation, and
modification of the goal (Kezar, 2001). Teleological change may be driven by the human
resources, political, or structural frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Kezar, 2001). Dialectical change
occurs as a result of the clash between opposing forces (Kezar, 2001). The radially opposing
views can be described as polarity (Johnson, 1998). Resolution of polarity is a modified
organizational belief system (Johnson, 1998; Kezar, 2001). Dialectical change can originate in
the perceived misalignment of organization and individual needs in the human resources frame
or the ideological polarity between political groups in the political frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017;
Johnson, 1998; Kezar, 2001). Although organizations are in a constant state of change driven by
different influences, change does not always result in improvement of processes or outcomes.

21
Overview of Organizational Improvement
Langley et al. (2009) distinguish organizational change from change that results in
improvement by three characteristics: process, product, and impact. To qualify as an
improvement, a change must produce evidence of a positive difference between the status quo
and the change (Langley et al., 2009). Furthermore, a change that yields improvement must have
a long-term impact (Langley et al., 2009). Change that generates improvement is guided by
scholarly principles and is implemented through intentional methodology.
The central principles of improvement are rooted in a learning organization (Senge,
1990). Without a commitment to ongoing learning at all levels, organizations cannot improve.
Within a learning culture, the improvement tenets include intentionality around why
improvement is needed, establishing feedback loops to monitor improvement, developing an
action plan, testing a change, and full implementation (Langley et al., 2009). Numerous scholars
and practitioners have established variations on these tenets. For the purposes of this study, a
continuous improvement approach and a transformational change model will be summarized.
Deming’s (1986) continuous improvement approach is captured in 14 points that connect
to Bolman and Deal’s (2017) structural and human resources frames. Deming’s (1986) human-
focused methodology is based on removing structural barriers, creating a culture of pride in
product and personal contribution, leadership, and investing in employees. Deming (1986)
specifically disavows an over-emphasis on the symbolic frame with the point that slogans and
exhortations result in antagonistic relationships and ultimately decreased quality while failing to
acknowledge that a worker’s poor productivity is most frequently rooted in organizational
conditions.
22
Kotter (2012) presents a transformational change model that addresses Bolman and
Deal’s (2017) political and symbolic frames. Kotter’s (2012) model begins with creating a
collective awareness of the need for rapid change. Awakening this collective awareness can be
accomplished through symbolic actions (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Forming an alliance of
individuals to shape the change through creating a common vision and corresponding tactics
(Kotter, 2012) involves the political frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Communicating the vision
using a variety of strategies and empowering individuals to act upon the vision to establish early
success indicators (Kotter, 2012) comprise the next steps. Finally, fortifying the strategies that
created the early success indicators to continue to accelerate the change process while
normalizing then new methodology in the organizational culture ensures sustainability (Kotter,
2012). Organizational improvement involves ongoing learning, attention to all four
organizational frames, and a clear planning process. Organizational improvement is often
incorrectly mistaken for innovation.
Overview of Organizational Innovation
The concepts of improvement and innovation are similar and are often used
interchangeably. Innovation is a commonly used term, evidenced by a Google search of the
definition of innovation that yields 522,000,000 results. Scholars provide an assortment of
definitions. The concept of newness or the perception of newness is associated with innovation
in relation to any application (Keely et al., 2013; Kezar, 2001; Rogers, 1983). Innovation is
associated with a systematic and intentional approach to create new offerings that produce a
benefit or solution (Keely et al., 2013; Kezar, 2001). Innovation can be applied to products,
processes, procedures, ideas, practices, objects, configurations, offerings, and experiences (Keely
et al., 2013; Kezar, 2001; Rogers, 1983). Daft and Becker (1978) encapsulate the concepts of
23
newness, improvement, and varied applications in their definition of innovation as applied to the
organizational adoption of a new idea or behavior. The concept of newness as it applies to
innovation can mean new to an individual, group, organization, or a newly created idea or
behavior (Damanpour & Wischnevsky, 2006). Ultimately, the goal of innovation is to contribute
to the organization’s effectiveness (Damanpour & Wischnevsky, 2006).
Innovative organizations engage in both generative and adopting approaches (Damanpour
& Wischnevsky, 2006). Innovation-generating processes involve creation of new processes,
procedures, practices, configurations, offerings, and experiences (Damanpour & Wischnevsky,
2006; Keely et al., 2013; Kezar, 2001; Rogers, 1983). Innovation-adopting approaches involve
assimilating a new approach into the standard procedures of the entire organization to increase
effectiveness (Damanpour & Wischnevsky, 2006). Implementation of an adopted innovation is
guided by Fixsen, Blase, Naoom, and Wallace’s (2009) non-linear implementation process of
exploration of a new innovation, installation, initial implementation, full implementation,
innovation, and sustainability. This non-linear process requires attention to all four of Bolman
and Deal’s (2017) frames throughout. This study focused primarily on the innovation adoption
role of magnet and charter schools within K–12 public education.
Distinguishing Change, Improvement, and Innovation
Innovation does not happen in a vacuum of organizational change and improvement.
However, innovation does involve both change and improvement.
Change does not always result in improvement. Some change types, such as life cycle
and political (Kezar, 2001), generate change as a result of either the natural course of events or
as a result of conflicts of power sources without the intention to produce improvement. Some
life cycle and political changes may result in improvement as a by-product, but that is not the
24
stated intention. Teleological (Kezar, 2001) change is intentionally designed for improvement.
Approaches to teleological change are varied (Deming, 1986; Kotter, 2012) and leaders must
choose approaches that are tailored to the varying organizational frames (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
The many approaches to teleological change are improvement-focused. Innovation involves the
adoption of a new element with the intent to both change and improve the organizational
outcomes.
Bartunek and Moch’s (1987) concept of ordinal change provides another lens to clarify
the distinctions between organizational change, improvement, and innovation. First order
change is focused on improvement through incremental change within the existing structures and
values of the organization without challenging the premises of the existing system (Bartunek &
Moch, 1987). First order change can be equated with teleological change since improvement is
the purpose of the change (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; Kezar, 2001). Second order change impacts
the organizational structures and values through phasing out old and phasing in new ways of
thinking, acting, and problem solving while challenging underlying assumptions (Bartunek &
Moch, 1987). The introduction of new elements for the purpose of improvement make second
order change innovation (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; Kezar, 2001). Third order change further
broadens multiple perspectives and results in ongoing questioning of the current state (Bartunek
& Moch, 1987), which equates with Fixsen et al.’s (2009) sustainability phase of
implementation. Daft and Becker (1978) further distinguish change as the adoption of something
different from innovation as the adoption of something new. As Lubienski (2003) adeptly
encapsulates, “Change alone is not innovation.” (p. 403). Internal and external influences keep
the institution of public education in a constant state of attempts to change, improve, and
innovate. One strategy to build innovation within the public education sector is school choice.
25
Innovation Through School Choice in K –12 Education
School choice is a wide-spread innovation in K–12 public education, particularly in large
urban school districts. School choice is a term that encompasses charter schools, magnet
schools, inter-district and intra-district transfers, online schools, and publicly funded vouchers
for private school tuition (Cookson et al., 2018). The focus of this literature review is on
innovation through school choice in charter and magnet schools only because both types of
schools are rooted in an expectation of innovation. Of note, Western state does not have a
voucher policy or permit charter management organizations. All charter schools in Western state
are grown within local communities. Although a substantial number of students do take
advantage of inter-district transfers, this type of choice is not part of the study.
Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) identify the intertwined nature of choice and freedom as
underpinnings of the American value system. The desire for good choices in all facets of
American life includes freedom to choose a school from multiple good options to meet the
objective of preparing each student to contribute in a democratic society (Darling-Hammond et
al., 2017). Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) encapsulate the four goals of the public education
system in the United States: to improve student learning opportunities, increase educational
achievement, offer options that meet student needs, and to foster integration of our diverse
society. The goal of providing options that meet student needs can be met through a quality
system of school choice. School choice can serve as the foundation to meet the goals of
achievement, opportunity, and diversity. Meeting these goals can ensure the future generation is
well prepared to thrive in our democracy.
Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) posit that state policy has the potential to create systems
of school choice wherein every student and family has quality choices. As part of a
26
comprehensive plan to improve the educational system, school choice can enhance the broad
opportunities in traditional schools with more specialized options that match the student’s
learning needs and interests (Darling-Hammond et al., 2018). Ensuring quality of choices and
accessibility to those choices are key components of system design to ensure that choice fulfills
the potential to promote equity of educational opportunity (Darling-Hammond et al., 2018).
Balancing resources to maintain the quality of traditional schools that the majority of students
attend while creating a variety of more specialized options for families to select is a constant
political challenge.
School Choice Through the Political Frame Lens
Fox and Buchanan (2017) observe that school choice is transitioning the view of the one
best system to a system of many options. The one best system reflects the factory batch
processing approach described by Tyack and Tobin (1994) and was shaped by the viewpoint of
the elite, meaning individuals of substantial wealth in the industrial age. In contrast, school
choice provides an avenue for families to reject the standard structure and select from options
that are aligned with their priorities (Firestone & Shipps, 2005). Families who hold differing
views of what constitutes the optimal approach to educating their children have public school
options.
Fox and Buchanan (2017) suggest that a democratic society should allow school choice,
and that school choice has become a political arena wherein interest groups foster polarity. The
involvement of interest group politics shifts the focus away from Darling-Hammond et al.’s
(2017) goals of achievement, opportunity, options, and equity. Too often, the debate about
mechanisms to actualize school choice become a political bargaining tool as the varying
implementation mechanisms become associated with the values of differing interest groups (Fox
27
& Buchanan, 2017). The corresponding alliances and coalitions focus on undermining the
values of the opposing group rather than evaluating the impact of the proposed policy on meeting
education’s goals (Fox & Buchanan, 2017). The resulting policies reflect a long series of
political compromises that balance the permanence of the current education structure with the
push to accelerate the development of innovative school models.
Theory of Choice as Innovation
School choice is widely considered an innovation with promise to improve public
education through market competition and diffusion of new practices into traditional schools. In
exchange for additional autonomy to innovate, schools of choice are accountable for improved
schooling through innovation and competition (Firestone & Shipps, 2005; Lubienski, 2003;
Preston, Goldring, Berends, & Cannata, 2012). The trade of autonomy and school-level local
control is expected to promote entrepreneurialism and deliver educational results (Firestone &
Shipps, 2005). Market accountability forces schools that do not offer innovative programming to
attract an adequate number of students to ultimately close (Firestone & Shipps, 2005). The
bargain for deregulation is to identify effective practices with the expectation to share innovative
methodologies with traditional schools in an effort to improve all schools (Lubienski, 2003).
Rather than operating under the assumption that competition will drive innovation and
increase quality, Cookson et al. (2018) propose that school choice cultivates innovative practices
by broadening the scope of educational options to reach all students as part of a comprehensive
plan. Cookson et al. (2018) assert a dual approach to quality public education where choices
include a high-quality neighborhood school and more specialized school choices to meet the full
scope of student interest and learning needs. A complementary approach to developing choice
systems that provide a range of excellent choices rather than a competitive approach that
28
necessitates the designation of winners and losers requires a shift from the theory of market
demand to a theory of jobs to be done.
Christensen, Dillon, Hall, and Duncan’s (2016) applied framework of “jobs to be done,”
defines a different relationship between a consumer and a product or service. Rather than
fostering innovation through development of a range of choices of product or service to fulfill a
need, the foundational premise of jobs to be done is that innovation lies in the process of creating
a right fit solution and removing barriers to access the solution. Consumers choose products and
services to fulfill their functional, social, and emotional needs in given circumstances, thereby
“hiring” the product or service (Christensen et al., 2016). Concurrently, the choice to “hire” one
product or service results in a default “firing” of another service (Christensen et al., 2016).
Innovation of products and services that match the consumer’s needs with minimized barriers to
access result in high demand. This human-centered behavior framework provides a foundation
to explore the possibilities of a complementary school choice approach rather than a competitive
approach. Application of jobs to be done theory in education would reflect Cookson et al.’s
(2018) suggestion to actualize school choice to ensure that all public school options are of high-
quality and deserve to be selected. The role of the “consumer” is fulfilled by families and
students who are empowered to choose the best fit for the student from a range of traditional and
innovative school models.
Design Process in Innovative Educational Organizations
The design process is noted in the literature as a pathway for innovation in organizations
(IDEO, 2011; Prud’homme van Reine, 2017; Tschimmel, 2012; Wrigley & Straker, 2017).
Tschimmel (2012) describes design thinking as a process that considers human needs, available
material, constraints and opportunities of an organization. Applied to the educational setting, the
29
design process can be applied to developing factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge (Wrigley & Straker, 2017). IDEO (2011), the world premier design leader, provides
a workbook to help educators apply the design process in the context of education to foster an
innovative mindset, methods, and implementation. The design process is a process to use in
education, as in other organizations, to foster innovation.
Innovation in Magnet and Charter Schools
Magnet and charter schools offer expanded choices beyond an assigned school in a
specific neighborhood, but their innovative approaches differ greatly.
Magnet school innovation. Magnet schools are public schools designed to spark
innovation, equity, excellence, integration, and choice by attracting a diverse student body with a
theme-based curriculum (Cookson et al., 2018; Frankenberg et al., 2008; Meier, 2012; Wang &
Herman, 2017; Wang et al., 2018). Magnet schools originated as an integration initiative in the
1960s in response to Brown v. Board and subsequent court-ordered desegregation (Frankenberg
et al., 2008; Wang & Herman, 2017). Magnet schools have extended their purpose beyond
desegregation to include the roles of innovation incubators (Frankenberg et al., 2011; Metz,
2003), models of high academic standards (Metz, 2003), and turnaround strategy (Fleming,
2012).
The core of magnet school innovation is theme integrated learning (MSA, 2016; Wang &
Herman, 2017). Magnet school themes can be driven by academic content, instructional
pedagogy, or a career focus (Wang et al., 2018). Academic content themes are frequently based
in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM); arts; and languages. Pedagogical
approach themes include project-based learning, International Baccalaureate, blended learning,
and multiage learning among others. Career-focused themes are comprised of pathways toward
30
post-high-school certification in career and technical fields such as nursing, police service aid, or
automobile mechanics, among others. Typically, career-focused theme schools have dedicated
partnerships with certifying organizations and community colleges to ensure students have the
necessary credentials to begin work immediately following high school. In elementary schools,
theme integration should be embedded throughout the student’s day and is often enhanced with a
specialized additional class and extracurricular activities as a supplement to theme focused
classroom instruction throughout the curriculum (Wang & Herman, 2017; Wang et al., 2018).
Integrating theme objectives with learning goals from state and district standards forms the basis
of innovative teaching and learning in a highly rigorous academic environment (MSA, 2016;
Wang & Herman, 2017). Furthermore, theme and curricular integration supports the student’s
social emotional learning as well as cognitive development by providing a more holistic
understanding of concepts (Hargreaves & Moore, 2000).
Magnet Schools of America’s [MSA] standards of excellence form the basis of
innovation on the pillars of diversity, innovative curriculum and professional development,
academic excellence, high-quality instructional systems, and family and community partnerships
(MSA, 2016). A discussion of each follows.
The Diversity pillar is supported by standards of student recruitment and selection and
diversity and equity. Magnet schools need to have a marketing and recruitment plan to attract a
diverse student body (MSA, 2016). Concurrently, the school district needs entrance, assignment,
and transportation policies to ensure equity of access to reduce socioeconomic and minority
group isolation (MSA, 2016). The diversity and equity standard should be evident by district
and school policies and procedures to attract a diverse student body (MSA, 2016). Integration of
diverse populations cannot be limited to the school level; rather, the demographic makeup of
31
each class should reflect the diversity of the community (MSA, 2016). Educators must tangibly
commit to teaching in a diverse setting and guide students in establishing inclusive relationships
(MSA, 2016). Wang et al. (2018) recognize the voluntary enrollment by students from varied
attendance boundaries as key to the learning experience students benefit from in a diverse
population. The diversity pillar is core to the historical identity of magnet schools. Attracting a
diverse student body to choose a magnet school is accomplished through an innovative approach
to teaching and learning.
The second MSA (2016) pillar is innovative curriculum and professional development.
Theme and curriculum fidelity and professional learning are the two supporting standards (MSA,
2016). In a fully implemented magnet school, the theme objectives and curricular learning goals
are interwoven, monitored, explicitly articulated (MSA, 2016). The student learning experience
in a magnet school is substantially different from a traditional model. Therefore, a focused
approach to professional development is critical to equip educators to teach in a substantially
different way and to support all students, including English learners and students with disabilities
(MSA, 2016). Magnet schools need ample time dedicated to structured teacher collaboration to
plan cross-disciplinary theme-embedded instruction (MSA, 2016). The theme-based approach to
innovative curriculum and professional development results in high levels of student
achievement.
The third MSA (2016) pillar is academic excellence, manifested in an instructional
fidelity standard and a student achievement standard. Magnet school teaching and learning
should focus on theme integration and research based practices (MSA, 2016). Active learning
through student collaboration and problem solving coupled with implementation of Response to
Intervention measured by ongoing classroom assessment accelerate student achievement of
32
theme objectives and academic learning goals (MSA, 2016). Each magnet student’s progress is
monitored through analysis of leading indicators via formative assessment (MSA, 2016).
Magnet schools focus on accelerating student learning, eliminating the achievement gap, and
demonstrating evidence of improvement in school outcomes such as graduation rates and college
and career readiness indicators (MSA, 2016).
Magnet schools are embedded in school districts and as such must be supported by the
fourth pillar: high-quality instructional systems. Standards for leadership and magnet and district
relations comprise this pillar. School districts must provide coaching for magnet school
principals to support their development as innovative leaders who ensure that the theme is
implemented with integrity (MSA, 2016). Districts must have systems in place to support the
recruitment, selection, and retention of teachers with the will and skill to create and implement
magnet school curricula (MSA, 2016). Additionally, districts must support magnet schools in
establishing and maintaining partnerships to enhance the magnet school experience (MSA,
2016). Districts should support the magnet schools, ensure that magnet schools are a key
strategy in the district’s plan, and provide theme-based learning pathways (MSA, 2016). Finally,
districts must ensure magnet sustainability through sufficient funding coupled with granting
magnets the autonomy to allocate resources to support their unique theme (MSA, 2016).
Finally, the fifth pillar is family and community partnerships. Engaging families is an
essential strategy to meet many of the goals of magnet schools, from academic achievement to
recruitment and retention. Magnet schools are expected to have robust systems to actively
engage families in school decision making and student progress (MSA, 2016). The commitment
to family engagement should be evident in both policy and practice (MSA, 2016). Additionally,
business and community organizations have an essential role in connecting the magnet theme to
33
life outside the school (MSA, 2016). School districts should facilitate the development of such
partnerships (MSA, 2016).
Magnet schools that implement the five pillars with integrity can experience high levels
of success in academic outcomes, diversity and integration, and enrollment demand. Successful
implementation of the magnet school standards with a specific magnet theme forms the core of
magnet school innovation. Charter schools share some similarities with magnet schools and
concurrently have some important distinctive characteristics.
Charter school innovation. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (n.d.)
defines charter schools as unique public schools that are given the autonomy to innovate along
with increased accountability for student learning results. The notion of charter schools
originated in the late 1980s amidst the backdrop of public perception of an education crisis
fueled by A Nation at Risk (Gardner, Larsen, Baker, Campbell, & Crosby, 1983). Al Shanker,
then-president of the American Federation of Teachers, set forth the idea of autonomous schools
where teachers would be empowered to develop innovative practices to share with traditional
schools to elevate public education (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Kahlenberg & Potter, 2014).
Chubb and Moe (1990) put forth the political economist’s view that public education cannot
change within the existing institutional structures and proposed a choice and competition
structure where a subset of schools would be granted increased autonomy to innovate through a
school-specific governance structure. Early bipartisan support resulted in the first charter school
laws in Minnesota, and the first charter school opened its doors in 1992 (Darling-Hammond et
al., 2017). Innovation in the charter school world can be explored through two major lenses:
structure and implementation. Structural innovations are created to change the nature of the
34
conditions in which education is provided (Miron, 2017). The structural innovation of charter
schools is based on two interrelated concepts of autonomy and accountability.
Autonomous governance is the structural core of charter school innovation. The
traditional school governance structure fosters uniformity (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Charter
schools were created on the premise that the bureaucratic nature of public school systems inhibit
innovation by placing decision making too far from the local school (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2017; Grube & Anderson, 2018; Lubienski, 2003; Preston et al., 2012). Therefore, replacing
centralized control with an autonomous governing body would free teachers of restrictive
policies and accelerate innovation (Grube & Anderson, 2018; Lubienski, 2003; Preston et al.,
2012). State policies require individual charter school boards to be authorized by an oversight
agency that holds the charter school accountable to a contract that outlines the charter’s
academic, financial, and operational goals and procedures. The NACSA (2015) provides
national standards for quality authorizing. The role of an authorizer is distinct from the
relationship between a district and school and is defined by the NACSA (2015) principles of
authorization that include holding schools to high standards, honoring the autonomy of the
charter, and protecting the student and public interests. In other words, increased autonomy is
balanced with increased accountability for results.
The accountability structure for charter schools introduces market accountability, choice,
and competition as structural innovations into the public education landscape (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2017; Lubienski, 2003). The traditional system assigns students to a school
based on their neighborhood. Lubienski (2003) describes this approach as monopolistic and anti-
competitive. In contrast, charter schools do not have an attendance boundary and all students are
enrolled by choice. The success of market accountability lies in the application of the principles
35
of choice and competition to drive efficiency, innovation, and responsiveness (Burke, 2004;
Firestone & Shipps, 2005). Charter schools must recruit and retain students to remain viable.
When school leaders are responsive and deliver the experience that families seek, they cultivate
customer satisfaction (Burke, 2004) in the form of content families. Successful charter
governing councils create agile organizations that can rapidly pivot to meet diverse needs and
desires of the student body and parent community. The consequence of failure to ensure
satisfaction of the student and family community is the loss of student enrollment and
corresponding funding (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Charter schools that fail to attend to customer
responsiveness and ensure high level of satisfaction face lessened desirability and corresponding
enrollment decreases. Indeed, this can become a death spiral for a school that relies entirely on
state-generated funding to exist. Lubienski (2003) suggests that the diversity of options available
for families to choose is a structural innovation. Furthermore, offering multiple choices fosters
competition among schools to recruit and retain families. Cooperation between charter schools
as an innovation lab to promote improved practices and outcomes in traditional schools was one
original purpose for charter schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). In practice, the
implementation of charters through policy has established competition through market-driven
accountability as a structural innovation (Lubienski, 2003). Indeed, a 2013 review of charter
laws found that competition was established in state law as the purpose for charters above any
other purpose (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2014). Providing schools the autonomy to innovate
undergirds the assumption that competition will result in innovation.
The autonomy of a school-specific governance structure removes systemic barriers to
operational innovations in logistics, human resources, facilities, and allocation of resources
(Lubienski, 2003; Pendergrass & Kern, 2017; Preston et al., 2012; Wohlstetter, Smith, & Farrell,
36
2013). Logistical decisions that impact the student experience such as school size, class sizes,
length of school days and years, daily instructional schedules, school uniforms, discipline
policies, and configuration of classes are made at the school level instead of at the district level,
giving parents who choose the school increased influence (Lubienski, 2003; Wohlstetter et al.,
2013). Preston et al. (2012) note that charter schools whose mission is to work with high-risk
populations often offer additional flexibility in scheduling and self-paced learning models as
academic innovations. These logistics are often pointed to as examples of innovative charter
school practices (Lubienski, 2003; Preston et al., 2012). Selection, evaluation, retention, and
compensation of teachers and staff can incorporate increased community involvement without
the restraints of human resources procedures and collective bargaining agreements (Preston et
al., 2012). Charter governing councils can innovate with facilities by renting buildings in office
complexes or other non-traditional school sites (Pendergrass & Kern, 2017). Finally, the
autonomy of a charter school allows the governing council and community to match the school’s
priorities and initiatives with resource allocation (Preston et al., 2012). These examples of
operational decisions form the structure to implement academic innovations.
Within an autonomous governance structure held accountable by market preference, the
conditions are set for authentically innovative academic experiences. Grube and Anderson
(2018) maintain that increased autonomy can result in trying a greater variety of curriculum and
teaching practices. However, scholars note that academic innovations that charter schools
deliver are very similar to initiatives in traditional schools (Lubienski, 2003; Preston et al.,
2012). Lubienski (2003) observes that innovation in charter schools may not be a new practice.
Instead, innovation may be a repurposing of old practices or a different application of a
traditional practice to meet a different goal (Lubienski, 2003; Wohlstetter et al., 2013). Charter
37
schools largely apply existing curricular and instructional approaches that are already used in
public schools instead of creating new practices (Lubienski, 2003; Preston et al., 2012). Preston
et al. (2012) define innovation in terms relative to the practices in the local district. As such, a
charter school would be considered innovative if the charter is implementing an approach that
the traditional public schools in its local school district are not (Preston et al., 2012). Academic
innovation in charter schools includes models such as college prep, arts, project-based learning,
technology, specific curriculum such as Core Knowledge or Saxon Math, and languages
(Lubienski, 2003; The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools [NAPCS]; Preston et al.,
2012). All of these academic models can be found in traditional schools. Indeed, Pendergrass
and Kern (2017) find that many charter schools’ academic programming gives a remarkably
similar appearance to traditional public schools. Pendergrass and Kern (2017) note that the goal
of providing the autonomy for schools to innovate is to find effective practices rather than
innovation without purpose. The greatest challenge for public education is to ensure equity for
all students, and innovation through school choice is one avenue toward that end.
In magnet schools, innovation through school choice is demonstrated differently from
charter schools. Magnet school innovation is focused explicitly on diversity and student
achievement, while charter school innovation presents in governance and structures. However,
both magnets and charters share the goal of increasing equity of opportunity within public
education.
School Choice as an Equity Strategy
Inequity is cemented in the American educational system’s practices that ensure students
from privileged backgrounds are prepared to thrive and deny students from marginalized
backgrounds equitable access to quality educational opportunity (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
38
Tyack and Tobin (1994) assert that the structure of public education produces failure in
populations such as students in poverty and immigrants. Access to education is striated by race,
socioeconomic status, neighborhood location, and home language (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
This reality is accepted as status quo (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Policies and practices that base
school assignment based on geographic home address result in racial and socioeconomic
segregation and thereby exacerbate the inequity of educational opportunity as evidenced by the
achievement gap.
Racial and Socioeconomic Integration
The benefits of learning in diverse schools are firmly established in research (Braddock et
al., 1992; Frost, 2007; Mickelson, 2005). The positive academic impact of attending
desegregated schools is compounded when children begin learning in diverse schools at younger
ages (Mickelson, 2005). Furthermore, the benefits of increasing diversity in schools extend to all
students both academically and socially. Conversely, segregated schools deprive all students of
the academic and social benefits of learning alongside diverse peers (Ayscue, Frankenberg, &
Siegel-Hawley, 2017).
School choice has the potential to support integration of diverse populations in public
schools (Cobb & Glass, 2009). Both magnet and charter schools seek to increase access to
quality education and provide the empowerment that comes with the ability to choose a school
outside of an assigned attendance area (Riel, Parcel, Mickelson, & Smith, 2018). Magnet
schools originated as a diversity strategy for districts under voluntary or court-ordered
desegregation plans (Metz, 2003; Riel et al., 2018). Cookson et al.’s (2018) synthesis of large-
scale national studies and analyses on magnet school outcomes shows overall positive effects on
integration and intergroup relationships.
39
Conversely, school choice can exacerbate segregation by paving the road for White and
middle-class families to flee neighborhood schools (Cookson et al., 2018). Similarly, some
charter schools cater to so-called “niche markets,” or marginalized populations (Kahlenberg &
Potter, 2014). Niche market charters appeal to families’ concerns about neighborhood schools
and recruit students from marginalized populations, resulting in higher levels of segregation in
some charters than in traditional schools (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2014). Similarly, magnet
schools with admissions criteria are unlikely to draw a diverse student body (Riel et al., 2018).
Innovative charter and magnet schools of choice have the potential to increase diversity
and integration and also have the potential to foster the national trajectory of re-segregation
(Frankenberg et al., 2011; Swanson, 2017). Failure to increase integration exacerbates the
effects of inherent constructs of inequity through separate and unequal access to education that in
turn further widens the achievement gap (Holme, 2002). Conversely, systemic desegregation of
schools has proven to decrease the achievement gap in public school districts in the United States
(Frost, 2007). The connection between segregated schools and low levels of student
achievement is well established as detrimental to student learning.
Achievement Gap
The achievement gap is one of the most damaging products of the traditional system of
public education (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Kahlenberg & Potter, 2015). The NAEP defines an
achievement gap as a significant difference in standardized test scores between student groups.
With few exceptions, no significant reduction of the achievement gap in reading, math, and
science occurred between 2003 and 2017 between students in poverty and those not in poverty,
between White and Black students, and between White and Hispanic students (NAEP, 2017).
Poor, Black, Hispanic, Native and English-learner students consistently demonstrate lower
40
achievement than their White middle-class counterparts. Data are not available on the
achievement gap between native-born and immigrant students is not collected in the United
States. However, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2015)
provides data that demonstrates the achievement gap between immigrant students and native-
born students is a problem of global proportion.
Magnet and charter schools share the goal of increasing academic achievement (Riel et
al., 2018). Research on the impact of school choice on student achievement shows mixed results
in both magnet and charter schools (Riel et al., 2018). Wang, Schweig, and Herman’s (2017)
study of 24 magnet federally funded magnet schools found that some magnet schools
demonstrate positive effect on student learning while others do not. Similarly, Epple, Romano,
and Zimmer (2015) found that charter schools have mixed results on academic achievement in
comparison to traditional schools. Conditions that lead to increased student achievement in
schools of choice include admittance by random lottery, integrity of program implementation,
and investment in teacher coaching and support (Cookson et al., 2018; Pack, 2017; Riel et al.,
2018; Rossell, 2017).
Although the academic impact of school choice varies, the attempt to introduce
promising innovations into the public school sector deserves continued exploration. Darling-
Hammond (2007) observes that some children and adolescents in the United States do not obtain
a basic level of functional literacy from our education system and that the inequity of education
based on race, economic status, language, and address has become the cultural norm. Innovation
through school choice may not be a panacea to the overall problems related to public education.
However, the effect of the status quo on marginalized populations is clear. School choice may
41
provide an opportunity to equip school leaders with innovative tools to develop promising
practices.
Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) posit that the gap between current reality and organizational goal
attainment is dependent on employees’ interrelated application of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences. Performance gaps can be systematically studied and analyzed
through the KMO conceptual framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). Job-related knowledge equips
individuals to handle new challenges and solve unanticipated problems to meet individual and
organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Four categories form the lens to study the influence
of knowledge in organizational settings: factual knowledge of a foundational nature, conceptual
knowledge of interconnections, procedural knowledge of application, and metacognitive
knowledge of strategy (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Motivation directs and sustains goal-
directed behaviors (Rueda, 2011). Common applications of motivation include self-efficacy and
attribution (Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Organizational influences include culture, processes,
and availability of resources (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The focus of this study was to improve leadership development and organizational
support for innovation. Improvement will be informed by the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs (Clark & Estes, 2008) of charter and magnet school leaders to achieve the
goal state of innovation in their schools of choice. The first section will consider the assumed
knowledge influences on the goal of creating innovative schools. Next, assumed motivation
influences will be explored. Finally, assumed organizational influences on the attainment of the
goal of innovation will be considered. Chapter Three will apply the assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences to the design of a mixed-methods study to inform
42
recommendations to design and implement supports for school leaders to increase innovation in
schools of choice.
Innovative School Leader ’s Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Leaders of innovation face the unique challenge to deliver innovative school experiences
within the confines of traditional systems (Finzi, Firth, & Lipton, 2017). Western Independent
School District (WISD, pseudonym) seeks to improve systems to support and equip charter and
magnet school leaders to meet the organizational goal to deliver innovative and high-quality
learner experiences. Innovative school options are expected to contribute to a comprehensive
portfolio of school choice offerings to meet the diverse needs of students throughout a large
urban school district. Goal attainment is dependent on school leaders’ knowledge, motivation,
and organizational conditions (Clark & Estes, 2008). This review of research is focused on
knowledge and motivation as they relate to equipping school leaders to meet their stakeholder
goal of leading their schools to meet criteria for innovation.
Innovative Leadership for Innovation
An innovator’s approach to the role of school leadership needs to be substantially
different from that of leaders of traditional schools. It is important to note that, while
organizational change is a component of innovation, the research distinguishes specific
characteristics, qualities, and methodologies of innovative leaders from that of change agents
(Dyer et al., 2011). Through analysis of 360-degree feedback survey data of 33 individuals who
scored above the 99th percentile in innovation, followed by interviews, Zenger and Folkman
(2014) identified 10 distinguishing behaviors of innovative leaders. Their findings defined a set
of specific behaviors, including vision, customer focus, fostering a climate of trust,
communication, persuasion, ambitious goal setting, and inspiring. Together, these behaviors
43
cultivate a culture of innovation where employees are granted autonomy to rapidly prototype
new ideas without fear of negative consequences for failure. Similarly, through literature review
and observations, Akomolafe (2011) describes the essential role of leadership in cultivating a
culture of innovation. Innovative leaders exercise the personal practices of seeing opportunities,
building a culture of trust and collaboration, creating processes that allow individuals to identify
innovative approaches and ideas, and ultimately establish the conditions to turn ideas into
organizational action (Akomolafe, 2011). Taulbert and Schoeniger (2010) teach the qualities of
an entrepreneurial mindset through lessons on choice, opportunity, action, knowledge, wealth,
brand, community, and persistence. The role of innovative leadership and entrepreneurial
mindset in charter and magnet schools is critical if school choice is to fulfill the role of
pioneering innovation in the education field.
Knowledge
Clark and Estes (2008) posit that the purpose of developing job-related knowledge is to
equip individuals to handle new challenges and solve unanticipated problems to meet individual
and organizational goals. To equip school leaders with the required knowledge to effectively
innovate, WISD must assess and categorize knowledge influences and identify gaps. Applied
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge types (Krathwohl, 2002) play
interrelated roles in innovative school leader’s daily work. All knowledge types are critical for
school leaders; however, the innovative application of procedural knowledge and metacognition
uniquely equips leaders of innovative schools to move their organizations beyond the traditional
model.
Factual knowledge is information that is foundational to function effectively and solve
problems within a domain including terminology, details, and foundational information
44
(Krathwohl, 2002). School leaders must carry a mental catalog of factual knowledge such as
policies, procedures, laws, and compliance to run an effective school. Additionally, leaders of
innovative schools must know the factual components that set their school apart from the
traditional model. Knowing the purpose of the school’s innovative focus is also necessary.
Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011) define conceptual knowledge as the generalization
of interconnected relationships between principles, concepts, theories, models, and structures in a
discipline. School leaders rely on conceptual knowledge to create effective systems that
integrate curriculum, instruction, and professional learning within the logistics of school
schedules, calendars, and compliance procedures. For example, school leaders must lead
analysis of student learning data and apply the findings to innovate in the areas of curriculum
development, course construction, and design of professional learning to equip teachers to meet
students’ learning needs. Additionally, school leaders of charter and magnet schools must use
conceptual knowledge of school culture, instructional approach, structures, and environments to
develop the school’s innovative focus.
Procedural knowledge is the application of factual information and conceptual knowledge
in action. Procedural knowledge guides the how-to in application of information,
generalizations, inquiry, skills, techniques, and methodologies (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Leaders of innovative schools use procedural knowledge to construct, deconstruct, and
reconfigure existing systems in innovative ways. For example, school leaders who have factual
knowledge of seat time requirements and conceptual knowledge of optimal student learning can
apply procedural knowledge to create a year-round four-day-per-week calendar and daily
schedule that meets requirements in an innovative way that better meets the needs of the student
body. Leaders of schools with an innovative focus must have strong procedural knowledge of
45
how to implement a school-wide innovative approach with a leadership team and ongoing focus
on the school’s innovation plan. Furthermore, leaders of schools of innovation have to have the
procedural knowledge of how to align initiatives and support their teachers in implementing the
innovative focus. Additionally, school leaders of magnet and charter schools must exhibit
ambidexterity, meaning they use procedural knowledge to leverage day-to-day operations to
further the school’s innovative focus.
Metacognitive knowledge includes strategy and self-awareness of cognitive processes
(Krathwohl, 2002). Rueda (2011) clarifies Krathwohl’s definition with the addition of
metacognition as the knowing when and why considering contextual and conditional aspects of
the situation to make a decision to solve a problem. Successful leaders of innovative schools
routinely use metacognition to connect ideas gained through the innovator’s discovery skills of
associating, questioning, observing, networking, and experimenting (Dyer et al., 2011). Leaders
of innovative schools develop their associating skills by reading widely and networking with
individuals from many fields. An example of metacognitive association is a school leader who
networks with an entrepreneur, hears about the lean startup concept, and considers ways to apply
the new awareness of the concept of minimal viable product (Ries, 2011) to experimentation
with a new instructional approach. Leaders of innovation must concurrently use the innovator’s
discovery skills (Dyer et al., 2011) and delivery skills to implement an innovative approach
(Fixsen et al., 2009).
Knowledge types provide a framework to categorize job-related knowledge influences
that informs assessment strategy. Two key knowledge influences form the basis of innovator’s
knowledge (Dyer et al., 2011). Cultivating a mission that distinguishes the school as innovative
and ambidextrous leadership are key knowledge influences that reflect the knowledge continuum
46
from factual to metacognitive. These influences are described based on a review of literature,
categorized, and assessment methodology for each influence is presented.
Cultivate an innovative organizational mission. School leaders need to apply
procedural and metacognitive knowledge to apply a mission of innovation to meet their
stakeholder goal to deliver an innovative school experience. Adaptable leaders are able to
rapidly pivot strategy in response to internal or external changes (Lipton, 1996). Lipton (1996)
describes a model of mission-driven innovation that connects the organizational mission to an
innovative focus, which links to an implementation and process that builds a culture of
innovation that delivers results. Cultivation of a mission requires procedural knowledge that
equips the leader to generalize and reconstruct current knowledge as they take familiar elements
of a school and reconstruct them to create a more innovative culture.
Ambidextrous leadership. Ambidextrous leadership encompasses factual, conceptual,
metacognitive and procedural knowledge to equip leaders of innovative schools to deliver
innovative school experiences. Knowing how to balance visioning the future while executing
today’s strategy is the core of ambidextrous leadership (Probst, Raisch, & Tushman, 2011).
Innovative leaders need to know how to deliver results and concurrently apply discovery skills to
identify innovation opportunities (Dyer et al., 2011). Leaders of innovative schools need to
function as ambidextrous leaders to meet their current performance goal and concurrently design
and deliver innovative experiences. Ambidextrous leadership is categorized as a procedural and
metacognitive knowledge type because constant reflection on thinking and connecting ideas
from seemingly unrelated data to form new innovations is the core of the innovative leader’s
thinking (Dyer et al., 2011). This knowledge influence can also be categorized as metacognitive,
47
since implementation of ambidextrous leadership requires the coordinated implementation of a
current plan with ongoing self-reflection and questioning of the current reality.
Table 3 connects the organizational mission and global goal to the stakeholder goal and
supporting knowledge influences and corresponding types with suggested assessment strategy.
Table 3
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment

