University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Role of a principal supervisor in fostering principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate

(USC Thesis Other)

Role of a principal supervisor in fostering principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Role of a Principal Supervisor in Fostering Principal Development to Support Instructional
Improvement and a Positive School Climate
by
Shirleen Yvonne Oplustic

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December, 2020

iii

© Copyright by Shirleen Yvonne Oplustic 2020
All Rights Reserved

iv

The Committee for Shirleen Yvonne Oplustic certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Julie Marsh
Artineh Samkian
Julie Slayton, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2020

iv

Abstract
For principal supervisors to foster the development of school site principals, they must
have support built into the infrastructure of the district. However, formal development programs
that prepare principal supervisors to support principals often do not exist, and those that do are
usually not robust. There is little evidence of what constitutes a high-quality relationship between
a principal supervisor and a principal or how it looks when principals are adequately supported.
To understand the role a principal supervisor plays in the development of principals’ capacity,
the following research questions informed my study: How do two school districts construct the
role a principal supervisor plays in fostering the development of school site principals to lead
toward instructional improvement, a positive school climate, and access for its most vulnerable
students? How do principal supervisors enact the role constructed by the district to work with
principals toward fostering their development to support instructional improvement, a positive
school climate, and access for its most vulnerable students? This multicase study examined four
principal supervisors working in two K-12 school districts. Data included interviews, scenarios,
one observation, and documents. Findings revealed each district constructed different roles for
their principal supervisors, one favoring program implementation and the other working toward a
district vision. Neither district built comprehensive support for the principal supervisors into
their infrastructure, so each enacted their role differently. Districts must privilege developing
principals’ capacity through the work of their principal supervisors to lead toward instructional
improvement and a positive school climate.

v

Dedication
To my father, Wesley Louis Oplustic Sr., who gave me the gift of knowing what it means to live
an honorable, purposeful life, and to my brother Louis for encouraging me to do so.

vi

Acknowledgements
The completion of this dissertation has been an extraordinary journey of excitement,
struggle, confidence, self-doubt, and hard work. I could not have achieved this tremendous
accomplishment without the help and guidance of many people. To the following, I express my
deepest gratitude.
First and foremost, Dr. Julie Slayton. From the first time we met, I knew I wanted you to
guide me through this process. Your expectation of excellence without compromise held me to a
standard I would not have previously thought possible. The positive way you pushed my
thinking forced me to examine my world view and reassess what I previously “knew” to be true.
Because of you, I now look at education through a lens that highlights its challenges and
shortcomings and also illuminates a path toward its possibilities. I cannot thank you enough for
helping me become a better educator, administrator, teacher, and person. To my dissertation
committee, Dr. Julie Marsh and Dr. Artineh Samkian, thank you for agreeing to serve. Your
guidance coming out of my proposal defense pointed a way toward the successful exploration of
my research questions and helped guide my thought process into the difficult task of data
collection and beyond.
To my friends and colleagues, thank you for your encouragement along the way. Mrs.
Laura Whittington, you came with me to the very first informational meeting at the Galen Center
and encouraged me to apply to this program. Without you, I would not be here today. Dr.
Angelica Ramsey, thank you for supporting me as a new administrator and granting me the
freedom to embark on this journey during its first two years. Dr. Kelli Hayes, you said from the
beginning of our professional relationship that you supported me in taking the time I needed for

vii

my research. Thank you for allowing me the flexibility to gather data and complete this
dissertation.
I am blessed with the most wonderful, supportive family anyone could wish to have. My
mother instilled in me a love for knowledge and a value for education. She taught me that
learning, in any form, was something to value. Thank you, mom, for showing me education truly
is the path to success; I owe all I am to that lesson. Taylor, you have brought a joy to our family
that fills my soul, seeing my son blossom in your love has warmed my heart. Thank you for
embracing me as your mother-in-law and allowing me to know and love you. Cormac and
Delaney, you truly are the reason I exist in this world. Cormac, your dedication, perseverance,
intelligence, and sense of purpose inspire all who come into your orbit, you continually amaze
me. Delaney, you genuinely are the wisest of beings. Thank you for being my sounding board,
conscience, mirror, and critic. Your passion and work ethic inspire me daily. Watching both of
you grow to be the amazing man and woman you have become absolutely has been the greatest
joy of my life. Thank you both for your continuous support and faith in me. It truly is an honor to
be your mom. David, it does not matter what I decide to do, you are here to support me. The
trust, belief, and confidence you show me on a daily basis is a continual source of wonderment
and appreciation. Thank you for always having faith in my abilities, your positive
encouragement, and the undying love you give to me, especially when I do not deserve it.

viii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 9
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 10
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 10
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 13
Strategies for Development ............................................................................................... 14
Leadership ......................................................................................................................... 46
Instruments and Assessments ........................................................................................... 94
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................... 103
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 111
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................. 112
Research Design .............................................................................................................. 113
Sample and Population ................................................................................................... 114
Instrumentation and Data Collection .............................................................................. 118
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 122
Credibility and Trustworthiness ...................................................................................... 127

ix

Ethics ............................................................................................................................. 131
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 132
Delimitations ................................................................................................................... 133
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 134
Chapter Four: Findings ............................................................................................................... 135
Case One ......................................................................................................................... 136
Case Two ........................................................................................................................ 181
Cross Case Analysis ........................................................................................................ 210
Revised Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................... 217
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 225
Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications, and Recommendations .............................................. 226
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 227
Implications and Recommendations ............................................................................... 230
References ................................................................................................................................... 237
Appendix A: Principal Supervisor Interview Protocol ............................................................... 247
Appendix B: Principal Interview Protocol .................................................................................. 254

x

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework: The relationship between the principal supervisor and
principal in support of instructional improvement and a positive school
climate……………..........................................................................................................104
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………219
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Over the past several years, as I transitioned out of the classroom and into the district
office and site administration, I became interested in the amount of support districts provide to
principals. This interest was first sparked during a conversation with a colleague when she told
me an elementary school principal’s job was one of the loneliest in the world. I began to wonder
what brought her to that conclusion because my first experience as an administrator seemed to
contradict my colleague’s assertion. At the time, my supervising principal made it a point to
include me in her decision-making process, encouraged communication and collaboration, and
openly stated her belief that an important part of her job was to get me ready for the next level of
site leadership. Her informal coaching was essential to my growth. During that same time, as a
new administrator, I was enrolled in the first year of a two-year state mandated administrator
induction program facilitated by the Ventura County Office of Education (VCOE). The mentor
to whom I was formally assigned did not make time outside of mandated meetings to meet with
or coach me. The next year, I was given an assignment at a different school site where the
supervising principal was far less interested in coaching, collaborating, and communicating than
my former principal had been. I was also in the second year of the induction program with the
same disinterested coach, leaving me without formal or informal coaching. The experience with
the induction coach and my second principal supervisor gave me more insight into my
colleagues’ assertion about the loneliness of the principalship. My experiences working under
two vastly different principals led to my interest in studying the topic of administrator support in
depth. The remainder of this chapter presents the background and statement of the problem, the
purpose and importance of this study, and the organization of the remaining chapters.

2

Background of the Problem
Today, we are in an era of accountability in public education where schools are
continuously asked to demonstrate achievement. It can be argued this era began when President
Lyndon Johnson, believing that the United States should offer complete educational
opportunities to all students, signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in
1965. The act’s primary function was to offer grants to districts serving low-income students and
to state agencies as a means to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education. As
time progressed, legislation turned from what was essentially civil rights legislation in the 1960s
to accountability and oversight in the 2000s. The passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act in 2001 ushered in an era of accountability and high stakes testing for public schools where
everyone’s, including school leaders’, performance was measured in an attempt to be transparent
about the achievement of individual schools. With Race to the Top in 2010, the accountability
measures were still predominately geared toward testing and accountability even though they
took on a different form. Most recently, through the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015,
the Obama administration continued to advance accountability measures through legislation
focusing on advancing equity through innovations, interventions, and access to high-quality
instruction. In addition to federal efforts, in California the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) set the bar so students are only able
to achieve mastery if they benefit from high-quality instruction such as ambitious teaching.
Ambitious teaching is an approach that aims to teach the diverse population of all students to not
only know academic subjects but also to have the skills to use what they know to work on
authentic problems in academic domains (Lampert et al., 2011). Ambitious instruction includes
approaches such as teaching for understanding, authentic pedagogy, and covering content across
3

a broad spectrum of subject matter (Lampert et al., 2011; Lampert et al., 2013). Even though the
pendulum has swung away from accountability toward depth of understanding (Calkins et al.,
2012), California still has the public “dashboard,” which is designed to hold schools accountable
in ways consistent with the newer thinking about teaching students how to think critically
1

(California Department of Education, 2019).
Role of Principals in a Positive School Climate
While it has been well established that the principal impacts student achievement, some
have argued that the principals’ impact is mediated through the culture of the school rather than
directly (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). This is consistent with evidence that the principal strongly
influences the relationships that shape a school site’s culture and climate, with higher achieving
schools found to have a more positive school climate than lower achieving schools (MacNeil et
al., 2009). More specifically, schools with strong positive cultures have more motivated teachers
and have greater success in terms of student outcomes (MacNeil et al., 2009). Therefore,
focusing on the dimensions and aspects of school climate that positively affect the culture of the
school is one of the most important actions a leader can perform (MacNeil et al., 2009; Pellicer,
2003).
The Influence of Principals on Teachers
As well as influencing the school’s culture and student achievement, principals also
influence the teachers themselves. Talking with teachers to promote reflection, professional

1
When looking for alignment between the standards, assessment expectations, and
ambitious teaching, one could argue the Common Core and its emphasis on critical thinking is
compatible with ambitious teaching. However, we still have external accountability with the
CAASPP and the California School Dashboard. The CAASPP, as a high stake “one-shot” test, is
not compatible with ambitious teaching. Since the Dashboard includes engagement and
conditions and climate in its reporting, one could argue either way.
4

growth, and collegiality results in an increase in teacher innovation, creativity, and improved
instruction (Blase & Blase, 2000). Even though it is widely accepted that the most direct
pathway to student achievement is through the classroom teacher, there is a relationship between
principal leadership and teachers’ expectation of a desired outcome that demonstrates principals
are instrumental to teachers’ success (Finnigan, 2010). The more principals engage in behaviors
that are personally empowering to teachers, the greater the impact on the improvement of
teaching and student learning (Davis & Wilson, 2000). Therefore, it is more important than ever
that principals are supported and helped to develop their leadership roles. Unfortunately, such
support is not always present for those who are rising to or already inhabiting the principalship
(Slayton, 2017).
Standards for Principals
While the Common Core and the NGSS focus on concepts students are expected to
master, implied in the standards is that high-quality teaching must be in place for mastery to
occur. While there are standards for teachers aimed at supporting their growth as an educator,
there are also national and state standards that focus on the qualities of leadership principals are
expected to possess in order to support high-quality teaching. In 2015, the National Policy Board
for Educational Administration published the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders
(PSEL).
2
In California, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) adopted the
California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSEL) in 2014. Both sets of
standards have several common elements, including the expectation that principals act as
instructional leaders, managers, and visionaries (California Commission on Teacher

2
The 2015 standards were a second revision (after 2008) of the original 1996 Interstate
School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards.
5

Credentialing, 2014; National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015). They also
expect principals to positively and productively engage with families and the community, while
also conducting themselves with the highest standard of ethics and integrity. Principals are
expected to know curriculum, instruction, and assessment, as well as being able to cultivate an
emotionally safe and inclusive community. Additionally, when principals are faced with a
circumstance or condition they do not have the requisite knowledge to address, the standards call
on them as individuals to proactively seek additional information, knowledge, and understanding
in order to be able to accomplish all tasks at hand (California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, 2014; National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015).
With the current legislation demanding external accountability and standards setting a
high bar for student achievement, it is apparent the school site principal has an enormous job to
do (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015). A school site principal’s
position is exceptionally intricate and requires a highly developed skill set to navigate the many
complex demands of the job (Helsing et al., 2008). For example, principals must effectively run
schools’ day to day operations as well as lead personnel, so the schools’ climate and instruction
are sufficient to meet the needs of students to help them achieve expected outcomes. If this is
done well, there is a substantial positive relationship between school leadership and student
achievement, as many scholars assert the school site principal is second only to the classroom
teacher in their effect on student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2004; Waters et al., 2003).
Breaking it down even more, there are significant relationships between selected school
leadership practices and student learning, indicating that principal behaviors produce a direct
relationship with, and impact on, student achievement (Nettles & Herrington, 2007). When
principals improve their practice, potentially thousands of students are impacted because
6

principals impact an entire school population, whereas teachers impact the smaller population of
a classroom (Nettles & Herrington, 2007). All the elements of principal behaviors such as
establishing a clear vision, maintaining a safe environment, maintaining an instructional focus,
encouraging stakeholder involvement, etc. that lead to increased student achievement should be
considered and understood when determining how to help principals improve as leaders who are
able to improve student performance in their schools (Nettles & Herrington, 2007).
Pathway to the Principalship
From the beginning, the pathway to a principalship has not often been well defined.
Instead of being groomed and developed for the job, principals often self-select to leave the
teaching pool and apply to be a principal (Slayton, 2017). Most districts do not have formal
mechanisms to actively groom and identify potential leaders, relying instead on the educators
themselves to decide if and when to move into administration (Bastian & Henry, 2015). So the
general thought is the way for one to become a viable candidate for a principalship is by
spending time as a classroom teacher and a lower level administrator, oftentimes in the same
district (Bastian & Henry, 2015; Slayton, 2017). However, an experience as a vice-principal does
not guarantee preparation for the principalship (Kwan, 2009). In fact, the problem is that the
process of moving up the ranks assumes the rising administrator is being mentored by a leader
with the skills, knowledge, and dispositions to provide effective learning opportunities, but such
is rarely the case (Slayton, 2017). In reality, those who rise to administrative positions and
experience formal preparation through professional development or coursework are often
inadequately prepared for the role of a school leader. Thus, the majority of principals are ill-
equipped to do their job (Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012; Hess & Kelly, 2007).
7

Once principals do land their first job, it is not a foregone conclusion that formal
mechanisms will exist to prepare them for their initial supervisory role or expectation of growth
as they continue their position as instructional leaders. A new principal may find the person to
whom they report is anyone from the district superintendent on down to a director and no matter
who is supervising, they often lack the right training and support to help build principal capacity
as instructional leaders (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015). In fact, before 2015, there
was not a clear and practical definition of what a principal supervisor should know and be able to
do to improve the effectiveness of school leaders (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015).
According to the Council of Chief State School Officers (2015), the need for a set of standards
that provided guidance for what a principal supervisor should know and do to improve the
effectiveness of school leaders led to the development of the Model Principal Supervisor
Professional Standards. However, as comprehensive as the standards are in their potential to
inform how principal supervisors do their job, literature could not be found that gives insight into
how, if at all, these standards are being used by districts. In most cases, districts provide
principals with supervisors who are tasked with providing guidance and support in addition to
their supervisory role without developing their leadership capacity. Hence, their ability to lead is
often not any better than that of the principals they support, negating their effectiveness (Slayton,
2017). Induction programs, such as one offered by the Ventura County Office of Education
(VCOE), are designed to provide new principals with individual instruction, formative
assessment, and personalized instruction based on the context of the principal’s leadership role
(Ventura County Office of Education, 2019). However, the execution is left in the hands of
locally appointed mentors who may or may not be sufficiently able to deliver on the promise.
Because most principals enter the position ill-prepared to do the job well and do not receive
8

robust training or professional development, it can be inferred it is incumbent upon the principal
supervisor to prepare principals to lead toward instructional improvement and a positive school
climate. To help districts design support for their principal supervisors, the Model Principal
Supervisor Professional Standards are a voluntary set of standards intended to provide district
leaders with a framework for guiding principal supervision. The guidance of the standards is
needed because based on the demands of external accountability such as state testing, the
California School Dashboard, demands of the parent community, and the responsibility to lead
instructionally, the scope of a principal supervisor’s job has shifted from overseeing compliance
to instructional leadership (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015). The standards are a
guide to help districts build an infrastructure to support principal supervisors foster principal
development.
Statement of the Problem
Despite the importance of a school site principal to the overall academic success of
students and the profound influence this individual has on the quality of teaching and positive
school climate (Blase & Blase, 2000; Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012; Peterson & Deal,
1998), not all school districts have the infrastructure in place for their principals to receive an
adequate amount of support and training (Bastian & Henry, 2015; Hess & Kelly, 2007). Formal
district development programs for the support of principals often do not exist, and those that do
can range from peer sharing and support to online learning, to individual mentoring and coaching
(Slayton, 2017; Zepeda et al., 2013). Because the job of school site principal as it is currently
configured in many districts is not adequately supported (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007), and
there is not a consistent model of successful support for principals as individuals, we do not have
substantial insight as to what constitutes a high-quality relationship between a principal
9

supervisor and a principal. Even though principals are being tasked every day with the important
job of leading an educational institution, there is little evidence of what it looks like when they
are adequately supported in the accomplishment of their task.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to gain insight into the role of principal supervisors in
fostering the development of principals to support instructional improvement and a positive
school climate and how the district infrastructure contributed to their ability to do so. I examined
the coaching
3
relationship between four directors
4
and the principals they supervised in order to
understand how principal supervisors worked to develop principals’ capacity toward
instructional improvement and a positive school climate. Given that both districts chosen for the
study had only two directors responsible for the oversight of all the principals in each district, it
was possible to discover the role the districts’ philosophy played in developing principals’
capacity. Through the directors’ descriptions of their experiences and district documents, it was
possible to draw conclusions about district-level policies and vision. This study also provided
insight into the ways a district’s infrastructure may help or hinder principal supervisors in their
ability to develop principal capacity toward instructional improvement and a positive school
climate.

