University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

1

STRATEGIES RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENTS
EMPLOY TO BUILD CAPACITY IN SECONDARY PRINCIPALS AS INSTRUCTIONAL
LEADERS

By
Rich Moore

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

May 2020

Copyright 2020 Rich Moore
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

2
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my devoted wife, Kelly, a USC alumni who birthed our
second child the morning of my first night of class. This program stretched her mothering
responsibilities abundantly, permitting me to complete this personal goal. Thank you for
sacrificing date nights so that I could read, research, and write. Your support of me while on this
journey is another testament to the sound decision of marrying your high school sweetheart.
To my son Carter, I did this for you. I wanted to model for you that going to school and
learning is cool. I cannot thank you enough for hanging out with me on those late nights when
you could not sleep. May this journey that I embarked on inspire you to continue to believe that
you can do anything and always to Fight On Baby!
My baby girl Harper, who exited the womb a Trojan, born the morning of my first class
at USC. Thank you for understanding and sacrificing daddy/daughter time so that I could work
toward this accomplishment. Your will to try to succeed at everything your big brother does is a
testament to your resiliency. May this inspire you to Fight On for Victory!
I also want to dedicate this dissertation to both of my parents. They have each been
continuously supporting me on this journey and now they have a son that is a doctor.
Finally, this dissertation is for the thousands of students that I have had the privilege of
working with thus far in my career and the thousands more that I will get to work with. Never let
anyone deter you from fulfilling your passion because you don’t fit within their vision. When
you know your why, you figure out how to execute it.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

3
Acknowledgements

Dr. Rudy Castruita, my dissertation chair, your mentorship, guidance, and encouragement
made this happen. I am forever grateful for you believing in this washed up jock, the writing and
completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without your unwavering support.
This last year and a half you have truly cultivated an insatiable passion in me to fight for equity
in public education.
My dissertation committee members, Dr. John Roach, thank you for believing in me. I
am grateful for your wisdom, letters of recommendation for jobs and scholarships, and your
continued encouragement throughout this journey. Dr. Dave Cash, it has been an honor to have
you as a member of my committee for this study. You have seen me grow from a newly hired
English teacher and high school football coach who coached your son, to a passionate
administrator striving for public education equity. I appreciate both of you distinguished
educators and am forever grateful for you two embracing me on this journey.
Furthermore, I am grateful for the exceptional Professors and guest lecturers that I have
had on this journey through the doctoral program at USC. Dr. Samkian, Dr. Slayton, Dr. Palisoc,
Dr. Cash, Dr. Roach, and Dr. Gothold are some that come to mind.
Keely, my fellow high school administrator and dissertation partner: I have truly gained
a sister in you through this journey. The encouragement, taking my calls when I call you during
the school day on your office phone, and constantly reminding me that we are almost to the
finish line. I cannot tell you enough how much I admire you for your passion, encouragement,
and perseverance. When adversity hit, you epitomized what a Trojan does, Fought On! You are a
true gem and I cannot wait to see where your career takes you.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

4
My USC colleagues (Cranberries), our group message is a gold mine of memories,
laughs, pictures, reminders to register for class or turn in assignments, and of course a heads up
to make sure we register for commencement. Liz, I love our conversations encouraging one
another to apply for jobs and confiding in one another when we did not get them. Danielle, your
sense of humor kept me awake in class many nights. Monique, our inside jokes and your bond
with my daughter Harper are both unforgettable. Natalie, your wit, the Claremont connection,
and Blondebasil catering. Going to miss our “study sessions” at The Lab.
Thank you to my site principals during this journey, Isabel Brenes and Dr. Randy
Buoncristiani, who enabled me to complete this program while providing me the learning
experiences necessary to prepare me for my next endeavor. I would also like to thank Mary Roy,
for clearing my calendar after 1:45 on the days that I had class and making sure I left on time
every week.
Next, I would like to thank the 2013 – 2015 leadership team at Golden Valley Middle
School in San Bernardino, California who saw leadership capabilities in me. Kristen Bicondova,
Ross Mack, Gabe Diaz, Shauna White, Carla Hernandez, and team Excalibur taught me what
instructional leadership is. They saw leadership in me at its infancy and cultivated it. For the
learning experiences and continued support, I am forever grateful.
Lastly, I have to thank my Trojan brother Dr. Henry Romero who hired me as a middle
school Dean of Discipline in 2016. Within my first month on the job he told me I needed to
apply for this program when I was debating on whether the time was right. He followed up that
talk with a more stern one, telling me to apply. Henry, I am grateful for your mentorship and the
relationship that we have where we can call each other at 6am on our commute to work. Thank
you for welcoming me into the Trojan family.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication………………...……………………………………………………………………….2
Acknowledgements…………………..……...…………………………………………………….3
List of Tables………………………………………………………………..…………………….7
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………8
Preface……………………………………………………………………………………………10

Chapter 1: Overview of Study…………………………………………………………………...11
Background………………………………………………………………………………12
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………...17
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………………..17
Research Questions……………………………………………………………………....18
Significance of Study…………………………………………………………………….18
Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………………………19
Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………………....19
Organization of Study…………………………………………………………………....20

Chapter 2: Review of Literature…………………………………………………………………21
Role of the Principal……………………………………………………………………..22
Role of the Superintendent……………………………………………………………….24
Relationship Between Superintendent and Principal…………………………………….25
Leadership Theories……………………………………………………………………...26
Education Leadership Concepts………………………………………………………….30
Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………………..39
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….................41

Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction……………………………………………………………………...............42
Instrument and Protocols………………………………………………………………...46
Data Collection……………………………………………………………………..........48
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………….............49
Summary……………………………………………………………………....................52

Chapter 4: Findings
Introduction……………………………………………………………………...............53
Purpose of the Study………..…………………………………………………...............53
Coding of Data……………………………………………………………………..........54
Presentation of Findings…………………………………………………………………55
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

6
Descriptive Characteristics………………………………………………………………55
Research Question 1……………………………………………………………………..57
Research Question 2……………………………………………………………………..62
Research Question 3……………………………………………………………………..67
Research Question 4……………………………………………………………………..71
Discussion…………………………………………………………………….................76

Chapter 5: Conclusion
Introduction……………………………………………………………………...............80
Statement of Problem……………………………………………………………………80
Purpose of Study…………………………………………………………………….......80
Research Questions……………………………………………………………………...81
Review of Literature…………………………………………………………………….82
Methodology…………………………………………………………………….............84
Key Findings…………………………………………………………………….............88
Comparing and Contrasting Between Counties…………………………………………90
Implications……………………………………………………………………...............91
Limitations…………………………………………………………………….................92
Recommendations for Future Study……………………………………………………..93
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….................94

References…………………………………………………………………….............................95

Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Instrument………………………….…………………………..104
Appendix B: Interview Protocol……………………………………………………...109
Appendix C: Participant Letter……………………………………………………….113

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

7
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Interview Respondents
Table 2. Ways in which Superintendents Provide Support
Table 3. Frequency of Communication between Superintendents and Secondary Principals
Table 4. Methods of Communication between Superintendents and Secondary Principals
Table 5. Superintendent Perceptions of Effectiveness in Strategies for Secondary Principals

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

10
Preface

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

11
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

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

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

Background of the Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

20

Organization of the Study

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

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

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

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

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

45
Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of Superintendents
______________________________________________________________________________
Survey Interview
______________________________________________________________________________

Years of experience: 2 years or more Years of experience: 2 years or more
Serving in public school district with student Serving in public school district with student
population from 2,500 to 70,000 population from 2,500 to 70,000
Serving in California Serving in California
Serving in Orange and San Diego County Serving in Orange and San Diego County
______________________________________________________________________________
Design Summary
This study used the principles found in Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Maxwell (2013)
to conduct a mixed methods research study. Specifically, a mixed methods approach was
utilized because it allowed the researcher to gain insight into the different perspectives being
studied through the research questions (Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative methodology was used
because it has a focus on understanding, meaning making, and allowed the researcher to develop
detailed descriptions, integrate multiple perspectives, describe process, and learn how events are
interpreted (Weiss, 1994). This mixed methods approach allows the researcher to understand the
data at a more detailed level by using qualitative follow-up data to help explain quantitative data
collected from the survey (Creswell, 2014). The most evident benefits of a mixed-method design
is that it draws on the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative designs, is appealing to those
at the forefront of research due to its sophistication, and provides a more complete understanding
of research problems (Creswell, 2014). Using both qualitative and quantitative approaches also
allowed the researcher to triangulate data that could support and provide evidence for the
research questions as well as reduce the risk of biases (Maxwell, 2013).
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

46
Methodology
This study addressed how superintendents build capacity in their secondary principals as
instructional leaders. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used and it involved
collecting quantitative data first and then explaining the quantitative results with in-depth
qualitative data. In the first quantitative phase of the study, a survey was used to collect data
from superintendents to assess and begin to understand their perceptions of support and
strategies used to support secondary principals. The second qualitative phase was conducted as
follow up to the quantitative results to help explain the quantitative results. In this exploratory
follow-up, the researcher explored how superintendents provide support and what they view as
being most effective in supporting secondary principals as instructional leaders.
Additionally, the process of completing qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys as
a part of the data collection process allowed for a mixed methods approach and a triangulation of
data (Maxwell, 2013). This triangulation allowed the researcher to gain insight into different
perspectives from different points of view that interviews or surveys alone might not have
provided. It was necessary to interview and survey superintendents to better understand the
systems of support provided to the principal in their role as an instructional leader. Further,
interviewing and surveying secondary principals was necessary in order to understand their
perceptions of the support provided by their superintendent. Conducting interviews and surveys
helped to eliminate researcher biases and check for participant perceptions versus reality.
Triangulation of survey and interview data in this mixed methods study helped to ensure internal
validity.
Instrumentation and Protocols
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

47
A pilot survey and interview were conducted with a current superintendent to provide the
researcher with feedback on question format, sequential order, and length of time of the
interview. This pilot enabled the researcher to move beyond the conceptual framework in an
effort to ensure that the data collected would answer the research questions.