Organizational Mission
All students will attend high-quality community responsive schools.
Organizational Global Goal
In five years, the OISO will ensure that every charter and magnet school delivers an innovative and
high-quality learner experience that substantially contributes to the WISD portfolio of school options.
Stakeholder Goal
By August of 2021, 60% of charter school leaders and magnet school principals will implement
innovative leadership practices to articulate and implement an innovative and high-quality approach
that results in attracting a diverse student body that reflects the WISD community, measured by 60% of
magnet schools receiving certification or award status from MSA and 60% of charter schools meeting
criteria of the new academic performance framework.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
School leaders need to cultivate an
innovative organizational mission.
Factual and
Conceptual
Survey Questions
My school is uniquely innovative
compared with traditional neighborhood
schools in the following ways (select all
that apply)

The stated purpose/s of innovation in my
school is to (check all that apply)

Interview Questions
Take me on an innovation tour of your
school--what would we see, hear, and
observe students and teachers doing that
you would point out as examples of
innovative practice that is different from a
traditional school?

Tell me about your school’s mission and
vision.
Probe: How do students
experience the mission/ vision?
48
Table 3, continued
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
Procedural Survey Questions:
Does your school have a written
implementation plan for your school-wide
innovative approach?

How frequently do you report progress in
implementing your school’s innovative
approach to your governing council?
(Charter)

How often do you evaluate progress on
your magnet school’s innovation
implementation plan with Instructional
Council? (Magnet)

Interview Question:
How do you support teachers to
implement the mission?

School leaders need to apply
ambidextrous leadership
Procedural and
Metacognitive
Survey Questions:

How does your school’s 90-day plan
impact innovative practices?
Answer choices: Barrier to Innovation,
No Impact on Innovation, Accelerator of
Innovation

How does the use of your school’s
instructional minutes impact innovative
practices?

How does the use of the state teacher
observation rubric impact innovative
practices?

How does your professional
development plan impact innovative
practices?

Charter only
How does the charter renewal process
impact innovative practices?

Magnet only
How does the Instructional Council
impact school-wide innovative practices?

49
Table 3, continued
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
Approximately how many times in the
last 6 months have you networked with
someone from a non-education field
who inspired/informed a new approach
to your work?

Approximately how many times in the
last 6 months have you tried out an idea
you read on a blog, tweet, article or
book about innovation?

Approximately how many times in the
last 6 months have you tried out an idea
you heard about from another magnet
or charter school leader?

Interview Question
7. What advice would you give a new
[magnet or charter] school leader on
balancing the expectations of innovation
with the day-to-day work of running a
school?

Motivation
Clark and Estes (2008) explore the connections between knowledge and motivation as
two of the three causes of performance gaps. Knowledge is only valuable if motivation to utilize
it is present (Clark & Estes, 2008). Thus, it is important to identify potential gaps in motivation.
Motivation is a process that directs and sustains goal-directed behaviors (Rueda, 2011). Leaders
of innovative schools demonstrate their motivation through the choice to actively pursue
innovation, the persistence to persevere through difficulty, and the mental effort to succeed
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Self-efficacy theory and attribution theory provide essential insight into
potential motivation performance gaps.
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy beliefs are the perceptions that people have about
their own performance capabilities that form the basis of motivation (Pajares, 2006). Leaders of
50
innovative schools need a high degree of self-efficacy due to the nature of frequent failure in the
field of innovation. Positive self-perceptions are fostered by success, and high self-efficacy is
confirmed. Conversely, negative self-perceptions are confirmed by repeated failure, leading to
low self-efficacy. Leaders of innovative schools have to have a high tolerance of failure and
remain undaunted in their ability to foster innovation. Individuals tend to select activities that
they feel confident of success (Pajares, 2006). The confidence to return to a problem repeatedly
to achieve success is key for innovative leaders. Self-efficacy influences the level of effort,
perseverance, and resiliency when facing adversity that individuals are willing to exert (Rueda,
2011). Perceptions of efficacy influences behavior, goals, expectation of outcomes, and
perception of barriers and opportunities (Bandura, 2000). High self-efficacy positively
influences motivation and is thus critical for leaders of high-demand organizations such as
innovative schools. The underlying self-efficacy belief of one’s own capability translates to the
view of the challenge of driving innovation as an opportunity for mastery (Pajares, 2006) and is
an important component of leader’s motivation. In tandem with self-efficacy, leaders must
attribute goal achievement to their own actions and behaviors.
Attribution theory. Attribution theory is based on the assumptions that individuals are
conscious and rational, motivated by mastery, and seek to connect their understanding of the
environment with their own behavior (Weiner, 1992). Innovative leaders must combine self-
efficacy with attribution to endure the often-frustrating cycle of continuous innovation. Effective
innovative leaders must actively persist as they navigate the inevitable barriers (Clark & Estes,
2008). Different people can interpret the same events very differently based on their individual
perceptions of the dimensions of attribution. Attribution theory is characterized by three
interconnected dimensions of locus, stability, and controllability (Anderman & Anderman,
51
2006). Locus is the perception of internal or external causes of events. An internal locus of
control attributes causes to personal effort and ability and an external locus of control attributes
events to causes outside the individual’s control such as the difficulty of a task and luck
(Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Leaders of innovative schools have to own the forward motion
of their schools through an internal locus of control.
The perception of stability relates to whether or not a cause is fixed and not movable or
variable and unstable depending on the situation and point in time (Anderman & Anderman,
2006). Innovative leaders see the existence of status quo as a challenge to move. Controllability
is the perception of events as uncontrollable due to lack of ability or controllable through
individual effort (Weiner, 1992). Innovative leaders view their role and effort as critical to
change events. Leaders of innovative schools who attribute success to personal effort and ability
and perceive situations as variable are more motivated to persist to achieve their innovation
goals.
Application of self-efficacy and attribution. Graham-Leviss (2016) studied the
characteristics of innovative leaders in comparison to successful but not innovative leaders.
Innovative leaders scored higher on scales that measure curiosity, seizing opportunities, strategy,
and risk management (Graham-Leviss, 2016), all qualities that demonstrate high self-efficacy
and attribution in action. Leaders who seize opportunities demonstrate their belief in their own
self-efficacy to strategize and mitigate potential risks while owning the innovation success of
their organization through attributing success to their actions and behaviors.
The spiral of high self-efficacy applies to innovative leadership. From positive self-
efficacy springs choosing the activity more, increasing learning and achievement, leading to
more persistence and effort, that leads to choosing the activity more, and verifies high self-
52
efficacy. This spiral is illustrated in an innovator’s leadership process of actualizing curiosity to
seek opportunities and strategize implementation. As success is experienced, the leader’s
motivation to choose to engage in the process repeatedly increases, leading to increased
innovation and self-efficacious beliefs. Through this process, the leader’s belief in her own self-
efficacy and the attributions of action to successful outcomes are mutually reinforced. Self-
efficacy and attribution serve as a vehicle toward fulfilling the innate desire of the human
condition is to be effective in life (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Table 4 connects the organizational mission and global goal to the stakeholder goal and
supporting motivation influences with suggested assessment strategy.
Table 4
Motivation Influences and Assessment
Organizational Mission
All students will attend high-quality community responsive schools.
Organizational Global Goal
In five years, the OISO will ensure that every charter and magnet school delivers an innovative and high-
quality learner experience that substantially contributes to the WISD portfolio of school options.
Stakeholder Goal
By August of 2021, 60% of charter school leaders and magnet school principals will implement innovative
leadership practices to articulate and implement an innovative and high-quality approach that results in
attracting a diverse student body that reflects the WISD community, measured by 60% of magnet schools
receiving certification or award status from MSA and 60% of charter schools meeting criteria of the new
academic performance framework.
Motivational Indicators
Assumed Motivation Influences

Motivational Influence Assessment

Self-efficacy
Leaders of innovative schools must
believe in their own agency to persist
through difficulty.
Survey Questions:
How important are the following to successfully lead an innovative
school?
Belief that my efforts to lead the school in implementing
innovation determines the school’s success.
Confidence in my ability to lead innovation in my school.
Belief that empowering others is essential to innovation.
Belief that my ability to innovate is not dependent on the
authorizer’s requirements.
53
Table 4, continued
Assumed Motivation Influences

Motivational Influence Assessment

Belief that my ability to innovate is not dependent on the district’s
requirements.
Interview Questions:
How would you respond if you encountered someone who has
strong negative opinions about school choice?

What strategies did you find to be effective and ineffective to
address a barrier to innovation?
Attribution
Leaders of innovative schools must
take ownership of their role in
fostering innovation through locus,
stability, and controllability.
Survey Questions:
When you encounter a district barrier to implementation of your
school’s innovative focus, how often do you…
. . .modify the innovation to conform to the requirements of the
barrier
. . .request an exception for your school based on a carefully
crafted rationale
. . .go back to the traditional way of doing things
Interview Questions:
What motivated you to persist through a barrier to innovation?

What inspired you to become a leader of a [charter or magnet]
school instead of a traditional school leader?

Organizational Influences on Innovation
In addition to knowledge and motivation performance influences, the impact of
organizational influences on performance gaps must be considered (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizational conditions include processes, materials, and organizational culture that can
influence stakeholders’ ability to innovate (Clark & Estes, 2008). Culture permeates all facets of
an organization through the convergence of shared values, goals, beliefs, emotions and processes
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2004) and thus
defines the source of many models and settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001) that contribute
to performance gaps. Organizational culture can either advance or inhibit innovation. This
54
section provides an overview of the literature relating to cultural models and settings as they
influence organizational innovation.
Organizational Innovation
Organizational cultures of innovation are distinguished by ongoing organizational
learning (Schein, 2004), holding a state of creative tension between the current state and desired
state (Senge, 1990), and structure for generative and adoptive innovation approaches
(Damanpour & Wischnevsky, 2006). While some scholars (Daft & Becker, 1978) posit that
innovation is not feasible in large bureaucratic organizations, others suggest that the proper
organizational conditions can foster innovation within the confines of a bureaucratic structure
(Damanpour & Wischnevsky, 2006; Lubienski, 2003). Cultural models and settings provide the
framework for this section to connect literature on organizational innovation to WISD’s assumed
organizational influences on achieving the goal of ensuring that charter and magnet school
leaders have the necessary organizational supports to lead their schools to innovate.
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings
Cultural models are the shared underlying values, norms, and beliefs of an organization
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings are the visible manifestations of culture, such
as people, interactions, and locations to accomplish something, that reflect the cultural models’
fundamental and unseen shared assumptions (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The reciprocal
relationship between cultural models and settings provide a framework to study organizational
influences on performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Organizational Autonomy to Innovate
The structural uniformity that is valued in a bureaucratic one-size-fits-all approach
(Lubienski, 2003) is a cultural model. School systems were designed as bureaucracies to mirror
55
the industrial model by standardizing delivery of basic curriculum (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). To
become relevant in a knowledge economy, schools must be granted the autonomy to implement
an agile, responsive, and personalized instructional approach (Noguera et al., 2015). WISD
needs to cultivate a culture that values innovation through ensuring that magnet and charter
schools have adequate autonomy to innovate.
Remove Bureaucratic Barriers
Large bureaucracies are associated with inefficiency, inflexibility, and rigidity
(Lubienski, 2003). These characteristics are categorized as cultural settings. The layers of
policies, procedures, and processes (Clark & Estes, 2008) create a standardized model with
engrained rigidity (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Tyack and Tobin (1994) identify three functions for
standardizing the school system. First, structures were created in ways that could accommodate
rapid growth in student population (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Second, the traditional model
provides controlled flexibility for schools to build on new features such as specialized elective
courses to the existing base model (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Finally, the standard model provides
a set of features that can be used to define equity (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). While standardization
fulfills a purpose, the standard model constructs significant barriers to innovation (Tyack &
Tobin, 1994). Noguera et al. (2015) posit that innovative and relevant learning requires
increased support and decreased systemic restraints. As such, WISD needs to prioritize
autonomy for schools to innovate with the removal of institutional barriers to innovation.
Opening the door to flexibility may have implications for increased system innovation beyond a
subset of choice schools.

56
Leadership Development for Innovation
Investing in leader development is key to building system capacity for innovation.
Leaders who demonstrate ambidexterity (Probst et al., 2011) can move their schools to innovate.
Concurrently, school leaders can develop generative and adaptive innovations (Damanpour &
Wischnevsky, 2006) that impact the entire school system. Developing the habits of innovation is
not provided in traditional school leader professional growth opportunities, nor is it part of
WISD’s school leader evaluation system. Supporting leaders in learning to utilize innovation
and creativity strategies in daily work (Dyer et al., 2011) requires a unique approach to
professional development.
Table 5 connects the organizational mission and global goal to the stakeholder goal and
supporting organizational influences with suggested assessment strategy.
Table 5
Organization Influences and Assessment
Organizational Mission
All students will attend high-quality community responsive schools.
Organizational Global Goal
In five years, the OISO will ensure that every charter and magnet school delivers an
innovative and high-quality learner experience that substantially contributes to the WISD
portfolio of school options.
Stakeholder Goal
By August of 2021, 60% of charter school leaders and magnet school principals will
implement innovative leadership practices to articulate and implement an innovative and
high-quality approach that results in attracting a diverse student body that reflects the WISD
community, measured by 60% of magnet schools receiving certification or award status from
MSA and 60% of charter schools meeting criteria of the new academic performance
framework.

57
Table 5, continued
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1: The
organization needs to demonstrate the value
of innovation by providing autonomy for
leaders to implement innovative school-wide
practices.

Survey Questions:

To what degree do you believe the role of
your school as an innovative choice is valued
by the school district?

CHARTER
To what degree do you have adequate
autonomy from the authorizer to innovate in
your school?

MAGNET
To what degree do you have adequate
autonomy from the district to innovate in
your school?

CHARTER
Please rate the importance of the following
waivers to your school’s ability to innovate
Individual class load
Teaching load
Length of school day
Staffing pattern
Subject areas
Purchase of instructional materials
Evaluation standards for school personnel
School principal duties

MAGNET
Please rate the importance of the following
autonomies to your school’s ability to
innovate:
Customized professional learning
Curriculum development
Exemption from the district process for
selection of instructional materials
School-specific assessments
School-defined outcomes and measures
specific to the magnet theme
Magnet specific job description with
Instructional Council-generated preferred skills

58
Table 5, continued
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Interview Questions:
Do you feel that your organization values
innovation in schools of choice? What
experiences have you had that make you feel
that way?

What autonomy do you have as a [magnet or
charter] school that enables you to
implement innovation?

Cultural Setting Influence 1: The
organization needs to remove bureaucratic
barriers to innovation.

Survey Questions:
When I encounter a barrier to innovation at
my school, someone at the district level
advocates for me.

District departments are responsive to my
requests for customized support to
implement innovation.
To what degree does your school have unmet
potential to innovate due to
district/authorizer barriers?