3
For the purpose of this study, I will refer to the “coaching/mentoring” relationship as
“coaching” because the two terms are so closely aligned when applied to the relationship
between a principal supervisor and a principal, to keep the terms separate would cause undue
confusion for the reader.
4
When speaking generally, I refer to those that supervise principals as “principal
supervisor(s).” Since all the principal supervisors I interviewed for this study held the title of
“director” when I specifically refer to my research subjects who supervise principals, I use the
term “director.”
10

The following research questions guided my study: How do two school districts construct
the role a principal supervisor plays in fostering the development of school site principals to lead
toward instructional improvement, a positive school climate, and access for its most vulnerable
students? How do principal supervisors enact the role constructed by the district to work with
principals toward fostering their development to support instructional improvement, a positive
school climate, and access for its most vulnerable students?
Significance of the Study
This study provided insight into how principal supervisors from two different districts
approached school site principals’ development through coaching, feedback, and support. It also
highlighted the roles principal supervisors and principals have in building capacity. It is
significant because it informed the role a district must play in supporting a principal supervisor’s
development of principals’ capacity to support instructional improvement and promote a positive
school climate. This study informed the professional field of district office leaders by
highlighting the adjustments a central office must make and the skills and practices a principal
supervisor must possess to successfully foster principal development. I used, and will continue to
use, the contents of this study to empower me as a leader in my professional space and better
equip me to lead and groom those I supervise. Finally, this study increased my knowledge, which
helped me grow to become a more powerful leader as I continue my journey in the educational
field.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters guided by my identified research
questions. The first chapter provides the context and background of an identified problem and
the purpose and the significance of the study.
11

The second chapter reviews literature that discusses concepts necessary to the support
and development of principals, including strategies for their development, leadership, and the
standards developed to guide principals and principal supervisors. Chapter 2 concludes with a
conceptual framework representing the concepts that emerged from my study of the literature
and served as the guide for the research design and methodology outlined in chapter 3.
The third chapter details the methods and instruments I used to collect and analyze data,
including the study’s research design, targeted sample population, and the anticipated limitations
and delimitations. Chapter 3 concludes with a discussion of the steps I took to ensure credibility,
trustworthiness, and ethicality.
Chapter four presents the findings of this study. Case studies examining two different K-
12 school districts are included. The findings from each case study, derived from principal
supervisor interviews, questions, document study, and a cross-case analysis, are included along
with the accompanying themes. Chapter four also includes my revised conceptual framework
with concepts that emerged from what I learned through the data collection and analysis process.
Revisions to the framework were made to address the structure a district must have in place to
support principal supervisors in fostering principal development.
Chapter five presents a summary of the study’s findings and discusses implications and
recommendations for practice and policy. It also points out areas for future research. Suggestions
for districts to restructure support for principal supervisors include recruiting, developing,
training, and taking other duties off their plate so they can devote the proper amount of time to
coaching, are clarified. Finally, future research areas are suggested that address data not collected
in this study or found in literature, including time to observe principal supervisors as they coach
principals to give a complete picture of the roles each play. Future research should also include
12

more comprehensive interviews with principals and observing leadership meetings led by
principal supervisors.

13

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This study examined how two districts supported the ability of principal supervisors to
lead principals to refine their practice and improve instruction and climate at their school sites. I
asked the following research questions:
1. How do two school districts construct the role a principal supervisor plays in
fostering the development of school site principals to lead toward instructional
improvement, a positive school climate, and access for its most vulnerable students?
2. How do principal supervisors enact the role constructed by the district to work with
principals toward fostering their development to support instructional improvement, a
positive school climate, and access for its most vulnerable students?
The three bodies of literature I examined to answer my research question were: strategies for the
professional development of principals, leadership, and instruments and standards to measure
principal proficiency. I end chapter 2 with the conceptual framework that guided my research
design, sampling, instrumentation, data collection, and analysis.
First, I examined literature that discussed strategies for the development of principals as
leaders. I chose this topic as one of my areas of study because I needed to understand the skills
principals required as instructional leaders in order to examine how their bosses’ roles were
constructed and how they enacted their roles as principal supervisors. This area of study helped
me understand where principal supervisors should focus their attention when supervising school
site principals to work toward ambitious teaching and a positive school climate. Within this body
of literature, I focused on coaching/mentoring as strategies necessary to support principal
development. I chose coaching/mentoring because, even with the best professional and staff
development, there is little improvement if it is not followed up with skillful coaching and
14

sustained feedback (Barth, 1986). Second, literature on leadership was discussed in two parts. I
began with leadership as it related to teaching to understand how a principal supervisor could
positively foster principals’ development in relation to improving instructional practice. Then, I
presented literature that discussed leadership as it related to school climate to understand the
importance of the role a principal supervisor played in enabling a principal to foster a positive
school climate. Finally, I reviewed instruments and standards available for supervisors to assess
and evaluate principals’ performance and professional standards for leaders, both principals and
principal supervisors. Together, these instruments provided insights into the knowledge and
skills necessary for leaders to affect change in relation to teaching and climate.
Strategies for Development
There are many paths for a supervisor to take toward supporting principals in leading
their schools to ambitious teaching and a positive school climate, all of which require the support
of the district. I chose to focus on literature related to principal development because it would
provide me with insight into what principal supervisors likely would be doing to develop
principal capacity. In looking at how the district constructs the principal supervisor’s role, top
down initiatives, asking them to use methods such as standardized professional development,
self-study of literature, and outside classes, typically do not produce a change in behavior (Barth,
1986). Thus, I chose to focus my research on coaching and mentoring as they afford
differentiation and individual support to principals and have been identified as being among the
most effective methods to build knowledge and skills (Zepeda et al., 2013). Therefore, in this
section, I present literature that explains the strategies used to foster principal development
through the coaching and the mentoring of principals.

15

Coaching
The first strategy to support and develop principals I address is coaching. While
executive coaching is an established profession in the private sector, the amount of literature on
the coaching of school leaders is limited (Bloom et al., 2003). Bloom et al. (2003) define
coaching as “the practice of providing deliberate support to another individual to help him/her to
clarify and/or to achieve goals” (p. 5). As opposed to training, coaching addresses the needs of
the individual to improve practice (Bloom et al., 2003) rather than a designed program meant for
a group.
In looking at coaching, Wise and Cavazos (2017) answered the following four research
questions in their mixed methods study:
1. What is the extent of principal leadership coaching in the United States?
2. What are the characteristics of the principals being coached?
3. What are the characteristics of the coaching relationship?
4. Is there a perceived relationship between leadership coaching and the performance of
school principals?
To answer these questions, Wise and Cavazos (2017) contracted with Market Data Research, a
national educational market research firm with a database containing the current email addresses
of about 70% to 75% of public school principals. To obtain a representative sample from across
the United States, the authors requested a randomly selected list of approximately 10,000 email
addresses of public school principals in their database from elementary, middle/junior high, and
high school. Overall, a total of 10,424 names were provided. From that list, email messages were
sent to 6,827 elementary principals, 1,509 middle school/junior high principals, and 2,088 high
school principals. The emails contained a message from the authors and a link to the survey. The
16

authors received 1,361 usable responses consisting of 839 elementary principals, 191
middle/junior high principals, and 323 high school principals for a response rate of 13%. The
author’s opinion was that despite the low response rate, the sample did represent the overall
population of public school principals.
The instrument used in gathering data was a survey with quantitative questions and one
open-ended qualitative question. Prior to deploying the survey, Wise and Cavazos (2017) sent it
to three people who had coached school principals to obtain feedback on wording and content.
The researchers then field-tested the survey with a pilot group of educators who provided them
with written feedback and suggestions. Several changes were made to the instrument as a result
of the vetting process, and a link to the survey was uploaded using an electronic survey
application. Once all the responses were received, a high degree of internal consistency was
indicated based on a calculated Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of .958. (Wise & Cavazos, 2017).
Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 software that utilized descriptive
as well as inferential statistical techniques. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses was
conducted using content analysis and thematic coding using NVivo V9 software. Demographic
and other statistical information were also collected (Wise & Cavazos, 2017).
Two questions on the survey were meant to answer the first research question, which
asked, “What is the extent of principal leadership coaching in the United States?” The wording
of the questions meant to eliminate informal coaching as it was not the study’s focus. Of the
1,361 public school principals who provided usable responses, approximately half received some
type of formal leadership coaching (Wise & Cavazos, 2017).
The second research question sought to determine the characteristics of the principals
being coached. The authors found that overall, there was no particular type of principal who
17

received coaching, but there were some statistically significant findings. Location played a
statistically significant role in the amount of coaching a principal received. Fewer principals
(43.4%) in rural schools received coaching than principals (56.0%) in urban schools. Age was a
factor in the amount of coaching as younger principals received coaching at a higher rate (10%)
than their older colleagues. Principals with less experience as a principal were 16% more likely
to receive coaching. Principals serving at the same school for five years or less received coaching
at a higher rate (11%) than those who did not. Overall, being a new principal at a school
correlated with a high probability of receiving coaching. Variables that did not turn out to be
statistically significant were those of gender, ethnicity, or number of years in program
improvement (Wise & Cavazos, 2017). When looking at geography, Wise and Cavazos (2017)
found that only two regions of the United States varied from the 50% number of principals
receiving formal coaching. The “East North Central Region” (Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois,
and Wisconsin) had a 30.8% coaching rate, and in the Pacific Region” (Washington, Oregon,
California, Hawaii, and Alaska), 63.5% of principals receive coaching.
Wise and Cavazos (2017) next asked, “What are the characteristics of the coaching
relationship?” Only the respondents who indicated they were coached received the questions
related to this research question. Principals were asked about several characteristics, including
frequency and length of coaching sessions, whether coaching was assigned or requested,
characteristics of the coach, and location of coaching. There was a strong positive correlation
between frequency of contact with the coach and the effectiveness of the coaching, with most
respondents (35%) meeting with their coach once a month followed by twice a month (21.7%).
Competencies were rated using nine factors that indicated perceived effectiveness of the coach.
In general, the more frequent the contact with the coach, the higher the principal rated the
18

effectiveness of the coach (Wise & Cavazos, 2017). Additionally, respondents were asked to
report the length of time for each coaching session. The highest percentage (48.1%) of
respondents reported their sessions lasted 1-2 hours, followed by less than 1 hour per session
(30.1%). The results indicated that when the coaching sessions lasted between 1-2 hours,
principals rated the coach’s efficiency higher than when each session lasted less than 1 hour
(Wise & Cavazos, 2017). When asked about the total number of hours they were coached each
month, 23% of the coaches reported 2 to 4 hours, and 26.8% reported more than 4 hours.
Only 30% of the principals surveyed requested they be assigned a coach and that 30%
rated the effectiveness of the coaching they received higher than the 70% of principals who had
coaches imposed upon them (Wise & Cavazos, 2017).
The last research question asked whether there was a relationship between leadership
coaching and performance. Of the principals who responded, 85% stated they were a better
principal due to their coaching and 72% said the achievement of their students had grown since
they received coaching (Wise & Cavazos, 2017).
An open-ended question, “How would you define leadership coaching?” was asked to
elicit answers for the qualitative portion of the study. Of the 659 principals who indicated they
received some type of coaching, 425 principals responded to the qualitative question. The major
theme that emerged from the responses (which varied from one word, a phrase to a paragraph or
more), was that coaches provided support for principals (Wise & Cavazos, 2017). This theme
appeared in almost 52% of the responses and was manifested in words such as “support,”
“supportive,” or “supporting,” which appeared a total of 59 times along with “help,” “helping,”
or “helpful” which appeared 105 times. Additional words that indicated support were “mentor,”
“assist,” and “providing advice.” One example offered by the authors was of an elementary
19

principal in California who said her coach was “supporting an individual to lead others in doing
their best” (Wise & Cavazos, 2017, p. 239). Other principals mentioned trust, guidance, probing
questions, and dialogue as important to the coaching relationship (Wise & Cavazos, 2017).
Celoria and Roberson (2015) sought to answer the following research questions in their
study of new principal coaching:
1. How do new principal coaches structure the coaching process in support of new
principal learning?
2. How do new principals experience their coaching program?
3. How does coaching enhance their experience as novice administrators?
The purpose of this study was to look at new principal coaching as an induction process and
determine if it could be responsive to the emotional dimensions of leadership, work-related
stress, and whether coaching could be viewed as an inclusion process. This qualitative study took
place in the San Francisco Bay Area and focused on finding out what principals and coaches said
about principal coaching as a practice. The researchers attended to the thinking of coaches and
new principals, the significance they attached to the work, and the ways they described coaching
(Celoria & Roberson, 2015).
The sampling was divided into two groups who were invited to participate in an initial
telephone interview. The first group consisted of 34 new principal coaches who were retired
administrators coaching first and second-year principals and affiliated with a San Francisco Bay
Area University. The second group included 23 principals from an urban San Francisco Bay
Area mid-sized and diverse school district. This phase of the study had an 82% (28 of 34)
response rate for coaches and a 74% (17 out of 25) response rate for principals (Celoria &
Roberson, 2015). After the initial interview portion, six of the 28 coaches and six of the 17
20

principals who participated in the phone interviews were selected to participate in the case study
portion of this study. The six coaches chosen came from four school districts, all three levels of
schools, and both genders. The six new principals had differing years of experience and
represented all school levels (Celoria & Roberson, 2015). Data were collected in two phases and
approached slightly differently for the coaches and the principals. However, the collection of all
data aimed to focus on three primary areas: 1) How the coaching process was structured in
support of new principals, 2) How coaching is experienced by new principals, and 3) How the
coaching enhanced the experience of novice administrators.
The first phase of data for the coaches was collected through initial telephone interviews
that posed three major questions with follow-up probes that covered accessibility and adequacy
of contact time (Celoria & Roberson, 2015). For the principals, the first phase consisted of a
school district satisfaction survey consisting of 57 questions. The survey was divided into
background information, contact time of principal and coach, characteristics of their relationship,
effectiveness of coaching and professional development.
The second phase of data collection for the coaches consisted of three face-to-face
interviews conducted with six coaches. A semi-structured interview protocol with four scenarios
was used (Celoria & Roberson, 2015). Coaches were asked nine questions and encouraged to
provide information they considered important and were invited to express their ideas freely. The
questions and topics were designed to draw out their thoughts about their roles, effective or
ineffective strategies, and how they supported the development of new principals. The second
phase for the six principals consisted of two face-to-face semi-structured interviews to allow for
their conceptions of the coaching experience and the impact the experience had on them to
naturally emerge (Celoria & Roberson, 2015).
21