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

48
quantify the level of support for each specific survey item. The survey designed for this study
was created to provide the researcher numeric descriptions of the attitudes and/or perceptions of
the 22 county superintendents (Creswell, 2009).
Qualitative Instrument
The interview protocol for this study followed a semi-structured approach. While
structured interviews allow for more comparability between groups, the more unstructured
balance allows for better internal validity and contextual understanding by allowing the
researcher to be direct and ask questions specifically about the topic or probe for further details
(Maxwell, 2013). The semi-structured approach also made it possible to report on proportions
and correlations, experiences and meaning, and richer question examples (Patton, 2002; Weiss,
1994).
The interview protocol was developed to specifically answer the research questions and
was based on Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of instructional leadership. There were 35
questions total (see Appendix B). A variety of question types and probes were used including
experience and behavior, sensory, feeling, opinion, ideal, devil’s advocate, interpretive, and
knowledge (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002).
Data Collection
All data collection decisions for both interviews and surveys were based on the literature
around qualitative and quantitative inquiry (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Bogdan & Biklen, 2007b,
2007a; Merriam &Tisdell, 2016; Maxwell, 2013; Patton, 2002; Weiss, 1994; Weiss, 1994).
Surveys were sent to 32 superintendents using the previously mentioned criteria to collect
quantitative data. A cover letter was sent with the survey link to explain the purpose of the study
(Appendix C).
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

49
After the survey data was collected, qualitative data follow up was conducted through in-
depth interviews with 6 of the superintendents who volunteered to participate in an in person
interview. Each interview was conducted at the requested time and location of the participant to
maximize convenience. Interviews were set up through email exchanges with appointments
lasting for one hour. The time of day of the interview was based on the availability of the
participant and each varied. The researcher took detailed and rich notes during each interview
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). At the discretion of the participants, each interview
was recorded for posterity. This allowed the researcher to focus on the participant and not solely
on writing down detailed notes, even though some notes were taken during and after the
interview (Patton, 2002). Due to the quick pace of the interview, interview notes were reviewed
afterwards which provided time for the researcher to make observer comments to provide for a
richer and more detailed analysis. The recorded interviews were professionally transcribed to a
Microsoft Word document using Rev software. A final ethical concern of transparency was
addressed throughout the process to limit the appearance of impropriety (Merriam &Tisdell,
2016).
Consideration was given to ethical standards during this study. Glense (2011) describes how
much of the ethical discussion and consideration in qualitative research concerns the nature of
relationships with research participants. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) had similar views that
ethical dilemmas are likely to emerge with the collection of data or the dissemination of findings,
with the underlying issue being the relationship between the researcher and participant. Both
pieces of literature highlight using informed consent to maintain ethical standards. All
interviewees were asked about the use of a recording device during the interview and the
researcher upheld the moral standards listed in IRB (Glense, 2011; Rubin, Rubin, & Sage, 2012).
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

50
The researcher also maintained the participant’s right to privacy by not using their names,
school, or school district which protected their anonymity (Glense, 2011).
Data Analysis
This study utilized a mixed-method explanatory sequential approach, incorporating both
the quantitative data from surveys and the qualitative data from interviews. All of the items in
the survey and interview protocols were directly linked to the research questions. The research
questions guided the data analysis for this study. Data was analyzed concurrently during the
interview data collection and was consistently compared to the quantitative survey results
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). At the conclusion of the study, the research findings were compared
to the body of literature to further validate the significance of the study.
Quantitative Data Analysis
22 surveys were completed via Google Forms, an online survey program, and the results
from the data were disaggregated in accordance with the conceptual framework. Questions were
grouped and disaggregated by three overarching categories which Halinger (1985) defines as the
three roles of instructional leadership: managing instruction, positive school climate, and mission
and vision. The mean scores for each question and category were compiled and compared,
allowing the researcher to determine the level of agreement with each research question. This
initial round of data was analyzed to come up with preliminary conclusions towards the research
questions. Additionally, it enabled the researcher to review the interview protocol to ensure that
the findings from the survey matched the questions being asked of superintendents during the
interview process. probing questions provided the researcher with in depth questions that would
answer the research questions. This also follows the explanatory sequential study design by
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

51
reviewing the data from the quantitative survey first, followed by the data from qualitative
surveys.
Qualitative Data Analysis
The four-step process outlined by Harding (2013) was used in the analysis of the
interview data. The first step was to identify the initial categories based on reading the interview
transcripts. Key phrases were underlined/circled to obtain a general sense of what the data was
saying. The second step was to code the transcribed interview notes. The researcher followed
Harding's (2013a) recommendation to summarize, select, and/or interpret the data into
manageable codes to help the researcher see beyond the details. In an effort to be thorough, the
researcher went back through transcripts to check for codes that may have emerged from later
data sets that were analyzed. The third step was to review the list of codes and determine which
codes appear in which category. To facilitate this process, the researcher placed the codes into an
excel spreadsheet and then assigned them specific categories, which ultimately determined the
foundations for the overarching themes. This was the fourth step of the process.
In addition to the method outlined in Harding (2013), the researcher also used strategies
found in Corbin and Strauss (2008) to move from open codes to analysis. The use of questioning
was used as an analytic tool to help the researcher become acquainted with the data as well as
think outside the box (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). By asking questions, the researcher was able to
better understand the problem from the participants’ perspective and was also able to analyze the
data at a deeper level by avoiding shallow findings. In addition, theoretical questions were asked
to help make connections between concepts derived from the data.
Validity and Reliability
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

52
The two main threats to the credibility and trustworthiness of data are bias and reactivity
(Maxwell, 2013). While there are a large number of ways in which to minimize the threat to
data, the researcher used triangulation, rich data, and numbers to maintain the credibility and
trustworthiness of data. Maxwell (2013), Merriam and Tisdell (2016), and Miles, Huberman,
and Saldana, (2014) all discuss the importance of using triangulation when analyzing data.
Maxwell (2013) discusses how triangulation involves the analysis of different sources such as
interviews and observations or using documents. He states that this strategy reduces the risk of
chance associates and systematic biases and allows for a better assessment of the explanations.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) found that triangulation is a powerful strategy for increasing the
credibility of research. By collecting and analyzing data from both interviews and surveys, the
researcher was able to look for any common trends that would make the data more credible by
getting multiple instances from different sources and methods (Miles, Huberrman, & Saldana,
2014). This also minimized threats to the validity of the data. By collecting rich data and using
descriptive note taking, a full and revealing picture of how superintendents build capacity in their
secondary principals as instructional leaders was available to the researcher (Maxwell, 2013).
This also enhanced the possibility of the results transferring to another setting (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The researcher also used the number strategy described by Maxwell (2013) to
make the data more explicit, and precise. This also allowed the researcher to test and support
any claims against the amount of evidence that supported those assertions.
Summary
This study used a mixed-method explanatory sequential approach, drawing quantitative
data from surveys followed up with in depth qualitative data from interviews. The data collected
from superintendents in Southern California was analyzed to target the four research questions:
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

53
support systems that superintendents use to assist principals as instructional leaders,
superintendents’ perceptions of support, what support is provided, and the strategies that are
perceived as most valuable by superintendents. These findings have been presented in chapter
four, with a discussion of the findings in chapter five.
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Introduction
Chapter four presents an analysis of the data collection form the study that sought to
identify the strategies superintendents in Riverside and San Bernardino counties employ to build
a capacity in their secondary principals as instructional leaders. Superintendents support their
principals in a variety of ways including shared leadership, teachers as leaders, accountability for
results, and a continued focus on development as an instructional leader (Spanneut & Ford,
2008). The extant literature has described the superintendent principal relationship (Hitt &
Tucker, 2016) but this study aims to fill a gap in that literature focusing on strategies used to
build capacity in principals as instructional leaders. The role of the principal is at a critical
intersection with a focus on improving teaching and learning due to increased accountability
(Fink & Silverman, 2014). Principals are no longer just managers but are asked to assume the
role of manager, politician, and instructional leader, while still raising student achievement
(McGowan & Miller, 2001). Current research indicates that principals are being asked to
perform these roles and act as instructional leaders despite a huge disconnect in administrator
preparation programs (Eckman, 2004; Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2009;
Jazzar, 2015; López, 2003).

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

54
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the strategies superintendents in Riverside and
San Bernardino counties use to build capacity in their secondary principals as instructional
leaders. This study examined the supports provided and the perceptions of the supports provided
by superintendents to secondary principals in relation to the principal’s role as an instructional
leader. By examining this question through the lens of superintendents it provided reflection on
how superintendents could form a more collaborative and supportive relationship that meets the
secondary principals’ needs as a leader.
Coding of Data
A thematic approach was used to analyze data because qualitative data analysis focuses
on identifying themes, categories, patterns, and answers to research questions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). By collecting and analyzing data from both interviews and observations, the
researcher was able to look for any common trends that would make the data more credible by
getting multiple instances from different sources and methods (Miles, Huberrman, et al., 2014).
This also minimized threats to the validity of the data. Additionally, Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) found that triangulation is a powerful strategy for increasing the credibility of research.
The researcher simultaneously analyzed data while collecting data. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
talk about this method and the importance of not waiting to analyze data till the end of the data
collection phase. Following this approach, the researcher used the conceptual framework of this
study for the first cycle of coding. These a priori codes were categories that already existed
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The researchers then went through the data a second time to look for
smaller patterns, commonalities, and more detailed themes during a second cycle of coding
(Miles, Huberman, et al., 2014). These new codes became emergent codes that were used to
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

55
describe in more detail the findings (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Harding, 2013). The researcher
then used the process Harding (2013) describes of reviewing and revising those codes. During
this the researcher looked for frequency in evidence to later support various assertions and
findings (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). After all the data was formally coded, formal analysis was
conducted to create the findings from the study that were directly tied to the research questions.