Interview Questions:
Share an example of a time that you set out
to implement a new innovation in your
school and encountered barriers.

If you could change anything you wanted at
the district, state, or federal level to open the
opportunity for more innovation in schools,
what would you change?

59
Table 5,continued
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Setting Influence 2: The
organization needs to invest in the growth,
development, and networking of leaders of
innovative schools.

Survey Questions:
Rate the effectiveness of the following
leadership development opportunities in
growing your leadership of an innovative,
non-traditional school
Charter leader meetings
Charters & Coffee
My professional goal setting process
BOTH
My evaluation process
MAGNET

Instructional rounds
Zone meetings
All-level magnet principal meetings
My PDP process

Interview Questions:
In the last six months, how have you grown
professionally? Follow-up: What
experiences have you had to facilitate your
growth? Follow-up: What new actions have
you taken as a result of that growth?

Describe the ideal conditions to support the
professional growth and development of
leaders of innovative schools. Follow-up:
How might having a network of innovative
school leaders support your leadership
growth? Follow-up: What might be similar
and different from the current structure of
principal’s professional development?

60
Table 6 provides a summary of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on
supporting leaders of innovative schools.
Table 6
Summary Table of Assumed Influences on Performance
Stakeholder Assumed Influences on Performance
Knowledge Motivation Organization
• School leaders need to
apply ambidextrous
leadership.
• School leaders need to
cultivate an innovative
organizational mission.
• Leaders of innovative
schools must believe in
their own agency to
persist through
difficulty.
• Leaders of innovative
schools must take
ownership of their role
in fostering innovation
through locus, stability,
and controllability.
• The organization needs to
demonstrate the value of
innovation by providing
autonomy for leaders to
implement innovative school-
wide practices.
• The organization needs to
remove bureaucratic barriers to
innovation.
• The organization needs to
invest in the growth,
development, and networking
of leaders of innovative
schools.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders ’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to present a tentative model that informs the
design of a study by depicting the interrelationships between theories (Maxwell, 2013). This
study seeks to advance the base of knowledge (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) of the needs of school
leaders to equip them to drive innovation within the organizational context of magnet and charter
schools. A review of literature on innovation combined with the author’s practical experience
and thought experiments (Maxwell, 2013) informed the narrowing of assumed influences to
explore in the study.
The basis of this conceptual framework is the interaction of organizational conditions
with stakeholder knowledge and motivation described by Clark and Estes (2008) that impact the
61
organizational goal of innovation in magnet and charter schools. Although potential knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences are distinct categories, they do not function in isolation
(Clark & Estes, 2008). For example, leaders are motivated by attribution of their role in
fostering innovation in an organization. When the organization demonstrates value of the
leaders’ work in innovation by providing autonomy and removing barriers, motivation to meet
the organizational goal of providing innovative schools is perpetuated. Conversely, if an
organization expects the leader to be motivated to innovate yet fails to provide the conditions to
do so, the leader will become de-motivated. Similarly, the motivated leader must have the
factual and procedural knowledge of existing policies and procedures to find areas of flexibility
to exercise the organizationally-given autonomy to innovate to meet the goal of creating
innovative schools.
The selection of each element in the figure is based on evidence from the literature. The
figure begins with organizational conditions that include two cultural settings and one cultural
model. The cultural model is to demonstrate value of innovation through granting magnet and
charter schools the autonomy to innovate. The selection of this model is based on the research of
Preston et al. (2012) that points to the critical nature of autonomy as an organizational condition
for innovation. The first cultural setting actualizes the model of providing autonomy through the
removal of bureaucratic barriers to innovation. The second cultural setting is to invest in the
growth, development, and networking of leaders of innovative schools. Leaders who are
expected to innovate have a unique mission that requires a unique skill set (Dyer et al., 2008).
As such, the organization needs to provide them with a customized approach to professional
growth. Scholars posit that leaders need strong factual, procedural, conceptual, and
metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011) to drive innovation. School leaders
62
must be ambidextrous leaders in their use of conceptual and metacognitive knowledge cultivate
an organizational mission of innovation. The motivation influence of attribution was selected
based on Bandura’s (2000) work that points to the critical nature of motivation to persist through
barriers. There are many barriers to innovation in public education. As such, leaders must
couple self-efficacy with positive attribution to maintain the level of motivation necessary to lead
their schools to meet the organizational goal of meeting criteria for innovative schools. Figure 1
provides a visual representation of the interconnection of the organizational, knowledge, and
motivation influences on the organizational goal of ensuring that schools meet criteria for
innovation.

63

Figure 1. Conceptual framework: interaction of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on innovation.

Figure 1 depicts the relationship between the components of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on the school leaders who are working toward the organizational goal
of creating innovative schools. The blue circle represents WISD’s cultural model and settings
that influence the effectiveness of magnet and charter schools’ ability to effectively meet the goal
64
in the gold box at the bottom of the page of providing innovative school choices. Magnet and
charter school leaders’ ability to innovate in their schools is dependent on their factual,
procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge as described in the green circle on the left.
Additionally, school leaders’ ability to meet the organizational goal of innovative schools is
influenced by leader motivation as described in the green circle on the right. The green circles
and blue organizational cultural models and settings box are all connected by two-way arrows
that indicate the reciprocal relationship between knowledge, motivation, and organizational
conditions necessary to connect the organization to the goal of supporting leaders of innovative
schools that is denoted by the blue one-way arrow from the blue circle to the gold box. As a
whole, this tentative conceptual framework demonstrates that leader’s knowledge and motivation
must be developed concurrently with organizational conditions to meet the goal of innovative
magnet and charter schools.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to assess the needs of magnet and charter school leaders to
improve their implementation of innovation in K–12 public education. The need for innovation
in education through the lens of global and economic equity emerged through the literature
review. This literature review explored the similarities and distinctions between organizational
change, improvement, and innovation. The review included specific literature on applied
educational innovation through school choice in the form of magnets and charters. In addition,
the literature provided an overview of assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors in public education that are needed for choice school leaders to attain innovative schools.
The next chapter presents the study’s methodological approach in detail.

65
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this improvement model study was to identify charter and magnet school
leaders’ knowledge and motivation gaps and organizational barriers to the goal of innovation
implementation in schools of choice. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework provided
the guiding framework for this study. The research topic combines descriptive and process
question types (McEwan & McEwan, 2003) to identify innovative school leaders’ needs and
form recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. A
complete needs analysis would focus on all stakeholders, including district personnel and
teachers. For practical purposes, the stakeholder of focus in this analysis is magnet and charter
school leaders. As such, the questions that guided this study follow:
1. What knowledge and motivation must charter and magnet school leaders apply to lead
innovative schools?
2. What is the interaction between a public school district and school leaders’ knowledge
and motivation to foster innovation in their charter or magnet school?
Methodological Approach and Rationale
A mixed-methods design allowed the researcher to collect multiple types of data to
inform a comprehensive understanding (Creswell, 2018) of the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) that impact leaders of innovation. This design
allowed the researcher to collect and interpret a rich and varied data set collected through
quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to answer the research questions (Creswell,
2018). The concurrent model (Creswell, 2018) utilized quantitative survey data from charter and
magnet school principals and qualitative interview questions to generate breadth and depth in the
66
study. Survey and interview questions were constructed based on the review of the literature on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that foster leadership of innovative
organizations. The deductive process of quantitative survey analysis (Creswell, 2018) coupled
with the inductive process of the qualitative methodology (McEwan & McEwan, 2003) through
interviews generated a comprehensive data set to inform substantive recommendations.
Scholarly literature on innovation in magnet and charter schools is often contradictory.
Very little research exists on the specific needs of leaders of innovative schools in comparison
with traditional school leaders in public schools of choice. This study sought to apply seminal
works on innovation to the school choice setting and distinguish the support for leaders of
innovation from those of change and improvement. The selection of a mixed-methods design
enabled the researcher to draw meaningful conclusions that inform concrete recommendations.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was comprised of the 50 magnet and charter
school leaders of a subset of schools with the organizational autonomy and public expectation to
ensure their schools are authentically innovative. This study used intra-method mixing
(Creswell, 2018) to obtain a comprehensive data set that included quantitative and qualitative
data to inform understanding the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of school
leaders to foster innovation in their schools of choice. A quantitative survey combined with
qualitative interviews provided insight into the research questions and informed
recommendations. A nested approach defined the two components of the study, as the entire
population of magnet and charter leaders were surveyed and a sub-set of the population were
interviewed (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). The quantitative survey results were collected in
the same time period as the qualitative interview protocol is executed, making the time
67
orientation concurrent (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). The nested approach coupled with the
concurrent time period results in a mixed sampling design called nested concurrent (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015).
School Leader Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The following criteria were used to determine the stakeholder population.
Criterion 1. The survey included all magnet school leaders in WISD. The N of the
group is 19, which provides a manageable number of responses. Magnet school leaders have the
unique challenge to innovate in the traditional school district setting and are key to understanding
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational conditions required for leaders to innovate in the
public school context.
Criterion 2. The survey was a census (Johnson & Christensen, 2015) of all charter
leaders in WISD-authorized schools. The N of charter leaders is 31. Charter school leaders have
some additional autonomy beyond magnet school principals due to the independent nature of
school governance, yet are still held to the state accountability measures of traditional public
schools. The perspective of charter leaders on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
conditions for innovative schools is foundational to answering the research questions and
forming recommendations.
School Leader Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The quantitative survey sought to include data from as many magnet and charter leaders
as possible. Based on Johnson and Christensen’s (2015) recommendation to use the entire
population when the N is 50 or less, a census approach was used to study each individual in the
population. Thus, all magnet and charter leaders were included in the survey. As such,
generalizing the data to the entire population was implicit (Johnson & Christensen, 2015;
68
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A survey of all leaders gave the most comprehensive data to inform
recommendations based on the interaction between a public school district, school culture and
context, and school leaders’ knowledge and motivation to foster innovation in their charter or
magnet school. The survey took place at the beginning of the study. Recruitment of the entire
population to participate formed the basis of a comprehensive data set.
Recruitment began by sending all 50 school leaders the initial request for participation in
the survey via professional email addresses that are publicly available on websites. The email
described the purpose of the study; assured confidentiality of the individual participants, their
schools, and the school district; described how the data would be used; and detailed the estimated
amount of time needed to complete the survey. The University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval letter was attached in the email. Additionally,
WISD’s research review board’s approval was attached. Following the first email, an email with
a link to the survey was sent through Qualtrics. Since the survey was anonymous, participants
could not be identified for personal thanks. The survey remained open for six weeks, with four
reminders with the survey link sent through Qualtrics to unfinished respondents. Two additional
emails were sent to all leaders that expressed gratitude to those who had completed and
reminding those who had not to check for the Qualtrics email. After the survey was closed, a
thank you email was sent to all invitees.
School Leader Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
A purposeful sample of school leaders that represents maximum variation from both
charter and magnet schools was identified using the following criteria.
Criterion 1. All 50 magnet and charter school leaders comprise the sample.

69
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Purposive sampling (Johnson & Christensen, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) was used
to identify the characteristics of the stakeholders for the study and locate participants who match
the desired characteristics to assure in-depth understanding. Mixed purposeful sampling
combines more than one sampling strategy (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). The interview quota
was comprised of a non-random sample to ensure that diverse perspectives inform
recommendations for knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to support leaders in
developing innovative schools. Interviewees were a subset of the school leaders who were
surveyed, and the interviews were conducted while the school leader survey was open.
Johnson and Christensen (2015) describe an element as a unit of selection from a
population. School leaders were selected for interviews based on elements of school type
(charter/magnet), school enrollment (increasing, stagnant, decreasing), and the state-assigned
school rating (A–F). A sampling frame that includes the above elements (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015) was used to select interview participants. The quota sampling strategy was
used to ensure that maximum variation was represented in the qualitative interviews. Six
interviewees were selected to comprise the following characteristics.
Two leaders with 1 to 3 years of experience, two leaders with 4 to 6 years of experience,
and two leaders with 7 or more years of experience were selected to interview. The in-depth
perspective of new and experienced leaders brought depth of insight into addressing the research
questions and informed meaningful recommendations. Second, leaders from schools that
represent a variety of enrollment were selected. One leader’s school had an increasing
enrollment trend, three schools were flat, and two had a declining enrollment trend. The
perspective of leaders from schools of different enrollment patterns yielded a variety of
70
information applicable to the research questions. Finally, interview participants were selected
based on student achievement as represented by the state-assigned school ranking. Student
achievement varies in WISD’s charter and magnet schools and thus offers a rich variety of
perspectives to answer the research questions and inform recommendations. All interview
participants fulfilled three distinct categories. Interviews were conducted until the saturation
point where no more new information was forthcoming (Johnson & Christensen, 2015; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).
Recruitment of school leaders for interviews began with the same initial email as the
survey that introduced the purpose of the study; assured confidentiality of the individual
participants, their schools, and the school district; and described how the data would be used.
About three days after the initial email, selected leaders were contacted by phone to invite them
to participate in an interview. All agreed to participate. The location for the interview was
established by the interviewee. All interview participants invited the researcher to conduct the
interview at the school site. School leaders received an email confirmation prior to the scheduled
interview. Interview questions were provided to the participant before the interview to allow for
time to prepare to the extent the participant desired.
Explanation for Choices
This mixed-methods study used quantitative survey and qualitative interview data
collection methods to ensure deep insight into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
conditions necessary to support charter and magnet school leaders to achieve the goal of
innovation in their schools of choice. The data collection method choices provided a robust data
set to answer the research questions regarding the knowledge and motivation of charter and
magnet school leaders and corresponding organizational conditions for innovation. Additionally,
71
data from surveys and interviews enabled the researcher to define the interaction between a
public school district, school culture and context, and school leaders’ knowledge and motivation
to foster innovation in their charter or magnet school. Finally, the dual data collection methods
informed the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to support
leaders in developing innovative schools.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
A well-executed mixed-methods study analyzes multiple types of data to inform a
comprehensive understanding (Creswell, 2018). In this study, both qualitative interviews and
quantitative surveys were used to collect a comprehensive data to answer the research questions
(Creswell, 2018).
Interviews
Qualitative interviews provided in-depth insight into the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on magnet and charter school leaders as they promote innovation in
their schools of choice. Interviews provided access to the experiences of others, provided
detailed descriptions, and allowed the researcher access to multiple perspectives (Weiss, 1994).
The variety of perspectives from a representative sample of magnet and charter leaders were
essential to answer the research questions and directly informed subsequent recommendations.
Interview protocol. The interview protocol was semi-structured with a predetermined
list of 12 questions that included flexible follow-up questions and probes (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Questions were designed to assess the assumed influences on the leadership development
needs of magnet and charter schools and were aligned to the research questions and conceptual
framework of the study. Patton’s question types, including experience and behavior, opinion and
values, feelings, knowledge, and sensory were included in the protocol (2002). Additionally,
72
Strauss, Schatzman, Bucher, and Sabshin’s (1981) question types of hypothetical, devil’s
advocate, and ideal position were embedded to deepen insight. Knowledge questions were
categorized by Krathwohl’s (2002) knowledge types of factual, procedural, conceptual, and
metacognitive as they relate to innovative school leadership. Questions designed to learn about
leaders’ motivation were informed by Rueda (2011) and Clark and Estes’ (2008) description of
self-efficacy and attribution. Organizational model and settings questions incorporated Patton’s
(2002) experience and behavior question types and Strauss et al.’s (1981) hypothetical and ideal
position question types. The semi-structured model of interview allowed the researcher to ask
for clarification and to follow up on potentially significant markers the participant may express.
Interview procedures. For practical purposes, interviews were conducted in the same
time frame as the survey was administered. Six interviews were conducted and lasted from 50 to
90 minutes. The total amount of time for interviews was approximately eight hours. Each
interview included a set of 12 questions with follow-up questions and probes. Six interviews
were conducted. Interviews continued until saturation was reached, meaning that no more new
data were provided (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviewees determined the location. Interviews
were scheduled at a time convenient for the interviewee. The comfort and convenience of
interviewees who gave of their valuable time was prioritized in location and scheduling.
Interviews were audio recorded by cell phone using Otter with the permission from the
participant. Notes were taken throughout the interview using a pen and notebook. Following the
interview, the recordings and transcriptions were carefully checked and compared with notes to
ensure accuracy of the transcription.

73
Data Analysis
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommend beginning the analysis process immediately
following the first interview. The same day of each interview, the audio file was listened to and
the transcript cleaned for any digital transcription errors. Interview notes helped to clarify the
few instances that background noise made several words in an audio file inaudible. Analytic
memos were written in the margins of the notebook. Each transcript was then placed in one
column of a two-column document. Transcripts were read and in-vivo coding (Corbin & Strauss,
2008) performed in the other column in the document. Throughout the in-vivo coding process,
constant comparison (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) was used as an analytic tool to identify
similarities and differences between each new transcript. Questioning as an analytic tool (Corbin
& Strauss, 2008) was used throughout the initial readings and coding to deeply consider the
intended meaning behind each interviewee’s words, explore the researchers assumptions, and
home in on key concepts. In-vivo codes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) were entered into a
spreadsheet with one column for each interviewee. The first column was used to label and
correspondingly color code categories of in-vivo codes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) across all six
interviews. The second column was used to note the interview number that the category was
present in. This configuration, with one sheet for each interview question, provided a visual of
themes and typicality across all six interviews. Transcripts organized by question were then re-
read in NVivo and illustrative direct quotes were selected to provide clarity of each theme in the
voice of the participants in Chapter 4.
Quantitative analysis was assisted by Qualtrics. Reports for each question that gave the
frequencies, central tendency, range, and standard deviation for each question as applicable to
question type were pulled. Additionally, reports were generated filtered by sub-populations,
74
including magnet, charter, and all three leader experience levels. The subsequent analysis and
comparison of each data set informed a deeper understanding of participants (Johnson &
Christensen, 2015). Very few survey items were skipped, but in the cases where that occurred
the results were noted as missing one participant and the statistical results were analyzed based
on responses provided.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Establishing credibility and trustworthiness ensure that rigorous research produces
internally generalizable data (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative research
casts the researcher in the role of instrument (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As
such, the greatest sources of threat to the integrity of the data is researcher bias in interpreting
data coupled with the potential influence of the researcher on the process (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Specific strategies to minimize bias and influence were deployed in
each stage of the study, including study design, instrument design, data collection, data analysis,
and reporting phases as follows.
The study design utilized a purposeful sampling strategy known as, “maximum variation”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to mitigate bias and influence through intentionally soliciting diverse
and potentially conflicting perspectives. Triangulating interview data across individuals with
diverse perspectives with qualitative survey data increased credibility of the study (Maxwell,
2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview protocol was semi-structured with a
predetermined list of 12 questions that included flexible follow-up questions and probes
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, the researcher followed Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016)
suggestion to review and analyze the interview data after each interview.
75
During data collection, the researcher mitigated inherent biases by member checking.
The researcher summarized her understanding of the participant’s answers to the questions and
asked the participant to confirm or clarify (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The recordings and
transcripts of the interviews were supplemented with low-inference field notes (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Recordings were listened to in entirety and transcripts reviewed to
ensure accuracy of the transcription within one day of each interview. A sufficient number of
interviews were conducted to reach saturation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Data were coded and
categorized for inductive analysis with software assistance (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Reporting and recommendations include rich, thick descriptions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016) of the interview data to validate conclusions and increase transparency. Peer review
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) occurred throughout the process to support the researcher to identify
and correct bias and influence throughout the process of instrument development, interview
protocol design, conducting the interviews, analyzing the data, and reporting the data. These
mitigation strategies supported the goal of obtaining internally generalizable data to inform
recommendations (Maxwell, 2013).
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
Surveys were an efficient method to obtain data directly from all 50 magnet and charter
school leaders regarding their perceptions of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on their innovation work. Survey data were analyzed in tandem with interview data to
triangulate data sources.
Survey Instrument
The survey had 24 items, many with multiple subsections for a total of 54 clicks. Survey
items included ordinal, nominal, and ratio scales (Salkind, 2017). Survey questions were brief,
76
concise, and contain one question per item. This design allowed the participant to move
efficiently through the survey protocol and reduce survey fatigue. The survey took between 11
and 13 minutes to compete.
Survey procedures. Prior to survey administration, the survey was field tested and
revised based on feedback about wording clarity, scale alignment, and flow. Surveys were
administered concurrently with the interviews to allow for timely completion of the data
collection and subsequent analysis. The organizational context of the survey was considered
(Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). As such, most survey questions for magnet and charter
school leaders were identical. However, the questions related to autonomy for innovation were
crafted in the context of each school type because magnet and charter schools have different
governance structures and different autonomies. The survey was self-administered digitally
using Qualtrics. Participants are exceptionally busy professionals and were very experienced
with online survey tools. An online survey accommodated participants’ schedules and likely
contributed to the high response rate. Survey questions addressed each assumed influence on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational conditions that leaders of innovative schools face.
Validity and Reliability
The validity of quantitative research instruments refers to the ability to measure the
intended constructs, and reliability refers to the consistency of the instrument in producing the
intended results over multiple administrations (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Steps to
assure the rigor of the survey instrument addressed potential sources of error and that could have
threatened validity and reliability (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). While the survey was not
psychometrically tested, due diligence to ensure the integrity of the data was conducted through
the development of a standardized survey instrument, including expert consultation on content
77
and format. The sample consisted of a census all 50 magnet principals and charter school
leaders. The overall response rate of 84% met the threshold to ensure that the results are
generalizable to the local population. Response rates were monitored and reminder emails sent
four times during the survey window. The standardized survey instrument was developed with
an adequate number of items and accompanying standardized instructions to increase internal
reliability were provided (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). Expert consultation with WISD’s
internal survey expert and a field test with a former magnet principal and charter leader increased
the validity of the content and construct of the instrument and ensured that survey items and
response choices were clear (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019).
Ethics
The intent of this study was to contribute to the body of knowledge of the needs of school
leaders to apply innovation in public magnet and charter schools. As such, the first priority was
to ensure that the leaders of magnet and charter schools who participated in the study were
protected throughout data collection, analysis, and reporting activities. This study followed
ethical procedures to ensure that participants are protected from any potential harm (Glesne,
2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The study was reviewed and approved
by the IRB at the University of Southern California prior to the start of any research activity.
Additionally, the study was reviewed and approved by WISD’s research review board. The
following paragraphs detail the ethical considerations of the study, including processes for
informed consent, the researcher’s relationship with participants, confidentiality, and the
researcher’s assumptions and biases.
Prior to participation in any research activities, survey participants in the anonymous
survey received a fact sheet stating the purpose of the study, how the data would be used,
78
assurance that the participation was voluntary and may be withdrawn at any time, an explanation
of any potential benefits and risks of participation, and assurances of confidentiality and security
of data storage (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Leaders who
participated in the interview portion of the study received a paper copy of the fact sheet.
The informed consent documents specifically included the following seven elements.
First, the informed consent document stated that the purpose of the study was to advance
innovation in public schools of choice by assessing the needs of charter and magnet school
leaders to drive innovation in their schools. Second, documents explained that data from the
surveys and interviews were used to inform recommendations for school districts that strive to
support their schools of choice. Third, documents stated that participation was completely
voluntary and can be withdrawn at any time. As such, no coercive techniques such as incentives
were provided to participate or continue. Fourth, the potential benefit of participation was the
opportunity to inform the body of research on innovation in public education. Fifth, potential
risks might include emotional or psychological discomfort. Sixth, the informed consent
documents stated that survey data were anonymous, and interview data would be securely stored
with password protection and identified information separate from interview notes and
transcripts. Finally, the consent form and fact sheet explained clearly the commitment of the
researcher to use the data only in unidentifiable form for the purpose of the study.
Researchers must apply the highest standard of ethics with an intentional awareness of
the impact of the researcher’s positionality related to the participants (Qin, 2016). In this study,
the researcher and participant relationship was not defined by supervisory structure. However,
the researcher’s organizational position was one of influence as part of the superintendent’s
leadership team. Additionally, the researcher was a magnet school principal prior to the
79
executive director role and has the background of collegial relationships with some of the study
participants. The role of advocate best describes the relationship both as a researcher and in the
organization, as the executive director’s role is to advance innovation in the district and
community (Glesne, 2011). The researcher’s organizational role in relationship to the
participants is not one that would cause a participant to provide information for any purpose
other than to inform the study. The researcher is not a supervisor and does not evaluate the
participants.
Confidentiality throughout the study was emphasized so that participants were clear that
their contributions were used only for the study and not for any other purpose within the
organization. Specifically, participants were assured that their insights would not be shared with
their supervisors or other internal or external individuals or organizations. The researcher was
very intentional to convey no pressure or appearance of pressure (Rubin & Rubin, 2012) and
emphasized the reciprocity of the researcher/participant relationship (Glesne, 2011) in the
context of mutual goal to advance innovation in public education.
The researcher recognized assumptions and biases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
researcher assumed that all school leaders are committed to moving their schools toward the goal
of providing school-wide innovative approaches to education. Further, the researcher assumed
that the school leaders participated in the study to inform the larger body of knowledge. Biases
included the perspective of a former magnet school leader who has experienced the challenges
and rewards of developing an innovative school-wide model that resulted in enrollment growth
and academic success. Every effort was made to ensure that a no-judgement tone was established
in the study. Another bias stems from long-range relationships with some of the study
participants. The researcher was highly aware at all times of the inherent imbalance of power
80
between the researcher and participants and provided reminders of privacy assurances (Glesne,
2011).
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are sources of weakness in the study that the researcher is unable to control
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A key limitation was the high number of new charter and leaders
after a several years of heavy turnover. The disproportionate number of new leaders may have
impacted the survey results, although the interviewees were balanced across levels of experience.
Another potential limitation may have been in the positionality of the researcher relationship.
Although the researcher does not supervise the school leaders, some participants may have an
inflated perception of the researcher as in a position of influence within the organization. The
potential exists that the relationship may have influenced some respondents’ survey and
interview answers.
Delimitations are decisions that the researcher makes that can impact the study (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The design and implementation of this study had several delimitations. First,
the study did not include document analysis. This data component would have proven very
useful and informative in validating survey and interview data. Second, the study did not include
observations. A more comprehensive approach would have enabled the researcher to gather
first-hand observation of leadership behaviors in action to further validate the survey and
interview data. Additional delimitations included the concurrent collection of survey and
interview data and the decision to only study the leaders of the magnet and charter schools
instead of including teachers and district personnel. The survey response rates were adequate for
generalization to the local population, but the study’s findings may not be applicable to a larger
population outside of the context of WISD.
81
Chapter 4 provides an analysis of the data in relation to the research questions and
assumed influences.