Celoria and Roberson (2015) recorded and transcribed all interviews verbatim. The data
were first reviewed to identify descriptive codes and then reviewed again for interpretive codes.
Codes were clustered to discover relationships between categories, which resulted in the
identification of findings. First level coding classified coaches’ and principals’ statements to
understand how they designed learning experiences, and second-level coding produced several
categories. Finally, the data were examined again for outliers and negative examples. Celoria and
Roberson (2015) conducted a systematic content analysis of the interviews to identify how
coaches designed learning for new principals and how principals conceptualized the coaching
experience. The major finding of this study was that coaching was a safe place for new principals
to express how they related to the demands of the job. Coaching offered principals a place for the
expression of emotional intensity, a path to identify areas of strength and needed professional
growth, and a person to talk to who acted as a supporter, not an evaluator when making difficult
decisions. Central to this finding was the importance of relationship and enhanced psychosocial
functioning (Celoria & Roberson, 2015). Three findings were highlighted by Celoria and
Roberson (2015) that supported the study’s major discovery.
The first finding was that coaching provided a safe place for principals humanistically
and professionally through conversations that provided them with a sense of safety. This
indicated coaching could play a substantive role in enabling principals to lead while learning.
This finding is divided into four areas. The first area was a need for conversations to provide a
sense of safety. Principals reported coaching supported them through difficult and challenging
conversations, with one stating it kept her from feeling like a “failure” (Celoria & Roberson,
2015, p. 92). The principal went on to say she believed the coach was not judging her, and the
coach was very nurturing. She also stated that not having guidance would have made her job
22

overwhelming. Another principal reported his coach played a “nurturing” and “validating”
(Celoria & Roberson, 2015, p. 92) role pivotal in his decision to stay in his position. Both
principals described an emotional intensity in their conversations that informed how they viewed
coaches as being supportive and how they perceived the service coaches provided as a safety net.
The second area of the first finding was principals in the study understood the benefit of
having a supportive presence and someone to listen to them and a safe person with whom to have
emotionally charged conversations. Coaches not only provided professional support, they also
provided emotional support because they understood what it meant for principals to lead and
learn their jobs in an often-stressful environment. One example of this was a coach stated that
her role was to support principals in any way they needed (Celoria & Roberson, 2015). Another
coach stated: “[Coaching is] a relationship in which the principal is able to share her reality,
where she genuinely feels safe and accepted” (Celoria & Roberson, 2015, p. 92). Ultimately,
coaching was all about being in a relationship. Half the coaches reported developing a
relationship with new principals that lasted for several years beyond their formal coaching time.
One coach reported still receiving phone calls from her principal five years after the formal
coaching period had stopped (Celoria & Roberson, 2015).
The third and fourth areas of the first finding were coaching gave principals the space to
confront insecurities when making difficult decisions and provided support for making those
decisions (Celoria & Roberson, 2015). One principal recalled how her coach talked her through
difficult encounters and how her coach’s questions pushed her to think through the complexities
of the consequences of conversations. She pointed to questioning strategies as part of how her
coach created space for her to confront insecurities when making difficult decisions (Celoria &
Roberson, 2015). One coach mentioned her principal became more reflective and intentional as
23

she grew in the position. Another stated, “By the time the two years are up, they’re able to
reflect” (Celoria & Roberson, 2015, p. 93).
New principal coaching as a safety net was the second finding named by Celoria and
Roberson (2015). Study participants mentioned coaching as being a safety net of support that
allowed them to address and identify the uncertainty and stress of being a principal. This finding
was divided into two areas. First, new principals mentioned their coaches provided emotional
support and allowed for emotional stress to help them through the intensity associated with the
job. Three first-year principals spoke about being overwhelmed with emotions such as doubt,
frustration, and anxiety that brought them to the point of considering leaving the profession.
However, they also reported coaches provided them with needed emotional support. The second
area of coaching as a safety net Celoria and Roberson (2015) identified was that coaches
understood the emotional stress and isolation experienced by new principals and helped them
work through it. Coaches stressed the importance of a safe place where a principal was allowed
to make mistakes, expose their lack of knowledge, and work through emotional stress as they
developed their leadership skills without fear of retribution. When her coach met with her, one
principal stated it was ok not to know something because coaches were committed to their
success.
The third finding Celoria and Roberson (2015) identified was the importance of
relationship. Establishing and maintaining a positive relationship and unconditional positive
regard was overwhelmingly perceived as essential to the coaching process. The data revealed all
of the coaches believed they treated principals with a “whole person” approach and the
relationship was nonjudgmental, supportive, confidential, non-supervisorial, and accepting
(Celoria & Roberson, 2015).
24

Finally, Celoria and Roberson (2015) also suggested as an induction process, new
principal coaching had the potential to help ease work related and emotional stress for new
principals, potentially reducing or erasing the sense of uncertainty, isolation, and doubt of novice
administrators.
Lochmiller (2018) asked the following questions in his qualitative study exploring
tensions that existed in principal coaching and supervisory roles:
1. What challenges do central office principal supervisors encounter as they adopt
coaching as a primary focus of their work?
2. How does the introduction of coaching behaviors challenge, expand, or refine
existing understandings of the principal supervisor’s role within central office
context?
Lochmiller (2018) obtained data from 20 principal supervisors employed in two urban school
districts. He did not explain how these principals were sampled. Each participant received
training and support in leadership coaching from a mid-sized private university as part of a
multi-year partnership between the university and each district (Lochmiller, 2018). The
partnership sought to improve administrators’ leadership skills through coaching behaviors found
in the Blended Coaching Model, that combined a series of questioning strategies aimed to
engage participants in reflective conversations (Lochmiller, 2018). The 20 participants had an
average of 19.4 years’ experience in K-12 education and worked in their current roles for 7.1
years (Lochmiller, 2018).
Data, in the form of 53 semi-structured interviews, 127 hours of non-participant
observations of coaching sessions, and 59 documents, were collected over the course of three
academic years. Interviews were conducted in the fall and spring of each academic year, with the
25

protocol focused on the challenges encountered as supervisors began using coaching strategies.
Questions also focused on identifying how expectations placed on supervisors enabled or
inhibited their ability to use coaching strategies. The interviews lasted an average of 47 minutes
and were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. Every supervisor could not
participate in every interview cycle, which is how Lochmiller (2018) ended up with 53 as the
number of interviews. Non-participant observations totaling 127 hours were completed over the
three years of data collection. They included 72 hours of in-person observation during
professional development sessions, 23 hours conducted during coaching sessions between
supervisors and principals at individual school sites, and 22 hours of video-based observation
collected by supervisors working with principals (Lochmiller, 2018). How each supervisor
adopted coaching behaviors in their practice or aligned their coaching with their role as a central
office administrator was demonstrated in their interactions and exchanges. Videos of the
coaching sessions were collected in the fall and spring of each year and were designed to
provided evidence that supervisors were using coaching skills. Fifteen of the 20 supervisors
granted permission for the videos to be watched. Lochmiller (2018) looked for exchanges that
demonstrated how supervisors were using coaching moves and how those moves aligned with
their work as a supervisor. A total of 59 documents were collected from program staff and
participants. They included examples from in-person coaching sessions and examples
downloaded from the websites of the two school districts. Job descriptions for central office
supervisors, organizational charts, assessment plans, school improvement plans, and classroom
observation protocols were examples of some of the documents collected. The documents were
used as independent evidence of exchanges during recorded observations and statements
obtained through interviews (Lochmiller, 2018).
26

Analysis of the qualitative data was conducted using a computer assisted qualitative data
analysis software, Atlas.ti. Educational leadership literature, role theory, and studies of
supervisory roles informed the codes derived from the research. A combination of descriptive
and inferential codes were represented in the final coding scheme (Lochmiller, 2018). Two
phases of coding were used in the analysis. First, descriptive codes, including single words and
short phrases, were used to reduce the size of the data set. They highlighted examples and
statements showing how coaching aligned with expectations of the supervisor’s role. Second,
inferential codes that assigned a higher level of meaning were assigned to passages already
coded. Lochmiller (2018) used these codes to make connections to the existing literature and
assign a higher level of meaning to the text. In order to derive themes, Lochmiller (2018) looked
at the passages with lower inference codes and identified patterns within the codes that became
categories. He then defined themes that were reflected across the categories. Lochmiller (2018)
found supervisors had difficulty with the prescriptive nature of the supervisory role and found
district expectations were a barrier to embedding coaching into their practice. He identified three
themes that emerged from his data.
The first theme was addressing the prescriptive nature of the supervisor’s role
(Lochmiller, 2018). Expectations placed on supervisors by the institutions made it difficult for
supervisors to serve as coaches. Documents obtained from both districts, described supervision
as one of the critical responsibilities for central office supervisors across all facets of the
districts’ operations. Thus, the districts’ expectation for their supervisors was of compliance,
making their orientation more about ensuring schools met performance objectives than the
growth of principal capacity. However, within the context of the partnership, central office
supervisors were expected to support principals’ growth using the Blended Coaching Model as a
27

guide for their coaching behaviors (Lochmiller, 2018). Supervisors were required to pick one of
the principals they supervised with whom to engage in coaching support. Of the 20 supervisors
in the study, 18 picked principals they directly supervised, and two picked principals they
previously supervised but had moved on to other schools. Sixteen principals worked in
elementary schools, four in secondary. Most supervisors picked principals whom they described
as “moderately experienced” or “familiar with their schools and its challenges” (Lochmiller,
2018, p. 84). None of the principals were on a plan of improvement. Each supervisor was
familiar with the expectations of participating in the coaching program, which was to support
principal growth and work to improve the principals’ instructional leadership practices. Eighteen
supervisors chose principals in a grade subject to the state’s accountability framework,
supervising a teacher who was on a plan of improvement, or engaged in a specific type of
professional development (Lochmiller, 2018). The intent was to shift focus away from issues
related to school operations to issues of instructional improvement. However, supervisors
discovered the evaluative expectations placed on them caused them to struggle to step away from
judging, evaluating, or directing the principals in order to engage in coaching conversations
(Lochmiller, 2018). One supervisor noted the inability to comfortably address issues the
principal wanted to talk about because the conversation came out as a critique of the principal’s
work. Another supervisor stated that “coaching involves a time horizon” (Lochmiller, 2018, p.
84) the principal does not have because of the pressure to improve scores. Five of the supervisors
gave examples where direct intervention was required to rectify a situation. Supervisors had
difficulty shifting from a supervisory stance to one of coaching and reported evaluation
interfered with their opportunity to coach principals.
28

The second theme identified was difficulty navigating the expectations of competing
roles. Lochmiller (2018) stated supervisors found it difficult to effectively navigate the
competing emotions of tensions and expectations. In this context, expectations related both to
what it meant for supervisors to enact their role as supervisors and principals’ perceptions of how
they should be supervised. Six of the 20 supervisors reported principals had an established
expectation of what their role should be, which made it difficult for them to stop acting as a
supervisor and start acting as a coach to focus on the principals’ learning. Four supervisors
reported principals expressed concern that exposing their professional learning needs might
impact their supervisor’s assessment of their performance. Lochmiller (2018) found supervisors
felt ineffective and struggled with identifying strategies to help them navigate the tensions of
competing roles. Thirteen supervisors reported their way of navigating their competing roles of
supervisor and coach was by intentionally scheduling coaching meetings separate from
traditional supervisory meetings about school and district issues. However, one principal found
even those meetings were consumed by discussing more pressing district business. Another
supervisor stated setting time limits on conversations with principals allowed the supervisor to
address site needs and have an earnest attempt to coach the principal in support of their
professional learning. However, these strategies served to separate coaching from the
supervisory practice rather than embedding it within (Lochmiller, 2018). This separation was
partly explained by the concern that supervisors met the immediate needs of principals, and
principals did not always invite coaching support. Four supervisors noted coaching tended to
“slow down” their work with principals, so they reserved coaching for non-urgent, long-term
issues. One supervisor stated when “your building is on fire” (Lochmiller, 2018, p. 86), the
supervisor must be responsive and provide the principal with the supports they need. In cases
29

such as those, there was not time for slowing down and looking at different perspectives.
Observation data illustrated how supervisors navigated the competing expectations of
supervision and coaching. Most observed “coaching” conversations related to school operations
and teacher evaluation, not coaching. However, in one observed coaching session, the supervisor
repeatedly paused and reminded the principal that the immediate conversation’s purpose was to
focus on the principal’s growth. Another session saw the supervisor repeatedly ask, “How does
this support your growth?” (Lochmiller, 2018, p. 86). These prompts often shifted the principals
back to coaching, but on three occasions the shift did not occur, and the supervisor gave up and
the conversation continued to focus on the administrative issue at hand.
The final theme was falling back into supervisory behaviors. Lochmiller (2018) found
that supervisors often reverted to familiar supervisory routines when meeting with principals,
even when they were supposed to be engaging in coaching sessions. He observed coaches often
told principals what they should do, assessed and/or critiqued instead of prompting reflection, or
situated discussion about principals’ challenges within the context of district initiatives rather
than their individual needs or concerns (Lochmiller, 2018). One supervisor said they coached
when possible but sometimes felt compelled to just have an answer. Similarly, another
supervisor stated that coaching could not happen until they were able to “clear the decks”
(Lochmiller, 2018, p. 87) first. Lochmiller (2018) observed that coaches tended to use
supervisory behaviors instead of prompting reflective behaviors in the conversations between
supervisor and principal. One supervisor pushed a principal to determine a course of action
instead of inviting reflection on the various actions she might have been able to take. In another
session, a supervisor dismissed a concern a principal had about the effect test scores would have
on his school’s reputation. A third observation session showed a supervisor shifting focus from
30

the principal’s growth to the district’s expectations by continually repeating the expectation even
in the face of the principal expressing a lack of knowledge as to how to meet those expectations
(Lochmiller, 2018). These observations collectively show how supervisors struggled to break
away from supervisory practices and engage in coaching behaviors. This reliance of supervisors
on supervisory behaviors demonstrated the district had not entirely shifted its understanding of
the requirements for the coaching role they were asking the supervisors to undertake.
Documentation provided by districts’ personnel departments describe principal supervisors’
supervisory role, not the coaching role. Nine of the supervisors stated in their interview with
Lochmiller (2018) that their work is about directing the principals toward the district’s stated
priorities. One supervisor noted, “The expectation of the district is for accountability first and
professional growth second” (Lochmiller, 2018, p. 88). The absence of a shift toward coaching
complicated the work of supervisors and undermined the potential success of coaching.
Another study Lochmiller (2014) conducted was a 3-year study of leadership coaches
who worked with novice principals to find the answers to the following research questions:
1. What support do leadership coaches provide to novice principals as they develop their
capacity for instructional leadership?
2. How does coaching support evolve or change over time, if at all?
Lochmiller (2014) used a descriptive case study of a university-based induction program
focusing on the type of support coaches provided to novice principals over a three-year period.
Interviews with program participants, video recordings, and documents comprised data collected
between August 2006 and July 2009. Twelve leadership coaches, 13 school principals, and two
program staff totaling 27 participants were interviewed (Lochmiller, 2014). The coaches were
retired school administrators recruited to provide support to administrators who completed the
31

university’s principal preparation program. The principal participants were all in their first
through third year of school administration (Lochmiller, 2014).
The study’s setting was an induction program of a private, mid-sized university in the
Pacific Northwest. As part of its induction program, the university provided support to students
who completed the academic program and obtained a full-time administrative position in either a
public or private school setting for a period of three years after graduation. The program served
10 to 15 novice principals per year and aimed to improve support for the university’s graduates
and improve retention for districts served by its preparation program (Lochmiller, 2014). The
university trained its coaches in blended coaching that was modeled after the New Teacher
Center’s successful coaching program housed at the University of California, Santa Cruz
(Lochmiller, 2014). Administrators were matched with their coaches based upon their responses
to a questionnaire asking about their professional learning needs, the school setting in which they
worked, and their strengths and weaknesses. Biographical information about coaches and their
responses to a questionnaire were used to match coaches to their principal. The program director
facilitated the matching process with the goal of alignment between the coach’s skills and the
principal’s needs. The expectation was for coaches and principals to work together four to six
hours in the first year of the program and two to three hours during the last two years. Support
was expected to take place at the principals’ schools, on the telephone, and through email. The
project director met with each coach twice per year to discuss coaching practices, support, and
challenges.
Lochmiller (2014) used a purposeful sampling strategy to select participants for this
study. As one of the study’s goals was to see how coaching strategies evolved, multiple years’
participation in the program was necessary so the first criteria was that program participants had
32

to commit to participate for at least two years. Second, Lochmiller (2014) picked coaches who
had completed the three-day training on blended coaching. Participation of novice principals
from the three school levels (elementary, middle, and high) was the third criterion for the study.
Selected participants were predominately Caucasian and female, with the majority at the
elementary level. All administrators attended the university’s leadership preparation program,
three of whom also completed their teacher preparation program at the same university. Fourteen
participants completed three years of coaching, 13 completed two years (Lochmiller, 2014). All
participating coaches were retired district-level administrators who had served as classroom
teachers, assistant principals, principals, human resources directors, curriculum directors, or
deputy superintendents. The coaches had an average of 18.4 years’ experience in education. The
novice administrators had an average of 6.7 years’ experience in education. Most were
transitioning from being a teacher or teacher leader, nine were women, and four were men. Five
administrators worked in an elementary or K-8 school, four in high or middle schools
(Lochmiller, 2014).
Data, in the form of interviews, observations, and documents, were collected between
August 2006 and July 2009. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with leadership
coaches, novice principals, and project staff. A total of 48 phone interviews were conducted in
the fall, spring and summer, lasting for 45 to 60 minutes each (Lochmiller, 2014). Leadership
coaches were asked questions about the type of issues they discussed with novice principals,
challenges they faced in their own practice or that of the principal, and the type of support they
provided. Principal interviews explored issues they discussed with their coach and the support
they received from their coach. The interview with the program director focused on the
overarching themes she observed in the work (Lochmiller, 2014). Observation data were
33