Presentation of Findings
Chapter four begins with an explanation of two main components of this study, a
description of the survey respondents and interview subjects and then a descriptive analysis of
the findings is provided as they address the guiding research questions:
Research Questions:
1. What support systems do superintendents in Riverside and San Bernardino counties
provide to assist secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders?
2. What are superintendents’ perceptions of the support provided to secondary principals in
becoming instructional leaders?
3. What supports do Riverside and San Bernardino county superintendents provide to their
secondary principals as instructional leaders?
4. What strategies are seen as most valuable by Riverside and San Bernardino county
superintendents in affecting secondary principal’s role as an instructional leader?
Descriptive Characteristics
Survey Data
The participants in this study were selected from four target regions for comparison: San
Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The researchers split the study for
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

56
comparison by each selecting two counties. When looking specifically at school districts within
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, there is one Union High School district in Riverside, 18
unified school districts in Riverside, two Union High School districts in San Bernardino, and 20
unified school districts in San Bernardino county. This makes the total number of possible
Superintendents to be surveyed 41. When looking at the criteria and the characteristics
determined by the researcher such as having at least two years of experience in the role of
superintendent, that eliminated four of the school districts making the total (n) 37. The survey
was sent electronically using Google Forums by the researcher to the 37 eligible participants and
19 responded for a participation rate of 51% in Riverside and San Bernardino county. More
specifically, the 19 survey respondents had the following characteristics: 5 were female and 14
were male; 36.8% (7) had between 20,001-30,000 students within their district with the next
closest at 21.1% (4) had 71,000 or more students; 57.9% (11) had been a superintendent for 4-8
years at their current district and 21.1% (4) had been a superintendent for 2-3 years at their
current district; 47.4% (9) have served as a superintendent for between 4-8 years overall and
26.3% (5) have served as a superintendent for 9-15 years overall; 36.8% (7) have an educational
background focused in secondary education; and 36.8% (7) have 4-7 secondary principals in
their districts compared to 26.3% (5) have 1-3 secondary principals, 21.1 (4) have 15 or more
secondary principals and 15.8% (3) have 8-10 secondary principals in their district.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

57
Table 1
Interview Respondents
Interview Participant # of Years as a
Superintendent
overall
# of Years at Current
District as
Superintendent
# of Secondary
Principals currently
overseeing
Superintendent A 11 7 21
Superintendent B 6 6 4
Superintendent C 6 6 19
Superintendent D 2 2 7
Superintendent E 3 3 5
Superintendent F 10 7 8

Glesne (2011) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) highlight using informed consent to maintain
ethical standards. The researcher obtained verbal consent from the interviewees prior to
interviewing and recording them. The researcher also maintained the participant’s right to
privacy by not using their names in the final paper which protected their anonymity (Glesne,
2011).
Research Question 1: What support systems do superintendents in Riverside and San
Bernardino counties provide to assist secondary principals in becoming instructional
leaders?
Findings
Table two depicts superintendent responses to the following question: Please describe the
degree to which you support your secondary principals in Riverside or San Bernardino county in
the following tasks. Superintendents were asked to indicate the level of agreement using a Likert-
type scale in which “1” indicates rarely, “2” indicates often, and “3” indicates almost always.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

58
Table 2
Ways in which Superintendents Provide Support
Rarely (1) Often (2) Almost Always
(3)
Response Mean
Framing clear
school goals
0 7 12 2.63
Communicating
clear school
goals
0 5 14 2.73
Supervising and
evaluating
instruction
1 9 9 2.42
Coordinating
curriculum
3 13 3 2.68
Monitoring
student progress
0 11 8 2.42
Protecting
instructional
time
2 10 7 2.26
Maintaining high
visibility
0 7 12 2.63
Providing
incentives for
teachers
6 9 4 1.89
Providing
incentives for
learning
5 10 4 1.42
Promoting
professional
development
2 7 10 2.42
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

59
The table shows that the response mean range for all categories in this section is 1.42 to
2.73. “Communicating clear school goals” was rated most favorably (2.73), conversely,
“Providing incentives for learning” received the lowest response mean (1.42).
Shared vision
“Communicating clear school goals” recorded the highest response mean (2.73) from
superintendents. Each of the six superintendents from Riverside and San Bernardino counties
interviewed affirmed that clear school goals are paramount to the overall success of the school.
All of the superintendents from Riverside and San Bernardino counties interviewed referenced
that there are expectations set for their secondary principals to devise a strategic plan with clear
goals to target student academic achievement. It was also affirmed in the interviews that these
strategic plans were all derived from the larger district wide plan, thus creating a shared vision
between the superintendent and principal.
Superintendent C stated,
So the best leaders do both, develop and communicate the goals. I expect my principals
to be intentional here, I believe the best leaders are just intentional with their planning.
They have a strategic plan (derived from the district’s strategic plan), the goals are clearly
articulated so that the accountability measures are clear, and you have to embed adult
engagement because they are going to help you execute this plan.
Superintendent C stressed the importance of communicating clear goals but also insisted that
adult engagement was paramount, “so that everyone on the team is playing in the same sandbox,
developing that coherence and moving toward those goals.”
Superintendent B further emphasized the significance of developing and communicating
clear goals in the context of creating a shared vision between the superintendent and principal.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

60
I don’t like the concept necessarily of being data-driven, it starts with outcomes. The
approach is looking at current outcomes and what they believe it will take to improve
on those outcomes. It’s really them (principals) coming up with the specific goals, based
on what their data is telling. It has to start with them looking at their outcomes and
determining what goals, and what actions are going to be linked to those goals, as
opposed to me saying, We're going to do X, Y, and Z. We will then discuss them
communicating these goals and action steps with their staff and stakeholders.
In reference to the origin of the goals, Superintendent F made it clear that it all begins with your
district’s LCAP. Moreover, Superintendent F explained that,
I sit down with our high school principals, looking at the LCAP, looking at their schools
in concert with our Director of Secondary Ed. The three of us will look at the
demographics of the particular high school and try to determine what resources would be
necessary to help close the achievement gap. I think the superintendent’s role is to make
sure that the high school principal has the resources be it time, staffing, funds,
technology, in order to execute that plan and achieve the goals of their school site.
Coordinating curriculum
“Coordinating curriculum” was the second highest response mean (2.68) from
superintendents. Moreover, all six superintendents from Riverside and San Bernardino counties
had a very distinct strategy they used to support their principals in coordinating the curriculum.
Three of the six superintendents asserted that they were directly involved with coordinating the
curriculum and three affirmed that they delegate this to an Assistant Superintendent of Education
Services or a similar position. Superintendent C stated that the preference with this component is
to lead from behind, “It all begins with my Assistant Superintendent of Ed Services, who has
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

61
four assistant superintendents that report to her. I am kept in the loop, we have discourse, and I
provide feedback.” Superintendent C continued on to say that,
The team is composed of members from [the] cabinet, administrators from the site, and
teachers from the site, collaborating on what is in the best interests of all students to
ensure they meet A - G requirements and to assure students graduate [from] college
and/or [are] career ready.
Interdependently working with district level leads was a recurring theme among all six of
the superintendents interviewed from Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Superintendent A
discussed his district level leads working with site specific department teams to transform their
approach to curriculum so that it is designed around their pathways. Superintendent A continued
on to say,
As we mature as an organization, subject matter will no longer be taught in isolation. I
recently visited a site where sitting around a table were all different subject area masters,
and each of them talking about how their role in curriculum instruction wove into their
pathway. So that when a kid came into their class, they weren’t doing this disconnected
work, but the work had rigor and relevance to the pathway.
Superintendent D who does not make coordinating curriculum a focal point of the job
stated that they do play an active role in the process, Superintendent D went on to
explain, A principal will approach me and say, Well, we want to do this. Well then it
becomes a conversation, Okay, talk to us about why you want to do something different
than what the other schools are doing. There’s nothing wrong with that if there is a good
reason for it, but Well, this is too hard for our students, is not going to be a good enough
reason. It is figuring it out, then how will you present that information to your students.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

62
You cannot believe, and I will not believe that we are going to water down content for
students from one school because the teachers don’t believe the student can achieve it.
Furthermore, the researcher found that coordinating the curriculum is not in the everyday
job of the superintendents interviewed from Riverside and San Bernardino counties. But it is an
essential component in strategic plans, LCAPs, and it impacts the principal’s site goals. The
districts that participated in the quantitative and qualitative portions of this study each used a
collaborative approach to coordinating the curriculum with participants from the site, district
cabinet, and some even used outside consultants.
Overall, the researcher found it imperative that superintendents provide support to
secondary principals to assist them in being instructional leaders. Through the survey results and
the interviews the researcher found that communicating clear goals and coordinating curriculum
were two systems of support needed by secondary principals from the superintendent. Two of
these systems are components of Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of instructional
leadership by focusing on the advancement of the school through communicating clear goals
pertaining to the school’s mission and vision and coordinating the curriculum, under the
managing of the instructional program.
Research Question 2: What are superintendents’ perceptions of the support provided to
secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders?
Findings
Table three depicts responses from superintendents in Riverside and San Bernardino counties to
the following statement: Please describe the degree to which your secondary principal does the
following: Superintendents were asked to indicate to what degree their principal does the ten
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

63
functions of Halinger and Murphy’s model of instructional leadership (1985). A Likert-type
scale in which “1” indicates rarely, “2” indicates often, and “3” indicates almost always.
Table 3 displays these critical attributes as seen by superintendents Riverside and San
Bernardino counties from their secondary principals.
Table 3
Frequency of Communication Between Superintendents and Secondary Principals
Function Rarely (1) Often (2) Almost Always
(3)
Response Mean
Frames clear
school goals
8 11 2.57
Communicates
clear school goals
1 6 12 2.57
Supervises and
evaluates
instruction
1 7 11 2.52
Coordinates
curriculum
3 15 1 1.89
Monitors student
progress
1 12 6 2.26
Protects
instructional time
1 12 6 2.26
Promotes
professional
development
0 10 9 2.47
Maintains high
visibility
0 5 14 2.73
Provides
incentives for
teachers
7 11 1 1.73
Provides
incentives for
learning
5 12 1 1.68