82
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This purpose of this study was to explore factors that influence innovative leadership and
provide recommendations to improve conditions for innovation in magnet and charter schools.
Assumed influences are categorized under KMO challenges. The results and findings of the
study will be presented by each influence under the KMO framework. A mixed-methods
approach was used to gather data to inform the gap analysis. Qualitative interviews of a
purposeful sample of school leaders and a quantitative survey of a census sample of all magnet
and charter school leaders in WISD were completed to validate the assumed influences. Survey
responses were collected in the same six-week period as the interviews were conducted to adhere
to the time constraints of the study.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus consists of 19 magnet school principals and 31 leaders of
charter schools authorized by WISD. The entire population of magnet and charter leaders were
invited to participate in the survey. A sub-set of the population was invited to participate in an
interview to provide maximum variation of perspectives. The quantitative survey results were
collected in the fall of the 2019–20 school year, and qualitative interviews were conducted in the
same time frame. The following section describes the characteristics of survey participants,
followed by a description of the interview participants.
Survey Participants
The study sought to include a wide perspective of all school leaders. Therefore, the
survey was sent to a census sample of all 19 magnet principals and all 31 charter school leaders
in WISD. An email stating the purpose of the study that included the USC IRB form and WISD
research board form was sent, followed by a second email with a direct link to the survey
83
through Qualtrics. The survey was open for six weeks, and several reminders were sent. Forty-
two of the 50 magnet and charter school leaders responded to the survey, yielding a participation
rate of 84%. Seventeen of 19 magnet school principals, or 89%, responded. Twenty-five of 31
charter leaders responded, which was 80% of the charter leaders. Table 7 displays the number of
schools, respondents, and percentage of respondents.
Table 7
Survey Respondents by School Type
School Type Number of
Schools
Number of Survey
Respondents
% of Survey
Respondents
Total Charter and Magnet

50 42 84%
Magnet

19 17 89%
Charter 31 25 80%

Sixty percent of survey respondents are charter leaders, and 40% are magnet principals,
as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Percentage of Respondents by School Type

84
Survey participants represent the continuum of new through experienced school leaders.
Nineteen survey respondents are currently in their first through third year of service. Eight
respondents are in years 4 through 6, and 15 have 7 or more years of experience as a school
leader. Ten survey respondents are in the first year of principalship at their school. Table 8
displays the experience of survey respondents.
Table 8
Total Years of Experience at Current School of Survey Participants
Years of Experience Number of Leaders
1-3 Years School Leader
Experience

19
4-6 Years School Leader
Experience

8
7+ Years School Leader
Experience
15

The number of charter survey respondents represented a bimodal pattern of levels of
experience, with 11 in year 1–3 and 11 in year 7+, with only 3 in years 4–6. In contrast, magnet
school respondents are less experienced, with 8 in years 1–2, 5 in years 4–6, and 4 in year 7+.
Survey respondents Table 9 displays the experience of survey respondents by school type.

85
Table 9
Number of Survey Participants by Years of Experience and School Type
Years of Experience Number of Magnet
Leaders
Number of Charter
Leaders
1–3 Years School Leader
Experience

8 11
4–6 Years School Leader
Experience

5 3
7+ Years School Leader
Experience
4 11

Survey respondents represent the continuum of elementary, middle, and high school. The
survey items allowed more than one response since some schools serve multiple levels. Table 10
shows respondents by level.
Table 10
Number of Survey Participants by School Level
School Level Number of Respondents
Elementary

17
Middle

15
High 24

The representation of school types, experience of school leaders, and school level assure that the
survey data reflects a variety of leadership perspectives.
Interview Participants
To ensure the qualitative data reflected the various subgroups within the larger
stakeholder grouping, interview participants were selected based on school characteristics and
86
years of experience to maximize diversity of perspectives. A quota sampling strategy was used to
select six interview participants that represented maximum variation. Interviewees were selected
based on school type, school enrollment trend, state-assigned school letter grade, and years of
experience. Table 11 displays the characteristics of schools and the number of interviewees that
represent each characteristic.
Table 11
School Characteristic Representation
School Characteristic Number of Leaders
Interviewed
Charter 3
Magnet 3
Increasing Enrollment Trend 1
Flat Enrollment Trend 3
Declining Enrollment Trend 2
State Letter Grade “A” 2
State Letter Grade “B” 1
State Letter Grade “C” 1
State Letter Grade “F” 2

School leaders with different types of experience bring different perspectives to the
research questions. The study sought to represent leaders with a variety of levels of experience,
displayed in Table 12.

87
Table 12
Leader Experience Representation
Leader Experience Number of Leaders
Interviewed
1–3 Years School Leader
Experience

2
4–7 Years School Leader
Experience

2
7+ Years School Leader
Experience
2

Six school leaders participated in interviews. Each leader represented a category of
school type, enrollment trend, school letter grade, and experience level. In this way, multiple
perspectives are reflected in the data.
Determination of Assets and Needs
Data sources for the study include a survey and interviews. Interview data and survey
data were collected in alignment with the KMO influence tables in Chapter Two. All six
interviews were triangulated with one another. Interviews were conducted until saturation was
reached, evidenced by firmly established patterns and themes in the data that were consistent
across interviews.
The criterion to categorize quantitative data as an asset is 70%, based on a sample size of
50 and a response rate of 84%. Survey questions were constructed in alignment with the
assumed influences to streamline the survey experience for participants. From a practical
standpoint, if 70% of leaders indicate an influence as an asset, the strategy to support the 30% in
meeting organizational goals would be through individual work. If less than 70% of respondents
indicate a need, the need is categorized as systemic rather than individual. Interview data are
88
categorized as strength or need based on a minimum of four participants demonstrating
agreement. In situations where charter and magnet leaders provide conflicting data and both
groups do not indicate as influence is an asset, the influence is categorized as a need.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
School leaders must demonstrate factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge types to meet organizational goals. The organizational goal for this study is for
leaders to implement an innovative and high-quality approach that results in attracting a diverse
student body that reflects the WISD community. Potential gaps in knowledge must be identified
and addressed to support leaders in meeting their goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). This section
explores the leader’s demonstrated knowledge of how to cultivate an innovative organizational
mission. Next, procedural and metacognitive knowledge of ambidextrous leadership as applied
to leading innovation in public education is then presented. Results and findings are reported
using the knowledge categories and assumed causes for each category.
Research Question 1
What knowledge and motivation must charter and magnet school leaders apply to lead
innovative schools?
Factual and Conceptual Knowledge
Cultivate an innovative organizational mission. Factual knowledge is information that
is foundational to function effectively and solve problems, including terminology and details
(Krathwohl, 2002). Survey participants demonstrated factual knowledge by selecting
innovations from a list that describe how their school is uniquely innovative compared to a
traditional neighborhood school. Additionally, survey participants demonstrated factual
knowledge by selecting from a list, or writing in, the stated purpose of their schools’ innovation.
89
Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011) define conceptual knowledge as the generalization of
interconnected relationships among principles, concepts, theories, models, and structures in a
discipline. Interview participants were asked to demonstrate conceptual knowledge through
generating a robust description of their own schools’ innovative approach. The next sections
describe survey results and interview findings in factual and conceptual knowledge categories as
they relate to cultivating an innovative school mission.
Survey results. School leaders were asked to identify the ways their school is uniquely
innovative compared with traditional neighborhood schools from a list. The list included the
option, “My school is not different from traditional neighborhood schools.” Only three of the 42
school leaders selected this option. This indicates that 93% of the leaders surveyed were able to
identify at least one way their school is innovative, representing an asset. Leaders could select
multiple responses. Table 13 shows the frequency of each response choice, categorized by
culture, instruction, structure, and environmental components of innovative schools.
Table 13
Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of Innovative School Components
Identified school innovation Selection frequency
Culture Innovation Components
School culture 34
Approach to teacher’s professional
development 28
Instructional Innovation Components
Curriculum 31
Pedagogical/Instructional approach 33
Instructional materials/equipment 16

90
Table 13, continued
Identified school innovation Selection frequency
Structural Innovation Components
Grade level configuration 8
Daily schedule 23
School year calendar 15
Grouping of students 20
Class sizes 25
Staffing patterns 10
Governance 12
Environmental Innovation Components
Innovative industry/community partnerships 23

The survey results provide ample evidence that 39 of the 42 school leaders are able to
identify specific innovative components, indicating a strength in factual knowledge.
Survey participants demonstrate factual knowledge through identifying the stated purpose
of their school’s innovative approach. Two of the 42 respondents, or 5%, indicate that their
school does not have a stated purpose of innovation. The other 95% selected multiple purposes
of their school’s innovation from a list. Table 14 shows the frequency of each response choice.
Table 14
Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of Stated Purpose for School Innovation
Stated purpose of school innovation Selection frequency
Reduce achievement gaps 14
Increase student learning 33
Establish a diverse student body 14
Offer opportunities that aren’t available in
comprehensive schools

30
Prepare students to fulfill workforce needs 14
Other* 12
* “Other” comments: first generation college bound and civic engagement, work with high-risk or high-
promise students, transition successfully into the community, older/suspended/expelled students, global
approach, building relationships, serve the students that need it most, language revitalization, credit
recovery/content mastery, drop-out recovery, prepare students with college and career readiness skills

91
Interview findings. All six school leaders demonstrated conceptual knowledge in the rich
descriptions of their schools’ innovative mission. School leaders demonstrated their conceptual
knowledge of the intertwined nature of their school’s innovation through the interaction of four
categories that emerged through the interviews: culture, instruction, structure, and environment.
All six interviewees described their school’s innovative mission through a culture shaped
by a common focus. For example, interviewee #3 described the school’s recently established
mission of innovation: “So, it’s all about building a culture of learning. We say [our mission]
over announcements in the morning, every day, so the kids know and they’re in that mindset
every day.” Through engaging the entire building in focusing on the mission daily, this leader
builds a culture of innovation. In contrast, Interviewee #5 describes a less explicit approach to
building a mission of innovation:
Culture of the school [is] that sense of accountability and responsibility to each other, and
to themselves, and to the faculty and staff that work here. It isn’t about what policies we
have. It’s really about creating this dynamic learning environment that everybody
understands they have a role in, and they participate.
While less explicit in leveraging a specific mission statement to cultivate an innovative culture,
this leader clearly articulates the essence of the school’s collective culture.
All six leaders interviewed demonstrated their conceptual knowledge of applied
innovation to the instructional practices of the school. Leaders enthusiastically described their
instructional innovation through school-wide practices that engage students in authentic learning
experiences. The necessity of school-wide integrity to the instructional model was described by
Interviewee #1: “In a school of choice, different from a comprehensive school, there’s an
expectation that there is consistency around the instructional model that’s being used at the
92
school from everyone.” This leader underscores the necessity of maintaining the integrity of the
school’s instructional design in every classroom. Instructional design is evident in innovative
student’s learning products. Writing letters, giving oral presentations, and community projects
were mentioned specifically by multiple leaders. Interviewees demonstrated solid knowledge
through describing specific examples of innovative instructional practice. Knowledge of
innovative instructional practices is paramount for leaders to cultivate an innovative school
mission.
Leaders described the expression of their school’s mission through innovative structures.
For example, leaders pointed to the multiage class configurations and small school size to foster
personalization as examples of innovation. Interviewee #4 stated, “The whole setup is very
different than a traditional school, with small classrooms and not just two grades but three grades
together.” This school leader contrasted the innovation of small, multiage classrooms with the
traditional approach of single-age classes. This leader expressed the structural innovation of
multiage classes as a flexible response to varying developmental needs of students within a wider
age range.
Five of the six school leaders demonstrated knowledge of the school’s physical
environment as an important factor in the innovative approach. Inside environmental drivers of
innovation include classrooms without doors, non-traditional seating arrangements, student work
stations, and classrooms set up for collaboration. Leaders also discussed the use of the outdoors
as a driver of an innovative mission, such as natural resources in the immediate area of the
school building as well as cultural resources in the local and state environment.
All six school leaders demonstrated strong factual and conceptual knowledge of their
schools’ innovative mission. Each leader was able to describe the aspects of their school that are
93
innovative and explain the way the various aspects are interconnected. Based on the interviews,
conceptual and factual knowledge present as assets.
Procedural Knowledge
Cultivate an innovative organizational mission. Procedural knowledge is the
knowledge of how to do something and requires general or subject-specific skill and technique
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge includes knowledge of criteria for when
and how to apply specific procedures to accomplish a goal (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
School leaders demonstrate procedural knowledge through using systems and strategies to
cultivate an innovative school mission. To assess procedural knowledge, survey participants
were asked if they have a written implementation plan for the school’s innovation. If so, leaders
indicated the frequency of review of the written plan with the school leadership team. Interview
participants were asked to describe their strategies to support teachers to implement the
innovative school mission.
Survey results. To measure procedural knowledge, school leaders were asked if they
have a written plan for implementation of their school-wide innovative approach. The knowledge
of the existence of a written plan is one indicator of the knowledge necessary to cultivate an
innovative mission. Seventy-one percent of school leaders responded that their school has a
written plan, indicating an asset. Regular review of the written plan with the organization’s
leadership team is another demonstration of procedural knowledge. Fifty-five percent of school
leaders report a monthly review of the plan with their leadership team, indicating an area of need.
Having a written plan with an established procedure for ongoing review, monitoring, and
adjustment are both necessary to cultivate an organizational school mission. Merely having a
plan without the procedures for follow-through does not facilitate progress. Since having a
94
written plan and reviewing it frequently are both necessary components of procedural
knowledge, the survey data indicate procedural knowledge is an area of need.
Interview findings. All six interviewees demonstrated procedural knowledge through
their description of the complex, multi-faceted approach to support teachers to implement the
school-wide innovative approach. Interviewee #2 described a robust system wherein the
alignment between teacher’s individual goals, the school-wide learning approach, the desired
outcomes for students, and daily student learning goals drives the authentic learning.
Teacher leadership and collaboration are key components to a successful innovative
school, as described by Interviewee #1, “I want them [teacher leaders] to own the school. We
have a weekly meeting where we plan our professional development.” School leaders talked
about the importance of ongoing professional support. Onboarding new teachers, professional
learning communities, and teacher collaboration were highlighted as critical to innovation. Most
school leaders discussed the importance of maintaining clear expectations, support, and
accountability for the school-wide focus with all staff. Similarly, Interviewee # 5 observed the
necessity for structure for collaboration within the context of an innovative school mission: “a lot
of it is just putting the structures in place so that the teachers can be successful. Most of the
teachers here were drawn here because of this mission.” Several leaders noted the damaging
effects of failure to collectively maintain the expectations, support, and accountability for the
school culture and for students if anyone is allowed to close their door and not hold up their part.
For example, interviewee #1 observed, “when somebody comes in and doesn’t do it [the school
model], it becomes a conflict and issue.”
Attending workshops and conferences is an important aspect to equip teachers to
contribute to the school’s innovative approach. Interviewee #6 has structure in place for teacher
95
leaders to share knowledge when teachers attend a conference: “they have to bring it back and
present and share with the staff in some way.” This leader demonstrates procedural knowledge
through establishing and implementing a procedure to build capacity with the whole staff when
teachers attend trainings or conferences.
A learning culture that includes the adults as well as the students is essential for a school
to be innovative. Three leaders discussed the importance of creating a safe environment for
teachers to try new things and experience the inevitable failure that accompanies innovation.
Interviewee #2 summed up the variety of approaches to supporting teachers to implement
school-wide innovation: “It’s all about building a culture of learning.”
Summary. The assumed influence that school leaders have the procedural knowledge
necessary to cultivate an innovative organizational mission was determined to be a need in the
survey results. Although more than 70% have a written plan, only 55% routinely review the
plan. Both the existence of plan and the procedure for ongoing review and implementation are
required for a plan to be effective in cultivating an organizational mission of innovation.
Interview data point to procedural knowledge through supporting teachers to implement the
innovative school mission as an asset. Procedural knowledge presented as a strength in
interviews and as a need in the presence and review of a plan in the survey. Although the data
present conflicting conclusions, procedural knowledge is categorized as a need overall, with
some strong assets to build upon to meet the need.
Procedural and Metacognitive Knowledge
Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of how to do something and requires general or
subject-specific skill and technique (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge
includes knowledge of criteria for when and how to apply specific procedures to accomplish a
96
goal (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive knowledge includes strategy and self-
awareness of cognitive processes (Krathwohl, 2002). Rueda (2011) describes metacognition as
thinking about thinking that can present as knowing when and why to consider contextual and
conditional aspects of a situation to make a decision or solve a problem. Leaders of schools with
an innovative mission must apply procedural and metacognitive knowledge through
ambidextrous leadership.
Apply ambidextrous leadership. Ambidextrous leaders use procedural knowledge to
balance visioning the future while executing today’s strategy (Probst et al., 2011). Ambidextrous
leaders use metacognitive knowledge through constant reflection and connecting seemingly
unrelated ideas to form new innovations (Dyer et al., 2011). To assess procedural and
metacognitive knowledge, survey participants indicated the impact of a variety of school
requirements on their school’s innovative approach. Survey participants were asked the
frequency of their application of Dyer et al.’s, (2011) innovators skills of experimenting,
networking, and associating as a measure of applied metacognitive knowledge. Interview
participants were asked to share the advice they would give a new school leader on how to
balance innovation with day-to-day management to gain insight into procedural and
metacognitive knowledge.
Survey results. Survey participants were asked to indicate their perspective of the impact
of required activities as a barrier to innovation, no impact on innovation, or an accelerator of
innovation. All of the requirements listed have potential to be used as accelerators of innovation.
One of the requirements came close to the 70% threshold to be considered an asset, which was
the leader’s own professional development plan at 66%. All other requirements were well below
the threshold. Survey participants demonstrated the metacognitive knowledge necessary to
97
translate requirements to accelerators of innovation from a low of 17% who use the teacher
observation rubric to accelerate innovation to a high of 54% who use instructional time to
accelerate innovation. Table 15 summarizes the responses.
Table 15
Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge of the Utility of Requirements in Innovative Schools
Requirement Barrier to
Innovation
No Impact on
Innovation
Accelerator of
Innovation
90-Day Plan 5% 54% 41%
Allocating instructional minutes/ master
schedule

19% 27% 54%
Applying State teacher observation
rubric

12% 71% 17%
The leaders’ own professional
development plan

2% 32% 66%
Charter school renewal process* 8% 50% 42%
Instructional council* 0 47% 53%
Budget allocation process 38% 25% 37%
*Denotes survey items only given to a specific sub-population, charter renewal only to charter
leaders and instructional council only to magnet leaders

It should be noted that the majority of school leaders do not see requirements as barriers.
Of note, a higher percentage of leaders with seven or more years of experience report using the
budget allocation process as an accelerator of innovation in comparison to their colleagues with
one to three years of experience. Conversely, leaders with less experience report using their
master schedule as a driver of innovation more than leaders with more experience. Nevertheless,
all requirements scored below the threshold to be categorized as an indicator of an asset in
98
procedural and metacognitive knowledge. Both procedural and metacognitive knowledge are
areas of need.
Dyer et al. (2011) describe networking, experimenting, and associating habits of
innovative leaders. All three habits require metacognitive knowledge to transfer new knowledge
that may appear at the surface to be unrelated to the work context into practice. Dyer et al.
(2011) indicate that innovators are using some combination of habits constantly. To measure
metacognitive knowledge, survey participants were asked to indicate the frequency of
engagement with three innovator’s habits: networking, experimenting, and associating. All three
areas of applied innovation generated responses that indicate that fewer than 70% of school
leaders have used each habit an average of monthly or more in the last six months. Twenty-six
percent of school leaders have been inspired or discovered a new approach to their work from
networking with someone from a non-education field an average of monthly of more. Trying an
innovative idea that they have read about was only indicated by 11% of the leaders, and 8%
indicated an average of monthly of more trying an idea from another magnet or charter leader.
Table 16 displays the responses.

99
Table 16
Metacognitive Knowledge of Application of Innovator ’s Skills
In the last six months, how many
times have you. . .
0 1–2 3–4 5–6 7 +

. . .networked with someone from a
non-education field who
inspired/informed a new approach to
your work?

11% 39% 24% 13% 13%
. . .tried an idea you read on social
media, in an article, or in a book
about innovation?

18% 37% 34% 8% 3%
. . .tried an idea you heard about from
another magnet or charter school
leader?
16% 58% 18% 0 8%

Using innovator’s skills is not a regular habit for most survey participants. Of note is the
small percentage of leaders who responded that they have not used each innovator skill at all in
the last six months. As such, the survey results indicate that metacognitive knowledge is a need.
Interview findings. Interview participants connected the duality of working in the day-
to-day management of a school with driving the innovative mission. For instance, Interviewee
#2 shared, “[innovation and day-to-day] just have to mirror each other.” This leader went on to
describe strategies for mirroring, including focusing classroom walkthrough feedback on the
innovative approach, having teachers turn in their classroom schedules to ensure the instructional
integration of theme and standards is planned, and tying in the 90-day plan. Interviewee #2
displays strong procedural knowledge in using required tasks to focus on the school-wide
innovation. The procedural and metacognitive knowledge required to actualize a school-wide
innovative approach requires ongoing and purposeful focus.
100
Interviewee #3 emphasizes the constant need for focus on ambidextrous leadership habits
to foster innovation: “Whatever the innovation is, or however you envision it for your school, it
has to be something that is built in day to day, and you’re checking in on it, and you’re engaging
others with it.” Bringing a school-wide innovative approach to full implementation requires the
role of the school leader to focus everyone’s attention daily. Without constant attention, a
focused innovative school-wide approach can quickly become expansive far beyond the intended
mission.
The tendency for mission creep is addressed in Interviewee #5’s statement, “Get really
clear on what it is that you are doing, and if there’s anything that you’re not doing so that you
can just say that up front, ‘this is a thing that we are not doing.’” Maintaining continuity within
the established model requires the leader to focus adequate attention on both organizational focus
and time. Interviewee #5 went on to further address the element of time:
Part of it is just patience to develop your program over time, you can’t really just be like,
dropping new innovation or a new curriculum, like a load of bricks on people. It’s going
to take, I’d say, three to five years to build your vision of the school, depending on where
the school was when you started it.
The leader’s role in supporting the innovation to full fruition requires the alignment of systems to
the school mission. Adequate attention, focus, and time are critical components to align systems.
Ambidextrous leaders must create systems that will support them to maintain focus.
Interviewee #6 observed, “It’s easy to get caught up in the minutia of daily operations or
student behavior or all of those things that eat away at your time.” The minute-by-minute pull of
the urgent has to be balanced with the long-term actions of high importance. School leaders
shared their strategies for the balancing act. Interviewee #6 shared, “Always make certain things
101
sacred. Make time with your leadership team sacred, make time to do collaboration and meet
with your teachers sacred.” The prioritization of “sacred” tasks will always have competition
from immediate demands of a leader’s time and attention. A team of teacher leaders can help
buffer the “minutia.”
Interviewee #5 mitigates the competition for time and attention by building a team, “part
of the day-to-day work of running the school is having key people around you that can help you
with that burden.” The importance of teacher leadership for the ambidextrous leader of
innovation is emphasized by Interviewee #1: “I believe that teacher leadership is a key
component to a successful school of choice of any type.” Building teacher leadership requires
the strong procedural knowledge displayed by interviewees.
Some interviewees noted that their advice to a new leader of an innovative school would
include prior school leadership experience. Interviewee #1 stated,
You should have significant experience being a successful manager before becoming a
school of choice principal. Figuring those two things out at the same time sets yourself up
for 70 hour work weeks and potential burnout. There should be a baseline of managerial
skills that already exist.
Successful ambidextrous leadership requires mastery of the leadership and managerial skills as a
foundation for the leadership role of innovator. Interviewees advise that a new leader should
have an established base of knowledge and experience in leading a school prior to becoming a
charter or magnet school leader.
All interview participants articulated strategies for balancing innovation with day-to-day
expectations. The continuum of responses indicates variance in procedural and metacognitive
knowledge as it applies to ambidextrous leadership practices. Ambidextrous leadership as an
102
indicator of procedural and metacognitive knowledge presents as an asset overall with interview
participants.
Summary. The application of procedural and metacognitive knowledge to ambidextrous
leadership in the survey emerged as a need. Fewer than two-thirds of the leaders indicate that
they leverage requirements to accelerate innovation, and very few indicate they exercise the
habits of innovators on an average of monthly or more basis. On the other hand, the assumed
influence that school leaders know how to be ambidextrous leaders was determined to be an
asset in the interviews. The conflicting data suggests that there is room to grow and support the
development of procedural and metacognitive knowledge in ambidextrous leadership.
Therefore, both procedural and metacognitive knowledge are categorized as a need with the
caveat that leaders demonstrate assets to build upon.
Table 17 summarizes the assets and needs by assumed knowledge influence.
Table 17
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Knowledge Influence Asset or Need
Factual
Cultivate an innovative organizational mission. Asset
Conceptual
Cultivate an innovative organizational mission. Asset
Procedural
Cultivate an innovative organizational mission. Need
Apply ambidextrous leadership. Need
Metacognitive
Apply ambidextrous leadership. Need

Research Question 1
What knowledge and motivation must charter and magnet school leaders apply to lead
innovative schools?
103
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Knowledge is only valuable if the motivation to utilize it is present (Clark & Estes,
2008). Motivation directs and sustains goal-directed behaviors (Rueda, 2011). Effective
innovative leaders demonstrate self-efficacy as they actively persist as they navigate through
barriers (Clark & Estes, 2008). To believe in their own agency, leaders must attribute success to
their own actions. Innovative leaders must combine self-efficacy with attribution to withstand
the inevitable setbacks to innovation. Results and findings are reported using the motivation
categories of self-efficacy and attribution.
Self-efficacy: Leaders of innovative schools must believe in their own agency to
persist through difficulty. Self-efficacy beliefs are the perceptions that people have about their
own performance capabilities that form the basis of motivation (Pajares, 2006). Leaders of
innovative schools have to have a high tolerance of failure and remain undaunted in their ability
to foster innovation. Self-efficacy influences the level of effort, perseverance, and resiliency that
individuals are willing to exert when facing adversity (Rueda, 2011). Self-efficacy is an
assumed influence on school leader’s ability to meet organizational goals. The self-efficacy of
magnet and charter school leaders is assessed in interviews and the survey.
Survey results. Survey participants were asked to indicate their perception of
importance of a variety of perspectives that indicate self-efficacy beliefs. A threshold of 70%
made up of the “essential” and “very important” categories combined indicates a strength in self-
efficacy. As seen in the table below, all but one survey item indicate that self-efficacy is an
asset. Survey participants understand the importance of belief in their own efforts, confidence in
their ability to lead, and belief in empowering others. The belief that the ability to innovate is
104
not dependent on an external entity was rated as essential or very important by 68% of survey
participants, and did not meet the threshold. Table 18 displays the responses.
Table 18
Indicators of Self-Efficacious Leaders
How important are the following
to successfully lead an
innovative school?
Essential
Very
Important
Moderately
Important
Not Very
Important
Not at
All
Important
Belief that my efforts to lead the
school in implementing
innovation determines the
school’s success

42% 39% 16% 3% 0
Confidence in my ability to lead
innovation in my school

55% 34% 8% 3% 0

Belief that my ability to innovate
is not dependent on the
authorizer’s (charter) or district’s
(magnet) requirements
34% 34% 26% 3% 3%

Three of four indicators in the survey are categorized as an asset. The one that meets
criteria as a need is within one response to the asset threshold. Therefore, self-efficacy is
considered an asset based on the survey.
One survey item that was included in this section was an outlier in that the item did not
specifically address self-efficacy. Nevertheless, the belief that empowering others is essential or
very important was shared by 100% of survey respondents. This belief would reflect the
motivational theory of utility value instead of self-efficacy. Even so, the importance of
empowering others in an innovative environment is critical. The response in this question is a
noteworthy asset as displayed in Table 19.
105
Table 19
Empowering Others
How important are the following
to successfully lead an
innovative school?
Essential
Very
Important
Moderately
Important
Not Very
Important
Not at
All
Important