collected via the watching of videotaped coaching sessions. Coaches were free to pick any
session they wanted to tape and typically recorded 60 to 90 minutes of a session focusing on one
or more issues. Twenty-three video files totaling almost 43.5 hours were used in lieu of other
methods of participant observation. Artifacts reviewed were 207 coaching logs and 53 quarterly
personal coaching reflections. They provided a record of the coaches’ work, challenges, and
actions taken as well as insight into their thinking about the work and their personal goals
(Lochmiller, 2014).
A thematic analysis of the data that sought to explain how coaches provided support to
novice principals throughout the three-year period was conducted using QSR NVivo8 to
organize and systemize the process. Three rounds of analysis were conducted. First, the data
were coded so statements from specific participants could be retrieved, and statements between
participants could be compared. The codes referred to participants’ role in the study, gender,
race, ethnicity, school level, and characteristics related to the coaching pair. The first round was
used for organization and to make comparing easier. In the second round, coded passages of text
were related to research questions. This round covered specific coaching questions, strategies, or
actions taken by the principal, how the coach supported the principal, and the coach’s or
principal’s explanation for any shift in coaching practice. Round three categorized codes and led
to three themes aligned to the research questions (Lochmiller, 2014). The first theme related to
coaches’ use of instructional coaching in the first year of the program as a means to support
principals’ development, the second theme revealed a shift toward facilitative coaching in the
second year, and the third theme reflected the creation of a community of practice between the
coach and principal in the third year of the program. Data analysis focused on coaches’
perspectives, so data specific to coaches were emphasized when presenting findings while
34

minimally drawing on the perspective of principals which was the focus of a future study
(Lochmiller, 2014).
Lochmiller (2014) found that while coaches maintained a focus on issues related to
instructional leadership, they adopted different strategies of support in each year of their work.
The type of coaching strategies used depended on issues being discussed, principals’ confidence,
and coaches’ perception of readiness. Coaching strategies were also used to build confidence in
novice principals during the first year. In the second and third years, coaches intentionally shifted
strategies toward facilitative coaching and away from instruction as a response to administrators’
growing confidence. This shift was demonstrated in the following three themes.
Modeling as a form of instructional coaching in the first year was the first theme
identified by Lochmiller (2014). Initially, coaches relied heavily on sharing solutions and past
experiences as part of instructional coaching strategies used in response to coaches’ perceptions
of the administrators’ skill level. One coach stated more instructional coaching was done because
administrators “don’t have much experience with leadership” (Lochmiller, 2014, p. 71). The
project director supported this perception stating she saw coaches doing a lot of instructional
coaching in the first year because principals needed guidance and support. In addition to
instruction, Lochmiller (2014) noted many coaches also relied on modeling as a helpful strategy
to support novice principals. Through modeling, administrators were able to see exemplars they
could copy and adopt into their own practice. A common area of focus for the first year of
coaching was observation and evaluation of classroom instruction. Coaches did not believe
principals had a fully developed understanding of supervisory behaviors. Therefore, coaches
modeled how to enter a classroom, check with students, observe instruction, and ascertain
whether students were engaged in the lesson. One principal indicated he felt “challenged”
35

(Lochmiller, 2014, p. 72) to emulate his coach’s behaviors in his own practice. Prior to his
coach’s modeling, he entered a classroom and sat down as he believed to do otherwise would
disturb classroom teaching. Other principals also emphasized the impact coaches’ modeling had
on them, noting they were often so overwhelmed with tasks they found themselves in danger of
losing their inclination to be instructional leaders. One coach stated she used her coaching
sessions to help focus administrators on instructional leadership. Modeling helped remind
administrators of the importance of being inside the classroom. Modeling also helped novice
administrators learn “the basics of running a school” (Lochmiller, 2014, p. 72). In more than
three-quarters of the logs Lochmiller (2014) reviewed from the first year of research, there was
an operational focus. One coach reported a focus on easy practical items because it helped
principals become more confident and comfortable and diminished nervousness, so they were
prepared to go on to the more difficult tasks of improving instruction. Developing
administrators’ confidence and moving them to a place where they were able and confident to
address bigger issues was the focus of the coaching relationship’s first year. Lochmiller (2014)
also found coaches allowed time for their relationship to develop before they began discussing
more complex issues.
The second theme identified in the second year was a shift to facilitative coaching.
Instructional coaching continued, but the majority of the coaches began to rely on facilitative
coaching as their primary strategy which resulted in less telling and more asking (Lochmiller,
2014). This shift resulted from coaches’ perception that administrators were more confident and
willing to begin addressing challenges in their own buildings and believed facilitative coaching
would help them solve those challenges (Lochmiller, 2014). One coach was more willing in the
second year to press the administrator by asking her what she would do instead of telling her
36

what to do, demonstrating a shift from advising to encouraging the administrator to reflect on her
own work. Another coach referred to a specific incident she handled differently because it was
the second year. It involved a teacher at the administrator’s school site who was causing
problems within her fourth-grade team. The coach stated if the challenge had been presented in
her first year of coaching the administrator, she would have approached the coaching by saying,
“Well, here’s what I would suggest” (Lochmiller, 2014, p. 73). However, since it was the second
year, she asked the principal what she thought she should do, explored options, provided ideas,
and prompted the principal to focus on what would best help student learning. The coach
believed the principal’s growing knowledge of leadership allowed her to adopt a facilitative
coaching stance not possible in the first year of coaching. The teacher’s view of the same
incident also highlighted the facilitative nature of the second-year of coaching, mentioning the
coach asked her questions, causing her to think through the situation rather than offering up
solutions (Lochmiller, 2014). Further evidence of the transition to facilitative coaching in the
second year was provided in videos of coaches working with administrators. In one exchange
where a coach and administrator were working together to address an issue with a teacher on a
plan of improvement, the coach used facilitative coaching to move the administrator toward a
deeper understanding of the pertinent issues and to identify potential steps toward a solution. In
the exchange, the principal asked the coach what to do, a request that was deflected in favor of
the coach inviting the principal to reflect while the coach provided information through
questioning (Lochmiller, 2014). Another coaching session illustrated facilitative coaching when
the principal discussed a situation involving her supervisor. Once again, the coach used
facilitative questioning to guide the administrator away from simply stating a problem to
identifying possible actions to be used in a response. Questioning guided the administrator
37

toward a greater understanding of the issue and provided a possibility of movement toward the
administrator’s own solution rather than one designed by the coach (Lochmiller, 2014). In the
second year, coaches also used questions such as, “What do you think that means?” “What do
you think explains that?” “Why is that an important issue for you?” “How does that relate to the
other challenges you see?” or “What responsibility do you have for that?” (Lochmiller, 2014, p.
76) to help principals identify leadership challenges in their work and navigate challenges with
stakeholders. These questions typify those observed in the taped coaching sessions, referenced in
interviews, observation notes, and mentioned by the project director in her interview.
Administrators identified such questions as “thought-provoking,” “brain-busting,” and
“reflective” (Lochmiller, 2014, p. 76). Coaches offered different explanations for the shift to
facilitative coaching in the second year, with most mentioning the importance of identifying and
clarifying issues and helping the administrator clarify their thinking about leadership challenges
at their school as common reasons. In interviews, novice principals also noted a change in
coaching support between the first and second year. One principal noted her coach had become
“less directive” and another stated her coach had become more focused on helping her ask the
“why” questions (Lochmiller, 2014, p. 76). In the second year, coaches still provided support and
resources to the principals with a shift to the majority of the coaching support focused on
administrators’ own understanding of their specific leadership challenges.
The third theme, manifested in the third year, saw coaches working with administrators to
become a community of practice. In the third year, coaching time was cut in half so both
principals and coaches recognized they had to be “more strategic” (Lochmiller, 2014, p. 77) in
the use of their coaching time. Coaching became less dependent on face-to-face meetings in
favor of phone calls and email interaction. Instead of extended conversations, brief, quick,
38

targeted support was provided to the novice principal (Lochmiller, 2014). One coach stated what
her principal needed in the third year was someone to bounce ideas off of and share thinking.
This shift in communication to sharing ideas rather than directing instruction or facilitative
questioning reflected the coaches and administrators’ engagement in a community of practice as
opposed to an uneven coach/subordinate relationship.
Mentoring
Another related strategy supervisors might utilize to foster principal development is
mentoring. Passmore et al. (2013) stated that coaching and mentoring share many of the same
qualities, and there is a complexity on the debate for a solid definition for both of them.
5
I chose
to review mentoring literature as a separate section because a definition I encountered relayed
coaching as the work of an outside entity and mentoring being one of an inside job-alike (Bloom
et al., 2003; Passmore et al., 2013). As my study called for coaches working within the
organization (directly supervising) of the principals, I determined a review of both sets of
literature was warranted. The literature on mentoring informed my study in that it spoke to the
way a principal supervisor working within the same district might construct their job in relation
to supervising principals to improve instruction and climate.
Hvidston et al. (2018) sought to answer the following two research questions:
1. What are the greatest strengths of your own supervision and evaluation?
2. What recommendations would you give to superintendents to improve your own
supervision and evaluation?

5
For the purposes of this study, I review both “coaching” and “mentoring” literature and,
for the sake of clarity, use the verbiage of coaching throughout.
39

To find the answers, Hvidston et al. (2018) solicited 275 elementary, middle, and high school
principals in a Mountain West state. An introductory email was sent using an online university
survey tool explaining the study’s general purpose with a link to the survey. Of those solicited,
95 principals agreed to participate, a 35% response rate (Hvidston et al., 2018). The survey asked
two open-ended questions, the first one was designed to elicit principals’ perceptions regarding
the greatest strengths of supervision and evaluation they receive as principals. Going beyond
strengths and looking for growth opportunities, the other research question asked about
suggestions principals might have for their supervisors to improve the supervision and evaluation
they received. Although the survey concluded with demographic questions, the authors only
reported participants’ years of service. They found the majority (76%) had more than three
years’ experience as a principal.
Hvidston et al. (2018) analyzed responses from all 95 principals to determine codes and
themes. They used Creswell’s (2013) method of coding and recoding responses until themes
emerged. Responses were read several times, and key phrases were identified, then the identified
key phrases were coded and used to identify themes. Each time codes were combined and
evaluated; it was within the existing support of participants’ responses. This ensured themes
were supported by the voices of the participants (Hvidston et al., 2018). Four themes emerged
from the analysis, two supporting the first research question and two supporting the second. The
two themes that emerged in response to the question, “What are the greatest strengths of your
own supervision and evaluation?” were trust and communication and goal setting. The two
themes that emerged in response to the research question, “What recommendations would you
give to superintendents to improve your own supervision and evaluation?” were regular
40

observations with feedback and components of supervision and evaluation (Hvidston et al.,
2018).
Hvidston et al. (2018) found that principals believed when their supervisors established a
culture of trust, principals saw them as a resource for problem solving, feedback, advice, and
support. For example, one principal reported their belief that a supervisor having prior
experience as a school site principal was essential to developing trust, and trust was something
they believed was an essential component in an evaluation relationship. Additionally, principals
stated their evaluations should be based on empirical data, not just hearsay, to maintain trust in
the supervisory relationship. Hvidston et al. (2018) further noted principals indicated that along
with trust came their acceptance of the evaluator’s credibility and their ability to relate best
practice and affirm solid performance. Principals also described their supervisors as engaging in
positive communication when they were willing to address difficult issues, asked questions
requiring reflection, and knew where their input was valued. Being honest and providing genuine
feedback, whether it was positive reinforcement or constructive criticism, was also cited as
positive communication between principal and evaluator (Hvidston et al., 2018).
Principals pointed to goal setting as a strength in the supervision process, establishing the
second theme identified by Hvidston et al. (2018). Principals reported that when they were
allowed to self-reflect and provide input for their yearly objectives, the relationship between
principals and their evaluating administrator was strengthened. Meeting regularly to establish
and monitor goals based on standards was another strength in supervision and evaluation
identified by principals. Furthermore, Hvidston et al. (2018) reported the use of artifacts and
objective (as opposed to subjective) references by principals were strengths in their own
supervision and evaluation as well as their supervisors. Finally, the principal supervisor should
41

carefully plan for the goal setting process by being prepared and knowledgeable and allowing
adequate time for evaluation (Hvidston et al., 2018).
The second research question, “What recommendations would you give to
superintendents to improve your own supervision and evaluation?” was addressed by the third
and fourth themes. In the third theme, regular observations with feedback, Hvidston et al. (2018)
reported principals wanted to be observed regularly and with a clearly articulated purpose, such
as how they engaged in instructional leadership or their conduct of staff development as a focus.
Principals believed critical guided feedback and engaging in reflective conversations provided a
positive direction for conversation between principals and their supervisors, allowing principals
to know they were on track to achieve their agreed upon goals. Hvidston et al. (2018) pointed to
one principal who went even further, noting that feedback from all stakeholders was welcome.
The final theme Hvidston et al. (2018) identified was components of supervision and
evaluation. In this theme, principals cited the importance of long-range planning, meeting at the
beginning of the year to outline expectations, and professional learning communities for
principals as critical components to the success of the evaluative process (Hvidston et al., 2018).
Furthermore, principals indicated input from stakeholders such as students, teachers, and parents
should be considered during principal evaluations. Several principals mentioned the importance
of mentorship and time spent with them by the supervisor as recommendations for their
supervisor to improve practice (Hvidston, et al., 2018).
Gimbel and Kefor (2018) conducted a phenomenological study that looked at perceptions
of new principals and their mentors. This was an update to a 2014 study that examined the
success of a Vermont legislative initiative passed in 2011, requiring that new principals be
42

assigned a trained mentor for two years. The researchers referred to this initiative as the Vermont
mentoring “program” (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018).
In 2014, the Vermont Principals’ Association (VPA) compiled and interpreted survey
data about the mentoring program and prepared a report that found 93.75% of mentees believed
their mentors had a significant impact on their job performance. The study also reported mentors
and mentees were satisfied with the program, they believed their mentoring relationship was a
success, and the significant impact the relationship had on their job performance was positive
(Gimbel & Kefor, 2018). In 2016, the VPA considered altering the mentor training to include
more coaching in the relationship and since the 2014 study did not include experiential claims,
concerns, and understandings, a decision was made to conduct another study.
For this exploratory, phenomenological study, eight mentor/mentee pairs identified by the
VPA were selected and given informed consent. Of the eight pairs identified, four agreed to be
individually interviewed by the researcher, a small sample size that was, in the opinion of the
researcher, substantiated by “prevailing interpretive phenomenological discourse” (Gimbel &
Kefor, 2018, p. 30). Semi-structured interview questions were posed to participants allowing
them to express their views in their own terms. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed for
the researchers to identify statements related to the topic being studied. They were then able to
separate those statements from irrelevant information and begin categorizing data into themes.
Additionally, 16 mentor/mentee pairs were sent an electronic questionnaire with open-ended
questions. Twelve mentors and 10 mentees responded and the same data analysis process was
used to find themes among their answers (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018).
Data from the electronic questionnaire and interrelating statements from the eight
interviews were categorized into common themes and constructed into a composite. Meanings
43

were identified to develop a description of mentoring as an experience of the participants.
Finally, interpretation or meaning was discovered from the data to determine participants’
perspectives of their mentor-mentee relationship and their opinion of the mentoring program’s
goals. Researchers validated the data, the interpretations, and conclusions by contacting the
Executive Director of the VPA. The following six conclusions were arrived at after the
experiences and practices of the mentors and mentees were expressed in the interviews and
questionnaires (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018).
The first conclusion identified by Gimbel and Kefor (2018) was the mentor did not give
advice but instead asked questions of the mentee. The interview question asked how the mentor
helped the mentee achieve his/her goals and was most often answered with “By asking
questions” (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018, p. 31). One mentor stated she began her mentoring with a
conversation to determine goals and then asked provocative questions that might help the mentee
reach their goals. Another mentor reported they did not give advice but asked questions instead
(Gimbel & Kefor, 2018). One mentee stated the mentor’s questioning helped them rethink plans,
and another reported the mentor did not tell what to do or how to fix a problem but instead drove
thinking through questioning. They added, “He won’t tell me what to do. He won’t tell me how
to fix it (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018, p. 31). Another mentee stated, “One thing is mentors do not
give advice” (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018, p. 31).
The second conclusion Gimbel and Kefor (2018) reported was that mentors helped
mentees think deeply. For example, one mentee expressed a desire for their mentor to allow them
to think on their own rather than giving answers. Another mentor admitted to still learning how
to ask probing questions instead of giving advice. This conclusion, along with the first, suggested
44