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

64
The response mean range for all answers in this item is 1.68 to 2.73. “Maintains high
visibility” was the area secondary principals stood out the most (2.73), whereas “Providing
incentives for learning” received the lowest response mean (1.52).
Disparity in support provided versus support needed
The quantitative survey revealed that 9 out of 19 (47%) superintendents said that their
secondary principals often or almost always lack skills in supervising and evaluating instruction.
Principals are no longer just managers but are asked to assume the role of manager, politician,
and instructional leader, while still raising student achievement (McGowan & Miller, 2001).
Therefore, it is essential that superintendents look at providing support to secondary principals in
all 11 components of Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of instructional leadership.
Providing support to secondary principals using Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of
instructional leadership will ensure that secondary principals have the ability to navigate school
leadership within Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames and will assist them in fulfilling goals
or projected outcomes in their strategic plans. Superintendent A expounded on this by saying the
following,
If principals don’t give enough attention to ensuring operational systems are functioning
at high levels, staff will find it difficult to impossible to focus on academic goals.
Effective site leaders establish role clarity around who is responsible for key operational
systems and tasks on their campus and they have an accountability system and measures
for success to ensure operational systems are managed well. Then, they can focus on
their primary job to ensure instructional leadership.
The researcher found that almost half (47%) of the superintendents surveyed in Riverside and
San Bernardino counties affirmed that their secondary principals often or almost always lack
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

65
skills in supervising and evaluating instruction. Conversely, the researcher found that all 19
superintendents from Riverside and San Bernardino counties agreed that they provide support
either often or almost always on communicating clear goals as an answer to research question
one. An inquiry of the data revealed to the researcher that superintendents in Riverside and San
Bernardino counties are putting an emphasis on supporting principals in communicating clear
goals when there is need for support in supervising and evaluating instruction. This exhibits a
disparity in support provided by superintendents to principals in Riverside and San Bernardino
counties versus what is needed by principals in the respective counties. Further confirming the
importance that superintendents provide support to secondary principals in all 11 components of
Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of instructional leadership.
Leader versus managers
In the six interviews conducted by the researcher, all superintendents from Riverside and
San Bernardino counties were asked, some people say that principals need to be both managers
and instructional leaders. What are your thoughts on this? Five out of the six superintendents
interviewed agreed that secondary principals absolutely need to be both managers and
instructional leaders. Superintendent F who agreed went on to say,
At a high school you have about 2,000 kids. You have your assistant principals, activities
and athletic directors, and some instructional leaders on your campus. While you as the
principal oversee everything, it has to be delegated and reported back to you. Then [the]
principal needs to be able to provide support as needed. Running a school from an
operational standpoint today is critically important. There are the needs of special
education, activities and athletics, booster clubs, social media, and anything else that will
distract from the instructional program. I believe the principal needs to shoulder the
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

66
academics and be in classrooms and delegate the rest to their assistant principals and
teacher leaders. If the principal tries to do this all on his or her own then they will not do
instruction and that is what we want to avoid.
Superintendent C discussed the importance of being both a leader and a manager,
The best leaders do both, I’ll share with you the train track analogy. One side of the track
represents the highly skilled technical side. The other side of the track is interpersonal
skills, it’s relational. You have to be able to grow the people and team around yourself as
well as grow yourself. I want secondary principals that are good at both, so that the train
doesn’t come off the tracks. If you have a strategic plan, you better have a plan on how to
increase adult engagement on your campus, it doesn't just happen by chance.
Through the survey and interview data the researcher found that superintendents’ perceptions of
the support provided to secondary principals as instructional leaders is determined by the needs
of the school and how it fits in the district’s strategic plan often shaped by the LCAP.
Additionally, superintendents stressed the importance of secondary principals being both a
manager and a leader at their school sites. Moreover, the data also showed disparity in
superintendents’ perceptions versus need. Superintendents provided the most support in the areas
of coordinating curriculum, framing clear goals, and visibility despite recognizing that secondary
principals needed support in supervising and evaluating instruction.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

67
Research Question 3: What supports do Riverside and San Bernardino county
superintendents provide to their secondary principals as instructional leaders?
Findings
Communication
The quantitative data regarding the frequency in which superintendents communicate
with their secondary principals showed that 89% (17/19) of superintendents from Riverside and
San Bernardino counties reported that they communicate with their secondary principals at least
between one and three times a week. More specifically, 52% (10) of superintendents reported
communicating with their secondary principals between one and three times a week, 21% (4)
reported communicating with their principals between four and eight times a week, 15% (3)
reported communicating with their principals nine or more times a week, and 10% (2) reported
communicating with their principals less than once a week. 100% of superintendents reported
that they communicate with their principals via email and 94% (18) reported that they
communicate with their principals via phone call and text message. 94% (18) of superintendents
reported that support is provided via email, another 89% (17) of superintendents reported that
support is provided via phone calls and text messages. The survey data illustrates that
superintendents use communication as a means to build relationships with their principals to
support them as instructional leaders.
The researcher delved into communication during the qualitative data collection phase
and found that all six superintendents from Riverside and San Bernardino counties used
communication as a means to not only provide support to the principals but to build positive
coaching relationships. Superintendent A said,
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

68
Communication is a big topic for me, I have to communicate with my principals and I
also provide them with professional development on building an effective communication
system. Beyond that I’ll lead conversations ranging from cultural proficiency,
organizational health and professional health.
Superintendent B who supports four secondary principals echoed the same sentiment by saying:
I speak to my principals on a daily basis. Many times our conversations are operational,
they are keeping informed on their sites or I might have a pitch for their consideration.
But our relationship goes beyond just the profession. I have to build strong relationships
with them as human beings and understand who they truly are on the human level.
There’s a dynamic of boss and subordinate, but at the end of the day they are also human
and I need them to know that I care about them as a person. This relationship enables me
to provide very direct feedback on a very personalized level.
Superintendent C who oversees nineteen secondary principals reported communicating with
principals weekly via phone calls, text messages, and emails. Superintendent C also reported that
they take their secondary principals to breakfast a couple times a year as a group and at least
once individually just to connect with them. When the researcher asked the nature of the phone
calls and text messages with the principals Superintendent C responded, “A lot of it’s around
their wellbeing. Always how are they doing? Are they taking care of themselves? Anything they
need to share?” Superintendent stressed the importance of checking in with principals just to let
them know that you are there for them.
All six superintendents from Riverside and San Bernardino counties that were
interviewed echoed the importance of developing a strong interpersonal relationship with their
principals through communication. Superintendents also affirmed that the conversations are not
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

69
centered around work as much as they are centered around connecting with their principals on a
personal level to see how they are doing, provide empathy when they sense it is needed, and to
assure that their principals are taking care of themselves on a personal level.
Coaching
Superintendents also reported that they support principals in developing as instructional
leaders through coaching and modeling. Four of the six superintendents specifically stated that
they often find themselves in the coaching role when corresponding with their principals using
inquiry to lead them to solutions. Superintendent A shared,
I communicate how I am evaluated by the Board to the principals and I share my most
recent evaluation with them for transparency. Then I articulate what they’re accountable
for. My purpose behind that is to begin to build the capacity of our leaders across the
organization to own the organization rather than be renters in the organization.
Similarly, Superintendent E reported, sitting down with all five of the secondary
principals together once a month to discuss common issues observed at the sites, and coaching
the principals on coming up with solutions to support them with these issues. Superintendent E
shared a recent coaching experience with a secondary principal,
Three Board members are up for election, one announced their campaign last week and
then held a campaign rally. One of our principals attended the campaign, took a picture
with the candidate and it was uploaded to social media. The phone calls started coming
directly to me. I know this was innocent. But the phone call to the principal was, let me
coach you and tell you a little bit about what this means. In particular the implications of
what could happen if this person is not elected. I had to explain the importance of
remaining neutral, not attending campaigns, and not taking pictures with candidates
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

70
during the campaign. Again, this was innocent but provided a coaching opportunity for
me.
Overall, coaching was a recurrent theme mentioned by superintendents during the qualitative
data collection portion of this study. Coaching is a strategy that provides the superintendent the
opportunity to teach, use inquiry, model expectations, and provide critical feedback in an effort
to equip principals with the skills necessary to ensure their success as instructional leaders.
Additionally, both the quantitative and qualitative data depicts that superintendents provide
support to secondary principals in their development as an instructional leader by building strong
interpersonal relationships, at the very least weekly communication and superintendent coaching.
This data also illustrates that superintendents build a capacity in their secondary principals to be
instructional leaders while encompassing the components in Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985)
model of instructional leadership. Table four provides data from the interviews on supports that
superintendents in Riverside and San Bernardino counties provide to their secondary principals
as instructional leaders
Table 4
Methods of Communication Between Superintendent and Principals
Function Communicates
Weekly
Builds a strong
relationship
Provides Coaching
Superintendent A Yes Yes Yes
Superintendent B Yes Yes Yes
Superintendent C Yes Yes Sometimes
Superintendent D Yes Yes Yes
Superintendent E Yes Yes Sometimes
Superintendent F Yes Yes Yes

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

71
Research Question 4: What strategies are seen as most valuable by Riverside and San
Bernardino county superintendents in affecting secondary principal’s role as an
instructional leader?
Findings
Table five depicts superintendent responses to the following interview question: In your opinion,
how effective are the following strategies for developing secondary principals as instructional
leaders. Superintendents were asked to indicate level of perceived effectiveness using a Likert-
type scale in which “1” indicates not effective, “2” indicates effective, and “3” indicates highly
effective.
The response mean range for all answers in this item is 1.52 to 2.63. “Superintendent
leads professional development” was the most effective (2.63), whereas “text messages”
received the lowest response mean (1.52).