Belief that empowering others is
essential to innovation
84% 16% 0 0 0

Interview findings. Leaders of innovative schools face many barriers to
implementation. Successful leaders demonstrate self-efficacy in their response to the inevitable
resistance. To assess self-efficacy, interview participants were asked to describe their response
to negative opinions about school choice and to describe effective and ineffective strategies to
address a barrier to innovation.
Almost all interview participants have experienced interactions with individuals with
strong negative opinions about school choice. Leaders described their self-efficacy in handling
negativity with a high degree of professionalism. Interview participants commonly find that
individuals with negative opinions lack adequate and accurate information about school choice.
Leaders respond to common topics of misinformation, including budgets, funding, and
enrollment requirements for students in schools of choice with factual information.
Interviewee #4 described a common response to misinformation: “I try to set the record straight,
that we don’t get any more money, that the money follows a child.” In addition to responding to
misinformation, interview participants frequently convey the value of choice in helping all
students to succeed.
A common theme is that different students need different learning experiences, as
expressed by Interviewee #3, “Choice is something that’s good and essential, and especially for
106
students who feel disengaged and disenfranchised by a traditional model.” Interviewee #3 went
on to explain that our society expects choice in all areas of post-modern life, from grocery stores
to health care. Choice as a societal value was expressed by Interviewee # 2: “It’s important for
families to realize that they have to find whatever school is a fit for them. It doesn’t mean it’s
just one size fits all. It’s nice to have a variety.” A variety of options can lead to high levels of
student investment. Interviewee #1 expressed the impact of choice on students: “The value of a
student who invests meaning that they chose to go to the school [is] extremely powerful.”
Interviewee #4 discussed multiple ways that families can exercise choice that includes intra-
district transfers as well as magnets and charter schools. “You’re making a choice, you have the
right to make a choice of where you want to send your child to school. So, you have a choice of
sending them to a different school, and you also have a choice to send them to a charter school.”
One interviewee had not experienced strong negative opinions about school choice.
Instead, this leader stated, “I don’t know if I’ve ever come across anybody who has a strong
negative opinion about school choice. They are usually speaking to wanting more choice, but
wanting what they want, and they want it now.”
Overall, five of the six interview participants display responses to the controversial nature
of school choice with the persistence and assurance of leaders with high self-efficacy. Their
belief in their ability to respond to negative statements indicates strength in self-efficacy.
All six leaders demonstrated self-efficacy in their description of their approach to
strategize through a barrier. Furthermore, all six leaders described both effective and ineffective
strategies to address a barrier to innovation, demonstrating their individual agency in trying a
variety of approaches and maintaining the effort through failed attempts. Interviewee #3
captures the essence of a self-efficacious leader in addressing resistance to change:
107
The leader has to be ok with a little grumbling, and be ok with things not working out the
way you wanted them to. That’s what we want our students to do, risk and try, and keep
going. That’s what we try to emulate as a school.
This leader’s acceptance with the inevitable discomfort that change brings and framing of
resistance as a natural part of an innovative culture indicates that self-efficacy is an asset.
Interviewee #2 demonstrates self-efficacy through barriers by noting, “It’s hard to please
all of the teachers [when] the intent is what is best for the kids.” Self-efficacious leaders are
willing to persist through resistance to implement innovation that will be in the best interest of
the students. Interviewees described collaboration with the staff and parents, clarifying
expectations, and providing support for implementation to overcome barriers to change.
Interview participants also identified ineffective strategies to overcome barriers. Half of the
participants specifically identified giving directives as an ineffective strategy. For example,
interviewee #3 stated, “Trying to convince somebody about something, that doesn’t work. It’s
got to be that collaborative, interactive process.” Self-efficacious leaders recognize the
effectiveness of relying on collaboration and dialogue to implement innovation rather than
directives. The variety of effective and ineffective strategies described by interview participants
indicate a high level of agency and persistence, making self-efficacy an asset.
Summary. Survey data indicate that self-efficacy is an asset on three of four items. Five
of six interviewees display a high sense of agency in addressing resistance to school choice. All
interview participants fully described multiple strategies to address barriers to innovation. Their
description of strategies that were not effective as well as those that were effective indicate the
self-efficacy necessary to persist through failure. Thus, interview data indicates that self-efficacy
108
is an asset. Both survey and interview data verify that self-efficacy among magnet and charter
leaders is an asset.
Attribution: Leaders of innovative schools must take ownership of their role in
fostering innovation through locus, stability, and controllability. In contrast to the self-
perception of self-efficacy, attribution theory describes motivation through the perspective of an
individual’s perception of external situations (Weiner, 1992). Attribution theory is characterized
by three interconnected dimensions of locus, stability, and controllability (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). Locus is the perception of internal or external causes of events (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). An internal locus of control attributes causes to personal effort and ability
(Anderman & Anderman, 2006). An external locus of control attributes events to causes outside
the individual’s control such as the difficulty of a task and luck (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
The perception of stability relates perception of a cause as fixed and not movable or variable and
unstable depending on the situation and point in time (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Controllability is the perception of events as uncontrollable due to lack of ability or controllable
through individual effort (Weiner, 1992). Successful innovative leaders display high motivation
for success through their internal locus of control, view of challenges as movable through their
own effort, and perceive their ability and effort as tools to control the organization’s forward
motion. Survey and interview questions inform assessment of attribution.
Survey results Survey participants were asked three questions to gauge their attribution
when faced with barriers to innovation. Finding a way to modify an innovation demonstrates
belief that the barrier is controllable through effort or action. Thirty-four percent of leaders
indicated they “most of the time” or “always” find ways to modify their innovation to conform to
a requirement that presents a barrier. To consider this indicator of controllability an asset, the
109
threshold is 70%. This survey item indicates that controllability is an area of need. Similarly,
26% of survey participants indicate that they “most of the time” or “always” respond to barriers
by crafting a rationale to request an exception. Responding to a barrier with a request for an
exception is a behavioral indication of perception of the barrier as variable instead of fixed. The
results suggest that stability is a need among survey participants. Failure to persist in working
through a barrier to innovation is an indicator of an external locus of control. Only one survey
participant indicated that they go back to the traditional way of doing things about half or more
of the time. This indicates that locus of control is a strength of survey participants, indicating an
asset. Table 20 summarizes the indicators of motivational attribution.
Table 20
Indicators of Leader ’s Motivational Attribution
When you encounter a district or
State barrier to implementation of
your school ’s innovative focus, how
often do you. . .
Never Some-
times
About
half the
time
Most of
the time
Always

. . . modify the innovation to
conform to the requirements of the
barrier

10% 42% 13% 26% 8%
. . . request an exception for my
school based on a carefully crafted
rationale

24% 40% 10% 18% 8%
. . . go back to the traditional way of
doing things
60% 37% 3% 0 0

Based on responses to two of three survey items, attribution is categorized as a need.
Interview findings. Interview participants provided robust evidence of their motivational
assets through attribution. Interviewees were asked to describe their motivation to persist
through barriers to innovation. Describing what inspired them to become leaders of charter or
110
magnet schools instead of a traditional school gave valuable insight into their motivation. Some
leaders pointed to their underlying motivation as a deep belief in the focus of the school. This
belief is the basis of an internal locus of control. For example, Interviewee #4 stated, “I believe
it’s the right thing to do, and I have teachers that believe it’s the right thing to do.” Leaders
indicate the theme of personal conviction as a motivator, and went on to overcome significant
obstacles to implementation through demonstrably positive attribution.
When personal conviction is at the core of human motivation, the features of attribution
that motivate great leadership thrive. For example, several leaders expressed motivation to
control conditions to create programmatic sustainability by building capacity. Interviewee #2
sees sustainability through building capacity as key to the leader’s role, “We don’t know from
year to year if it’s a sustainable position [in the budget]. The educators in the classroom have to
be able to carry on if that person’s not here next year due to funding.” Controlling conditions for
sustainability is a powerful motivator for innovative leaders and requires a high degree of
attribution.
Interview participants share the view of causes of difficulty in implementing innovative
practices as variable instead of fixed. For example, two leaders came to their schools in a time of
uncertainty around the school’s mission. One leader embraced the variable nature of the
uncertainty and led the governing council to reconstitute itself with a renewed mission for the
school, demonstrating strong controllability. Another leader took the opportunity of a school
that had experienced staff turnover to “re-innovate the school and define what makes the school
unique compared to other schools,” thereby demonstrating an internal locus. If either leader
viewed the time of uncertainty as a fixed condition, they would not have been motivated to lead
the re-establishment of a common direction.
111
Summary. Interview findings demonstrate attribution as an asset. However, two of three
survey items designed to assess attribution were below the 70% threshold and are categorized as
needs. Therefore, attribution as an indicator of motivation meets the criteria for a need.
Table 21 summarizes the categorization of asset or need of assumed motivational
influences.
Table 21
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Motivation Influence Asset or Need
Self-efficacy Asset
Attribution Need

Results and Findings for Organization Causes
In addition to knowledge and motivation performance influences, the impact of
organizational influences on performance gaps must be considered (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizational conditions include processes, resources, and culture that can influence
stakeholders’ ability to meet stated goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Cultural models and settings
provide a framework to study organizational influences on performance (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The intent of the study was not to compare the culture of
magnet schools and charter schools with each other in any way. However, the organizational
conditions for magnet and charter leaders have some distinguishing characteristics.
Disaggregated data are presented by type of school only for the purpose of highlighting potential
variances based on the organizational contexts of magnets and charters within WISD.
Research Question 2
What is the interaction between a public school district and school leaders ’ knowledge
and motivation to foster innovation in their charter or magnet school?
112
Cultural Models
Cultural models are the shared underlying values, norms, and beliefs of an organization
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The structural uniformity that is valued in a bureaucracy
(Lubienski, 2003) is an example of a cultural model. In a knowledge economy, schools must be
granted the autonomy to implement an agile, responsive, and personalized instructional approach
(Noguera et al., 2015). WISD needs to foster a culture that values innovation through ensuring
that magnet and charter schools have adequate autonomy to innovate.
The organization needs to demonstrate the value of innovation by providing
autonomy for leaders to implement innovative school-wide practices. School leaders shared
their perceived organizational value of innovation and the provision of organizational autonomy
in response to survey items and interview questions.
Survey results. Survey participants were asked to indicate the degree to which they
believe the role of their school as an innovative choice is valued by the district on a scale from 0
to 100, with 33 defined as “minimal” 34 to 66 defined as “moderate” and 67 to 100 as “high.”
The mean for all survey respondents was 55, with a range from 5 to 100. The differing
organizational conditions of magnet and charter schools are evident in the variance of perception
between the two groups. Charter leaders indicate a perception of value with a mean of 61 and
magnet principals’ mean is 46. A mean of 67 would indicate that organizational value is an asset
because the response would indicate the “high” value range. Since both groups do not meet the
threshold for organizational value as an asset, it is categorized as a need. Figure 3 shows the
range of participants’ belief of value and the mean of both magnet and charter leaders.
113

Figure 3. Degree to which leaders believe the role of their school as an innovative choice is
valued, range of all respondents and mean of magnet and charter leaders.

Survey participants were asked to indicate the degree to which they have adequate
autonomy from the district to innovate in their school on a scale a scale from 0 to 100, with 33
defined as “minimal” 34 to 66 defined as “moderate” and 67 to 100 as “high.” Magnet school
leaders gave a mean of 61 with a range from 22 to 96. Charter leaders gave a mean of 70 with a
range from 6 to 100. A mean of 67 would indicate that autonomy is an asset because the
response would indicate the “high” value range. As such, organizational autonomy to innovate is
categorized as a need because both groups did not indicate that the threshold of the high value
range is met for this item. Figure 4 below shows the range of magnet and charter leaders belief
that they have adequate autonomy to innovate in relation to the continuum of choices from
minimal to high.

Figure 4. Degree to which leaders believe they have adequate autonomy to innovate.

114
To measure the adequacy of organizational autonomy to innovate, school leaders were
asked to rate the importance of each autonomy in their school’s innovative approach. Charter
school autonomies are outlined in the state statute (Anonymous, 1999) in the form of waivers to
state requirements that charter schools may apply for. Magnet school autonomies are specified
in WISD procedural directive (Anonymous, 2017). Answer choices for the following survey
items were derived from these documents. To be categorized as an asset, an autonomy would be
rated as “Essential” or “Very Important” to 70% of survey respondents. Tables 22 and 23 below
display the percentage of leaders that indicate that each autonomy is “Essential” or “Very
Important” to their school’s ability to innovate.
Table 22
Charter School Autonomies
Autonomy % Leaders Indicate as
Essential or Very Important
Meets 70% threshold for
asset?
Individual class load
29%
No

Teaching load
28%
No

Length of school day
43%
No

Staffing pattern
29%
No

Subject areas
48%
No

Purchase of instructional
materials 57%
No

Evaluation standards for
school personnel 14%
No

School principal duties 38% No

None of the autonomies provided by the state to charter schools meet the threshold for an
asset and are categorized as a need.
115
Table 23
Magnet School Autonomies
Autonomy % Leaders Indicate as
Essential or Very Important
Meets threshold for asset?
Customized professional
learning

100% Yes
School-specific curriculum
development

88% Yes
Exemption from the district
process for selection of
instructional materials

69% No
School-specific assessments

69% No
School-defined outcomes and
measures specific to the
magnet theme
94% Yes

Three of five of the autonomies provided by the district to magnet schools meet the
threshold for an asset.
The criterion for the level of autonomy provided by the district to foster innovation is
determined by leader’s rating of 70% of the autonomies as outlined in the statute or procedural
directive (Anonymous, 1999; Anonymous, 2017) as “essential” or “very important” by 70% of
the leaders. Therefore, six of the eight autonomies provided to charters and four of the five
autonomies provided to magnet schools would need to be rated as “essential” or “very
important” by 70% of the leaders within the school category. Both charter and magnet leader
sub-groups’ survey responses indicate that organizational autonomy is an area of need.
Interview findings. Interview participants were asked, “Do you feel that your
organization values innovation in schools of choice? What experiences have you had that make
you feel that way?” Participants expressed conflicting views of the district’s value of innovation
116
in charter and magnet schools. Participants expressed varied viewpoints of who comprises the
“district” as stated in the question. Participants interpreted the “district” as the OISO
department, the district level administration, or the district’s school board.
Some participants expressed their perception that the district does value their school’s
innovative mission. For example, Interviewee #6 answered the question of whether the district
value innovation in charter and magnet schools with, “Very much. They wouldn’t have a
department and the goal of that department is making sure that there are schools of choice and
innovation happening [if they didn’t value it].” The leader referred to OISO as the department
that the district designates to facilitate the organizational goals of innovation in magnet and
charter schools.
While the above interview participants expressed a positive perception of the
organization’s value of innovation, other school leaders expressed a disconnect between their
school and the district administration outside of OISO. For example, Interviewee #1 stated,
“most people I speak to at the district level, I don’t really think they understand schools of
choice.” Another leader shared a similar perspective, “Sometimes, my boss doesn’t even know
that I’m a magnet. . . It’s never a part of the conversation, only when I initiate it. So, I think
that’s the disconnect.” Both leaders refer to district administration in their expression of feeling
like the organization does not value innovation. While both participants also expressed some
positive interactions, their overarching perception is captured in their quotes above.
Two other leaders expressed conflicted perspectives depending on the role group that
defines “district.” For example, one interviewee stated feelings of both value and the opposite,
“Depends on who’s on the school board. The OISO does [value].” The split between interview
participants of feeling that the organization does value innovation, does not value innovation,
117
and that some components of the organization do and do not value innovation indicate an area of
need.
In regards to providing adequate autonomy to innovate, all six interview participants
were able to name the specific district- or authorizer-granted autonomies that support their
innovative school-wide approach. Interview participants balance autonomy with requirements.
For example, Interviewee #5 explained,
It’s the responsibility of charter schools to work within the legal framework that applies
to all public schools. But it turns out, within that framework, there’s actually a lot of
freedom for choices and how you design your school program.
The themes of curriculum, instruction, and use of time were autonomies discussed by the
majority of participants. All magnet leaders mentioned the importance of the role of curricular
and instructional autonomy. Interviewee #3 shared, “We have been given the autonomy to do
what is best for our kiddos. [I] never mandated that they use a curriculum, we just follow it
based on the Common Core standards in the Next Gen [science standards].”
Interviewee #3 referred to local control in the identification of autonomy. “The ability to
act quickly, not having to go through bureaucracy and channels and approvals in order to
implement a new idea or change something that’s not working. It’s always a very collaborative
approach to that.” All charter school leaders mentioned the important role of having a local
governing council in the ability to innovate.
Summary. The assumed influence of demonstrating the value of innovation by providing
autonomy for leaders to implement innovative school-wide practices is categorized as a need.
Survey participants in the charter leader subgroup indicated that the organization values
innovation in their schools, while the magnet school leader subgroup indicated the opposite.
118
Both subgroups indicated that the existing organizational autonomies do not meet the 70%
threshold to be considered an asset. Therefore, both organizational value of innovation and
providing autonomy for leaders to implement innovative school-wide practices is a need.
Cultural Settings
Cultural settings are the visible contexts where behavior takes place such as
communication, interactions, time and location (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). An
organization can demonstrate the cultural model of valuing innovation through the cultural
settings that remove barriers to innovation and supports leader’s growth, development, and
networking. The next sections provide an analysis of data regarding these two cultural settings.
The organization needs to remove bureaucratic barriers to innovation. Large
bureaucracies are associated with inefficiency, inflexibility, and rigidity (Lubienski, 2003).
These characteristics are categorized as cultural settings. Noguera et al. (2015) posit that
innovative and relevant learning requires support without systemic restraints. As such, WISD
needs to remove institutional barriers to innovation. Study participants provided their insights
into the barriers to innovation in their schools through survey questions and interviews. A
summary of their collective wisdom follows.
Survey results. Survey participants were asked to indicate the degree to which they
believe their school has unmet potential for innovation due to authorizer or district barriers.
Choice is valued by the district on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 to 33 defined as “minimal” 34 to
66 defined as “moderate” and 67 to 100 as “high.” Leaders of magnet schools mean was 54,
with a range from 7 to 83. Leaders of charter schools gave a range of 0 to 64, with a mean of 27.
A mean of 67 would indicate that autonomy is an asset because the response would indicate the
“high” value range. As such, removing barriers to innovation is categorized as a need. Figure 5
119
below shows the range of magnet and charter leaders belief that their school has unmet potential
for innovation due to barriers in relation to the continuum of choices from minimal to high.

Minimal
0–33
Moderate
34–66
High
67–100

Figure 5. Degree to which leaders believe they have unmet potential to innovate due to
district/authorizer barriers.

School leaders were asked to report the frequency that someone at the district advocates
for them when they encounter a barrier to innovation at their school. Figure 6 below displays the
responses.

Figure 6. Advocacy to support school leaders experiencing barriers to innovation.
This question did not meet the 70% threshold of a combined response of “always” and
“most of the time.” Therefore, removing bureaucratic barriers is considered a need.
16%
50%
8%
26%
0
Always Most of the
time
About half the
time
Sometimes Never
When I encounter a barrier to innovation at my school,
someone at the district advocates for me.
Charter Principals (Mean 27, Range 0-64)
Magnet Principals (Mean 54, Range 7-83)
120
School leaders were asked to report the frequency that district departments are responsive
to their requests for customized support to implement innovation. Figure 7 below displays the
responses.

Figure 7. Responsiveness to support school leaders requests for customized support.
This question did not meet the 70% threshold of a combined response of “always” and “most of
the time.” Therefore, district response to requests for customized support is considered a need.
Interview findings. Interview participants were asked two questions designed to elicit
their perspective on organizational barriers to innovation. Participants were asked to share a
time they set out to implement an innovation and encountered barriers. Participants were also
asked what they would change at the district, state, or federal level to open the opportunity for
more innovation in schools. Categories of organizational barriers emerged from these questions:
funding, the political landscape, and staff roles.
Most interview participants referred to funding as a barrier to innovation and identified
the need to support the school’s innovative mission with resources. Interviewee #1 highly values
5%
50%
11%
26%
8%
Always Most of the
time
About half
the time
Sometimes Never
District departments are responsive to my requests for
customized support to implement innovation.
121
the culture of a small school and suggests that the funding should be designated to “Support
small schools. Size is a huge driver of what you’re able to do.” While Interviewee #1 values
school size, other leaders highlight the need for equity, rather than equality, in the process of
funding innovative schools. For example, Interviewee #2 suggests, “Ensure that the funding is
equitable . . . If you want to be innovative, you need to be different in every aspect, and you need
to financially be able to be innovative. That’s hard with a traditional budget.” This leader
recognizes the limitations of the traditional budget and budgeting process. Other leaders noted
the need to fund in ways that are more customized for innovation, such as funding decentralized
services. The traditional process of allocating resources to schools within the district is a barrier
for schools with an innovative mission.
Allocating funding differently is important to foster innovation; however, without the
ability to attract teaching professionals, innovation cannot occur at all. Interviewee #1 explains,
“The other issue is incentivizing people to become teachers, the teacher pool has deteriorated
horribly in the last five years.” Funding to make teaching an attractive profession is critically
necessary to foster innovation in public education.
School leaders describe barriers to innovation that generate from the political ecosystem.
The rapid shifting of political focus in public education, as observed by Interviewee #5 is a
significant barrier, “The cycles of public education just don’t respect the amount of time it takes
to make something build and be successful. . . And then, you know, politicians will change the
context while you’re in the middle of building the innovation.” This observation reflects the
longstanding difficulty faced by educators who work very hard to implement new and innovative
approaches, but find themselves undermined by shifting political agendas. Shifts in approach are
often most evident in accountability systems that leave the unintended consequence of
122
hampering innovation. Interviewee #3 expressed this sentiment: “I’m tired of policies and laws
that increase quote, unquote, the accountability of schools and principals and teachers being their
solution to how we can better educate students.” Innovation success may not always be evident
through the accountability system of student testing as defined by federal and state government.
School leaders recognize both the limitations of student testing for accountability as well as the
benefits of transparent accountability for charter schools. Interviewee #4 observed,
I think rigor around charter schools is much better. So, therefore, acceptance of charter
schools, excitement about charter schools, [not] blasting for taking money and kids, I
mean, just the political. So, it’s really the political rhetoric that goes around that.
This statement about the polarity around charter school support points to the barriers the political
ecosystem create for innovation.
While funding and political barriers are significant, school leaders also face internal
barriers to innovation. The nature of an innovative school is to be ever-evolving and never
stagnant. This requires a staff that embraces their role in leading, creating, and implementing
innovative practices in an ongoing manner. Instructional mismatch occurs when an individual
employee does not adopt the vision of a school. Instructional mismatch can be a significant
internal barrier to innovation. For example, one leader stated, “Some of my staff does not want to
learn any new technology.” In a school with a technology focus, this example of instructional
mismatch is a barrier to student success. Interviewee #1 describes the commitment needed for an
innovative school to be successful, “Not all teachers want to be leaders at a school of choice,
where teacher leadership is absolutely critical. It cannot be you just show up at 7:30 teach your
classes and you’re out the door at 2:25.” Some schools are structured to accommodate teachers
with a lifestyle that necessitates adherence to school hours. However, schools with an innovative
123
mission depend on personal and professional buy-in and a willingness to contribute to the
collective culture.
Workload concerns that come with a culture of collective ownership are legitimate
barriers. As Interviewee #3 described an experience with workload concerns:
We’re trying to create more experiences for the students. And, so, taking advantage of
resources and bringing those resources in, but also getting our students out into the
community. So, when we are presenting that to the faculty, there’s always a level of
‘What does this mean for me as a teacher in terms of lesson planning, and preparation?
How am I going to be able to do all of that plus meet the standards?’
Barriers to maintain a collaborative and innovative school culture include workload concerns.
When workload concerns become incongruent with staff’s lifestyle outside of school, turnover
occurs, causing another barrier to innovation. Interviewee #5 expressed the importance of staff
stability: “You need key people and key roles consistently. Having turnover can completely
hamper your ability to build innovations and build the school climate and culture.” Turnover in
staff is an internal barrier of innovation.
Not all barriers that leaders of schools with an innovative mission can be removed at the
organizational level. Some barriers are internal to each school. Many barriers generate in policy
far from the local level of influence. As the voices of the school leaders clearly express,
organizational barriers are a very real presence in their day-to-day work.
Summary. Both interview and survey data indicate that removing barriers to innovation
is a need.
The organization needs to invest in the growth, development, and networking of
leaders of innovative schools. Investing in leader development is key to building system
124
capacity for innovation. Developing the habits of innovation is typically not a focus area in
school leader professional growth opportunities. Supporting leaders in learning to utilize
innovation and creativity strategies in daily work (Dyer et al., 2011) requires a targeted approach
to professional development. Study participants were asked survey questions and interview
questions to provide insight into their perspective of current leadership development
opportunities in WISD, their professional learning needs, and their perspective of the ideal
conditions to foster their professional growth.
Survey results. Survey participants were asked to indicate their perception of the
effectiveness of professional learning activities in developing their leadership of an innovative,
non-traditional school. A threshold of 70% made up of the “extremely effective” and “very
effective” categories combined indicates a strength in organizational conditions to support the
growth, development, and networking of school leaders. As seen in the table below, none of the
survey results indicate that current district-provided professional learning opportunities are an
asset, although several come close to the threshold. Table 24 displays the responses.
Table 24
Leader Rating of District-Provided Professional Learning to Equip Innovative Leadership
Extremely
Effective
Very
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Slightly
Effective
Not
Effective
at All
I haven’t
participated
in this
Charter Leader
Meetings

5% 64% 23% 5% 5% 0
Charters & Coffee

9% 23% 23% 0 0 45%
Charter
Professional Goal
Setting

23% 45% 23% 5% 0 5%

125
Table 24, continued
Extremely
Effective
Very
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Slightly
Effective
Not
Effective
at All
I haven’t
participated
in this
Charter Leader
Evaluation with
Board

9% 36% 36% 0 9% 9%
Instructional
Rounds (Magnet)

0 13% 13% 31% 44% 0
Zone Meetings
(Magnet)

6% 12% 31% 19% 25% 6%
All-level Magnet
Meetings

6% 44% 44% 6% 0 0
Professional
Development Plan
Process (Magnet)
0 44% 19% 31% 6% 0