mentors were implementing what they learned in their VPA and National Association of
Elementary School Principals (NAESP) training and were at different levels in their mastery.
Conclusion number three indicated that better decisions were made when mentors and
mentees talked situations through together. The value of discussion was demonstrated in a
mentee’s response to a question about how mentorship helped him succeed when he said, “He
helped me work through the challenging part of a task, so it becomes more of a success than a
challenge” (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018, p. 32). One mentor commented that questioning allowed
mentees to work through possible solutions knowing they were in a safe space so they could
think freely. Asking mentees to look at issues from the perspectives of many different
perspectives before making a decision suggested one of the strengths of having a mentor was
allowing mentees to talk through issues and explore how decisions would affect various
stakeholders (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018).
The authors’ fourth conclusion was that the goal of the mentoring program was the
retention of principals in their positions. Both mentees and mentors reported that mentoring kept
principals in their positions, reducing the attrition rate for districts. Two mentees mentioned the
difficulty of principals’ jobs and how having a mentor provided support and someone to count on
and trust (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018).
Conclusion five stated learning how to reflect was important to both mentors and
mentees. Mentors stressed learning not to make decisions immediately, thus having time to
reflect was the most important lesson for mentees. In addition, Gimbel and Kefor (2018) found
evidence the mentors reflected on their own practice while working with principals when one
stated mentoring “allowed me to reflect upon my own practice and experience” (Gimbel &
Kefor, 2018, p. 32). Another mentor stated, “We get to ask reflective questions…being a mentor
45

is making me a more effective leader” (Gimel & Kefor, 2018, p. 33). When discussing reflection,
a mentee said, “One of the most important things in our relationship is my mentor helps me to be
globally reflective” (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018, p. 32-33). Another stated, “Mentoring helped me to
reflect and realize I do not need to be perfect all the time” (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018, p 32).
Conclusion six was tied to Gimbel and Kefor’s (2018) interview question, “How does
mentoring help with your greatest challenge?” (p. 33) and found that a prevalent challenge for
mentees was working with faculty. One mentee stated the mentor helped to determine what to do
when a teacher was not performing at a high level by showing “what you can do to support the
person not meeting the mark” (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018, p. 33). A mentor reported building trust
with the staff was one of the biggest challenges for their mentee, and another reported
relationships and interactions with faculty were the major focus of their relationship. These and
other answers from both mentors and mentees suggested new leaders wanted to focus on how to
work with teachers and staff (Gimbel & Kefor, 2018).
Several themes about coaching and mentoring emerged from the above body of literature.
First, the district was seen as having the ability to be a hindrance to the coaching process, with
the hindrance often coming from too many demands other than coaching being imposed on
principal supervisors (Lochmiller, 2014). Another hindrance was demonstrated in the
infrastructure of the district being set up for principal supervisors to be a manager rather than a
coach (Lochmiller, 2014). A trusting relationship was found to be essential between a mentor
and the principal (Celoria & Roberson, 2015; Hvidston et al., 2018). Both coaching and
mentoring relationships were seen as a safe space where principals were not afraid to ask for help
or try new strategies (Celoria & Roberson, 2015; Lochmiller, 2014). There was a positive
correlation between the frequency of contact between a coach and principal and the impact
46

coaching had on the principal’s effectiveness (Hvidston et al., 2018; Wise & Cavazos, 2017).
When principals met regularly with their coach and the meeting lasted for at least an hour, they
reported the impact of the coaching relationship was more successful (Lochmiller, 2014; Wise &
Cavazos, 2017). Both coaches and mentors were seen by principals as emotionally and
professionally supportive and as a safety net so principals felt empowered to admit weakness and
try new strategies without fear of retribution for failure (Celoria & Roberson, 2015; Wise &
Cavazos, 2017). The coaching relationship was found to evolve over time, beginning with more
contact and direction and evolving to a point where the coach asked questions and facilitated
thinking rather than directing the principal (Lochmiller, 2014). Mentors were seen as guides,
leading principals to the improvement of practice through feedback, problem solving, and
advice, so principals felt they made better decisions after consulting with their mentor (Gimbel &
Kefor, 2018). Even though the literature reported some difficulty direct supervisors encountered
in being able to separate coaching from administrative duties, the struggle did not diminish the
value of coaching for the development of principals (Lochmiller, 2018). While this literature
addressed the one-on-one coaching and mentoring of principals, it did not specifically address
the leadership skills and qualities a principal supervisor must possess to foster principal
development. It also did not overtly address the leadership skills and qualities a principal must
possess to support improved instruction and a positive school climate. In order to address this
deficit, the next section reviews literature relating to leadership.
Leadership
Leadership is a complex concept with a definition that has long been in flux and may
have different meanings for different people (Northouse, 2016). However, Northouse (2016) also
asserted leadership can be defined as an act or behavior because leaders can initiate change in a
47

group through their actions. Furthermore, Northouse stated leadership can also be defined as a
skills perspective where leaders possess knowledge and skills that make effective leadership
possible. Despite the many ways of conceptualizing leadership, Northouse (2016) argued the
following components are central: leadership is a process, leadership involves influence,
leadership occurs in groups, and leadership involves common goals. Based on those four
components, leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2016). In this section, I use this definition of leadership to
explore the skills a principal supervisor must have to foster principal development effectively.
More specifically, I focus on leadership literature related to improving teaching and school
climate. My choice to do so is because they are the two important areas a principal must focus
their attention to provide optimal learning conditions for students attending their school (Elmore,
2006; Hitt & Tucker, 2015). I offer the literature review in two sections. First, I present literature
related directly to teaching. Then I turn my attention to literature that focuses on school climate.
In Relation to Teaching
The first leadership strategy I explore is the role of a principal supervisor in fostering
principal development as it relates to teaching. This literature helped me understand how a
principal supervisor’s ability to develop principals’ capacity to foster teacher improvement leads
to instructional improvement. The literature states policies improve leadership practice,
leadership plays a strong role in accountability, leadership practice is connected to performance,
and leadership practices can be defined and developed. The literature also provides insight into
leadership characteristics a principal supervisor must have to successfully foster principal
development (Elmore, 2006; Hitt & Tucker, 2015).
48

Richard Elmore (2006) explored the relationship between accountability and leadership,
arguing accountability systems work only to the degree the knowledge, skills, and commitment
of people who work in the school were engaged. The politics of accountability tended to lead to
overinvestment in testing and regulatory control and underinvestment in knowledge and skill. To
correct this, Elmore (2006) called for the relationship between policy and practice, particularly
around the definition of leadership, be changed. In this piece, Elmore (2006) developed a model
of school leadership practice consistent with a new theory of accountability showing school
improvement as a developmental process and explained how to use policies to increase
leadership capacity for the improvement of schools. Elmore (2006) argued accountability
systems worked to the degree they engaged the skill, knowledge, and commitment of people
working in the schools. So without a substantial investment in human capital aimed at
developing the practice of school improvement in a diverse population of school leaders,
accountability policy would not increase school performance (Elmore, 2006).
Elmore (2006) argued the current conception of accountability lacked the practice of
improvement to go along with the policy of accountability. He asserted that school leaders’
success in the future would be measured by their capacity to improve the quality of instructional
practice. Accountability policy would not work without what Elmore (2006) called the “practices
of improvement” (p. 3), specific strategies for developing and implementing knowledge and
skills in schools.
To discuss the knowledge and skill requirements of leadership for improvement, Elmore
(2006) developed an alternate theory of accountability, viewing it as a problem of institutional
response rather than compliance. All schools developed answers to the questions of to whom, for
what, and how they were accountable. However, those answers were not necessarily consistent
49

with what policymakers imposed upon them (Elmore, 2006). The effect of external
accountability (e.g., state-level reporting systems such as the California School Dashboard)
depended on how school systems responded to the incentives policy placed on the external
environment. Elmore (2006) also noted there were many policies schools responded to in their
environment, accountability being just one.
First and foremost, Elmore’s (2006) research on schools and school systems found they
responded differently depending on their capacity and internal accountability. He defined
capacity as a “fund of skill and knowledge that the organization can bring to bear in responding
to external pressure” and internal accountability as “the degree of coherence in the organization
around norms, values, expectations, and processes of getting work done” (Elmore, 2006, p. 7).
Elmore (2006) found high-capacity organizations had access to a set of skills and knowledge that
responded to external pressures and low-capacity organizations lacked those skills and
knowledge. Likewise, organizations with high agreement around values visible in practice had
high internal accountability, and those with weak agreement and variable practices had low
internal accountability. Elmore (2006) found that a school’s success depended much more on its
level of capacity and internal accountability than on the type of school it was. Also, how a school
responded to accountability policy depended on the conditions present in the school. For
example, there must be an environment conducive to developing high capacity practices in order
for a school to have a chance of improvement, but that environment did not guarantee
improvement would occur (Elmore, 2006).
Leadership played a strong role in accountability in two ways. First, leadership served a
focusing function by modeling the organization’s solutions, valuing some things over others, and
sorting out signals in the environment. Second, leaders and leadership were factors in
50

determining their schools’ ability to mobilize and use capacity in its environment. Not only did a
strong leader influence how well the organization used internal capacity, the leader also counted
as a measure of that capacity (Elmore, 2006). Success in a performance-based incentive system
was not a result of compliance but a result of the strategic use of resources to improve
performance allowing for the building of capacity. Regardless of the test, Elmore (2006) found
schools with high internal accountability and high capacity did well. Accountability policy set a
framework within which skillful leaders operated. Succeeding in such a framework only meant
accountability systems were being met, not necessarily that the school was doing well for their
students or society as a whole. In other words, the school’s success was a different question from
accountability altogether (Elmore, 2006).
In understanding that it was leadership practice that was connected to performance in
schools, not the personality of the leader, Elmore (2006) noted five effective leadership practices
and described how they appeared in practice. First of all, practice was not a characteristic or
personal attribute of a leader but a collection of patterned actions with the ability to be
objectively defined and learned. Second, a practice must be based on a theory of action Elmore
(2006) defined as a set of statements connecting leaders’ actions with their consequences. This
theory of action separated the practice from the person, was able to be evaluated, and able to be
communicated. Third, leadership practices were embedded in the institutional settings and
structures in which they were used. Fourth, practices could not be generalized, they had to be
adapted to a particular context to be useful. Finally, practices that caused improvement saw
increases in quality and performance over time (Elmore, 2006).
Elmore (2006) defined practices of improvement as theories of action that led to
increases in performance and quality over time. He then sketched out an argument about how to
51

think systematically about the development of leadership in the education sector. He laid out
what he stated was the beginning of a conversation about school improvement and leadership
practice.
First of all, school improvement occurred in predictable stages, with the practices of
improvement varying at each stage. A school in which decisions were delegated to teachers who
did not have a collaborative relationship around instructional practice was immune to external
influences because they were not receptive to new knowledge or skills. An improvement process
required creating occasions for analysis and discussions of instructional practice. Schools with
well-developed collaborative practices improved by asking teachers to tackle progressively more
difficult problems of practice (Elmore, 2006). Additionally, school improvement was a
continuum with predictable stages, not a fixed point. Moving schools through the stages required
an understanding of the continuum and how schools were distinguished from one another at each
stage of development. Short-term fixes hurt long-term success, if a leader’s sole purpose was to
“turn around” a failing school, it was likely decisions that hurt the schools’ long-term health
would be made. It was difficult to develop a practice of improvement if a single stage of
development was the focus. Leaders who took schools through a range of improvement stages
were important, and their journey and decisions should be shared. Elmore (2006) found that the
default culture in most schools had few occasions for collective work on common problems and
a lack of knowledge and skills to improve practice. Schools developed high internal
accountability through common norms and expectations and engaged in practices that led them
to succeed with specific students in specific contexts. Sustained improvement depended on the
development of norms and diagnostic capacity, and flexibility in practice. Leaders who
52

succeeded in these settings engaged in continuous learning and modeled that learning for others
in the organization (Elmore, 2006).
Next, Elmore (2006) found improvement was seldom a smooth or continuous process.
Schools typically went through an improvement process at an unsteady pace where they often
“get stuck” or “hit a wall” (Elmore, 2006, p. 11) typically after a new practice was introduced
and before it was embedded into practice or when a new problem occurred in a deeply seated
practice. Sometimes, a well thought out policy fell flat which could be a devastating experience
for people working in the schools. When evidence of student performance was examined, several
possibilities occurred. Some groups of students may not have been responding to the practice,
teachers and principals may have overestimated the degree to which their practice was changed,
or the original intervention was not challenging enough. Knowledge of development was central
to the practice of leadership because learning, whether it is individual or collective, was a
developmental process so it should not have been expected to occur in a linear fashion (Elmore,
2006).
Elmore found improvement occurs across three domains: technical, social-emotional, and
organizational. Three processes occurred simultaneously in order for schools to improve: First
of all, changes in instructional practice representing more powerful forms of learning occur with
some consistency in classrooms. Second, changes in students’, teachers’, and administrators’
sense of efficacy as a result of changes in practices and student learning occurred. Third, changes
occurred in structure, processes and norms around which the work of students and adults was
organized (Elmore, 2006). As they improved, organizations were simultaneously getting better at
their core functions, changing the way adults and students thought about their role in the process
of learning, and increasing internal accountability by managing the organization in more
53

coherent ways (Elmore, 2006). The practice of improvement occurred across these three
domains; leaders required knowledge, skill, and fluency of practice in all three, not one or two.
In practice, leaders accomplished this by monitoring instructional practice almost continually,
creating organizational structures that made instruction transparent for it to be analyzed and
changed, modeling inquiry and learning as the central dimensions of practices, and creating
expectations of improvement as a continuous practice. Effective leaders used the organization’s
basic features to increase the skills and knowledge of the people in the organization (Elmore,
2006).
Practices of improvement included making the familiar strange, objectifying practice, and
treating organizations as instruments. Two practices, borrowed from other professions, were used
to develop leaders’ capacity to help practitioners learn to treat the organization agnostically and
objectify their own practice. The first practice involved using protocols to observe, analyze,
develop practice, discuss observations, focus on the evidence, and depersonalize the practice, so
it is based on evidence and able to be changed. The second technique was asking leaders to state
what they could control and what they could not. This helped them objectify and depersonalize
their practice and made it subject to verification through evidence that points out the effects of
what they do (Elmore, 2006).
Overall, a large part of the practice of improvement for leaders was making the invisible
visible. Most school leaders were socialized to a dysfunctional culture, and the process of
teaching leaders to manage improvement was to make the implicit rules which supported
dysfunction explicit. Rather than allowing the organization to act as a constraint, Elmore (2006)
worked with leaders toward treating the culture as an instrument to make change happen.
Leaders used central artifacts of their organizations (schedule, teacher assignments, use of
54

preparation time, management of funds, etc.) to focus instructional practice on creating
challenges and supports for teachers and students.
As improvement progressed, leadership refracted (Elmore, 2006). Collective learning
required distribution of cognition. As organizations improved, leadership became less defined by
position than by expertise. The improvement of educational practice required formal
infrastructure and as improvement progressed, leadership followed the demands of learning
rather than the organization’s design (Elmore, 2006). In the early stages of improvement, there
were heavy role-based definitions with the principal providing instructional leadership. As
improvement advanced, teachers took on more responsibility for instructional improvement
causing leadership to be more distributed.
Two things happened as leadership refracted, teachers learned to use their individual
expertise for the collective purpose and they learned a new set of knowledge and skills
associated with managing their work across organizational boundaries (Elmore, 2006). As this
happened, people in leadership positions (principals) increasingly managed more indirectly.
However, there were many ways for this process to fail with the most common being leaders
underestimated the demands of the work and the level of complexity as the organization began to
improve. When this happened, the structure of the organization failed to adapt. Leaders lost the
advantage of having the expertise of those working around them when they failed to give up
direct management by treating people with expertise as managers instead of as leaders. Problems
also happened when professional development did not keep up with the teachers’ growing
expertise, leading to a sense of frustration on their part (Elmore, 2006).
When the improvement process became more advanced, leading the work became more
complex and the work became more distributed. Distributed leadership was gaining visibility and
55