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

72
Table 5
Superintendents Perceptions of Effectiveness in Strategies for Secondary Principals
Not effective (1) Effective (2) Highly Effective
(3)
Response Mean
Money spent on
professional
development
0 14 5 2.26
Superintendent
led professional
development
0 7 12 2.63
Phone Calls 5 6 8 2.15
Text messages 10 8 1 1.52
Email 10 7 2 1.57
Weekly
meetings
7 8 4 1.84
Bi-monthly
meetings
8 9 2 1.68
Monthly
meetings
0 9 10 2.52
District provided
professional
development
0 12 7 2.36
Other 10 4 5 1.73

Superintendent led professional development
According to the quantitative data gathered regarding superintendents’ perception of the
support provided to their secondary principals all 19 of the superintendents from Riverside and
San Bernardino counties agreed that the “Superintendent led professional development” is an
effective or highly effective form of support in developing secondary principals as instructional
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

73
leaders. Of the six superintendents interviewed, four of them affirmed that their professional
development centers around leadership. Senge (1990) states that the leader as a teacher does not
mean leader as authoritarian expert, but a leader who helps those in the organization gain more
insight into the current reality, acting mainly as a coach or facilitator. The evolution of the
superintendent’s role is emerging as an active instructional-leadership style to improve the
education of students (Shirley, 1990). This model was highlighted in my interview with
Superintendent A. When the researcher asked about the professional development offered to
their secondary principals, Superintendent A went on to explain the following,
I’ve always primarily worked on the role of the principal as the leader. In terms of how
they lead culture and how they do their work, their main work. Recently, I went on for
about thirty minutes using the Breakthrough Coach strategies and approach because their
primary role is to be an instructional leader. To do that, they have to be in rooms, if
they’re not in rooms, they can’t be an instructional leader. So I spent thirty minutes
sharing personal examples and stories building capacity on this. Then what I do is I
follow all that up on my individual site visits.
Research has shown that some superintendent leadership practices have a positive correlation to
student achievement (Cudeiro, 2005; Eck & Goodwin, 2010; Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Superintendent A mentioned this during the interview and explained he does this as a means to
provide core competencies in his principals to be leaders.
Similarly, Superintendent E also explained the importance of him providing secondary
principals with professional development about leadership, Superintendent E went on to express,
They all know how to manage, that is how they got the job and that is what they do. But
leading is huge, you think everybody is following you, and then you turnaround and
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

74
nobody’s there. So it’s all about working with them to understand that they’ve got to get
the people on board with what they’re trying to do.
The literature supports Superintendent E’s actions because the current school system requires
that principals and administrators be able to be both managers and leaders (McGowan & Miller,
2001). Furthermore, the literature asserts that superintendents who want to develop their
principals as instructional leaders begin by establishing common understandings with them about
why instructional leadership is necessary and then provide support for them to develop and refine
their skills (Spanneut & Ford, 2008).
Monthly meetings
“Monthly meetings” recorded the second highest response mean (2.52) from the
participating superintendents. Of the nineteen superintendent survey responses, 12 out of 19
superintendents (63%) agreed that they provide support to their secondary principals as
instructional leaders at monthly meetings. More specifically 47% (9) of the superintendents
surveyed agreed that monthly meetings are an effective means of support and 53% (10) of the
superintendents surveyed agreed that monthly meetings are a highly effective means of support
for secondary principals as instructional leaders. Superintendent B explained,
We look at different data points and progress towards anticipated outcomes regularly,
especially at our monthly meetings. We look at various data points to determine if they
are moving in the right direction. This also provides them an opportunity to modify their
action steps if necessary in an attempt for them to meet the outcomes of their strategic
plan.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

75
Superintendent F who oversees eight secondary principals, affirmed the importance of monthly
meetings with secondary principals. Superintendent F went on to describe checking in with the
secondary principals at monthly meetings altogether explaining,
…there are particular goals that we talk about that affect all of the schools. They
(secondary principals) have a chance to say, Hey, I ran into this problem at my site and if you do
this, you can head off a situation before it starts. Then Trojan High School and Traveler High
School can be the recipient of a best practice before somebody else is bleeding all over the floor.
Money spent on professional development
Money spent on professional development was another means of support that was
unanimously agreed upon by all superintendents surveyed as a strategy that was effective or
highly effective in supporting secondary principals as instructional leaders. This type of support
received the fourth highest response mean of 2.26 from superintendents in Riverside and San
Bernardino counties. Superintendents who want to develop their principals as instructional
leaders begin by establishing common understandings with them about why instructional
leadership is necessary and then provide support for them to develop and refine their skills
(Spanneut & Ford, 2008). Additionally, five of the six superintendents confirmed it is paramount
to pay the necessary cost of sending secondary principals to professional development or
bringing in outside consultants as a support for secondary principals to develop as instructional
leaders. Superintendent F explained, “The training that they get through ACSA is so important to
me that we (the district) take care of the funding for them to attend.”
Overall, superintendents from Riverside and San Bernardino counties that were surveyed
and interviewed asserted that one of the essential components of support that they provide their
secondary principals to develop them as instructional leaders is their strategic plan which is
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

76
derived from the district’s LCAP. Along with the strategic plan there were additional facets of
support identified by superintendents. According to the survey data the researcher found that
superintendents believed that professional development, monthly meetings, and money spent on
professional development were the most valuable forms of support provided. Superintendents
provided insight on three types of support that they provide their secondary principals. Each
superintendent also added their perception of the support offered, why it is necessary for their
secondary principals to have the offerings of support to advance them as instructional leaders and
how it connects to the district’s strategic plan. The qualitative interviews assisted the researcher
in gaining a deeper perspective into the survey responses. Additionally, the interviews served as
a means to express the why behind superintendents’ perceptions of the support that they provide
their secondary principals to develop them as instructional leaders and the role the district
strategic plan plays in the types of support provided.
Discussion
This chapter reported the findings from 19 superintendents surveyed as well as six
superintendent interviews from six superintendents, two from San Bernardino county school
districts and four from Riverside county school districts. The interviews with the six
superintendents provided the researcher with additional insight into the support provided to
secondary principals as instructional leaders. The data was collected with the intention to
understand, evaluate, and answer the four research questions. It began with a description of the
thematic approach used to code and analyze the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016) and further went on to describe the characteristics of the survey and interview
participants. Next, the survey data was aligned to the analysis of superintendent interviews to
present the findings for each research question.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

77
Research question 1 asks, What support systems do Superintendents in Riverside and San
Bernardino counties provide to assist secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders?
The results from this study indicate that secondary principals need assistance from their
superintendent as they fulfill their role as instructional leaders. As depicted in the results, the
support systems superintendents provide their secondary principals varies but they are deeply
rooted in establishing and communicating clear site goals, providing professional development,
and building a positive relationship with principals on a human level to show empathy, all in an
effort to build capacity and support secondary principals in their roles as instructional leaders.
Research question 2 asks, What are superintendents’ perceptions of the support provided
to secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders? Superintendents in Riverside and San
Bernardino County school districts perceived their role to be both as a coach and a cheerleader
for their secondary principals. Superintendents affirmed that the needs of the school and how it
fits in with the district’s strategic plan often shaped by the LCAP, determined the support
provided to their secondary principals. Additionally, superintendents stressed the importance of
secondary principals being both a manager and a leader at their school sites. Due to this, all six
superintendents explained that they provide their secondary principals with leadership training at
least monthly. Moreover, the data also showed disparity in superintendents’ perceptions versus
need. Superintendents provided the most support in the areas of coordinating curriculum,
framing clear goals, and visibility despite recognizing that secondary principals often or almost
always needed support in supervising and evaluating instruction. The research and findings
support Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of instructional leadership due to the fact that
superintendents provide support in the areas of framing and communicating clear goals,
coordinating curriculum, providing and spending money on professional development and
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

78
maintaining communication and visibility. However, the researcher found that little support was
provided to principals in other areas of Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model, particularly in the
area of supervising and evaluating instruction. There was also minimal evidence that support was
provided to principals in providing incentives for teachers or providing incentives for learning.
Research Question 3 asks, What supports do Riverside and San Bernardino county
superintendents provide to their secondary principals as instructional leaders? Coaching was a
recurrent theme mentioned by superintendents during the quantitative data collection portion of
this study. Coaching is a strategy that provides the superintendent the opportunity to teach, use
inquiry, model expectations, and provide critical feedback in an effort to equip principals with
skills necessary to ensure their success as instructional leaders. This finding aligns to Bolman
and Deal’s Four Frames (1985) in that superintendents have to determine which frame to use
when coaching depending on the principal and the site needs. Additionally, the data depicts that
superintendents provide support to secondary principals in their development as an instructional
leader by building strong relationships, with clear lines of communication and superintendent
coaching.
Research Question 4 asked, What strategies are seen as most valuable by Riverside and
San Bernardino counties superintendents in affecting secondary principal’s role as an
instructional leader? Superintendents unanimously agreed that providing secondary principals
with the district strategic action plan was essential in creating a shared vision between the
superintendent and principal. Superintendents explained that this action plan was derived from
the district’s LCAP and that while it was important that site plans were aligned to the LCAP it
was also important to give principals the autonomy to make their own site decisions and to
support and assist principals in meeting their projected outcomes.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

79
In chapter five there will be a discussion of the research, further conclusions, and
implications of the research. Recommendations for future research will be reported and
limitations of this study discussed.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

80
Chapter 5 Conclusion

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the purpose of the study, research questions, design overview,
and key findings. It then concludes with implications for practice, followed by limitations and
recommendations for further study.
Statement of the Problem
The aim of this study is to examine how superintendents build capacity in their secondary
principals as instructional leaders. It is important to examine and understand the complex
relationship that superintendents have with their principals and how this relationship impacts
each person’s role as an instructional leader. It is also critical to understand principals’
perceptions of the support they are receiving as a way to provide feedback to superintendents to
inform their practice. This study also aimed to examine the superintendent and principals’
traditional roles and compare that to the role they currently have within a school. This shift in
role from manager to instructional leader has been asked of principals in recent years.
Administrative preparation programs are not addressing this role shift which caused this study to
be focused on how the superintendent supports the principal with these knowledge gaps.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine how superintendents in Southern California build
capacity in their secondary principals as instructional leaders. This study examined the supports
provided and the perceptions of the supports provided to principals in relation to their role as an
instructional leader. This comparison highlighted perceptions of both superintendents and
principals as well as defined how this support is provided through the lens of the superintendent
and the secondary principal. By examining this question through the dual lens of
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

81
superintendents and principals, both parties can work in the future to form a more collaborative
and supportive relationship that meets the other’s needs as a leader.
Research Questions