School leaders indicate that professional learning and networking opportunities to
develop leadership of innovative schools provided are categorized as a need.
Interview findings. All six interview participants vividly described their approach to
growing as leaders, identified ideal conditions to support their needs, and recommended
improvements to current systems. All participants identify reflection on their professional
learning needs as the first step in identifying opportunities to grow as leaders.
Growth begins with self-reflection, as described by Interviewee #5: “Whatever your
weaknesses are, they will become instantly apparent to you, and probably everyone else. I’ve
definitely identified new areas of need for professional growth, through the process of leading
through change.” The process of reflection individually is the starting place for professional
growth. Equally important is reflecting on the school context to identify growth opportunities, as
expressed by Interviewee #6: “Where do we want to be? What are we doing now? What do we
126
have to do to get from what we’re doing now to where we want to be? So, doing that reflection
has been really good for me.” Reflection on one’s own professional growth needs and those of
the school within the context of ambidextrous leadership is expressed by Interviewee #2: “I’m
always trying to learn new things about being a leader within a magnet school, like what does
that mean? And what’s the role? And how do you facilitate your teacher leaders to help you?”
The reflective core of learning is clearly a priority for interview participants. Although
professional learning is very personal and individual for each leader, organizational structures
can promote the development of ambidextrous leadership.
Interviewees were asked to describe the ideal conditions for their professional growth and
development of leaders of innovative schools. Leaders described actions they are currently
taking as well as shared new ideas for optimal learning conditions within organization. Their
answers fell into several categories: visiting other schools, networking with leaders of schools of
choice, and self-directed learning experiences.
The power of visiting other schools was discussed by most interview participants as they
described ideal professional learning conditions. Interviewee #1 suggested that one facet of ideal
conditions would be to “create a system where innovative school principals are visiting each
other’s schools on a regular basis.” The suggestion to create a system for observing and
interacting with other schools can open new possibilities. Seeing new possibilities through
school visits can give school leaders the opportunity to focus on the vision for their own school.
As Interviewee #3 observes, “I think seeing what’s possible, because it’s hard to envision that
when you haven’t experienced it.”
Interview participants expressed the need for in-depth observation and interaction with
other schools with an innovative mission. Interviewee #3 shared some experience: “Not just a
127
little visit, but going in there and really looking at schools that are truly innovating. I think that is
essential.” The in-depth visits that Interviewee #3 describes were facilitated to foster the transfer
of professional learning in a different environment to one’s own school. Transfer of new
knowledge requires reflection. Visiting schools for the stated purpose of engaging in reflection
and action on one’s own work is described by Interviewee #1,
We’ve visited some other schools. But then, as a group, the most important part is the
reflection piece. To get together and to talk about our model; what we can do, what we
have seen, where we can take our school to a better place and get on the same page.
To be useful, school visits should build in reflection and time to plan for transfer of new
experiences to professional practice.
Several school leaders discussed the importance of establishing a network of leaders of
innovative schools in building shared knowledge and capacity for implementation. Some school
leaders have access to professional learning networks through their school’s affiliation with
certain national organizations, and expressed the importance of that connection. Interviewee #6
experienced both school visits and networking in an out-of-state trip:
I got to talk to other principals that are doing the same thing. There’s not always
somebody else in our district that’s innovating in the same way, at our same level. So, it’s
building those colleagues that are on the same journey.
Most do not have the advantage of a national network and expressed the importance of learning
with a shared community of leaders of innovative schools. WISD has started to support cross-
pollination of school models between magnet and charter leaders. When charter schools apply
for re-authorization, a team is formed to review the application, perform a site visit, and make a
recommendation. Each team has at least one leader from a different charter and one magnet
128
principal. Interviewee #1 has participated as a team member, and reflected on the networking
experience, “From a professional development standpoint, I found it very interesting how other
schools of choice [operate]. You think about: this is how I’m doing it, and how they’re doing it,
maybe that’s a better way to do it.”
Combining school visits with the networking to learn in more depth about another school’s
innovative mission is a professional learning strategy with high potential. Building stronger
connections between school leaders could mitigate the insular nature of school leadership.
Almost all interview participants expressed the isolating nature of the demands of serving a
school of choice. Interviewee # 2 called a magnet school a “lonely place.” However, a network
could re-create the experience Interviewee #3 shared of having a, “group of educators out there
and it’s just this infectious creative, think outside the box kind of thing.”
The intersection of school visits and networking with school leaders who have
experienced this professional learning opportunity provides insight to increase organizational
effectiveness in growing, developing, and networking leaders of innovative schools. Interviewee
#5 sums up the sentiment: “school visits and working with other people in this role is really
important.”
Some interview participants expressed value for their professional learning within some
of the existing meeting structures. For example, Interviewee #5 stated, “I like the direction that
we’re taking a lot [in our meetings].” Similarly, Interviewee #2 shared, “In the past, we’ve had
more time with the magnet school principals. . . Having some kind of support system like that
that’s consistent would be great.”
Self-directed learning is an important development strategy for innovative leaders.
Interviewee #5 actively seeks information to facilitate ongoing growth: “I would say, keep
129
reading, keep your ears and eyes open. Because there’s actually so much innovation going on in
education, there are so many examples of what a school can be.”
Interview participants shared their insight into the organization’s role of investing in their
professional growth. School leaders identified less than ideal current conditions in terms of
professional learning for leaders of magnet and charter schools. Interviewees suggested
spending less time talking about innovation in meetings and trading meeting time for school
visiting time instead.
Connecting the processes of networking and visiting schools to develop an ambidextrous
learning culture would necessitate a reconfiguration of structures. Magnet principals serve
innovative schools within a traditional district structure and must meet the requirements of the
school system as they cultivate an innovative school mission. Interview participants observe that
the current structure exacerbates the sometimes competing roles of innovator and manager.
Magnet principals expressed a disconnect between the district professional development
system and the needs of a magnet school leader. Interviewee #2 shared a perspective of district
principal meetings, “I think all my professional development that’s provided by the district has
nothing to do with being a magnet school.” The systemic disconnect between traditional
principal meetings and magnet meetings needs is exacerbated by the policy and business focus of
magnet principal meetings.
Magnet principals express that the traditional professional learning system does not fit
their needs. Other district professional learning requirements compound the concern, as
expressed by another magnet principal:
I have these instructional rounds visits that I do at other schools, but they’re pretty much
all traditional schools. You know, there’s good direct instruction and bad direct
130
instruction. We don’t do a lot of direct instruction. So, I guess I could be supportive of
those principals and what their direction is, but it’s not going to help me.
Magnet principal’s expression of participating in professional learning that satisfies requirements
without meeting their learning needs provides ample opportunity for improvement.
Both magnet and charter leaders consistently expressed that the current system is not
meeting their growth, development, or networking needs. Therefore, this influence is
categorized as a need.
Summary. Interview and survey results definitively establish this influence as a need.
Table 25 portrays a summary of organizational influences and their categorization as assets or
needs.
Table 25
Organizational Influences Summary
Assumed Organizational Influence Asset or Need
Demonstrate value through giving autonomy Need
Remove bureaucratic barriers to innovation Need
Growth, development, and networking of
leaders of innovative schools
Need

Summary of Results and Findings
School leaders must apply factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
to effectively apply ambidextrous leadership and cultivate an innovation mission in their schools.
The survey and interview data provided evidence of assets and needs. Factual and conceptual
knowledge to cultivate an innovative mission is an asset. Procedural knowledge of how to apply
ambidextrous leadership and cultivate an innovative mission is a need. The metacognitive
knowledge necessary to apply ambidextrous leadership also emerged as a need.
131
The successful implementation of knowledge requires motivation. All data sources
indicate that charter and magnet school leaders’ self-efficacy is an asset to meet their innovation
goals. In contrast, attribution is categorized as a need with the caveat that there are strengths
described in interviews to build upon.
In addition to knowledge and motivation influences, organizational conditions for
innovation were explored. The organization’s demonstrated value of innovation by providing
autonomy for leaders to implement innovative school-wide practices is emerged as a need
through the data. Similarly, both interview and survey data indicate that removing bureaucratic
barriers to innovation is an area of need. Finally, the organizational approach to the growth,
development, and networking of leaders of innovative schools emerged as a clear need to
address.
Recommendations for solutions to address the validated needs in knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences to improve conditions for innovation in magnet and charter schools
will be presented in Chapter Five.

132
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. This study evaluated the assumed knowledge influences that leaders of
schools with an innovation need to successfully meet stakeholder goals. The categories of
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge types as described by Krathwohl
(2002) and Rueda (2011) are used as a framework for the presentation of recommendations.
School leaders demonstrated the assessed factual and conceptual knowledge influences as assets.
However, procedural and metacognitive knowledge influences to cultivate an innovative
organizational mission and apply ambidextrous leadership revealed gaps. Prioritization of
validated knowledge gaps to address with a comprehensive implementation and evaluation plan
considered the following factors: impact of recommendation on achieving stakeholder and
organizational goals, feasibility of addressing the gap, and the number of stakeholders affected
(Sinclair, 2015). Both knowledge influences of cultivation of an innovative school mission and
ambidextrous leadership met the criterion of high potential impact, feasibility, and numbers of
stakeholders affected. Table 26 below displays a summary of knowledge influences, principles
found in scholarly research, and corresponding recommendations.

133
Table 26
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence

Validated as
a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultivate an
innovative
organizational
mission (F)(C)
N N Self-regulatory
strategies, including
goal setting, enhance
learning and
performance (Dembo &
Eaton, 2000; Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon,
2006).

Behavior that is
reinforced is
strengthened. (Daly,
2006)
The study found that
school leaders have the
necessary factual and
conceptual knowledge
to cultivate an
organizational mission.
This influence is not a
priority to address.
Continue to support
leaders in goal setting
to ensure development
of the school’s
innovation, and
reinforce successes.

Provide information on
stages of
implementation to
support ongoing
growth.
Cultivate an
innovative
organizational
mission (P)

V Y Learning is enhanced
when individuals are
provided guidance,
modeling, coaching,
and other scaffolding
during performance
(Mayer, 2011).

Provide ongoing
training with
modeling, guided
practice, and feedback
in how to build
distributed leadership
capacity to use a
specified process to
link a written plan to
systemic
implementation of
innovation.

134
Table 26, continued
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence

Validated as
a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Apply ambidextrous
leadership (P)
V Y How individuals
organize knowledge
influences how they
learn and apply what
they know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Provide training that
includes modeling,
guided practice, and
feedback for leaders to
apply known
components of
required administrative
tasks in new ways to
accelerate the
innovative mission of
the school.
Apply ambidextrous
leadership (M)
V Y The use of
metacognitive
strategies facilitates
learning (Baker, 2006).

Provide education in
the personal
development and
organizational
application of
innovator’s discovery
and delivery habits to
guide leaders to
articulate how they
will lead their schools
to design and
implement innovative
practices.

Build procedural knowledge to apply distributed leadership to link planning with
implementation. The results and findings of the study indicated that school leaders need more
fully developed procedural knowledge of how to leverage distributed leadership to link planning
to implementation of innovation. The study highlights a disconnect between having a plan and
executing the plan, evidenced by 71% of leaders who indicated that they have a plan in contrast
to the 55% who engage in evaluating or reporting progress of the plan, which indicates a
procedural knowledge gap. A recommendation rooted in research in information processing
135
system theory is suggested to close the knowledge gap. Mayer (2011) suggests that learning is
enhanced when individuals are provided guidance, modeling, coaching, and other scaffolding
during performance. The implications for leaders of innovative schools would entail providing
training to guide and model the planning cycle, followed up with real-time individualize
coaching and scaffolding during implementation. As such, the recommendation is to provide
ongoing training in how to build distributed leadership capacity to link the planning process to
implementation of an innovative school mission.
Performance adaptation is the foundation of organizational innovation (Zuckerman,
Wilcox, Durand, Lawson, & Schiller, 2018). Adaptation requires distributed leadership to
engage in a robust planning cycle. Implementation of an organization’s innovative mission
requires leaders to apply distributed instructional leadership as a lever to apply innovation
(Zuckerman et al, 2018). Engaging a team in distributed leadership through a specified planning
model is necessary. The design process, applied at the strategy level, can equip leadership teams
with a model of an effective planning cycle (Wrigley & Straker, 2017). The evidence affirms
that providing training in leveraging distributed leadership to engage in the design process links
performance adaptation to the implementation of an innovative school mission.
Build knowledge of application of required administrative tasks in new ways to
accelerate innovation. The findings demonstrate a gap in procedural knowledge of how to
leverage required tasks such as school improvement plans and the classroom observation rubric
to accelerate progress toward the innovative school mission. Information processing system
theory guides the recommendation to address the need. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) assert
that the way individuals organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what they
know. This suggests that training leaders of charter and magnet schools to reorganize existing
136
knowledge would support their learning. The recommendation is to provide training in
identifying component parts of tasks, discern tasks that apply innovation from those that do not,
and subsequently apply selected tasks to accelerate the innovative school mission. Providing a
job aid that portrays a visual process for task selection and implementation will give a resource
for ongoing support.
Ambidextrous leaders must facilitate the simultaneous duality of generating ideas and
putting them into practice (Zacher & Rosing, 2015). Leaders of magnet and charter schools
engage in this process in the context of the regulatory environment of public education. As such,
leaders must comply with requirements such as improvement plans and classroom observations
as they meet the expectation to innovate. This charge requires flexible application of leadership
behaviors based on changing requirements (Rosing, Frese, & Bausch, 2011). Ambidextrous
leadership is not taught in administrator preparation programs. Therefore, training is needed.
Clark and Estes (2008) define training as a situation that learners engage in the “how to” of a
new task and obtain feedback throughout their learning process. The evidence affirms providing
training will support leaders to reorganize existing knowledge of required tasks and integrate
new knowledge to develop their ambidextrous leadership capacity.
Increase the ability to apply an innovator ’s discovery and delivery habits. The
findings in this study indicated that school leaders exercise metacognitive habits of associating,
networking, and experimentation less than one time per month over a 6-month period, indicating
a need. A recommendation rooted in metacognition has been selected to close the knowledge
gap. Baker (2006) posits that the use of metacognitive strategies facilitates learning. This would
suggest that providing education in the application of reflective thinking habits to the
organizational setting would support learning. The recommendation is to provide education in
137
the application of innovator’s habits to the organizational setting to equip school leaders with the
metacognitive knowledge needed to display ambidextrous leadership.
Dyer et al. (2011) offer a framework of applied metacognitive skills to equip leaders to
apply metacognitive knowledge to build innovative leadership capacity. Metacognitive
knowledge involves learning to generate new knowledge to solve novel and unanticipated
problems, and is accomplished through education (Clark & Estes, 2008). Ambidextrous leaders
need the metacognitive knowledge described in Dyer et al.’s (2011) integration of discovery
skills, especially associating, and the accompanying delivery skills to address the challenges of
innovating within the confines of regulation. Associating is a metacognitive skill wherein an
individual draws on diverse ideas or knowledge from other industries, fields, or disciplines to
find solutions or generate new ideas (Dyer et al., 2011). Therefore, the evidence affirms that
providing education to develop applied metacognitive knowledge through the process of
associating will build ambidextrous leadership capacity.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Assumed motivational influences included self-efficacy and attribution.
Attribution was validated as an area of need, while interview and survey data pointed to self-
efficacy as an asset. Since only two motivational influences were studied and attribution was
identified as a need, attribution is prioritized as having the most impact. Clark and Estes (2008)
motivation framework guides the discussion of motivation influences. As Clark and Estes
(2008) describe, there are three facets of motivation: active choice, persistence, and mental
effort. To choose a task, persist through barriers, and commit to the effort necessary for success,
individuals must perceive their actions as influential. Weiner (2005) defines attribution through
locus, stability, and controllability. Motivated leaders must have an internal locus, perceive
138
situations as movable by their own effort, and view their role as one of having control of
circumstances that influence the school’s innovation goals. As such, the recommended solution
is to use the implementation phases presented in training in the knowledge influence to provide
feedback for leaders to recognize their role in progress or lack of progress. Table 27 provides an
overview of the motivational influences, principles to address attribution, and recommendations.
Table 27
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence*

Validated as a Gap
Yes, High
Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Leaders of
innovative schools
must believe in their
own agency to
persist through
difficulty. (Self-
efficacy)
N N High self-efficacy
can positively
influence
motivation
(Pajares, 2006).

The study found that
school leaders have
high levels of self-
efficacy. This
influence is not a
priority to address.
Continue to foster
leader agency
through modeling,
coaching, and
reinforcing
persistent behaviors.
Leaders of
innovative schools
must take ownership
of their role in
fostering innovation
through locus,
stability, and
controllability.
(Attribution)
V Y Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
individuals
attribute success
or failure to effort
rather than ability.
(Anderman &
Anderman, 2006).
Provide customized
feedback to assist
leaders to identify
specific leadership
behaviors that
contributed to
progress or lack of
progress.

Foster attribution through customized feedback. The study found that attribution is a
need to address with leaders, demonstrated by 34%, indicating that they modify their school’s
innovation to conform to requirements of a barrier. Furthermore, only 26% respond to barriers
by requesting an exception based on carefully crafted rationale. A recommendation based in
139
attribution theory has been selected to address this motivation gap. Anderman and Anderman
(2006) posit that learning and motivation are enhanced when individuals attribute success or
failure to their own effort rather than ability. This would suggest that when leaders attribute their
school’s success or failure to their own actions that motivation is increased. The
recommendation is to provide customized feedback for leaders to identify specific leadership
behaviors that contributed to progress or lack of progress to foster attribution and increase
motivation. An example would be reviewing the progress of the school’s implementation plan
and providing the leader feedback to assist in naming their leadership actions throughout the
process to help them connect specific behaviors to outcomes.
The importance of motivation in goal attainment cannot be overstated (Clark & Estes,
2008). Therefore, increasing attribution is critical. Walton and Wilson (2018) describe the role
of attribution and other motivational theories among educators in schools that are high-
performing as a critical component of success. In an innovative school setting, high motivation
fosters performance adaptation, which is a critical component of an innovative school culture
(Walton & Wilson, 2018). From a theoretical perspective, it appears that increasing attribution
among school leaders would support their ability to foster student success in an innovative
school setting. Rueda (2011) and Anderman and Anderman (2006) suggest providing feedback
that focuses on processes of effort and self-control to develop attributional characteristics of
locus, stability, and control to support the motivation to sustain the necessary effort required to
lead an innovative school.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Organizational conditions facilitate both individual and organizational
goal attainment. Cultural models and cultural settings must support individual performance.
140
Cultural models are the shared values, norms, and beliefs of an organization (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings are the visible contexts where the behavior takes place,
defined by who, what, when, where, how, and why (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Clark and
Estes (2008) observe the powerful nature of organizational culture in all aspects of performance.
This study evaluated the assumed organizational influences that leaders of schools with an
innovative mission need to successfully meet stakeholder goals. Three assumed organizational
influences were validated as a need in the study. First, the organization needs to demonstrate the
cultural model of value of innovation by providing autonomy for leaders to implement
innovative school-wide practices. Second, the organization needs to display the cultural setting
through removing bureaucratic barriers to innovation. Third, the organization needs to display
the cultural setting through investing in the growth, development, and networking of leaders of
innovative schools. All three influences impact a high number of stakeholders, are feasible to
address, and have potential to impact stakeholders and organizational goal attainment (Sinclair,
2015). As such, all three influences are addressed with recommendations and a corresponding
implementation and evaluation plan. The Clark and Estes (2008) KMO framework guides the
discussion for organization influences and corresponding recommendations. Table 28 displays a
summary of organizational influences, principles found in scholarly research, and corresponding
recommendations.

141
Table 28
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence*

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization
needs to
demonstrate the
value of innovation
by providing
autonomy for
leaders to implement
innovative school-
wide practices.
(Cultural Model)
V Y Effective
organizations
insure that
organizational
messages, policies,
and procedures that
govern the work of
the organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of
organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes,
2008).

Align the district’s
organizational commitment
to the philosophy of a
system of schools that
incorporates the role of
magnet and charter schools
as part of a cohesive
system with policies and
procedures that support
autonomy for innovation.

Review and revise policies
and procedures that outline
autonomy for charter and
magnet schools to innovate.
The organization
needs to remove
bureaucratic barriers
to innovation.
(Cultural Setting)
V Y Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources
(equipment,
personnel, time,
etc.) needed to do
their job, and that if
there are resource
shortages, then
resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Organizational
development is
more likely to
succeed when
people are
equipped to handle
its unique
challenges (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Allow schools with an
innovative mission to
exercise increased
autonomy in allocating
resources to support the
school-wide focus.

Provide training and
ongoing feedback to
district role groups to know
when and why a magnet or
charter may experience the
standardized processes and
procedures as barriers to
delivering their innovative
school-wide mission.

Engage executive and
cabinet level leaders in
equipping district personnel
to respond to requests for
customized support with
agility.

142
Table 28, continued
Assumed
Organization
Influence*

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization
needs to invest in
the growth,
development, and
networking of
leaders of innovative
schools. (Cultural
Setting)
V Y Effective change
efforts align
training needs, role
groups, structures,
and processes
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
Design a cohesive
leadership development
approach that integrates the
context of principals as
leaders of schools with an
innovative mission.

Cultural models: demonstrate the value the role of school choice as a component of
a system-wide approach to quality and equitable education. School leaders express the need
to increase the value placed on the role of choice schools in supporting district goals. Magnet
leaders indicated that the degree to which their school is valued is marginal with a mean of 46
and charter leaders with a mean of 61 on a scale of 0 to 100. Furthermore, interviewees indicate
that there is room for organizational improvement of providing autonomy to innovate. Study
participants expressed a corresponding need for alignment across district role groups in regards
to expressing the value of the role of magnet and charter schools through providing adequate
autonomy. A recommendation rooted in organizational change theory has been selected to
address this organizational need. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that effective organizations
ensure that organizational messages, policies, and procedures that govern the work of the
organization are aligned with or are supportive of organizational goals and values. Alignment to
goals and values requires that all stakeholders need to hold a unified value of the role of schools
with a mission to innovate to meet district goals. Thus, the recommendation is to align the
district’s organizational commitment to the philosophy of a system of schools that values the role
143
of magnet and charter schools to meet all students’ needs within a cohesive system and provide
autonomy to innovate.
Clark and Estes (2008) state that when organizations align messages, policies, and
procedures to the stated goals and values, goal attainment improves. The value placed on
offering a variety of good educational options through magnet and charter schools should align
with the autonomy for the schools to innovate. Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) suggests that
magnet and charter schools can fulfill a role as a component of a districtwide plan to ensure
equity, opportunity, diversity, and achievement for all students. Furthermore, Cookson et al.
(2018) propose that school choice cultivates innovative practices by broadening the scope of
educational options to reach all students as part of a comprehensive plan. Demonstrating value
by providing adequate autonomy is necessary for magnet and charter schools to deliver a school-
wide innovative approach. Conducting a review and revision of policies and procedures that
outline the autonomy for charter and magnet schools to innovate is also necessary to ensure that
organizational alignment is actualized. The literature supports the value of the role of magnet
and charter schools within an aligned approach to improve educational opportunity and outcomes
for all students along with the corresponding necessity of granting autonomy to innovate (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Cookson et al., 2018; Darling-Hammond, 2017).
Cultural setting: address organizational barriers. The results of the study confirm the
need to remove organizational barriers to innovation as suggested by Clark and Estes (2008).
Two-thirds of school leaders indicated that someone at the district advocates for them in
overcoming barriers to innovation. Just over half indicated that district departments are
responsive to requests for customized support. In interviews, leaders identified three categories
of barriers: resources, political support, and role alignment. Recommendations based in
144
organizational change theory principles have been selected to address the need. First, effective
change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources needed to do their job (Clark & Estes,
2008). The second principle is that organizational development is more likely to succeed when
people are equipped to handle its unique challenges (Clark & Estes, 2008). These principles
suggest that schools with an innovative mission would more effectively achieve organizational
goals if funding is sufficient and if adequate autonomy is given for schools to allocate resources
to match school-specific priorities. Therefore, the recommendation to address resource barriers
is to allow schools with an innovative mission to exercise increased autonomy in allocating
sufficient resources to support the school-wide focus. To address the need for customized
support, a two-fold recommendation is given. First, engage executive and cabinet level leaders
in equipping district personnel to respond to requests for customized support with agility.
Second, provide training and ongoing feedback to district role groups to know when and why a
magnet or charter may experience the standardized processes and procedures as barriers to
delivering their innovative school-wide mission and learn to adjust accordingly.
The recommendation regarding adequacy and autonomy of allocation of resources
addresses a key stakeholder-identified barrier. At the state level, adequacy and equity of funding
for all schools is necessary, including charter and magnets. At the district level, school
autonomy of the use of funding is supported by the MSA’s (2016) standards of excellence and
the NACSA (2015). MSA’s standards of excellence encourage districts to intentionally support
a financial plan to sustain magnet schools and provide “latitude for decision making.” (MSA,
2016). When charter schools contract for services with the district, NACSA (2015) recommends
that the district utilize the funds with efficiency (NACSA, 2015).
145
The corresponding recommendation is to provide training and ongoing feedback to
district role groups to know when and why a magnet or charter may experience the standardized
processes and procedures as barriers to delivering their innovative school-wide mission and learn
to adjust accordingly. According to MSA (2016), customization of district supports is a critical
component of supporting magnets in all efforts. Similarly, NACSA (2015) urges that, when a
charter contracts services, that the district uphold charter autonomy in providing the services.
Therefore, the two-fold approach to equipping district employees to handle unique challenges is
recommended based on the identified need to overcome organizational barriers to innovation
with charter and magnet schools.
Cultural setting: Invest in the growth, development, and network of leaders of
innovation. The survey results indicated that none of the existing professional learning
structures for magnet or charter leaders meet the threshold to be considered an asset in
developing their growth as leaders of innovation. A recommendation based in organizational
change theory has been selected to close this organizational gap. Clark and Estes (2008) observe
that effective change efforts align training needs, role groups, structures, and processes. In
application to the study, this observation supports the recommendation that the professional
learning system needs to be re-designed to meet the specific needs of magnet and charter leaders.
Therefore, the recommendation is to design a cohesive leadership development approach that
integrates the context of principals as leaders of schools with an innovative mission.
The training needs for the subset of school leaders who serve schools with an innovative
mission should align to the expectations placed on schools with a mission to innovate. Wallace
Foundation (Liston, 2013) promotes five key practices of effective principals, including shaping
a vision of success for all students, creating a climate hospitable to education, cultivating
146
leadership in others, improving instruction, and managing people, data, and processes to foster
school improvement. The leader of a school with an innovative mission engages in all of these
practices. In addition, they apply distinct leadership behaviors of innovators such as
orchestrating the design and implementation of the mission and ambidextrous leadership (Rosing
et al., 2011). Only training leaders with strategies designed for incremental change will not
promote innovative behaviors because improvement and innovation require different but related
leadership behaviors. As such, the literature supports the necessity to design a cohesive
leadership development approach with components designed for the unique needs of the cohort
of school leaders of magnet and charter schools (Clark & Estes, 2008; Liston, 2013; Rosing et
al., 2011).
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The following integrated implementation and evaluation plan is based on Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four
level model of implementation and evaluation merges with Clark and Estes’ (2008) approach to
the selection of various training methods to address identified performance gaps. Clark and Estes
use the term “training” in a broad sense to refer to any activity or program that equips individuals
with knowledge or skills to apply in the workplace. The plan outlines the training program to
implement the recommendations derived from the data in Chapter Four and relevant scholarly
literature. Planning the implementation and evaluation concurrently ensures that the plan is both
useful and credible. Evaluating the training serves the purposes of improving the program,
ensuring transfer of new learning to behavior that impacts results, and demonstrating the value of
investing in training to the organization. The four levels of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s model
147
are scaffolded to ensure that training activities and programming results in improved individual
performance that contributes to improved organizational outcomes.
Level 4 is the first step in planning an integrated implementation and evaluation plan.
Level 4 defines the desired internal and external organizational outcomes of the planned learning
program. Desired outcomes are directly aligned to achieve organizational goals (Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Beginning with level 4 ensures that the plan will add value to the
organization’s results. Level 3 focuses on the transfer from learning to changed on-the-job
behavior. Application of learning is necessary for training to result in goal attainment. Level 2
centers on the learning that occurs during the actual training event. Intended knowledge, skills,
and attitudes are defined and assessed. In level 1, participant reaction to the training event is
assessed. Participants provide feedback on their satisfaction with the learning event and their
perception of relevance. Using the four levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model in planning,
implementing, and evaluating the learning program ensures alignment to organizational needs.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The vision of Western Independent School District is for all students to attend schools
that are high-quality and responsive to the community (WISD, 2015). In support of the District
vision, the goal of focus for the OISO is to ensure that every charter and magnet school delivers
an innovative and high-quality learner experience that substantially contributes to the WISD
portfolio of school options. Magnet and charter school leaders are charged with implementing
an innovative school-wide approach that results in attracting a diverse student body and increases
student learning.
The success of school leaders hinges on the success of their faculty and staff as well as
the support of the district and in the case of charter school leaders, the school governing councils.
148
For the purpose of this study, school leaders are the stakeholder group of focus. The study
validated performance gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational conditions for school
leaders’ success in meeting stated outcomes. The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick, 2016) provides the framework to implement and evaluate recommendations to
close the identified performance gaps.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4 indicators are designed to give specific targets that contribute to organizational
goal attainment. The New World Kirkpatrick Model categorizes leading indicators as external
and internal (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). External indicators are outcomes for leaders of
magnet and charter schools to achieve and include innovation, enrollment, retention,
achievement. Internal outcomes include student diversity, leadership stability, leadership
perception of value of innovation, leadership satisfaction, and organizational support of
innovation. Table 29 below depicts the external and internal outcomes with corresponding
metrics and methods for each.