Elmore’s (2006) observations demonstrated improving schools did not just “distribute”
leadership, they also “developed” it. This happened when leaders actively created a common
knowledge and a skill base while creating opportunities for employees to develop their skillset.
Organizations were shown to have more developed views of leadership when their questions of
“who is chairing the meeting” were answered with who has the expertise and who’s turn it is to
practice new skills instead of the principal (Elmore, 2006).
According to Elmore, performance and quality were not proxies for each other,
improvement requires attention to both. He differentiated them by defining quality as “a matter
of professional judgment” and performance as “a matter of external measurement” (Elmore,
2006, p. 16). Both were central to large scale improvement. However, it was possible a school
could be meeting performance measures without providing quality instruction. In that case,
schools must develop clear standards of practice to guide daily decisions and use formative
assessment for feedback to improve instruction. Sustaining a commitment to quality while
teaching people how to manage against performance measures was an essential part of leadership
practice. However, the reality of accountability was that it was often created in organizations
without the professional infrastructure to make it work. Elmore (2006) discovered a wide gap
between good leadership practice and what the accountability environment demanded of
organizations.
Elmore (2006) found performance improvements usually lagged behind improvements in
quality which had a significant effect on leadership practice. First, leaders had to know enough
about practices to understand the obstacles to acquiring and implementing them fluently. Second,
leaders needed an understanding of how developmental processes work in order to support and
help struggling teachers and students. Third, leaders should expect to see a see-saw relationship
56

between quality and performance and notice changes in student learning before seeing evidence
of performance. Most accountability systems’ design did not support Elmore’s (2006)
developmental view of leadership practice because they emphasized immediate effects on
performance rather than long-term change. The gap between good leadership practices and the
demands of accountability is wide.
Accountability must be supported by practices of improvement in order for it to work.
However, the usual practice involves underinvestment in the required capacities for
accountability to succeed. To correct this, changes had to be made in the relationship between
policy and practice, particularly in the definition and development of leadership. Elmore (2006)
identified four principles of leadership development to provide guidance in defining leadership
as a collective good to become more productive in an organization of performance-based
accountability.
The first practice was to honor the principle of reciprocity. In its simplest form, this
principle demanded that for every unit of performance a leader required, that leader owed a unit
of capacity to produce the work (Elmore, 2006). For this principle to succeed, it had to be
incremental with acknowledgment preceding building a strong relationship between practice and
performance. Combining researchers’ expertise to track the effects of the practices of
improvement with the engagement of a network of practitioners to develop, test, and evaluate
their own use of the practices was required to build an infrastructure capable of enforcing the
principle of reciprocity.
The second practice Elmore (2006) identified was treating leadership as a human
investment enterprise. The model of leadership that emerged from the practice of improvement
had three characteristics: First, it focused on the practice of improving the performance of
57

students and the quality of instruction; second, leadership was treated as a distributed function
rather than a role-based activity; third, continuous investment in skills and knowledge was
required. In this view, leadership did not depend on the individuals’ personal characteristics, but
was a knowledge-based discipline with practices existing independently of the people who used
them. Accountability required continuous improvement of performance. The model of leadership
that applied to continuous improvement was one in which the system was constantly investing in
the capacity of people at all levels to lead and master the improvement of instructional practice.
In a knowledge-based human resource management system, all teachers would be seen as
potential leaders and given the opportunity to incur leadership and responsibility (Elmore, 2006).
The third practice was to build the strategic function. A strategic function was dedicated
to ensuring various pieces of the organization fit together around a strategic vision and structures
as well as ensuring resources were in place to make sure they worked (Elmore, 2006). Even
though the strategy was often too broadly defined, it was a key responsibility of successful
leadership to have a theory of action that guided what leaders did on a daily basis to positively
affect instructional practice. All aspects of the organization should work toward collective goals
by developing practices to accomplish stated purposes so the entire organization comes together
to work toward a collective goal (Elmore, 2006). It was important for leaders to learn to create
and manage a strategic function at the school site level. This meant everyone had a say in the
organization’s basic commitments, how they were accomplished, and each individual’s role in
achieving them.
Elmore noted accountability affected the way schools responded to external signals about
performance and their response was determined by the knowledge and skill of teachers and
administrators along with the internal accountability of the school. Improvement happened when
58

schools moved from atomized and ineffective organizations to coherent and effective
organizations (Elmore, 2006). As improvement advanced, leadership retracted, moving from the
model of positional authority to the distribution of knowledge and skill in the organization. The
development of leadership was primarily focused on creating institutional structures that
supported the development of skills and the knowledge to lead improvement. Also, the focus was
on the ability to connect an individual’s skills and knowledge so they combine to contribute to
the development of practices of improvement (Elmore, 2006).
Hitt and Tucker (2016) identified and synthesized empirical research that explored the
influences of leadership on student achievement with the goal that information gleaned
reconciled differences in the substance of leadership frameworks and provide evidence for how
school leaders should direct their efforts. They conducted a literature review of 56 empirical
studies and three frameworks published between 2000 and 2014 (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). Twenty-
eight practices emerged that the researchers grouped into five domains of an effective leader.
The domains were sorted according to systematic criteria that unified existing frameworks by
developing a cohesive set of practices that could inform the work of future researchers and
school site leaders (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
In conducting their literature review, the authors used Hallinger’s (2014) conceptual
framework as a guide including consideration of the five guiding questions for scientific review
of research. Relevant criteria for Hitt and Tucker’s (2016) research included a conceptual
framework, statement of purpose, data analysis, sources and search procedures, limitations,
implications, and presentation of findings. Initially, school leadership experts were consulted for
recommendations for seminal frameworks that identified effective leader practices with strong
empirical support. After that, the authors searched prominent journals and Google Scholar
59

between the years 2000 to 2014, using search terms including “school leadership,” “practices,”
“effective framework,” “behaviors,” and combinations of those terms (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
Four distinct leadership frameworks emerged from the identified search parameters, two from
reviews of literature, one from a longitudinal study, and one from a meta-analysis. Of the four
frameworks, three were the result of ongoing research and offered both the dimensions and
domains of practice. Hitt and Tucker (2016) also reviewed studies cited as support for the three
frameworks and cross-referenced them to confirm the frameworks had empirical backing. The
process was narrowed to a final list of 56 research studies that Hitt and Tucker (2016) considered
a relatively low number and overly simplistic. Because of the variation in the domain and
dimension levels, and because no one framework captured all the practices of effective leaders, a
review of the relevant literature and how it contributed to a more holistic frame for leader
practices was warranted. Hitt and Tucker (2016) asked the following research question: What are
the findings from the field regarding effective leader practices and how can these findings be
synthesized to represent what we know in aggregate? Twenty-eight practices emerged, sorted
into five domains identifying the practices of an effective leader. Below, I present each domain
and its accompanying practices one at a time.
Hitt and Tucker’s (2016) first domain was establishing and conveying a vision. The
practices in this first domain focused on establishing a purpose and attaining that purpose
through a complementary set of supporting practices. Setting expectations and establishing goals
had a moderate effect on the connection between leadership and student achievement, which was
in keeping with the body of social science research that explained the importance of goals. There
were six practices within this domain.
60

The first practice was creating, articulating, and stewarding a shared mission and vision.
Effective leaders outlined a vision then sought input because setting a goal alone was not
enough, how the goal was implemented was also important (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). The goal must
be reflective of what teachers and parents perceive as appropriate. This practice was more about
setting a direction for the school so teachers not only supported the vision in the beginning, they
also saw it through to the end (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). In this practice, principals created a general
plan for the school then invited stakeholders to participate in the furthering of its formation.
The second practice named in the domain of establishing and conveying a vision, was
implementing the vision by setting goals and performance expectations. The leader must clearly
communicate goals, creating a shared meaning for the staff to follow (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
Short-term, easily understood, and measurable goals allow the principal’s vision to become a
reality. This was also the time to define how individuals contribute to the attainment of the stated
vision. Creating a shared meaning requires initial conversations and continuous dialogue to
ensure the vision is truly shared among all parties (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
The third practice in this first domain was modeling aspirational and ethical practices.
This practice called for leading by example, so what they are expected to be doing was clearly
demonstrated (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). If leaders deliberately embedded changes into their own
practice and modeled desired behavior, individual and organizational improvement was
encouraged. Effective leaders embraced their visibility and capitalized on it by showing
behaviors that reflected behaviors they asked of the teachers (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). When
teachers saw their leader changing practice along with verbally asking for change, leading by
example became a powerful tool.
61

The next practice in the first domain was communicating broadly the state of the vision.
Once a vision was decided upon, it should be communicated on a widespread basis with special
care taken to communicate the implications and information to those not directly involved in the
decision-making process. Additionally, status updates must occur regularly so people are kept
apprised of progress to keep the vision at the forefront of everyone’s mind (Hitt & Tucker,
2016).
The practice of promoting the use of data for continual improvement also fell under the
establishing and conveying a vision domain. Effective leaders used multiple forms of student
data that informed the school’s many realms including its vision and mission, instructional
programs, and even teacher evaluation (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
The last practice under this first domain was tending to external accountability. The
external expectations and pressures on teachers were translated into coherent and relevant goals
for improvement by an effective school leader. Leaders considered how teachers perceived
pressures and found ways to motivate and reduce cynicism improving teaching practice (Hitt &
Tucker, 2016).
The second domain of an effective leader identified by Hitt and Tucker (2016) was
building professional capacity. In this domain, the leader promoted a vision and engaged
teachers, so leaders were ready to develop the capacity of others while they learned about
instructional improvements and methods alongside the faculty. This strengthened the leader’s
knowledge and strengthened teacher perceptions of the leader’s credibility to better equip them
to be a source of knowledge. Teachers were more likely to ask for help from a leader they
perceived as skilled and well versed in effective teaching practices (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
Proactively strengthening teacher effectiveness through professional development and evaluation
62

is necessary if school leaders hope to impact student achievement. Hitt and Tucker (2016)
embedded seven practices within this domain.
The first practice was selecting faculty and staff for the right fit. Leaders positively affect
student achievement by actively recruiting and choosing capable practitioners who fit into the
composition of the school. This is best accomplished with the input of the existing faculty to help
identify individuals who are compatible with the existing vision. Hitt and Tucker (2016)
identified faculty composition as the single largest resource for maximizing student achievement.
The second practice in the building professional capacity domain was providing
individualized consideration because human capital in a school must be developed on both an
individual and collective level. This allows the unique strengths and limitations of teachers to be
addressed. Using a collaborative approach had better results than individual efforts, and leaders
who met their faculty’s needs by designing rich experiences for their teachers exerted an indirect
and important influence over the improvement of student learning (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
The third practice identified by Hitt and Tucker (2016) was building trusting
relationships. Trust influenced the extent teachers were willing to improve and change. The
foundations for trust were laid when teachers perceived their leaders care for them and their lives
outside of school and treated them as individuals not as a collective. This helped lay the
foundation for the culture of community and led to improved outcomes for students (Hitt &
Tucker, 2016).
Providing opportunities to learn was the fourth practice of the building professional
capacity domain. Leaders developed teachers as groups, even on a faculty wide basis by
identifying, synthesizing, and defining whole-group development opportunities (Hitt & Tucker,
2016).
63

Buffering, supporting, and recognizing individuals was the fifth practice of the domain of
building professional capacity. Effective leaders protected their faculty’s instructional and work
time from distractions that detract from their mission. This emphasis on limiting outside
demands on time significantly affected student achievement (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
The sixth practice was creating communities of practice that recognized learning as a
social endeavor. Leaders fostered adult learning when they purposefully developed communities
of practice by structuring the schedule so embedded learning occurred regularly (Hitt & Tucker,
2016).
The seventh and last practice in the building professional capacity domain was
engendering responsibility for learning. An important preliminary step for developing and
advancing teachers’ practice is establishing expectations. Hitt and Tucker (2016) found that
understanding clearly the starting point and end point of expectations made intermediary goals
aligned to the school’s vision possible.
Hitt and Tucker’s (2016) third domain was creating a supportive organization for
learning. When a leader consciously built positive relationships with the faculty, it enhanced
their professional performance and improved classroom relationships between teachers and
students. Progress in both relationship and task orientation resulted in a positive influence on
student achievement. Accomplishments strengthened staff relationships, and the quality of
accomplishments was improved when relationships exist. This domain was built on instructional,
transformational, and integrated approaches to leadership because it identified practices that
concurrently demonstrated a concern for teachers as well as pressing for results. Ways that
involve teachers in the definition of organizational culture and decision making and having all
64

constituencies involved benefit organizations. This domain had seven practices focused on
organizational supports that provided a foundation for an effective instructional program.
The first practice was acquiring and allocating resources strategically for mission and
vision. Leaders who effectively align resources with optimal program delivery saw improvement
in outcomes. Effective leaders managed the human resource function especially in the hiring
element to support the school’s vision and mission (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
The second practice in the creating a supportive organization for learning domain was
considering context to maximize organizational functioning. Seeing the best in people and
situations allowed for the growth and development of leaders and teachers (Hitt & Tucker,
2016). When both parties approached their organizations from a strength-based perspective,
leaders were able to promote improved student achievement by adapting to context. Leaders
maintained high expectations for students and teachers in ways that included flexibility and
discretion (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
The third practice in this domain was building collaborative processes for decision
making. When leaders distributed the decision making among staff, academic capacity improved
(Hitt & Tucker, 2016). Fostering ways for stakeholders to be reflected in the decision-making
process improved the chances that stakeholders who needed to enact the decision would
participate, resulting in the enhancement of the decisions because multiple perspectives were
considered (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
The domain’s fourth practice was sharing and distributing leadership. Effective leaders
recognized the best way to promote student achievement was by sharing leadership decisions,
developing a sense of community, and encouraging collaborative work efforts. By
65

collaboratively making decisions, school conditions were adjusted to encourage and enable
teacher commitment to the school organization (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
The fifth practice of creating a supportive organization for learning was tending to and
building on diversity. Diversity, including both people and ideas, was viewed by effective
leaders as a benefit to the school (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). An inclusive mindset was achieved
through communication with a diverse group of stakeholders allowing for the enhancement of
the school’s vision through effective two-way communication.
The sixth practice was strengthening and optimizing school culture. This practice
required leaders to shape the school’s values and norms, so they supported professional learning
communities. Authentic structures and characteristics such as trust, efficacy, and conflict
resolution, helped maintain teachers’ commitment to the school organization (Hitt & Tucker,
2016).
The final practice in the creating a supportive organization for learning domain was
maintaining ambitious and high-performance expectations and standards. Leaders who publicly
expected high performance and held stakeholders accountable, positively influenced student
achievement. Once school goals and objectives were agreed upon, progress was measured
through formative and summative assessments and the monitoring of those goals. Regular
formative feedback to teachers created positive supports that advanced desired outcomes. The
effective leader positively reinforced correct actions and called attention to actions that needed
improvement (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
The fourth domain was facilitating a high-quality learning experience for students. The
importance of understanding what was going on in the classroom and the challenges teachers and
students faced was essential to good leadership (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). Leaders who were
66

perceived to be credible, supportive, and empathic invited teachers to be open to their leadership.
This domain called for leaders to be actively involved in matters related to curriculum and
instruction by participation in discussions and the alignment of the curriculum. This included
classroom observations and feedback to teachers (Hitt & Tucker, 2015).
The first practice of the fourth domain was maintaining safety and orderliness. Effective
leaders maintained a safe environment by balancing concern for student realities with a press for
student achievement. This was achieved by an agreed upon code of conduct and fair set of
expectations that set the tone for how the community interacted with one another. When
subjected to an insecure environment, the development of both teachers and students was stunted
(Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
The second practice in the domain of facilitating high-quality learning experience for
students was personalizing the environment to reflect students’ backgrounds. When the
construction of the learning environment and instructional program incorporated and reflected
students’ backgrounds, student achievement was positively influenced (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
Effective leaders helped teachers identify the intellectual and social capital students brought to
school and used the students’ assets to interact with them successfully. Personalizing the
environment included the following examples of effective leadership practices: mentoring and
advising structures for students, exercising opportunities for leadership, and designing engaging
learning experiences (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
The domain of facilitating high-quality learning experiences for students’ third practice
was developing and monitoring the curricular program. Effective leaders required high
expectations and rigor for all students that provided them the opportunity to learn. Leaders also
continuously monitored and evaluated the alignment of the curriculum, instruction, and
67

assessment along with special programs to ensure they all met the same standards (Hitt &
Tucker, 2016).
The fourth practice in this domain was developing and monitoring the instructional
program. A deep knowledge of pedagogy and the advancement of teaching emphasizing the
instructional program were essential attributes of effective leaders. Leaders also protected
instructional time by prohibiting non-instructional and non-essential interruptions (Hitt &
Tucker, 2016).
The fifth practice of facilitating a high-quality learning experience for students was
developing and monitoring an assessment program. Assessment, both formative and summative,
was regarded as essential to the measurement of student progress and the development of data to
be used in making programmatic adjustments (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). The data from assessment
efforts informed student progress, teacher and department effectiveness, and school performance.
This information was used to define future improvement, professional development, and teacher
learning (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
Hitt and Tucker’s (2016) fifth domain was connecting with external partners. Effective
leaders made connections with the community to promote participation from all stakeholders
with the ability to contribute to students’ positive learning experience. Leaders who found ways
to optimize the contributions of external partners saw an increase in student achievement (Hitt &
Tucker, 2016). This domain contained three key practices.
The first key practice was building productive relationships with families because
including parents in their children’s educational process was seen as critical for the health of the
school community (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). Leaders engaged parents by designing welcoming and
inclusive environments, fostering teacher understanding of the importance of parent and
68