The following research questions were used to guide the study:
1. What support systems do Superintendents in Riverside and San Bernardino counties
provide to assist secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders?
2. What are superintendent’s perceptions of the support provided to secondary principals in
becoming instructional leaders?
3. What supports do Riverside and San Bernardino county superintendents provide to their
secondary principals as instructional leaders?
4. What strategies are seen as most valuable by Riverside and San Bernardino counties
superintendents in affecting secondary principal’s role as an instructional leader?
Each of these questions is significant because it allows the researcher to gain a deeper
understanding of the principal-superintendent relationship. These questions also focus on the
principal’s role as an instructional leader through the eyes of the superintendent. Gaining insight
into the superintendents’ perception of the principal as an instructional leader helps us to further
understand how they see their role in supporting the principal. Ultimately, this study revealed
various strategies employed by superintendents in southern California to build the capacity of
secondary principals as instructional leaders thus, helping to transition the role of the principal
from manager to instructional leader.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

82
Review of the Literature
Principals are no longer just managers but are asked to assume the role of manager,
politician, and instructional leader, while still raising student achievement (McGowan & Miller,
2001). The research has found that principals are being asked to act as instructional leaders
despite a huge disconnect in administrator preparation programs (Eckman, 2004; Goldring,
Porter, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2009; Jazzar, 2015; López, 2003). As complex as the job of
the principal sounds, it is equally important for superintendents to ensure that their principals
possess the self-efficacy beliefs to navigate the rigorous demands of the job (Gareis &
Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Wolf (1988) also described how in the mid-1970s superintendents
were expected to provide direction and leadership to improve teaching and learning while at the
same time remaining the efficient manager of funding, facilities, and day to day activities. With
all of the challenges facing the superintendent role, research still finds that superintendents play a
major role in improving student learning (Cudeiro, 2005; Eck & Goodwin, 2010; Waters &
Marzano, 2006).
The current school system requires that principals and administrators should be able to be
both managers and leaders (McGowan & Miller, 2001). The principal must be able to further the
enthusiasm and spirit within a school, advocate for their staff, establish procedures, and perform
a participatory function at community events (Hertz, 1980). The role of the principal is at a
critical intersection with a focus on improving teaching and learning due to increased
accountability (Fink & Silverman, 2014). Riehl (2000) also defines the role of a school
administrator as communicating a vision, promoting inclusion, and building relationships. More
recently, there seems to be a need for superintendents and principals to dialogue together about
role definition, expectations, school board relationships, and the place of teaching and learning
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

83
(Wolf, 1988). Superintendents support their principals in a variety of ways including shared
leadership, teachers as leaders, accountability for results, and a continued focus on development
as an instructional leader (Spanneut & Ford, 2008). Much of the literature surrounding the topic
of the principal as an instructional leader points to the how administrator preparation programs
are not providing adequate training for principals in this new role (Bolman & Deal, 1994; Cray
& Weiler, 2011; Eckman, 2004; Goldring et al., 2009; Jazzar, 2015; Olson, 2000; Scribner et al.,
2011; Wolf, 1988). Effective principals must work with their staff members to articulate clear
and measurable goals, to identify indicators that offer evidence of progress, and to develop
systems for monitoring those indicators on a continuous basis (DuFour, 1999). Fullan (2002)
takes it one step further and discusses how schools need leaders who can transform the learning
culture of a school and that defining the principal as an instructional leader alone is too narrow a
concept for the kinds of reforms that will create the schools needed for the future. Through their
role as managers and instructional leaders, it is widely understood that principals play a pivotal
role in the improvement of teaching and learning, yet many districts have not created the
necessary conditions for principal success (Fink & Silverman, 2014).
The solution to this dilemma of manager versus leader cannot be found with old models
of the principal as a disciplinarian but instead with the principal as leading learning (DuFour,
1999). Instructional leadership is viewed as an influential process where leaders identify a
direction for the school, motivate staff, and work to improve teaching and learning (Hallinger &
Murphy, 2012). According to Hitt and Tucker (2016), instructional leadership has been viewed
as foundational work for principals since the 1980s. Cudeiro (2005) also found that the most
effective training for principals as instructional leaders connects expertise in instructional
practice with expertise in supervising instruction, provides tools for using data to make
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

84
decisions, and involves on-site coaching. Hallinger and Murphy (1985) found that studies of the
instructional leadership role of the principal focus on three categories: defining the school
mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive learning climate (Figure
1).
Methodology
This study used the principles found in Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Maxwell (2013)
to conduct a mixed methods research study. Specifically, a mixed methods approach was
utilized because it allowed the researcher to gain insight into the different perspectives being
studied through the research questions (Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative methodology was used
because it has a focus on understanding, meaning making, and allowed the researcher to develop
detailed descriptions, integrate multiple perspectives, describe process, and learn how events are
interpreted (Weiss, 1994). This mixed methods approach allows the researcher to understand the
data at a more detailed level by using qualitative follow-up data to help explain quantitative data
collected from the survey (Creswell, 2014). The most evident benefits to a mixed-method design
is that it draws on the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative designs, is appealing to those
at the forefront of research due to its sophistication, and provides a more complete understanding
of research problems (Creswell, 2014; Malloy, 2011). Using both qualitative and quantitative
approaches also allowed the researcher to triangulate data that could support and provide
evidence for the research questions as well as reduce the risk of biases (Maxwell, 2013).
This study addressed how superintendents build capacity in their secondary principals as
instructional leaders. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used and it involved
collecting quantitative data first and then explaining the quantitative results with in-depth
qualitative data. In the first quantitative phase of the study, a survey was used to collect data
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

85
from superintendents to assess and begin to understand their perceptions of support and
strategies used to support secondary principals. The second qualitative phase was conducted in
order to explain the quantitative results in greater depth. In this exploratory follow-up, the
researcher explored how superintendents provide support and what they view as being most
effective in supporting secondary principals as instructional leaders.
Additionally, the process of completing qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys as
a part of the data collection process allowed for a mixed methods approach and a triangulation of
data (Maxwell, 2013). This triangulation allowed the researcher to gain insight into different
perspectives from different points of view that interviews or surveys alone might not have
provided. The researcher believed it was necessary to interview and survey superintendents to
better understand the systems of support provided to the principal in their role as an instructional
leader. Further, interviewing and surveying secondary principals was necessary to understand
their perceptions of the support provided by their superintendent. Conducting interviews and
surveys helped to eliminate researcher biases and check for participant perceptions versus reality.
Triangulation of survey and interview data in this mixed methods study ensured internal validity.
Instrumentation and Protocols
A pilot survey and interview were conducted with a current superintendent to
provide the researcher with feedback on question format, sequential order, and length of time of
the interview. This pilot enabled the researcher to move beyond the conceptual framework in an
effort to ensure that the data collected would answer the research questions.
Quantitative Instrument
Quantitative data was gathered through a Google Form, an online survey tool. 35
questions were designed for the survey based off a review of the literature, the conceptual
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

86
framework, and the feedback from the pilot study. The survey questions addressed the following
focus areas with regards to secondary principals being instructional leaders: (a) strategies used
by superintendents; (b) superintendents’ implementation of supports; (c) superintendents’
perception of supports offered; and (d) strategies seen most valuable by superintendents.
The quantitative survey was comprised of the following types of questions: (a)
demographic questions; (b) a question to determine the willingness to participate in the follow up
interview; and (c) Likert style questions (Appendix A) associated with the four research
questions. The questions in the survey were written as closed questions. The researcher also
made sure that the questions would be meaningful to the respondents, by using standard
language rules and minimizing the use of biased words and phrases (Fink, 2009).
Survey questions asked superintendents to rate their agreement to a variety of questions
that define instructional leadership based on the conceptual framework by Hallinger (1985).
These questions used a Likert scale ranging from 1 - 3 where “1” signified not effective, “2”
signified effective, “3” signified highly effective. This format enabled the researcher to quantify
the level of support for each specific survey item. The survey designed for this study was created
to provide the researcher with numeric descriptions of the attitudes and/or perceptions of the 25
Qualitative Instrument
The interview protocol for this study followed a semi-structured approach. While
structured interviews allow for more comparability between groups, the more unstructured
balance allows for better internal validity and context understanding by allowing the researcher
to be direct and ask questions specifically about the topic or probe for further details (Maxwell,
2013). The semi-structured approach also made it possible to report on proportions and
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

87
correlations, experiences and meaning, and richer question examples (Patton, 2002; R. S. Weiss,
1994).
The interview protocol was developed to specifically answer the research questions and
was based on Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of instructional leadership. There were 16
questions total (see Appendix B). A variety of question types and probes were used including
experience and behavior, sensory, feeling, opinion, ideal, devil’s advocate, interpretive, and
knowledge (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002).
Data Collection
All data collection decisions for both interviews and surveys were based on the literature
around qualitative and quantitative inquiry (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Bogdan & Biklen, 2007a,
2007b; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Maxwell, 2013; Patton, 2002; Weiss, 1994; Weiss, 1994).
Surveys were sent to 50 superintendents in Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles
counties using the previously mentioned criteria to collect quantitative data. A cover letter was
sent with the survey link to explain the purpose the study (Appendix C).
After the survey data was collected, qualitative data follow up was conducted through in-
depth interviews with 5 of the superintendents who volunteered to participate in an in-person
interview. Each interview was conducted at the requested time and location of the participant to
maximize convenience. Interviews were set up through email exchanges with appointments
lasting for one hour. The time of day of the interview was based on the availability of the
participant and each varied. The researcher took detailed and copious notes during each interview
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). At the discretion of the participants, each interview
was recorded. This allowed the researcher to focus on the participant and not solely on writing
down detailed notes, even though some notes were taken during and after the interview (Patton,
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

88
2002). Due to the quick pace of the interview, interview notes were reviewed by the researchers
afterwards which provided time for the researcher to make observer comments to provide for a
richer and more detailed analysis. The recorded interviews were professionally transcribed to a
Microsoft Word document using Rev software. A final ethical concern of transparency was
addressed throughout the process to limit the appearance of impropriety (Merriam, 2014).
Consideration was given to ethical standards during this study. Glesne (2011) describes
how much of the ethical discussion and consideration in qualitative research concerns the nature
of the relationships with the research participants. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) had similar views
that ethical dilemmas are likely to emerge with the collection of data or the dissemination of
findings, within the underlying dynamics of the relationship between the researcher and
participant. Both pieces of literature highlight using informed consent to maintain ethical
standards. Written consent was obtained from the interviewees prior to interviewing and
recording them. All interviewees were asked about the use of a recording device during the
interview and the researcher upheld the moral standards listed in the IRB (Glesne, 2011; Rubin,
Rubin, & Sage, 2012).The researcher also maintained the participant’s right to privacy by not
using their names, school, or school district which protected their anonymity (Glesne, 2011).