149
Table 29
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Innovation: Charter and
magnet schools will become
models of innovative practices
in K–12 public education
Magnet schools will receive national
recognition through award or
certification from MSA.

Charter schools will meet the academic
and innovation indicators in the
performance framework.
MSA application results
Annual charter site visit results
Enrollment: Magnet and charter
schools will attract and retain
student enrollment
Annual enrollment numbers
Enrollment/ site capacity ratio
School waiting lists
Enrollment data analysis
Achievement: Charter and
magnet schools will accelerate
student learning through
innovative teaching and
learning
Charter and magnet schools will
demonstrably accelerate the shrinking
of the achievement gap as compared to
the district as a whole.
Achievement data analysis
Student Retention: Families
who choose magnet and charter
schools will demonstrate
satisfaction with the school
Retention of students from beginning
to end of school year
Retention of students throughout the
grade span of the school

Enrollment data analysis
Internal Outcomes

Student Diversity: Magnet and
charter schools will cultivate a
diverse student community
Magnet and charter schools will
demonstrate incremental progress in
attracting a student population that
mirrors the district demographics.
Enrollment data analysis
Leadership Stability: Charter
and magnet leaders will exhibit
longevity in their school
Magnet and charter school leaders will
remain in the same role for a minimum
of 4 years.
Leadership retention: increase the %
of leaders in years 4+ from 54% over 4
years to 70%
Employment data analysis
Leadership Perception of
Organizational Value of
Innovation
Increase percentage of leaders who
indicate the perception of high
organizational value of the role of their
innovative school in meeting
organizational goals
School leader survey
Leadership Satisfaction with
Professional Learning for
Innovative Leadership
Increase the % of leaders who rate each
professional learning opportunity
available to them as “extremely
effective” or “highly effective” in
growing their leadership capacity and 0
in the “not effective at all” category
School leader survey
Support of innovative schools
as a cohesive approach to
district goals
Procedural and structural alignment to
support autonomy and remove
organizational barriers to innovation.
School leader survey

150
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) define critical behaviors as
applying new learning to practice. Level 3 is the point in the implementation process in which
learning transitions to behavior. Identifying critical behaviors provides specificity in
expectations of behavioral outcomes based on the learning experience. Critical behaviors for
school leaders include engaging teacher leadership in the planning and implementation cycle,
applying components of required administrative tasks to accelerate the innovative mission, and
applying ambidextrous leadership through innovator’s discovery and delivery skills. Application
of these critical behaviors are presumed to be key for goal attainment to occur. Table 30 below
outlines the critical behaviors with corresponding metrics, methods, and timing.
Table 30
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. School leaders
will engage teacher
leadership in
applying the design
process to advance
the school’s
planning cycle in
developing and
implementing
innovative
practices bi-
monthly.
Proportion of meeting
agendas devoted to
the planning and
implementation cycle
Review of leadership
meeting deliverables
Quarterly
2. School leaders
will apply
components of
required
administrative tasks
to accelerate the
innovative mission.
Observable alignment
of innovative mission.
Document review: state-
required plan,
instructional schedule,
teacher observation
feedback, professional
development plan, and
budget
Quarterly

151
Table 30, continued
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
3. School leaders
will apply
ambidextrous
leadership through
innovator’s
discovery and
delivery skills
Participation in
newly-designed
innovative leadership
development program
Individual meetings to
support and monitor
application of new skills
Monthly

Required drivers. The transition of learning to critical behaviors requires organizational
drivers in the form of both support and accountability (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Support drivers include reinforcement, encouragement, and rewards. Reinforcement can be
provided through verbal or digital reminders, job aids, on-the-job training, and refreshers
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Encouragement should be provided in regular increments
and may be provided through coaching or mentoring (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Rewards can be formal and extrinsic or informal and intrinsic. Support drivers must be
accompanied by corresponding accountability and monitoring. Without a system for monitoring
the application of critical behaviors to the workplace, even the best intended employee tends to
revert to engrained habits (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Measuring and monitoring send a
powerful message of importance. Observation, work review, and reporting are common methods
for monitoring (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Together, support and accountability form the
organizational structure to ensure the transfer of learning to critical behaviors.

152
Table 31
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Establish a magnet/charter
leadership network for
innovative leadership
development system
Initially 2 per semester,
increase frequency based on
demand
1, 2, 3
Establish protocols, schedules,
and support for groups of
school leaders to engage in in-
depth visits to one another’s
schools, provide feedback,
and reflect on innovative
practices
Initially 2 per semester,
increase frequency based on
demand
1, 2, 3
Provide a job aid of the design
process applied to each
component of the school’s
innovation design and
implementation plan
Monthly reference in each
face- to-face interaction
1, 3
Provide a job aid that cross-
walks each required
administrative task with
innovation implementation
stages
Monthly reference in each
face- to-face interaction
1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Provide emails that spotlight
exemplary innovative
practices within the
magnet/charter leadership
network
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Coach leaders individually to
connect leadership behaviors
to success outcomes
(attribution)
2 times per semester 1, 2, 3

153
Table 31, continued
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Rewarding
Provide public recognition of
earned MSA award or
certification status for magnet
schools and high-level
performance on the academic
and innovation performance
matrix for charters
Annually at board meetings 1, 2, 3
Work with Communications
office to issue a press release
for awarded schools
In advance of annual
recognition at board meetings
1, 2, 3
Fund attendance at
conferences for leaders to
receive earned recognition
Annually 1, 2, 3
Verbally express pride in
leader’s accomplishments in
individual meetings
Minimum of monthly 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Form groups of leaders who
are working on similar
implementation strategies to
self-assess and share progress
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Establish a tiered monitoring
system where school leaders
who need more monitoring
and support are identified and
visited more frequently
Minimum of bi-annually up to
bi-monthly
1, 2, 3
Perform a comprehensive
review of data, planning and
implementation cycle, and
application of innovative
leadership development
trainings
Bi-annual 1, 2, 3

Organizational support. The foundation of each required driver above lies in
establishing a system-wide value of magnets and charters as providing a unique and innovative
learning opportunity that is not found in the neighborhood school setting. Clark and Estes (2008)
indicate that cultural core values influence goal attainment. As interviewees observed, the value
154
placed on schools of choice by the district is variable depending on role group. Interviewees
noted that the board of education, cabinet level, and executive level leadership do not express a
unified value of the role of magnets and charters in the attainment of the district vision. To
achieve the vision alignment of structures, processes, and practices is necessary (Clark & Estes,
2008). Interviewees and survey participants clearly communicated the need to address the
leadership development needs of magnet leaders as different than that of all principals.
Specifically, magnet leaders expressed the need to allow professional learning to focus on a
comprehensive innovative approach as core rather than as an add on. Actualizing a professional
learning approach that meets the needs of leaders who are simultaneously bound by legal
compliance and charged with the goal of innovating will require two-way negotiation between
the OISO and the principals’ supervisors as well as district departments. Charter leaders
currently participate in district-provided professional learning on a voluntary basis. Offering
opportunities for magnet and charter school leaders to cross-pollinate around implementation
goals through in-depth school visits will require support from both district and charter governing
councils. The implications of successful negotiation will open the gateway to establishing a
system for innovation in various configurations of public schools to incubate, grow to fruition,
and pollinate throughout the system.
Level 2: Learning
Level 2 learning forms the basis of new information for application of critical behaviors
in level 3. Level 2 develops the prerequisite knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment to prepare participants for behavioral application in the workplace (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
155
Learning goals. The following learning goals are designed to build the foundation of
new information to support school leaders in application to the critical behaviors in level 3.
School leaders will be able to
1. Confidently communicate the progress of their school’s implementation of the innovative
mission with a variety of audiences. (Procedural)
2. Know the components of the design process and the corresponding alignment to their
school’s innovative plan implementation and adjustment. (Declarative)
3. Know the components of required administrative activities and how to determine which
components can accelerate the school’s innovative focus. (Procedural)
4. Utilize strategies to build productive distributed leadership capacity. (Procedural)
5. Reflect on their strategies to balance implementation of innovation and meet the
regulatory requirements of public school. (Metacognitive)
6. Attribute the successes and shortcomings of the organization to their own leadership
behaviors. (Attribution)
7. Engage with a variety of stakeholders to build value and support for the role of magnet
and charter schools in organizational goal attainment. (Cultural model)
8. Confidently advocate for their school’s needs for autonomy and barrier removal, along
with their unique needs as leaders of innovation. (Cultural setting)
Program. Interview participants and survey respondents clearly defined both what they
value and what they do not value in training programming. Guided by the qualitative and
quantitative data and supported by relevant literature, the following program is designed to meet
the learning objectives. If met, the learning objectives will equip leaders with the prerequisite
knowledge, skills, attitude, commitment, and confidence to apply the identified critical
156
behaviors. Four components of the program are designed to be mutually reinforcing. The
program consists of customized training to develop ambidextrous leadership capacity, innovative
school networking, in-depth school visit groups, and coaching.
The first component is to establish a quarterly face-to-face training program designed
specifically for leaders of magnet and charter schools. Clark and Estes (2008) note the value of
face-to-face training as a component of a holistic approach. The first meeting will introduce the
concept of ambidextrous leadership and provide opportunity for discussion and connection
between leaders. Leaders will leave the meeting with information that shows their role as one of
generating and implementing innovation, with guidance for when each action is required. The
second meeting will focus on leveraging the state teacher observation rubric to accelerate
innovation. Participants will self-evaluate their own feedback to teachers and provide peer
feedback on a recent observation in the context of application of the school’s innovative mission.
Participants will leave the meeting with a job aid that shows examples of feedback statements
that do relate to the school’s innovation in contrast to examples that do not relate to the
innovation. The third meeting will model a variety of protocols for effective meeting structures
to support leadership teams in holding productive and focused meetings. Leaders will leave with
a job aid that displays the components of effective distributed leadership processes. The final
meeting will introduce the design process, demonstrate the alignment to the state-required
improvement plan, and give participants the opportunity to identify areas of revision to discuss
with their leadership team. Participants will leave with the confidence and commitment to take
their plan off the shelf and dive in with their leadership team and/or governance council.
The second component honors the leader’s request for networking opportunities between
magnet and charter leaders. Knowles (1996) suggests that learning with and from peers is an
157
effective strategy for adult learners. The first year, these convenings will be held two times. If
demand for increased frequency exists, additional convenings can be planned in subsequent
years. The innovation convenings will begin with brief, thought provoking programming to give
a common grounding experience for discussion and networking. The first year, programming
would center around the dual focus that ambidextrous leaders fulfill in their schools with an
innovative mission. Innovator’s habits (Dyer et al., 2011) will be introduced along with
entrepreneurial mindset (Taulbert & Schoeniger, 2010). After the brief programming,
participants will have unstructured open time and space to connect with one another, discover
common interests, and learn from each other about their application of ambidextrous leadership.
The third component, also requested by multiple interviewees in the study, is to establish
school innovation visitation groups. Knowles (1996) observes that adult learners prefer to hold
the control of their learning process. As such, these groups would be self-selected so that leaders
have voice and choice to construct and meet their own learning objectives. School visits will be
facilitated by district staff to meet the stated shared objectives of each group. Protocols for
observations, debrief, feedback, and reflection will be used to maximize the experience for each
participant. In a collaborative effort to respond to principal’s feedback, the school innovation
groups would replace the traditional instructional rounds structure for magnet leaders.
Finally, the fourth component is small group or individual coaching. The role of
professional coaching is to guide the reflective practice through application of new learning in
the specific work context (Patti, Holzer, Stern, & Brackett, 2012). Coaching may take place in a
small group setting around a common problem of innovative practice. Otherwise, coaching will
take place individually. Leaders will be coached to identify their own development needs in
applied innovation based on their school’s strength and growth areas. Coaches will support
158
application of learning through reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring progress.
During coaching sessions, leaders will consider the allocation of budget and time resources in
meeting the innovative school mission. Coaching magnet school principals will be a
collaborative effort between the OISO and the other district support personnel assigned to
support the development of principals.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Evaluation of learning at level 2 involves
formative and summative feedback on the impact of the training activity on the development of
new knowledge, skill, attitude, confidence, and commitment (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Table 32 below summarizes strategies for level 2 evaluation activities both during and after
training events.
Table 32
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks during training During
Group discussions of concepts During
Survey After
Procedural Skills “I can do it right n ow.”
Complete an action plan and timeline for
implementation of learned concepts
During and after
Participants share their action steps based on the
training
During
Performance measures during group activities to
practice application of skills
During
Survey After
Attitude “I believe this is wor thwhi le.”
Simulation activities that lead to positive
outcomes
During
Coaching that includes performance measures After, ongoing
Survey After

159
Table 32,continued
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Observation of performance as leaders practice
their presentation of a concept to their faculty
with feedback from the group
During
Survey, pre and post Before and after
Individual and small group coaching After, monthly
In-training construction of job aids During and after
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Coaching to support implementation with real-
time performance assessment
After, monthly
Monitoring implementation in small groups and
individually
After, monthly

Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) define level 1 as a reaction to the training program.
Measuring reactions of favor toward the training experience, engagement, and perceived
relevance to the job will provide formative information for mid-course corrections. A
summative evaluation at level 1 will provide information on satisfaction, the trainer’s
methodology, and overall perception of quality. Table 33 outlines the methods and timing of
level 1 evaluation activities.
Table 33
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Facilitator observation During each session
Monitor active participation During each session
Return attendance at voluntary events At each session
Relevance
Facilitator observation During each session
Pulse checks, digital (i.e. Backchannel) and
in person
During each session

160
Table 33, continued
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Customer Satisfaction
Plus/Delta comment chart Immediately after each session
Survey Several days after each session

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. During each training event, the
facilitator will periodically solicit a verbal knowledge check to ensure that all participants are
acquiring the needed information (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Knowledge checks may be
in the format of discussion group report-outs, individual check ins, or listening to table
discussions to affirm engagement. At the close of each training event, participants will be asked
to provide feedback via an exit ticket. Feedback will be used to check the quality of the program
and as part of a comprehensive evaluation approach to demonstrate value of training to the
organization. The exit ticket is a short survey with 13 items that takes approximately five
minutes. Taking the survey will be built into the program agenda with time provided. The exit
ticket asks for feedback about level 1, including perceptions of the training experience,
participant engagement, perceived relevance to the job, and satisfaction with the training. Level
2 feedback will be solicited, including declarative and procedural knowledge, attitude,
confidence, and commitment to apply the new learning. One open-ended item at the end of the
survey asks for suggestions for improvement. Finally, participants are given the opportunity to
ask for follow-up on a separate sheet before they leave.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Within four weeks after the
program, a brief interview will be conducted in the coaching sessions. The interview protocol
will fulfill the dual purposes of identifying additional needs for support and to monitor
implementation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The interview will go into more depth with
161
levels 3 and 4. Level 3 interview questions will focus on the implementation of the critical
behaviors of focus in the training program. Level 4 interview questions focus on the results the
leader is experiencing due to their implementation of new knowledge and skills. The coaching
conversation will guide the school leaders to attribute their changed leadership behaviors.
Additionally, training participants will receive a six-question online survey to gather quantitative
data on levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 approximately 4 weeks after the training program.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Upon completion of the short- and long-term program evaluations, it is important to
analyze and report the formative and summative data to support program improvement and
communicate the importance of the training to the organization (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The report should align all levels of programming to the organizational goals as defined
in level 4. Figure 6 below provides a sample of the components of a graphically aligned data
report.
162

Figure 8. Sample aligned data report.

Summary
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework guided the identification of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of magnet and charter school leaders through
this mixed-methods study. Recommendations based in learning, motivation, and organizational
change theories were identified to meet the identified gaps. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016)
163
New World Model provided the framework to implement the recommendations to equip and
support leaders of magnet and charter schools to implement innovative leadership practices. The
New World Model process ensures that leaders will receive knowledge, skills, and motivation
development along with the organizational support for success. Successful implementation of
the integrated implementation and evaluation plan is designed to ensure that charter and magnet
school leaders are prepared to ensure their schools deliver innovative, high-quality learning. In
this way, magnets and charters fulfill the role of providing complementary choice options within
WISD. The role of magnet and charter schools in meeting WISD’s mission of high-quality,
community responsive schools for every student is systematically supported using this
framework.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework provided a solid framework to
identify assets and gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational conditions. The
application of the gap analysis framework forms a clear basis to identify root causes of
performance gaps in the field of education. Similarly, the framework is appropriately applied
across sectors. The strengths of the Clark and Estes framework is versatility and applicability
across sectors and the breadth and depth of studying a single stakeholder group. However, the
comprehensive nature of the process contributes to the weakness of this study. A complete gap
analysis of all role groups, including the district OISO office, teachers, and district
administration would have yielded a comprehensive set of recommendations for overarching
organizational change. The focus on school leaders fit the timeframe and capacity for the
purposes of this study. However, it must be recognized that the fulfillment of the vision of
164
magnet and charter schools as innovative choice options is a shared responsibility that does not,
and should not, rest on the shoulders of school leaders alone.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Model contributed a sound foundation
to take recommendations to implementation. The process of beginning with high-level results,
and backward planning to identify critical behaviors, corresponding learning goals, and
anticipated positive reactions to training events provides clear connections between
implementation and evaluation activities. The integrated nature of the New World Model and
the clarity of purpose form a strong basis for application of the model to this study. The New
World Model does touch on analysis of implementation with consideration of whether or not
each level of implementation meets expectations. However, the weakness of the model is a lack
of a clear path forward if support structures are inadequate, broken, disconnected, or ineffective.
If the organizational support and accountability is not present and aligned, the stakeholders are
less likely to experience goal attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are sources of weakness in the study that the researcher is unable to control
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A key limitation was the high number of new charter and magnet
leaders after several years of heavy turnover. The disproportionate number of new leaders may
have impacted the survey results, although the interviewees were balanced across levels of
experience. Another potential limitation may have been in the positionality of the researcher
relationship. Although the researcher does not supervise the school leaders, some participants
may have an inflated perception of the researcher as in a position of influence within the
organization. The potential exists that the relationship may have influenced some respondents’
survey and interview answers.
165
Delimitations are decisions that the researcher makes that can impact the study (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The design and implementation of this study had several delimitations. First,
the study did not include document analysis. This data component would have proven useful and
informative in validating survey and interview data. Second, the study did not include
observations. A more comprehensive approach would have enabled the researcher to gather
first-hand observation of leadership behaviors in action to further validate the survey and
interview data. Additional delimitations included the concurrent collection of survey and
interview data and the decision to only study the leaders of the magnet and charter schools
instead of including teachers and district personnel. The survey response rates were adequate for
generalization to the local population, but the study’s findings may not be applicable to a larger
population outside of the context of WISD.
Future Research
Conducting a study within the bounds of available time and human power necessitates
making difficult choices. Among the choices are selecting what not to study at a particular time.
These choices result in a robust assortment of future research recommendations. Three major
areas for future study are identified. First, as alluded to in the delimitations, is the necessity to
expand the stakeholders of focus to include both teachers and district administrators. A robust
analysis of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational conditions necessary for these role
groups to foster innovation in public education would provide a comprehensive data set to
inform system-wide recommendations. Second, this study focused primarily on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational conditions of school leaders implementation of innovation, with
only cursory reference to the equally important role of generation of innovation. A study
focused on the creativity and discovery role would round out the focus on ambidextrous
166
leadership. Finally, a similarly-constructed study of the implementation knowledge, skills, and
organizational conditions of turnaround leadership could inform the possibility of reciprocity of
learning across two groups of school leaders with distinct missions.
Conclusion
Western Independent School District’s OISO exists to establish a strategic portfolio of
innovative quality K–12 choice pathways of magnet and charter schools. As such, this study
focused on the schools with the specifically stated organizational charge to lead innovation in the
school district. The focus on magnet and charter schools gave concrete insight into the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational conditions needed for school leaders to successfully
implement school-wide innovation using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model. The
New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provided the framework for an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan to support leaders of innovative schools in
developing the knowledge, motivation, and organizational conditions for goal attainment.
The results of this study in the small subset of public school leaders is intended to
contribute to the broad body of knowledge on innovation in public education. It is important to
acknowledge that many public schools that are not magnet or charters provide innovative leaning
experiences. However, as expressed in the future research section, the possibility exists that
some of the identified needs and corresponding recommendations may be applicable to a broader
role group of leaders in the district. The experience and insight of the leaders who participated in
the study gave valuable insight that may be used to advance innovation beyond the boundaries of
WISD.
As expressed in Chapter One, public education has a moral imperative to establish
innovation as the path to systemic change. Today’s students are entering a global economic
167
landscape that the traditional system cannot prepare them for. Innovation in public education has
become a moral imperative to improve achievement, increase equitable access to the workforce,
close the achievement gap, and secure the nation’s social and economic future (ICFGEO, 2016;
ESSA, 2015; OECD, 2012, 2016). For this reason, the US Department of Education (2015)
recognized innovation as necessary to ensure students are prepared to thrive in a rapidly
changing global economy. It is the author’s hope that the results of this study and the subsequent
implementation and evaluation plan will advance innovation in magnet and charter schools in
WISD while contributing to the slow, but forward, motion toward an innovative public education
system that effectively serves every student.
COVID-19 POSTSCRIPT
The final two chapters of this study were written against the backdrop of COVID-19’s
explosion into a global pandemic. The resulting acceleration of the conditions for innovation in
K-12 education warrant a few observations. When the context of magnet and charter school
policy is removed from the KMO findings regarding innovation in K-12, the core of the study is
immediately applicable to a COVID-19 world.
The enduring role of leaders as drivers of innovation is more critical than ever. Leaders
who demonstrate ambidexterity are leaning in to meet the demand to rapidly re-configure the
structural elements that have historically shaped public education. Meanwhile, transactional
leaders wait for guidance from above, anxiously hoping for a rapid return to normal.
Ambidextrous leaders with a high sense of self-efficacy and attribution are uniquely positioned
to re-make the education system. Innovative leaders are positioned to act swiftly during this time
of societal and economic disruption.
168
COVID-19 has amplified the inequities inherent in the old system, and leaders cannot
morally or ethically continue to ignore the mechanisms of systemic oppression. The
organizational conditions for system-wide innovation necessitate the removal of barriers and the
value of local-level autonomy described in this study. Thus far, unprecedented levels of
flexibility and inter-governmental collaboration are emerging in response to this crisis, and must
be leveraged to establish systems that will lead to a more equitable future. For instance,
communities can no longer ignore the existence of digital deserts and must rapidly align to
ensure access for all. This access can pave the way for education to transition from a place-
based event to an ongoing part of daily life. Concurrently, a focused effort to support educators
in a new system is needed. Teachers who have been reluctant to embrace technology have
rapidly learned to use digital meetings, resources, and tools. Their students are counting on them
to learn and apply new skills, and teachers are responding with purpose and urgency. Continued
support in the growth, development, and networking of educators at all levels will be critical to
sustain this progress into a more equitable future.
Already, the voice of the status quo rises with assertions about students’ presumed
capability to learn in a new educational delivery model. These assertions reflect the underlying
assumptions that have created the ever-widening achievement gap. Rather than assuming
limitations, we as leaders must create and embrace new approaches while shedding ineffective
practices to open the door to a new era of equity.
Necessity is functioning as the mother of innovation as COVID-19 presses every industry
to respond to the rapidly changing new world. Organizations that respond with agility, integrity,
and purpose are likely to thrive while those who cling to the status quo do so at the risk of
becoming obsolete. It is my sincere hope that the history books of the future will identify public
169
education as an example of an organization that embraced the conditions to innovate, responded
with urgency, and experienced the results of improved equity.