community participation, and developing multiple ways for parents to become involved. A
positive correlation between parent involvement and the raising of student achievement was
found.
The second practice was engaging families and the community in collaborative processes.
Leaders who involved family members in the decision-making process regarding budgetary
issues, school improvement plans, and school policy had higher functioning schools (Hitt &
Tucker, 2016).
The third practice of connecting with external partners was anchoring schools in the
community. Leaders participated in networks to share ways to connect home, community, and
school. Leaders served as connectors for their students’ families, connecting them to helpful
community agencies when needed (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
A principal supervisor’s impact on their principals’ leadership role as it related to
teaching is important to understand, but it does not give a complete picture. To fully grasp how
principal supervisors impact the development of principals, the entire school community must be
considered. In the next section, I discuss literature that speaks to how leadership affects the
school community through its influence on climate.
In Relation to School Climate
The next leadership strategy I explore in this literature review is the role of a principal
supervisor in fostering principal development as it relates to supporting a positive school climate.
This body of literature helped me understand how important principals’ practice of culturally
responsive school leadership and social justice are to developing a positive school climate
(DeMatthews, 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016). It also points to the importance of principal
supervisors overtly thinking about and focusing on CRSL when coaching a principal because a
69

focus on equity must be intentional to be effective (Khalifa et al., 2016). The literature explores
how an intentional focus on equity and providing equal access to instructional improvement for
all students is necessary to deepen principals’ skillset toward a positive school climate
(DeMatthews, 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016). This literature also helped me understand how the
leadership style of a principal and their ability to communicate effectively with teachers and the
community affected the climate of a school (Hallinger, 2003; Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015).
Finally, this body of literature helped me understand what the district had to consider when
building an infrastructure to support principal supervisors as they fostered principal
development.
Khalifa et al. (2016) provided a framework for school leadership to incorporate culturally
responsive practices into the school community to make the entire school environment
responsive to minoritized students’ needs. The discussion was framed around critical self-
awareness, culturally responsive school leadership (CRSL) and teacher preparation, CRSL and
school environment, and CRSL and school advocacy.
Khalifa et al. (2016) used Google Scholar, Google, and other academic search engines to
locate articles on CRSL written in the years spanning 1989 to 2014. Thirty-seven journals and
eight books were located and summarized. Best practices were noted with strategies reported in
each source with the authors paying attention to emergent common themes. This method proved
to be problematic because the authors discovers relevant to the topic that did not include their
search terms of “culturally responsive” or “leadership” (Khalifa et al., 2016). The authors
conducted a broader search where they used other search terms such as “leadership” in
conjunction with particular groups such as “African American,” “Indigenous,” and “Latino.”
Another 13 sources were identified and used in their review (Khalifa et al., 2016).
70

The authors described five specific expressions of CRSL found in school communities
and reflected on the implications and promise of CRSL. They also discussed CRSL as it related
to teacher preparation programs. Since that portion of their study is not relevant to my study, I
narrowed my focus to only those research questions most relevant to my own research questions:
1. What are the unique characteristics of a culturally responsive school leader?
2. How can leaders respond to minoritized or culturally unique school contexts in
similar ways as teachers respond to diverse students?
3. What behaviors does such leadership entail?
4. How must the effectiveness of a culturally responsive school leader be characterized
and measured? (Khalifa et al., 2016, p.1273)
Khalifa et al. (2016) looked at practice-centered settings to see how CRSL existed in the
principalship of the schools. The focus of the paper was on urban schools and the urban school
leader. Unique to their study were their attempts to bring out aspects that exemplify notions of
CRSL in current research. Even though there were many other leaders involved in culturally
responsive leadership, the focus of the article was on principals for the following reasons:
principals had a deep impact on school learning, principals were the most knowledgeable about
resources and the best positioned to promote school level reforms, principals were the most
recognized leader at the school, and principals were the most accountable for school progress or
lack thereof.
Khalifa et al. (2016) focused on CRSL behaviors such as promoting school climate,
relationship with the community, leading professional development, and responsiveness to
minority students. The literature review suggested culturally responsive leadership influenced the
school context and addressed the cultural needs of teachers, parents, and students. It further
71

suggested that the instructional leaders’ job was to improve student outcomes through the
improvement of teachers’ craft by incorporating cultural responsiveness (Khalifa et al., 2016).
Khalifa et al. (2016) found it useful to focus on leadership practices and school culture,
allowing them to explore questions about school-level structures and programs, opportunity
gaps, discipline gaps, and use of school funding, among other things. Only sources explicitly
about education and school contexts that included empirical evidence and specifically
highlighted principal behaviors or school-level policies used with minoritized populations were
included in this literature review. Khalifa et al. (2016) compiled leadership behaviors that had a
direct impact on policy, curriculum, pedagogy, school climate, and student achievement.
Khalifa et al. (2016) chose the verbiage of “culturally responsive” for two reasons. First,
it was one of the most consistently employed terms to describe work in educational leadership
studies. Second, the word “responsive” was action-based and captured the school leaders’ ability
to create school contexts and curriculum that responded effectively to the cultural needs and the
social and political needs of students (Khalifa et al., 2016). CRSL encompassed aspects of anti-
oppressive/racist leadership, transformative leadership, and social justice leadership, and pushed
further. CRSL was affirmative in that it sought to identify and institutionalize practices that
affirmed students’ authentic cultural practices and required leaders to learn about each
community they served and position their school. The literature review framework was situated
at the school level, highlighting the influence principals have at the site environment and the
central role they had in school reform (Khalifa et al., 2016).
Khalifa et al. (2016) argued for the need for CRSL because of the lack of progress over
the last 50 years in closing the achievement gap. Principals were not trained to lead culturally
responsively, and many were unprepared to lead diverse schools. Khalifa et al. (2016) argued
72

that while most leadership reformers focused on instructional, transformational, and transactional
leadership models, those same models failed to address minoritized students’ cultural needs. This
resulted in the racial gap in the discipline of students, lower teacher expectations for minority
students, student disengagement in school, and low school performance (Khalifa et al., 2016). If
low expectations occurred because teachers did not believe students were smart enough based on
their appearances or behaviors, the marginalization of students’ social and cultural capital
occurred, and a cycle was perpetuated. Khalifa et al. (2016) argued that the educational
improvements for minoritized students were addressed through CRSL and provided an overview
of four major strands of CRSL behaviors that emerged during their review of the literature.
The first strand was critical self-awareness. When serving poor children of color, leaders
needed to have a self-awareness of beliefs and dispositions. These beliefs were also referred to as
critical consciousness and can be developed (Khalifa et al., 2016). The principals’ critical
consciousness served as a foundation to establish beliefs that formed their practice. Leaders must
use knowledge of self and be aware of inequitable factors that adversely affect their students to
create new environments of learning for children who have been marginalized because of race or
class (Khalifa et al., 2016).
Studies with a CRSL approach emphasized the need for critical self-reflection of one’s
own leadership practices. This, along with antiracist reflection, unearthed leaders’ own personal
biases, assumptions, and values and supported their growth. Critical reflection was foundational
to CRSL and must occur before a leader acted and then it also must be ongoing, creating a cycle.
This ability to critically reflect was integral to both transformative and social justice leadership.
Leaders must recognize they are influenced by cultural identity and examine their own biases
and how they affect their professional practice. Scholars have begun to recognize the need for
73

those who train school leaders to examine their own critical consciousness before imparting their
own knowledge on educational leaders (Khalifa et al., 2016). The possibility of culturally
oppressive leadership was not just the purview of White administrators; some administrators of
color were found to contribute to exclusionary school environments as well. The dominant
hegemonic ways of understanding and practicing school leadership have been detrimental for
minoritized students and have included internalized racial inferiority among administrators of
color resulting the embracement of a color-blind ideology (Khalifa et al., 2016).
The second aspect of CRSL behavior identified was culturally responsive curricula and
teacher preparation. Khalifa et al. (2016) found that teachers were not trained to be culturally
responsive in their teaching practice, so the site leader played a crucial role in ensuring teachers
were culturally responsive. The principal must articulate a vision that supports and sustains
culturally responsive teaching and supports the development of teaching effectiveness by
managing the instructional program. This outcome was found to be possible by recruiting and
retaining culturally responsive teachers and securing resources and curriculum (Khalifa et al.,
2016). The literature on the role principals played in developing cultural responsiveness in their
teachers considered CRSL one of the most important aspects of leadership because of its ability
to embed systemic structures to develop cultural responsiveness in the school and teachers. The
establishment of a culturally responsive curriculum and school context also were functions of
CRSL. The research suggested the dominant culture and White students also benefited from
learning with a culturally responsive curriculum. In order to develop culturally responsive school
leaders and curriculum, culturally responsive teaching pedagogy must be understood and adopted
(Khalifa et al., 2016). School resources, leadership teams for cultural responsiveness, mentoring,
and challenging teachers were found to be necessary constants for the ongoing professional
74

development in schools. The duty of the principal was to ensure these constants were a priority
for the overall school culture. As transformational leadership had a tremendous impact on
student engagement within a school and its organizational conditions, Khalifa et al. (2016)
argued leaders must imbue an acceptance of minoritized youth who were most often
marginalized in school through culturally responsive transformational leadership that is inclusive
and validating for minoritized youth.
The third aspect identified by Khalifa et al. (2016) was culturally responsive and
inclusive school environments. Principals must promote a culturally responsive school context
that includes an emphasis on inclusivity in addition to recruiting, developing, and training
teachers. A leader’s critical consciousness and the ability to have courageous conversations
about inequities were crucial to changing the school’s culture (Khalifa et al., 2016). Culturally
responsive school leaders showed a determination to create a welcoming environment for all
students and their parents. A common quality Khalifa et al. (2016) found among culturally
responsive school leaders was a commitment to advocating for the inclusion of traditionally
marginalized students and a strong association with social justice. This was not found to be easy
as student marginalization was historic and leaders who were not self-aware and knowledgeable
about racism and other histories of oppression were more likely to reproduce systemic
oppression in their schools. A principal’s modeling of cultural responsiveness led to a
transformation of attitudes and convinced teachers to embrace new inclusive teaching
approaches (Khalifa et al., 2016). Having high expectations for all students regardless of racial
and ethnic backgrounds was one way for school leaders to make their school sites more
culturally responsive. Deficit thinking was found to lead to inequitable learning and when school
leaders held deficit-oriented opinions and views about minoritized children and families, their
75

achievement suffered. There were some occasions where principals lacked prior knowledge
about how to handle multicultural issues in their schools, but a willingness to learn and a positive
mindset helped principals gain a critical consciousness and a positive mindset about the abilities
of their students (Khalifa et al., 2016).
A fourth aspect of culturally responsive leadership behavior was engaging parents and
students in community contexts (Khalifa et al., 2016). Creating structures that accommodated
parents’ lives, creating school spaces for marginalized student identities, promoting overlapping
school/community contexts, and honoring the students’ native languages were all behaviors in
which a culturally responsive leader engaged. CRSL leaders were able to create authentic
school/community spaces that overlapped and felt like caring communities and learning
organizations at the same time. This authentic community building was necessary to make a
genuine difference (Khalifa et al., 2016).
DeMatthews (2018) studied three principals who tried to make a difference through
personal beliefs, choices, resources, and the needs of the schools they led. He focused on how the
principals’ leadership was impacted by their focus on social justice and their schools’ contexts as
well as their own perceptions. DeMatthews (2018) sought to highlight what he called “justice
dilemmas,” the possibility that the choice of focus may help some but marginalize others.
DeMatthews (2018) conducted a secondary analysis of data from three studies of social
justice leadership. One in El Paso, Texas, one in an unnamed large urban Mid-Atlantic district,
and another in a large undisclosed urban school district in Texas. He looked at social justice
dilemmas as well as multiple facets of social justice to critically analyze social justice leadership
as an internal focus and its challenges. The three initial studies DeMatthews (2018) reexamined
were qualitative case studies that focused on the principals and their actions inside of school.
76

Each school site varied in level, student population, location, and perceived need. The El Paso
Study was a yearlong case study focused on one principal along the US Mexico border and how
she effectively closed achievement gaps but struggled to engage parents. Data collection
consisted of principal interviews, observations, document collection, and teacher and parent
interviews. This study found principals were forced to prioritize different facets of social justice
and could not attend to all equity issues simultaneously. The Texas principal study consisted of
principal interviews and focus groups and explored the school-to-prison pipeline, the racial
discipline gap, and how principals understood discipline. This study revealed principals often
believed they were addressing injustices and might fall short of their objectives due to their
failed understanding of how their actions actually could perpetuate inequities. The study,
conducted in a large urban Mid-Atlantic school district, focused on how principals attempted to
create more inclusivity for African American students with disabilities. The principal felt trapped
by the political challenges of district-level school reform and politics but did not engage in any
organizing or political action to change the policies.
DeMatthews (2018) focused on each principal’s dominant social justice successes and
focus as well as instances where they failed to consider community resources and justice
dilemmas. He analyzed data in two phases using NVivo10 software. First, all field notes and
transcripts from the original studies were reread and each leadership action, approach, or
comment that reflected principals’ distributive, cultural, and/or associational justice was coded.
From the codes, short narratives for each of the three cases were generated focusing on each
principal’s specific actions and their own conceptions of their success and failure. Second, data
were coded to reflect outside of school challenges to social justice or challenges the principal
believed to be outside of their control. Third, instances where the principal seemed to prioritize
77

one facet of social justice over another, were coded. Last, each of the three cases was rewritten to
reflect each principal’s beliefs about social justice in their school, their leadership actions, and
the challenges to social justice that limited their success.
The first case study focused on an African American female principal in a large urban
district with a history of segregating students with disabilities, particularly African American
males with emotional or behavioral difficulties. Her elementary school was located in a high-
poverty, high-crime area of the Mid-Atlantic but was beginning to see a shift in demographics to
include white and upper middle-class students. Approximately 14% of the students were
identified as having a disability, many of whom were bussed in from other areas of the district.
The special education program consisted of two classrooms consisting of eight students each,
with 14 of the 16 students being African American males. Neither one of the classrooms had
interactions with, or access to, the rest of the school community. The principal sought out this
particular school because she believed schools needed good leadership and this one was
particularly in need because of its reputation as a segregated school with teachers who believed it
was not their job to teach special education students. The principal was deeply committed to
inclusion and believed it was essential to redistribute resources and learning opportunities to
grant all students access to the general education classroom. The principal took steps to build the
teachers’ capacity and, as the students’ introduction into the general education classroom saw
success, the confidence of the teachers grew. The culture of the school was shifting to a more
inclusive mindset when numerous problems began to emerge. Some parents of students with
disabilities did not want their children mainstreamed, some students felt uncomfortable and
asked to be put back in the self-contained classroom, and some of the newer parents in the
community questioned why students were being bussed to the school instead of staying in their
78

neighborhood schools. The principal took action, but ultimately could not win the battle with the
outsider parents because she did not improve student achievement fast enough and the district
moved the special education program to another school.
The second case study highlighted a middle school principal in a high-poverty urban
school district in Texas with a large discipline gap, especially for students with disabilities and
African American students. The principal was from the high crime community in which he
worked and identified closely with his male students and recognized the importance of cultural
justice. He believed students’ lack of feeling safe at school was a major reason they were
historically underserved, and he believed he could ensure all students attend school in a safe and
orderly learning environment. The principal believed he needed to support teachers who were
frustrated by their inability to teach because of a lack of discipline. He sought to create a safe and
orderly school environment with a consistent approach to discipline, so he instituted a
progressive discipline policy, ignoring restorative justice methods claiming a lack of time. His
policies caused the suspension rate to initially increase before declining. He also stemmed the
tide of teachers leaving the school. However, the principal later reflected that choosing harsh
discipline policies over restorative justice may have further marginalized the students he sought
to help.
The third case study highlighted a principal at a school along the US-Mexico border who
was educated on both sides of the border and had a deep understanding of cultural justice. She
believed the achievement gap for Latina/o students and ELLs could be closed with effective
instruction. She strongly believed in the importance of family and community outreach and made
family engagement an important aspect of her leadership and closely linked it with academic
achievement. The principal worked with teachers to develop data analysis tools, student work
79

portfolios, and professional learning communities to increase student achievement and improve
the quality of instruction. She met with and observed teachers on a consistent basis to review
lesson plans, discuss individual student’s progress, and provide support for any challenge
identified by the teacher. This highly structured process resulted in the learning goals for almost
every student being met, and teachers reported this success was largely a result of the principal’s
leadership. In the end, the principal acknowledged students’ academic success came at the
expense of meaningful cultural recognition. ELLs were not given access to the general education
classroom until they reached a certain level of proficiency in Spanish and English and even
though there was more engagement from parents, that engagement did not include input into
school decisions. Also, the curriculum did not reflect the history of the community or the
students’ cultural background. The principal stated she was so busy with data that some of the
other important aspects of the educational process were sacrificed.
The three principals’ experience in these case studies demonstrate the competing
priorities that vie for the attention of school leadership and the constraints that influence how
issues are addressed.
Hallinger (2003), who argued that the two predominant leadership models of the last 25
years were instructional and transformational leadership, reviewed the conceptual and empirical
development of both models. He noted that studies in the 1980s were dominated by instructional
leadership and those in the 1990s focused on transformational leadership.
The importance of a principal’s role as an instructional leader grew out of research that
examined program improvement, school effectiveness, school improvement, and change
implementation (Hallinger, 2003). Out of those domains grew the theory that the skillful
leadership of school principals was a key factor of school improvement. During the 1980s,
80