Key Findings
A key finding of this study, per results from the survey, was that superintendents in
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties use a cycle of inquiry aligned goal
setting to assist secondary principals in building their capacity as instructional leaders.
Additionally, the findings revealed that superintendents in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and San Diego counties are providing professional development as a support system to build
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

89
capacity in secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders. Essentially, superintendents
in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties are collaborating with their
secondary principals to create a shared vision and then provide the necessary professional
development to support secondary principals in achieving their projected outcomes. Two of these
systems are components of Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of instructional leadership by
focusing on the advancement of the school through communicating clear goals pertaining to the
school’s mission and vision and coordinating the curriculum, by managing the instructional
program.
During the survey and interview data the researcher found that superintendents’
perceptions of the support provided to secondary principals as instructional leaders is determined
by the needs of school and how it fits in with the district’s strategic plan often shaped by the
LCAP. Additionally, superintendents stressed the importance of secondary principals balancing
the acts of being both a manager and a leader at their school sites. Moreover, the data also
showed disparity in superintendents’ perceptions versus need. Superintendents provided the most
support in the areas of coordinating curriculum, framing clear goals, and visibility despite
recognizing that secondary principals needed support in supervising and evaluating instruction.
Moreover, coaching was a recurrent theme mentioned by superintendents during the
quantitative data collection portion of this study. Coaching is a strategy that provides the
superintendent the opportunity to teach, use inquiry, model expectations, and provide critical
feedback in an effort to equip principals with the skills necessary to ensure their success as
instructional leaders. Additionally, both the quantitative and qualitative data depicts that
superintendents provide support to secondary principals in their development as an instructional
leader by building strong interpersonal relationships, at the very least weekly communication and
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

90
superintendent coaching. This data also illustrates that superintendents build capacity in their
secondary principals to be instructional leaders while encompassing the components in Hallinger
and Murphy’s (1985) model of instructional leadership.
Additionally, superintendents from Riverside and San Bernardino counties surveyed and
interviewed asserted that one of the essential components of support that they provide their
secondary principals with, in order to develop them as instructional leaders is their strategic plan
which is derived from the district’s LCAP. Along with the strategic plan, there were additional
facets of support identified by superintendents. According to the survey data the researcher found
that superintendents believed that professional development, monthly meetings, and money spent
on professional development were perceived as the most valuable forms of support provided.
Superintendents provided insight on three types of support that they provide their secondary
principals. Each superintendent also added their perception of the support offered, why it is
necessary for their secondary principals to have the offerings of support to advance them as
instructional leaders and how it connects to the district’s strategic plan.
Comparing and Contrasting between Counties
Upon the conclusion of the data analysis, the two researchers analyzed the data to
compare and contrast the results from Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino
counties. Superintendents from all four counties discussed how they use communication,
coaching, and a focus on relationships to support their secondary principals as instructional
leaders. Additionally, superintendents from all four counties had similar perceptions of the
support being provided to secondary principals to assist them in becoming instructional leaders.
The researchers found that within all four counties there was a disconnect or disparity in the
areas where support was provided versus the areas which were identified as weaknesses and
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

91
areas of growth for secondary principals. The data also showed that superintendents from all
four counties stressed the importance of secondary principals being both managers and leaders in
their role as instructional leaders. A key finding showed that superintendents from Orange and
San Diego counties saw professional development, using stakeholder decision making bodies,
aligned communication, and visibility as most valuable in affecting secondary principals’ roles
as instructional leaders. Superintendents from Riverside and San Bernardino saw professional
development led by the superintendent specifically, monthly meetings, and money spent on
professional development as strategies that were most valuable in affecting secondary principals’
roles as instructional leaders. While the idea of professional development was discussed as a
valuable strategy in all four counties, the specifics of the professional development differed
between San Diego and Orange county, and Riverside and San Bernardino county. Another key
finding showed that superintendents in San Diego and Orange counties use professional
development and goal setting that is aligned to a cycle of inquiry as support systems that assist
secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders. Different from this, superintendents in
San Bernardino and Riverside counties use the creation of a shared vision and the coordination
of curriculum as support systems that assist secondary principals in becoming instructional
leaders.
Implications for Practice
The significant findings affiliated with this study contribute to the body of scholarly
literature by identifying strategies employed by school district superintendents in Southern
California, particularly in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties to build
capacity in their secondary principals as instructional leaders. The acumen herein is useful for
current or aspiring superintendents that are exploring avenues to build a capacity in their
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

92
secondary principals as an instructional leader. Furthermore, this study embodies Hallinger and
Murphy’s (1985) model of Instructional Leadership which proposed three dimensions for the
instructional leadership role of the principal: Defining the school’s mission, managing the
instructional program, and promoting a positive school climate. The three dimensions are further
delineated into ten instructional leadership components.
Moreover, the findings in this study can be applied by superintendents and secondary
principals to cultivate a strong relationship with the proper supports to carry out the strategic
plan of the school district. Additionally, this study’s findings magnify the value of a strong
relationship between the secondary principal and superintendent that welcomes feedback,
professional development, coaching and modeling. The superintendents interviewed for this
study also upheld the belief that secondary principals have to balance the roles of leader and
manager. Due to this, all of the superintendents interviewed explained that they provide their
secondary principals with monthly leadership training. Superintendents also acknowledged that
the strategies implemented to build capacity as an instructional leader in secondary principals
varied by site and person but that principal autonomy at the site to work towards meeting district
outcomes was critical to the overall success of the district.
Limitations
There were some limitations in this study. First, the sample size gathered did not include
Los Angeles county, one of the largest counties in southern California. Additionally, just over
half of the surveys sent were responded to (19/37). With a total of 18 surveys unanswered, Fink
(2016) would suggest that the data is susceptible to being thought of as incomplete. While this
data was not definitive, it can be added to the body of research on superintendents and principals.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

93
Recommendations for Future Study
In pursuit of greater depth of knowledge about the support superintendents provide to
build capacity as an instructional leader in secondary principals, the researcher recommends the
following be considered in future studies:
● Support systems are important between the superintendent and principal; therefore,
aspiring superintendents need to be mentored and coached by superintendents that have a
proven track record in being an instructional leader both as a principal and as a
superintendent.
● Superintendents should build a strong relationship with their principals so that they can
give their honest perception of the support and guidance that they are receiving from their
superintendent. This open communication would assist superintendents in identifying
principals’ needs as a leader
● Aspiring superintendents and sitting superintendents must remain sharp in curriculum and
instruction or seek ongoing training in these areas so that they have the ability to properly
coach and mentor principals.
● Aspiring superintendents and sitting superintendents must remain on the cutting edge of
leadership strategies and practices and they have to lead by example so that their school
leaders buy in.
● A collection of data from assistant superintendents and their role in building capacity in
principals as instructional leaders needs to be examined.
● A collection of data from secondary principals to view their perceptions versus those of
their superintendent regarding support provided and needed.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

94
● Examining the different strategies used in Union High School districts versus Unified
School districts.

Conclusion
In order for superintendents to build capacity in their secondary principals as instructional
leaders, they need to cultivate a relationship that evokes coaching and mentoring. The role of the
principal is at a critical intersection with a focus on improving teaching and learning due to
increased accountability (Fink & Silverman, 2014). Principals are no longer just managers
but are asked to assume the role of manager, politician, and instructional leader, while still
raising student achievement (McGowan & Miller, 2001). The research has found that
principals are being asked to perform these roles and act as instructional leaders despite a huge
disconnect in administrator preparation programs (Eckman, 2004; Goldring, Porter, Murphy,
Elliott, & Cravens, 2009; Jazzar, 2015; López, 2003). It is imperative that both
superintendents and secondary principals are well versed in systemic and instructional practices
impacting learning and teaching. It is the moral and ethical responsibility of the superintendent to
ensure the academic achievement of all students, thus it is paramount that they are supporting
secondary principals in the implementation of Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of
instructional leadership in an effort to assure that they are building secondary principals’
capacity as instructional leaders in an effort to yield student success.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

95
References
Andero, A. (2001). The changing role of school superintendent with regard to curriculum policy
and decision making. Education.
Barth, R. S. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11.
Bjork, L., & Gurley, D. K. (2003, April). Superintendent as educational stateman. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Data analysis and interpretation. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (pp. 159–172).
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007a). Fieldwork. In Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods (pp. 82–102).
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007b). Qualitative data. In Qualitative research for education:
An introduction to theory and methods (pp. 117–157).
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party’s report.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/0803973233
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing orgainizations: Artisitry, choice, and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rown, B., & Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional management role
of prinicpal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, 34-64.
Council of Chief Stat School Officers. (2015). Model Principal Supervisor Professional
Standards 2015. Washington, DC:CCSSO.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. In Basics of Qualitative
Research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed., pp. 65–86).
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

96
Cray, M., & Weiler, S. C. (2011). Principal preparedness: Superintendent perceptions of new
principals. Journal of School Leadership, 21(6), 927–945. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ986246&site=ehost-
live%5Cnhttps://rowman.com/page/JSL
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.
Cudeiro, A. (2005). Leading student achievement. School Administrator, 62(11), 16–19.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of “No
Child Left Behind.” Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245–260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320701503207
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing school leaders
for a changin world: Executive summary. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univerisy, Stanford
Educational Leadership Institute.
Day, C., Harris, A., & Hadfield, M. (2001). Challenging the orthodoxy of effective school
leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Educationn, 4(1), 39–56.
https://doi.org/10.1080
Deming, D. J., & Figlio, D. (2016) Accountability in US educaiton: Applying lessons from K-12
experience to higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30, 3, 33-55.
Doremus, R. (n.d.). The superintendent as teacher. Educational Leadership.
Dufour, R. P. (1999). Help wanted: Principals who can lead professional learning communities.
NASSP Bulletin, 83(604), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659908360403
DuFour, R. (1998). Why look elsewhere?: Improving schools from within. School Administrator,
55(2). Retrieved from
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