170
REFERENCES
Akomolafe, C. O. (2011). Managing innovations in educational system in Nigeria: A focus on
creating and sustenance of culture of innovation. Journal of Emerging Trends in
Educational Research and Policy Studies, 2(1), 47–52.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Ayscue, J., Frankenberg, E., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2017). The complementary benefits of racial
and socioeconomic diversity in schools. Washington, DC The National Coalition on
School Diversity. Retrieved from http://school-
diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and
organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 23(4), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638702300404
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (5th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
Braddock, J., Dawkins, M., & Trent, W. (1992). Why desegregate? The effect of school
desegregation on adult occupational desegregation of African Americans, Whites and
Hispanics. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 31(1), 273–284.
171
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1–24).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burnes, B. (1996). Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics.
London: Pitman.
Černe, M., Jaklič, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2013). Authentic leadership, creativity, and innovation:
A multilevel perspective. Leadership, 9(1), 63–85.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715012455130
Christensen, C. M., Dillon, K., Hall, T., & Duncan, D. S. (2016). Competing against luck: The
story of innovation and customer choice. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America ’s schools. Washington, DC:
The Brookings Institution.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cobb, C. D., & Glass, G. V. (2009). School choice in a post-desegregation world. Peabody
Journal of Education, 84(2), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560902810187
Cookson, P., Jr., Darling-Hammond, L., Rothman, R., & Shields, P. (2018). The tapestry of
American public education. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Council of Great City Schools. (2018). Fact sheet. Retrieved from
https://www.cgcs.org/domain/24
172
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Daft, R. L., & Becker, S. W. (1978). Innovation in organizations: Innovation adoption in school
organizations. New York, NY: Elsevier, North-Holland.
Daly, E. (2006) Behaviorism. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/behaviorism/
Damanpour, F., & Wischnevsky, J. D. (2006). Research on innovation in organizations:
Distinguishing innovation-generating from innovation-adopting organizations. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, 23(4), 269–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2006.08.002
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07308253
Darling-Hammond, L., Rothman, R., & Cookson, P. W., Jr. (2017). Expanding high-quality
educational options for all students. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1086/499651
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. (2011). The innovator ’s DNA: Mastering the five
skills of disruptive innovators. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
173
Epple, D., Romano, R., & Zimmer, R. (2015). Charter schools: A survey of research on their
characteristics and effectiveness. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w21256
Finzi, B., Firth, V., & Lipton, L. (2017). Can CEOs be un-disruptable? Why today ’s best leaders
are flexible, not steadfast. Deloitte Insights. Retrieved from
https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/topics/talent/ceo-new-leadership-models-for-
responding-to-disruption.html
Firestone, W. A., & Shipps, D. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to
improve student learning? In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for
research in educational leadership (pp. 81–91). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation
components. Research on social work practice, 19(5), 531-540.
Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-
based programs. Exceptional Children, 79(3), 213–230.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900206
Fleming, N. (2012, May 1). Magnets reimagined as school choice option. Education Week.
Fox, R. A., & Buchanan, N. K. (Eds.). (2017). The Wiley handbook of school choice. John Wiley
& Sons.
Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Orfield, G. (2008). The forgotten choice: Rethinking
magnet schools in a changing landscape. The Civil Rights Project. Los Angeles:
University of California; Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu
174
Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2011). Choice without equity: Charter school
segregation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(1), n1.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v19n1.2011
Frost, M. B. (2007). Texas student’s college expectations: Does high school racial composition
matter? Sociology of Education, 80(1), 43–65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070708000103
Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership across the system. Insight (American Society of Ophthalmic
Registered Nurses), 14–17. Retrieved from
http://www.michaelfullan.ca/media/13396061760.pdf
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gardner, D. P., Larsen, Y. W., Baker, W., Campbell, A., & Crosby, E. A. (1983). A nation at
risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: United States Department
of Education.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Graham-Leviss, K. (2016, December 20). The 5 skills that innovative leaders have in common.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/12/the-5-skills-that-
innovative-leaders-have-in-common
Grube, L., & Anderson, D. (2018). School choice and charter schools in review: What have we
learned? Journal of Private Enterprise, 33(4).
175
Hargreaves, A., & Moore, S. (2000). Curriculum integration and classroom relevance: A study of
teachers’ practice. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(2), 89–112.
Hentschke, G. C. (2017). A brief and future history of school choice. In R. A. Fox & N. K.
Buchanan (Eds.), In R. Fox & N. Buchanan (Eds.), Handbook of school choice (pp. 28–
43). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119082361.ch2
Holme, J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of
school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 177–206.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.2.u6272x676823788r
IDEO (Firma comercial). (2015). The field guide to human-centered design. Design Kit.

International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity. (2016). The learning
generation: Investing in education for a changing world. Retrieved from
http://report.educationcommission.org/report/
Johnson, B. (1998). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable problems.
Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kahlenberg, R. D., & Potter, H. (2015). Restoring Shanker's Vision for Charter
Schools. American Educator, 38(4), 4.
Kahlenberg, R. D., & Potter, H. (2014). A smarter charter: Finding what works for charter
schools and public education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Keely, L., Pikkel, R., Quinn, B., & Walters, H. (2013). Ten types of innovation: The discipline of
building breakthroughs. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
176
Kezar, A. (2001). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 25–58.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick ’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
Knowles, M. (1996). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.
London, UK: Cambridge.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Langley, G., Moen, R., Nolan, K., Nolan, T., Norman, C., & Provost, L. (2009). The
improvement guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Learning Policy Institute. (2018). Understanding teacher shortages: 2018 update. A state by
state analysis of the factors influencing teacher supply, demand, and equity. Retrieved
from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/understanding-teacher-shortages-
interactive
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444340372
Lipton, M. (1996). Demystifying the development of an organizational vision. Sloan
Management Review, 37(4), 83–92.
Liston, D. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and
learning. New York, NY: Wallace foundation. Retrieved from
177
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Pages/The-School-Principal-as-
leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning.aspx
Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of
competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal,
40(2), 395–443. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002395
Lynch, R. G., & Oakford, P. (2014). Economic benefits of closing educational achievement gaps:
Promoting growth and strengthening the nation by improving the educational outcomes
of children of color. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2014/11/10/100577/the-economic-
benefits-of-closing-educational-achievement-gaps/
Magnet Schools of America. (2016). Standards of excellence. Retrieved from standards-of-
excellence-web.pdf.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McDonald, R. (2007). An investigation of innovation in non-profit organizations: The role of
organizational mission. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 256–281.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006295996
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
McLeod, S. (2017). Aligning the 10 building blocks for future ready schools [Partnership 21].
Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/news-events/p21blog/2222-aligning-the-10-building-
blocks-for-future-ready-schools
178
Meier, L. T. (2012). The Effect of school culture on science education at an ideologically
innovative elementary magnet school: An ethnographic case study. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 23(7), 805–822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9252-1
Mendels, P. (2012). The effective principal. Journal of Staff Development, 33(1), 54–58.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Metz, M. H. (2003). Different by design: The context and character of three magnet schools.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Mickelson, R. (2005). The incomplete desegregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools and
its consequences, 1971-2004. In J. C. Boger & G. Orfield (Eds.), School resegregation:
Must the south turn back? (pp. 87–110). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
Press.
Miron, G. (2017). Description and brief history of charter schools. In R. A. Fox & N. K.
Buchanan (Eds.), In R. Fox & N. Buchanan (Eds.), Handbook of school choice (pp. 224–
236). New York, NY: Wiley
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (n.d.). What is a charter school? Retrieved from
https://www.publiccharters.org/about-charter-schools
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2017). Achievement gaps dashboard. Retrieved
from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/dashboards/achievement_gaps.aspx
National Association of Charter School Authorizers. (2015). Principles & standards for quality
charter school authorizing. Retrieved from https://www.qualitycharters.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/08/Principles-and-Standards_2015-Edition.pdf
179
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author.
Noguera, P., Darling-Hammond, L., & Friedlaender, D. (2015). Equal opportunity for deeper
learning. Retrieved from https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/jff-
report-equal-opportunity-deeper-earning.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Equity and quality in
education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/education/school/50293148.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Helping immigrant students
to succeed at school--and beyond. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/education/Helping-immigrant-students-to-succeed-at-school-and-
beyond.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation Development. (2016). Innovating education and
educating for innovation: The Power of digital technologies and skills. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/GEIS2016-Backgrounddocument.pdf
Pack, G. (2017). The case for magnet schools. In R. A. Fox & N. K. Buchanan (Eds.), In R. Fox
& N. Buchanan (Eds.), Handbook of school choice (pp. 180–193). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Patti, J., Holzer, A., Stern, R., & Brackett, M. (2012). Personal, professional coaching:
Transforming professional development for teacher and administrative leaders. Journal of
Leadership Education, 11(1), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.12806/V11/I1/AB4
180
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Pendergrass, S. A., & Kern, N. (2017). The case for charters. n R. A. Fox & N. K. Buchanan
(Eds.), In R. Fox & N. Buchanan (Eds.), Handbook of school choice (pp. 237–251). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Pounder, J. S. (2006). Transformational classroom leadership: The fourth wave of teacher
leadership? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 34(4), 533–545.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143206068216
Preston, C., Goldring, E., Berends, M., & Cannata, M. (2012). School innovation in district
context: Comparing traditional public schools and charter schools. Economics of
Education Review, 31(2), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.07.016
Probst, G., Raisch, S., & Tushman, M. (2011). Ambidextrous leadership: Emerging challenges
for business and HR leaders. Organizational Dynamics, 40(4), 326–334.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.07.010
Prud'homme van Reine, P. (2017). The culture of design thinking for innovation. Journal of
Innovation Management, 5(2), 56-80.
Qin, D. (2016). Positionality. The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies,
1-2.
Riel, V., Parcel, T., Mickelson, R., & Smith, S. (2018). Do magnet and charter schools
exacerbate or ameliorate inequality? Sociology Compass, 12(9).
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12617
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today ’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to
create radically successful businesses. New York, NY: Crown Business.
181
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Los Angeles,
CA: SAGE.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-
innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–
974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014
Rossell, C. H. (2017). The case against magnet schools. n R. A. Fox & N. K. Buchanan (Eds.), In
R. Fox & N. Buchanan (Eds.), Handbook of school choice (pp. 194–214). New York,
NY: Wiley.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein (Ed.),
Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed., pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of
leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181–
203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807311291
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
182
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–23.
Shanker, A. (1988). Where we stand: A charter for change (Cont’d.). New York Times.
Sinclair, B. T. (2015). Improving early grade reading instruction in Ghana: A discrepancy gap
analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los
Angeles.
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby (Eds.),
Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other
sectors (pp. 1–7). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/
Strauss, A., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., & Sabshin, M. (1981). Psychiatric ideologies and
institutions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Swanson, E. (2017). Can we have it all? A review of the impacts of school choice on racial
integration. Journal of School Choice, 11(4), 507–526.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2017.1395644
Taulbert, C. L., & Schoeniger, G. (2010). Who owns the ice house?: Eight life lessons from an
unlikely entrepreneur. Cleveland, OH: Eli Press.
Tschimmel, K. (2012). Design Thinking as an effective Toolkit for Innovation. In ISPIM
Conference Proceedings (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation
Management (ISPIM).
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “grammar” of schooling: Why has it been so hard to
change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031003453
183
US Department of Education. (2015). Elementary and secondary schools act. Retrieved from
https://www.ed.gov/essa
Van de Ven, A. H., and Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.
Walton, G. M., & Wilson, T. D. (2018). Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social
and personal problems. Psychological Review, 125(5), 617–655.
https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000115
Wang, J., & Herman, J. (2017). Magnet schools: History, description, and effects. In R. Fox &
N. Buchanan (Eds.), Handbook of school choice (pp. 158–179). New York, NY: Wiley.
Wang, J., Herman, J. L., & Dockterman, D. (2018). A research synthesis of magnet school effect
on student outcomes: Beyond descriptive studies. Journal of School Choice, 12(2), 157–
180. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2018.1440100
Wang, J., Schweig, J. D., & Herman, J. L. (2017). Is there a magnet-school effect? A multisite
study of MSAP-funded magnet schools [JESPAR]. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 22(2), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2017.1292853
Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). The balanced leadership framework connecting vision with
action. Denver, CO: Mid-continental Research for Education and Learning.
Weiner, B. (1992). Excuses in everyday interaction. In M. L. McLaughlin, M. J. Cody, & S. J.
Read (Eds.), Communication. Explaining one ’s self to others: Reason-giving in a social
context (pp. 131–146). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attributional perspective and the social psychology of
perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence
and motivation (pp. 73–84). New York, NY: Guilford.
184
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., & Farrell, C. C. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school
performance in perspective. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 374–385.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214
Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-
2012-0141
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2014). Research: 10 traits of innovative leaders. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/12/research-10-traits-of-innovative-leaders
Zuckerman, S. J., Wilcox, K. C., Durand, F. T., Lawson, H. A., & Schiller, K. S. (2018). Drivers
for change: A study of distributed leadership and performance adaptation during policy
innovation implementation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(4), 618–646.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1384500

185
APPENDIX A
Survey
Demographic Information:
I am a: Magnet School Principal, Charter School Leader
Including this year, how many years have you been the principal/leader of your current school?
How many years have you been the principal/leader of a traditional school?
Including this year, how many years have you been the principal/leader of a charter and/or
magnet school (including multiple schools)?
My school serves: (check all that apply)
-elementary
-middle
-high

1. My school is uniquely innovative compared with traditional neighborhood schools in the
following ways (please select all that apply):
-My school is not different from traditional neighborhood schools
-Curriculum
-Pedagogical/ instructional approach
-Daily schedule
-School year calendar
-Approach to teacher professional learning
-Grouping of students
-Class sizes
-Staffing patterns
-School culture
-Grade level configurations
-Governance
-Materials / equipment
-Innovative industry/community partnerships

2. The stated purpose of innovation in my school is to (please select all that apply):
-My school does not have a stated purpose of innovation
-Reduce achievement gaps
-Increase student learning
-Establish a diverse student body
-Offer opportunities that aren’t available in comprehensive schools
-Prepare students to fulfill specific workforce needs
-Other____

3. Choose the best description of how each requirement impacts innovation in your school:
Answer choices: Barrier to Innovation, No Impact on Innovation, Accelerator of Innovation
-90-day plan Implementation
-Allocating instructional minutes/ master schedule
-Applying the State teacher observation rubric
186
-Your own professional development plan
-Budget allocation process
-Charter only: Charter renewal process
-Magnet only: Instructional Council

4. Does your school have a written implementation plan for your school-wide innovation
approach?
Answer choices: Yes, No

5. How frequently do you report progress on your charter school’s implementation of an
innovative approach to the Governing Council? (Charter only)
Answer choices: Annually, Every semester, Three times a school year, Monthly

6. How frequently do you evaluate progress on your magnet school’s innovation implementation
plan with Instructional Council? (Magnet only)
Answer choices: Annually, Every semester, Three times a school year, Monthly

7. In the last six months, approximately how many times have you. . .
Answer choices: None, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7+
-Networked with someone from a non-education field who inspired/informed a
new approach to your work?
-Tried an idea you read on social media, in an article, or in a book about
innovation?
-Tried an idea you heard about from another magnet or charter school leader?

8. When you encounter a district or state barrier to implementation of your school’s innovative
focus, how often do you. . .
Answer choices: Never, Sometimes, About half the time, Most of the time, Always
-Modify the innovation to conform to the requirements of the barrier
-Request an exception for my school based on a carefully crafted rationale
-Go back to the traditional way of doing things

9. How important are the following to successfully lead an innovative school?
Answer choices: Essential, Very Important, Moderately Important, Not Very Important,
Not at all Important
-Belief that my efforts to lead the school in implementing innovation determines
the school’s success.
-Confidence in my ability to lead innovation in my school.
-Belief that empowering others is essential to innovation.
-Belief that my ability to innovate is not dependent on the authorizer’s
requirements (Charter)
-Belief that my ability to innovate is not dependent on the district’s requirements
(Magnet)
-Ability to overcome resistance with staff who do not fulfill their role in the
school’s innovative focus.

187
10. To what degree. . .
Answer choices: sliding scale from 0-100
-does your school have unmet potential to innovate due to authorizer barriers?
(Charter)
-do you have adequate autonomy from the authorizer to innovate in your school?
(Charter)
-do you have adequate autonomy from the district to innovate in your school?
(Magnet)
-do you believe the role of your school as an innovative choice is valued by the
school district?
-does the Negotiated Agreement with ATF support site based innovation?
(Magnet)
-does your school have unmet potential to innovate due to district barriers?
(Magnet)

11. Charters: Please rate the importance of the following waivers to your school’s ability to
innovate:
Answer choices: Essential, Very important, Moderately important, Not very important,
Not at all important
-Individual class load
-Teaching load
-Length of school day
-Staffing pattern
-Subject areas
-Purchase of instructional materials
-Evaluation standards for school personnel
-School principal duties

11. Magnets: Please rate the importance of the following autonomies from the district to your
school’s ability to innovate:
-Customized professional learning
-School-specific curriculum development
-Exemption from the district process for selection of instructional materials
-School-specific assessments
-School-defined outcomes and measures specific to the magnet theme

12. When I encounter a barrier to innovation at my school, someone at the district level
advocates for me.
Answer choices: Always, Most of the time, About half the time, Sometimes, Never

13. District departments are responsive to my requests for customized support to implement
innovation.
Answer choices: Always, Most of the time, About half the time, Sometimes, Never

14: Please rate the effectiveness of the following in developing your leadership of an innovative,
non-traditional school:
188
Answer choices: Extremely effective, Very effective, Moderately effective, Slightly
effective, Not effective at all
All items:

Charter items:
-Charter leader meetings
-Charters & coffee
-My professional goal setting process
-My evaluation process with my board
Magnet items:
-Instructional rounds
-Zone meetings
-All-level magnet principal meetings
-My PDP process

189
APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol
Thank you for participating in my research on innovation in public schools of choice. I know
you have many people and tasks that demand your time, and I appreciate that you ’ve prioritized
this hour for our interview. As you’ve read in the informed consent document,
-the purpose of the study is to advance innovation in public schools of choice by
assessing the professional development needs of charter and magnet school leaders to drive
innovation in their schools
-data from this interview will be used to inform recommendations for school districts that
strive to support leaders to innovate in their schools of choice
-participation is completely voluntary and can be withdrawn at any time
-the potential benefit of participation is the opportunity to inform the body of research on
innovation in public education
-potential risks might include emotional or psychological discomfort
-interview data will be securely stored with password protection and identified
information will be separate from interview notes and transcripts
-the data will only be used in unidentifiable form for the purpose of the study, and our
organization will be assigned a pseudonym
Just a reminder that this interview is only for the purpose of collecting qualitative data
for a dissertation study on leadership development for innovation in public schools of choice.
Often times in our normal meetings, we problem solve and generate ideas together, but this is an
interview for research purposes. Everything we discuss will be completely confidential and only
used for the study, so if a topic comes up that you would like follow-up for in our normal working
190
relationship, please reach out to me separate from this interview to follow-up via my work email
or work text message. Any other questions before we get started? Great, I ’ll start the recording.
1. Take me on an innovation tour of your school--what would we see, hear, and observe students
and teachers doing that you would point out as examples of innovative practice that is different
from a traditional school?
Follow-up: how do you market your innovative approach?
2. What autonomy do you have as a [magnet or charter] school that enables you to implement
this innovation?
3. Share an example of a time that you set out to implement a new innovation in your school and
encountered barriers.
Follow-up: What strategies did you find to be effective to address the barrier?
Follow-up: What strategies did you find to be ineffective to address the barrier?
Follow-up: What motivated you to persist?
4. Tell me about your school’s mission and vision.
Follow-up: How do students experience the mission/ vision?
Follow-up: How do you support teachers to implement the mission/vision?
5. What inspired you to become a leader of a [charter or magnet] school instead of a traditional
school leader?
6. In what ways has the experience of leading an innovative school been what you expected?
Follow up: What surprises have you encountered?
7. What advice would you give a new [magnet or charter] school leader on balancing the
expectations of innovation with the day to day work of running a school?
191
8. In the last six months, how have you grown professionally? Follow-up: What experiences
have you had to facilitate your growth? Follow-up: What new actions have you taken as a result
of that growth?
9. Describe the ideal conditions to support the professional growth and development of leaders
of innovative schools?
Follow-up: How might having a network of innovative school leaders support your
leadership growth?
Follow-up: What might be similar and different from the current structure of principal’s
professional development?
10. If you could change anything you wanted at the district, state, or federal level to open the
opportunity for more innovation in schools, what would you change?
11. How would you respond if you encountered someone who has strong negative opinions
about school choice?
12. Do you feel that your organization values innovation in schools of choice? What
experiences have you had that make you feel that way?
13. Do you have anything you’d like to share for the study that I didn’t ask about that would
help improve the support and/or leadership development for leaders of magnet/charter schools to
innovate?
Thank you for your time today, I greatly appreciate your insights and willingness to share
your experiences and thoughts.

192
APPENDIX C
Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET

STUDY TITLE: Improving Conditions for Innovation

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Deborah Elder

FACULTY ADVISOR: Maria Ott, Ph.D.

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is completely
voluntary, and you may decide not to participate at any time. All information collected
will be kept confidential and stored in a secure location. This document explains
information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to improve organizational conditions and support for
innovation in magnet and charter schools. We hope to learn how to more effectively
advance innovation in K-12 public education. You are invited as a potential participant
because you are a charter school leader or magnet school principal. Very little research
exists on the specific needs of leaders of innovative schools in comparison with
traditional schools. This study seeks to apply seminal works on innovation to the school
choice setting and distinguish the support for developing the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational conditions of innovative leadership from the conditions for change and
improvement.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
All study participants will be asked to take an online survey. In field tests, the survey
took between 10 and 17 minutes. No individually identifying information will be
collected in the survey, and all answers are completely anonymous.

In addition, some study participants will be asked for an interview to provide more
detailed information. Interviews will be scheduled for 1.5 hours. Interviews will be audio
recorded and transcribed. Participants may choose to decline to be recorded, and
participants can refuse to continue with the interview at any time. No identifying
information will be collected in the interview. All interview data will be completely
confidential and applied only to the study.

Both the survey and interview can be accomplished in a location of the participant ’s
choice.
193

If you decide to take part, you will be asked to take an online survey. Some participants
will also be invited to take part in an interview. Participation is voluntary and information
collected will be kept confidential. I appreciate your time and willingness to help in this
research about innovation in magnet and charter schools.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
Participation is completely voluntary and can be withdrawn at any time.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
identifiable information will be used.

Survey data will be anonymous since no identifying information will be collected.
Interview data will not contain identifying information. Both survey and interview data
will be password protected and stored in a secure location. All data will be destroyed
when the dissertation is published at the end of the study, which will be a maximum of
ten months. No individually identifiable data will be published in the study. Data
collection is only for the purpose of forming recommendations for school districts to
improve the conditions for innovation in magnet and charter schools.

Audio files may be accessed by a transcription company. Only a company that certifies
confidentiality would be used. Audio files will be destroyed at the end of the study, a
maximum of ten months after the interview.

POTENTIAL RISKS
Although no risks are anticipated, potential risks might include emotional or
psychological discomfort. Participants may withdraw participation at any time.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Deborah Elder at (505)
715.3378 or delder@usc.edu or Dr. Maria Ott at mariaott@rossier.usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

194
APPENDIX D
Evaluation Instrument for Use Immediately Following Program Implementation

Please rate the following items based on today’s meeting.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. The objectives for today’s program were
clearly stated.

2. Program activities aligned to the objectives.

3. The facilitator was knowledgeable about the
topic/s.

4. I fully engaged in the program activities.

5. The program is relevant to my role as a leader
of a school with an innovative mission.

6. I learned something new today.

7. I know what I need to do to apply what I
learned today.

8. I am confident in my ability to apply what I
learned today at work.

9. I have written specific action steps to apply
what I learned today when I return to work.

10. I am committed to following my action plan.

11. What I learned today is relevant to my job.

12. Today’s program content is important to me.

13. Please provide any comments to improve the next learning opportunity.
14. Please provide any need for follow-up you may have on today’s topic/s on a separate sheet
with your contact information.

195
APPENDIX E
Evaluation Instrument for 4 Weeks After Program Implementation
This interview protocol is to be implemented with participants in the context of an individual or
small group coaching session.

Let’s look back at the action plan you wrote at the end of the last training. What has gone well?
What have you struggled with?

Is there anything in your action plan that you have not yet started? Specifically, when will you
begin?

Specific critical behavior sample questions:

(Critical behavior 1) Let’s look at your school’s innovation plan.
How have your teacher leadership meetings changed in the last month to focus on
ongoing implementation and adjustment of your plan? Let’s look at your recent agendas.
(monitoring)

Which tools have you used with your team to facilitate the discussions?

Have the tools helped implement specific school-wide action steps to advance the
innovative approach in every classroom? If so, what specifically are you seeing in
classroom walkthroughs and observations as evidence? If not, what are your next steps?

What support might you need in implementing your plan? (offer modeling, observation,
feedback as options)

(Critical behavior 2) Let’s look at the feedback you’ve provided in your classroom observations
and walkthroughs over the last few weeks and the job aid provided after the last training
program. (monitoring)

In what ways has your feedback shifted focus toward reinforcing innovation in
teaching? Show me some examples.

I see that you’ve really focused on improved feedback in the school’s innovative context,
would you be willing to share your examples at our next leader’s meeting and talk
through your thinking as you made the changes to your approach? (encouraging and
rewarding)
OR
What support might you need in developing your feedback skills? (offer modeling,
observation, feedback as options)

(Critical behavior 3) In our last networking event, what stood out to you on the topic of
ambidextrous leadership?
196
What have you brought back and shared with your staff from the event?

What have you noticed about your internal thought process as you approach your work in
the framework of ambidextrous leadership?

Non-specific to critical behavior questions:

What results are you seeing in your school since you’ve started implementing this critical
behavior?

What progress have you made toward applying your learning to impact school outcomes?

197
APPENDIX F
Digitally-Administered Evaluation Instrument for 4 Weeks After Program Implementation
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
I am confident in my ability to apply what I
learned in the training on (date).

I have applied the training objectives in the
work setting.

I can name specific behaviors that I have
changed.

I see results toward school goals as a result
of my application of the training objectives.

I have received adequate support for
implementing the training objectives.

I have the knowledge I need to apply the
training.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applies a knowledge, motivation, and organizational conditions framework to assess the needs of magnet and charter school leaders to develop and implement innovation in education. The purpose of the study was to improve the support for magnet and charter school leaders and the organizational conditions to accelerate innovation in public education for the purpose of increasing equity, decreasing the achievement gap, and promoting diversity. The study utilized a concurrent mixed-methods approach comprised of quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. The surveys were administered to all 50 magnet and charter leaders in Western Independent School District and the interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of six leaders. The deductive process of quantitative survey analysis coupled with the inductive process of the qualitative methodology through interviews informed substantive recommendations. This study found critical areas to address to advance innovation in public education. Specific areas of need include supporting school leaders with knowledge in applied innovative strategies, increasing leaders’ attribution of their actions to results, and removing organizational barriers. Based on the findings, this study recommends a four-fold program to address the stated needs of school leaders with corresponding organizational supports to advance the implementation of innovation in magnet and charter schools.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force: an innovation study

PDF

Understanding the factors that contribute to successful school reconstitution: A promising practice

PDF

Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

STATE public charter schools and extracurricular activities

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Implementation of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program in an urban secondary school: an improvement practice to address closing the achievement gap

PDF

Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices

PDF

Reforming student discipline policies in elementary schools: an improvement study

PDF

Organizational barriers to delaying high school start time in independent schools

PDF

Influencing teacher retention: an evaluation study

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Attendance interventions to address chronic absenteeism

PDF

Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness

PDF

Improving the representation of women in the independent school headship

PDF

Principal leadership influences teacher retention in schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support: an evaluation study

PDF

Improving exempt nurse leader work-life balance: an innovation study

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty

PDF

Building data use capacity through school leaders: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Elder, Deborah L. (author)

Core Title Improving conditions for innovation in magnet and charter schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 06/04/2020

Defense Date 04/22/2020

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

Tag charter schools,innovation,leadership,magnet schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,school autonomy

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ott, Maria (committee chair)

Creator Email debbieelder17@yahoo.com,delder@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-317312

Unique identifier UC11664170

Identifier etd-ElderDebor-8568.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-317312 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ElderDebor-8568.pdf

Dmrecord 317312

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Elder, Deborah L.

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