97
https://auth.lib.unc.edu/ezproxy_auth.php?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc
t=true&db=eft&AN=507622064&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Eck, J., & Goodwin, B. (2010). Autonomy for school leaders. School Administrator, 67(1), 24–
27.
Eckman, E. W. (2004). Similarities and differences in role conflict, role commitment, and job
satisfaction for female and male high school principals. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 40(3), 366–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03257835
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62223248?accountid
=12598
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. Educational Forum, 69(2), 134–142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984677
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a snew structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The
ALbert Shanker Institute.
Fink, S., & Silverman, M. (2014). Principals as instructional leaders. Education Digest, 80(4),
22–26. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=54069bed-3355-4fca-9284-
dba1fa0cf6c6%40sessionmgr120&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3D%3D#db=aph
&AN=99624569
Firestone, W., & Shipps, D. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to
improve student learning? In W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for research
and educational research. New York: Teachers College Press.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

98
Fisher, D., Frey, N., (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the
gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, (May).
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.774610
Fullan, M. (2002). The Change Leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Glass, T. E. & Franceschini, L.A., The State of the AMerican Schoool Superintendency: A Mid-
Decade Study. American Association of School Administrators. Rowman & Littlefield
Education. 2007.
Glense, C. (2011). Crafting your story: Writing up qualitative data. In P. Smith (Ed.), Becoming
qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2009). Assessing learning-
centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and current practices.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760802014951
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(6), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244793
Hallinger, P. (2007). Research on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership:
Retrospect and prospect. Australian Council for Educational Research.
https://doi.org/10.1109/WCPEC.2006.279563
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2003). Understanding the contribution of leadership to school
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

99
improvement. In M. Wallace & L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in educational
leadership and management. Sage Publications.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–
44.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the Iistructional management behavior of
principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247. https://doi.org/10.1086/461445
Harding, J. (2013a). Chapter 5: Using codes to analyse an illustrative issue. In Qualitative data
analysis from start to finish.
Harding, J. (2013b). Identifying conceptual themes and building theory. In Qualitative data
analysis from start to finish (pp. 107–126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hatchel, J. (2012). Trust-building characteristics of superintendents and their impact on
principals. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/eric/docview/1651840551/810EF5C971B4359PQ/32
Hertz, K. (1980). The superintendent and the high school principal - Related roles. American
Secondary Education, 10(4), 61–63.
Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence
student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–
569. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315614911
Jazzar, M. (2015). Instructional or managerial leadership: The principal role!
Lash, TL.: Fox, MP.; Fink, AK. Applying Quantitative Bias Analysis to Epidemiologic Data.
Dordrecht: Springer; 2009.
Lee, M., Walker, A., & Ling Chui, Y. (2012). Contrasting effects of instructional leadership
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

100
practices on student learning in a high accountability context. Journal of Educational
Administration, 50(5).
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 498–518.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research
1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177–199.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244769
López, G. R. (2003). The (Racially Neutral) Politics of Education: A Critical Race Theory
Perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68–94.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239761
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design, An Interactive Approach (Third ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McGowan, P., & Miller, J. (2001). Management vs. leadership. The School Administrator (AASA
Web Edition), (November).
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: Aguide to Design and
Implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, Huberrman, & Saldana. (2014). Drawing and veryfing conclusions. In Investigating the
Social World: The Process and Practice of Research (pp. 293–317).
https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs.2011.100352
Murphy, J. (1988). The unheroic side of leadership: Notes from the swamp. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 69(9), 654–659.
Neal, Derek. 2013. "The Consequences of Using One Assessment System to Pursue Two
Objectives." NBER Working Paper 19214.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

101
Norton, M. S., Webb, L. D., Dlugosh, L. L. and Sybouts, W. (1996). The school
superintendency: New responsibilities, new leadership, Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Olson, L. (2000). New thinking on what makes a leader. Education Week.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ramsden, P. and L. A. (1998). Learning To Lead-Personal Development As An Academic
Leader.
Riehl, C. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusie schools for diverse students: A review
of normative, emperical, and critical literature on the practice of education administration.
Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55–81.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070001055
Rosin, M., Frey, S., & Wilson, K. (2007). Superintendents and principals: Charting the paths to
school improvement. Retrieved from EdSource website: https://edsource.org/wp-
content/publications/admin07.pdf
Rubin, H. J., Rubin, I. S., & Sage, S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnership. Qualitative
Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 85–92.
Scribner, S. M., Crow, G. M., Lopez, G. R., & Murthada, K. (2011). “Successful” principals : A
contested notion for superintendents and principals. Journal of School Leadership, 21(3),
390–421.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Leader ’ s New Work : Building Learning Organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 31(1), 7. Retrieved from
https://library.gcu.edu:2443/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/docv
iew/224967033?accountid=7374
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

102
Shirley, M. (1990). Images of superintendents’ leadership for learning. Austin, Texas.
Spanneut, G., & Ford, M. (2008). Guiding hand of the superintendent helps principals flourish.
National Staff Development Council, 29(2), 28–34.
Superville, D. R. (2014). Study finds principal mobility takes toll on budgets, learning; "Churn:
the high cost of principal turnover." Education Week, (12).
Suarez-Orozco, M. (2009). Rethinking Education in the Global Era.
Suarez-Orozco, M., & Baolian Qin-Hilliard, D. (2004). Globalization: Culture and education in
the new millennium, (2004), 56–77. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rc7FRbkkzsEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Glo
balization,+Culture+and+Education+in+the+New+Millennium&ots=jjkBi5sGT1&sig=Is46
kotYiO5bbQUn6O0gbRA93Xc
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills. In 21st Century Skills.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1719292.1730970
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy: Assessing a
promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410554070
Valentine, J. & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership and
student achievement: High school principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 5-
30.
Waters, T., & Marzano, R. (2006). The Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student
Achievement. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, (September), 454–487.
Weiss, R. (1994). Interviewing. Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative
Interview Studies.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

103
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Introduction. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interview studies (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: The Free Press.
West, C. E. (2011). School leadership teaming. Principal Www.Naesp.Org, (January/February),
10–13.
Wolf, E. (1988). The school superintendent in the reform era: Perceptions of practicioners,
principals, and pundits. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(4), 9–30.
https://doi.org/10.3751/64.4.13
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zaleznik, A. (2001). Managers and Leaders. Are they different?. Harvard Business School
Publishing Corporation

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

104
Appendix A
Survey Questions

1. Please identify your gender
Female
Male
Trans
Other

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

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

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

105
6. How many secondary (6-12) principals are in your district?
1 - 3
4 - 7
8-10
11-14
15 or more

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

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

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

106
Question 10: In your opinion, how effective are the following strategies for developing
secondary principals as instructional leaders:

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

Money spent on professional development 1 2 3
Superintendent lead professional development 1 2 3
Phone calls 1 2 3
Text messages 1 2 3
Email communication 1 2 3
Weekly meetings 1 2 3
Bi-monthly meetings 1 2 3
Monthly meetings 1 2 3
District provided professional development 1 2 3
Other

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

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

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

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

107
Question 12: In your opinion, how important are the following roles for secondary
principals as instructional leaders:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Framing clear school goals 1 2 3
Communicating clear school goals 1 2 3
Supervising and evaluating instruction 1 2 3
Coordinating curriculum 1 2 3
Monitoring student progress 1 2 3
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

108
Protecting instructional time 1 2 3
Promoting professional development 1 2 3
Maintaining high visibility 1 2 3
Providing incentives for teachers 1 2 3
Providing incentives for learning 1 2 3

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

109
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you again for agreeing to participate in my study today. I have some questions to ask you
specifically about your role as a principal/superintendent and your relationship with your
principal/superintendent. Feel free to be as specific as possible when answering questions. The
interview should take about an hour. this has been piloted and takes no more than 15 minutes to
complete

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

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

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

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

110
Heart of the Interview
Now I would like to ask you some questions about your relationship with your secondary
principals. For the purpose of this interview, secondary principals refers to principals at a
high school site.
4. Describe for me your relationship with your secondary principals.
5. How frequently do you talk to them?
a. For how long?
6. What is the nature of these conversations?
. What do you talk about with them?
a. What would an example be of a recent conversation you had with them?
b. Walk me through a typical interaction with them.
7. How do you define expectations with your secondary principals?
. What does this look like?
a. Describe for me a time in which you defined expectations for one of your secondary
principals.

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

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

111
19. What types of assessments are used to track student progress at your secondary sites?
20. Describe the last time that you helped your secondary principals work with their staff to
track student progress at their own sites?

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

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

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

112
Closing Comments
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today. I appreciate your time and your
answers will be beneficial for my study. If I have any follow up questions that need clarification,
is it okay if I email you? I want to be sure that I have accurately described your answers in my
study. Thank you again for participating.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

113
Appendix C
Participant Cover letter
July 5, 2019

RE: USC Doctoral Research, Superintendent Survey and Input Needed

Dear Superintendent _________,

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

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

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

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

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

Please click below to begin the survey.

https://forms.gle/tf2294BdVxUyLpfo8

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

114
Rich Moore, Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education
3335 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90007
(c)909.618.5606

Fight on!

Abstract (if available)

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

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Female elementary school principals and building capacity for teacher leaders

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

Asset Metadata

Creator Moore, Richard Alonzo (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/08/2020

Defense Date 02/18/2020

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

Tag capacity,instructional leader,K-12,manager,OAI-PMH Harvest,Secondary,superintendency,superintendent

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email moore.richard.1985@gmail.com,mooreric@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-304597

Unique identifier UC11663950

Identifier etd-MooreRicha-8466.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-304597 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MooreRicha-8466.pdf

Dmrecord 304597

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Moore, Richard Alonzo

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