several conceptualizations of instructional leadership began to emerge. While there were
differences among the conceptualizations, the similarities were much greater because they were
rooted in the same literature. Following are some of the conceptual similarities Hallinger (2003)
found in instructional leadership:
• Focused mainly on the role of the principal in several aspects of the coordination,
controlling, supervision, and development of curriculum and instruction in the school.
• Was seen as a unitary role of the elementary school principal.
• Had strong and directive leaders with a combination of expertise and charisma who
focused on improving student academic outcomes.
• Had leaders who were seen to have built a culture of high academic standards and
expectations.
A previous study by Hallinger in 2000 developed a model that was the most frequently used
conceptualization of instructional leadership at the time. In it, he proposed three dimensions of
instructional leadership: defining the school’s mission, managing the instructional program, and
promoting a positive climate (Hallinger, 2003). The first dimension, defining the school’s
mission consisted of two functions: framing and communicating the school’s goals. This
dimension identified the principal’s role in collaborating with staff to ensure the school had
measurable and clear goals and ensuring the goals were widely known and supported throughout
the community. The second dimension, managing the instructional program, incorporated three
leadership functions: supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating the curriculum, and
monitoring student progress. These functions required the leader to be deeply engaged in the
school’s instructional development. The third dimension included several functions that focused
on promoting a positive school learning climate: protecting instructional time, promoting
81

professional development, maintaining high visibility, providing incentives for teachers, and
providing incentives for learning. This dimension conformed to the belief that effective schools
developed high standards and expectations and maintained a culture of continuous improvement.
During the early 1980s, a substantial body of research was generated on instructional
leadership as a model. In 1996, Hallinger and Heck comprehensively reviewed the body of
international research and concluded that instructional leadership was the most common
conceptualization of school leadership used during that time. To further solidify the popularity of
the concept, the Hallinger (2000) study found over 125 empirical studies focused on instructional
leadership between 1980 and 2000. The aforementioned body of research uncovered findings
concerning what led to instructional leadership behavior, how school context affected
instructional leadership, and how school leadership affected the organization. The research on
instructional leadership yielded the following conclusions:
• School principals contributed indirectly to school effectiveness through how their
actions influenced what happened in school.
• The role principals played in mission building was influenced by the context of the
school such as school size and socioeconomic status.
• Aligning the school structures with the school mission influenced the quality of
school outcomes.
• Few studies found a relationship between teacher effectiveness, student achievement,
and a principal’s hands-on supervision of classroom instruction.
• The context of the school did affect the type of instructional leadership the principals
provided.
82

Hallinger (2003) found the instructional leader was not the only role of a school principal. Even
though the role of instructional leadership had to be acknowledged, only being an instructional
leader within a school context led to dysfunction. Furthermore, the needs, constraints and
opportunities imposed by the school context caused principals to adjust their performance. Both
socio-economic status and size affected principals’ instructional leadership.
Hallinger (2003) noted many scholars questioned the ability of principals to fulfill the
role of instructional leader. Some wondered if principals had the necessary skills or the will to
carry out the role. Others believed the managerial role of the principal would take precedence
over the role of instructional leader. Principals occupied a middle management position with
limited power because of the demands of those above and below them. Therefore, basic
instructional leadership often was blocked by basic structural conditions of the school.
Transformational leadership was first explicated as a theory during the 1970s and 1980s
and accepted by the educational community in the 1990s as a reaction against top-down changes
(Hallinger, 2003). Since that time, considerable research was conducted focusing on the
transformational leadership model. For his discussion, Hallinger (2003) leaned heavily on the
work of Kenneth Leithwood and his colleagues. There were seven components to Leithwood’s
model of transformational leadership: individualized support, vision, shared goals, culture
building, intellectual stimulation, rewards, high expectations, and modeling. Hallinger (2003)
noted several features in Leithwood’s model. First, the model did not call for the principal alone
to create schoolwide conditions, instead asserting that leadership should be shared with the
teachers. Also, the transformational model was grounded in behavioral components such as
individualized support, intellectual stimulation, and personal vision. This suggested the model
83

understood the needs of the individual staff rather than directing them to the organization’s
desired ends through coordination and control.
Hallinger (2003) noted many differences between instructional leadership and
transformational leadership. Instructional leadership was found to be a “top-down” approach
while transformational leadership was a “bottom-up” approach that relied on shared or
distributed leadership. Another distinction was instructional leadership focused on managing
existing relationships and maintaining the status quo while transformational leadership sought to
synthesize and extend the aspirations of its members. A third distinction was that instructional
leadership achieved its aims through first-order effects while transformational leadership sought
to attain second-order variables.
Instead of targeting specific instructional practices, transformational leadership produced
changes in school conditions that caused changes in people. The cornerstone of transformational
leadership was what Leithwood (1994) called “people effects” (Leithwood, 1994, as cited in
Hallinger, 2006, p. 339), achieved by principals’ efforts toward group goals including
individualized support, modeling desired behavior, and providing intellectual stimulation.
Transformational principals were better at supporting staff, providing recognition, and knowing
the school’s problems. They were also more approachable, and spent time developing human
resources (Hallinger, 2003). Transformational leadership possessed two characteristics: it was
distributive in nature, and it targeted the capacity of a broad spectrum of the school community
for development.
Research on transformational leadership led to a set of understandings about a more
disbursed leadership model that was context-specific, flexible, opportunistic, and responsive
instead of inflexible and status-driven (Hallinger, 2003). In schools where sustained school
84

improvement was maintained, Hallinger (2003) argued a new paradigm of leadership emerged,
from which three conclusions about leadership could be drawn:
• Leaders must expand and develop their leadership range in order to achieve
continuous school improvement.
• New understandings about school development and leadership emerged within the
context of the school improvement process.
• The inquiry approach to school improvement allowed teachers to study, learn about,
share, and enact leadership.
Hallinger (2003) noted the more dispersed styles of leadership incorporated “shared influence”
(p.340) settings that are more collaborative, interactive and dynamic. Transformational
leadership demanded tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity and an ability to live with the
messy process of change from the principal (Hallinger, 2003). This was in contrast to the “strong
leader” of the classic instructional leadership model where the principal sought to limit
uncertainty.
The popularity of the instructional leadership construct arose during the 1980s in North
America after the onset of the effective schools movement (Hallinger, 2003). In the 1990s,
transformational leadership overtook instructional leadership as the model of choice after the
restructuring movement attempted to professionalize schools. Toward the end of the 1990s, a
mixed model method began to evolve with a combination of top-down and bottom-up
approaches. As the 2000s began, attention was refocused on bringing more powerful methods of
learning and teaching to the improvement of schools bringing instructional leadership to the
forefront again (Hallinger, 2003).
85

Three issues reflected the lessons learned about the use of leadership models by
principals in schools with more similarities than differences to instructional and transformative
leadership models, especially when it came to substance. Both models asked principals to focus
on:
• A shared sense of purpose.
• A school culture of high expectations and the improvement of learning and teaching.
• Goals set for staff and students supported by the reward structure within the school.
• Provided activities for the development and intellectual stimulation of the staff.
• A visible presence who modeled values that were fostered in the school.
Differences between the two constructs included:
• First-order vs. second-order as a target for change.
• Empowerment strategy vs. coordination and control strategy.
• The degree in which leadership was individual vs. shared.
Instructional leadership was “top-down” while transformational leadership was shared and since
a major impediment to effective school leadership was trying to do everything alone, the days of
a single instructional leader were gone (Hallinger, 2003). One way to reconcile the two
constructs may be “shared instructional leadership” where strong transformational leadership
supported teachers’ commitment by inviting them to share leadership functions. The integrated
view of leadership Hallinger (2003) suggested highlighted the power of leadership shared by
individuals throughout the school. He further asserted integrated leadership was effective at
bringing out teachers’ instructional leadership to improve school performance. Furthermore,
principals who shared leadership responsibilities with others were less prone to burnout because
86

when instructional leadership was shared, schools learned and performed at higher levels
(Hallinger, 2003).
Hallinger’s (2003) second approach to understanding the models was through
contingency theory because it was almost meaningless to focus on principal leadership without
considering the context of the school. For example, schools with higher needs seemed to respond
to a more traditional instructional leadership model and school improvement was a journey
calling for different leadership types at different stages along the way. Hallinger (2003) also
argued the contingent characteristic of school leadership had a place in the theoretical models of
leadership. Leadership was not a one-way process but conceptualized as a mutual influence
process where effective leaders responded to the school’s context and changing needs (Hallinger,
2003). In fact, one could say the context of the school influenced the leader as much as the leader
influenced the school. Considering the realities of successful principal actions in changing times
helped reconcile the polarized concepts of instructional and transformational leadership into one
of “contingency” leadership (Hallinger, 2003).
Le Fevre and Robinson (2015) studied conversations principals had with parents and staff
concerning performance issues. In order to gauge their effectiveness or lack thereof, the
researchers asked the following questions:
1. How effective are principals when discussing parental complaints about teacher
performance?
2. To what extent do principals’ patterns of interpersonal behavior differ across
conversations with teachers and with parents?
87

In 2011, Le Fevre and Robinson reported on the interpersonal effectiveness of principals in a
conversation with a parent complainant. This current study followed up the 2011 study by
looking at how the same principals handled having a difficult conversation with a teacher.
Le Fevre and Robinson (2015) reported that leadership had two dimensions, task-
centered and relationship. The task-centered dimension referred to the “collective goal,” and the
relationship was to “enlist and mobilize the aid of others” (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015, p. 62).
Effective leadership required both dimensions be integrated and when work involved
communication about poor performance, there often was a dilemma in the mind of the leader
between the melding of the two goals. The challenge for leaders was how to address conflict
without harming the relationship, so oftentimes the conflict was avoided as a way of preserving
the relationship. It was the assumption of validity along with the desire to minimize upset that
created this task-relationship dilemma. (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015).
To address the first research question, Le Fevre and Robinson (2015) developed an
explicit interpersonal effectiveness model to apply to complaint interactions. In the development
of their model, they relied heavily on Argyris and Schon’s work called Model 2 that integrated
concern for both the task and the relationship. Model 2 was based on three central values: valid
information, respect for self and others, and internal commitment. Skilled use of Model 2
avoided the task-relationship dilemma when uncomfortable messages were disclosed in ways
that invited tests of their validity, valued differing points of view, and fostered integrative
resolutions (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015). The behavioral measure Le Fevre and Robinson
(2015) developed was heavily, but not solely, influenced by Argyris’s work so it was called
Open-to-Learning (OTL), making it easily distinguishable from Model 2. Le Fevre and Robinson
(2015) developed an assessment tool that measured six skills necessary for an OTL conversation.
88

In the first skill, the principal expressed a grounded point of view. This happened when
points of view were expressed along with relevant reasons, examples, or evidence, so the listener
better understood the speaker’s position and examined the validity of what the speaker said. This
skill assessed the principal’s ability to promote a solution by explaining what they believed to be
important and why (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015). The second skill measured the principal’s
ability to seek a deeper understanding of the other’s point of view. Careful listening restored trust
and involved learning both about the facts and how the facts were interpreted. A deep respect for
the other person’s ideas and concerns was then attained. Le Fevre and Robinson’s (2015) third
skill involved the principal checking their understanding of the other person’s perspective.
Checking to ensure one had correctly understood the other’s point of view signaled respect for
the other person and the validity of the information. Le Fevre and Robinson (2015) tied two
skills (four and five) together because they differed only in that skill four asked the leader to help
another person consider other points of view, while skill five asked the leader to examine their
own thinking. When one was open-minded, relational and substantive outcomes were improved
because more flexible solutions were considered. When a leader carefully listened to alternative
points of view, they were less likely to ignore or rebut and more likely to consider and engage an
alternative solution (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015). Skill six measured whether the principal and
parent/teacher agreed on what to do next. Expert principals were more concerned with finding
solutions to satisfy the legitimate interest of all parties than less successful leaders. This skill
directly assessed the extent to which the principal worked toward an integrative solution (Le
Fevre & Robinson, 2015).
To address the second research question, Le Fevre and Robinson (2015) looked at
situational and contingency theories of leadership. Situational theory proposes that leadership
89

effectiveness is contingent on leadership style or behavior and situational requirements.
Contingency theory predicted leaders with high situational control were more successful with
more directive leadership because there was little need to worry about relationships (Le Fevre &
Robinson, 2015). Situational and contingency theories could have predicted principals would
improve over Le Fevre and Robinson’s (2015) and Robinson and LeFevre’s (2011) studies
because the power of the principal differed in each case, but different research predicted the
opposite. For example, Le Fevre and Robinson (2015) cited Argyris and Schön’s (1974, 1996)
work that said leaders had limited ability to change anything more than the surface feature of
their behavior.
In order to effectively report on the results of the second research question, Le Fevre and
Robinson’s 2011 study must also be considered. The participants in both studies were recent
first-time principals enrolled in an 18 month induction program designed to promote effective
instructional leadership called First-time Principals (FTP). The participants were randomly
selected from a cohort of 156 principals enrolled in the program. They represented the larger
cohort based on school sector, school size, and gender. Thirty principals participated in the first
study, and only 27 participated in the second study because of lack of availability. The study’s
typical principal was female between the ages of 34 and 40, of New Zealand European ethnicity,
with a bachelor’s degree and 11 to 15 years of classroom experience and between 4-6 years of
leadership experience.
Both studies used a standardized scenario where the same female actor played the role of
a complaining parent in the 2011 study (scenario one) and nine months later played the teacher’s
role who was the subject of the complaint (scenario two). Using a standardized scenario with the
same actor enabled the researchers to control for task difficulty and actor personality. In scenario
90

1, the parent was concerned about the teacher’s mistreatment of her daughter, and in scenario 2,
the complaint was about poor classroom management. The same actor played both parts
(complaining parent and teacher receiving complaint) and had a background as an experienced
teacher and parent, which enabled her to respond to the principals authentically. Also, she was
trained to play the role consistently in every meeting with each principal. The standardization of
key messages and responses ensured the differences in principal effectiveness were not the result
of differences in the actor’s responses (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015).
Data was collected over two three-day periods. The appointments with the principals
were scheduled and they were given five minutes to read the scenario before they met with the
actor for a seven-minute conversation. The timing Le Fevre and Robinson (2015) gave to the
scenario matched the length of time typically available to a busy principal for an urgent
conversation. Principals were purposely not allowed to practice the conversation or how they
would handle the situation prior to research (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015).
Both scenarios were challenging in that for scenario one the parent was primed to give
the principal detailed critical feedback and to demand action be taken and in scenario two the
teacher who was the subject of the complaint was primed to be defensive and blame the parent.
The possibility of conflict and defensiveness for both parties was high and the principal was
positioned to have to take action (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015). Both scenarios provided an
opportunity for principals to demonstrate the six interpersonal skills measured by Le Fevre and
Robinson’s (2015) coding system. This was because the principal was the recipient of a
complaint and there were few demands on specialist content knowledge, so it made the scenario
equally applicable to elementary and high school principals. Furthermore, the actor was briefed
to include material relevant to each of the six skills that were being assessed (Le Fevre &
91

Robinson, 2015). There was a possibility that principals would respond differently in the
conversation because of power differences in each situation with the parent holding power
(threatening to go to the school board) in scenario one and the principal as the boss holding
power in scenario 2, but that did not turn out to be the case (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015).
The conversations were transcribed, and a qualitative analysis was conducted to identify
patterns of talk that represented high and low performing principals. Each conversation was rated
on the basis of the Le Fevre and Robinson’s (2015) six skills and rated on a five-level
progression. A score of one indicated a “very basic level of the skill” and a score of five
indicated “highly effective use of the skill” (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015, pp. 74-75). The total
scores for each principal had the possibility of ranging from six to thirty points. Each author
independently coded randomly selected samples of six (22%) of the transcripts from each
scenario. For both Scenarios one and two there was marginally acceptable agreement that the
authors considered conservative because of the small sample size. Coding discrepancies were
resolved through checking entries and rationale so final agreement on coding ratings were used
for all analysis purposes (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015).
Le Fevre and Robinson (2015) reported three main findings from the research. First,
principals had limited overall effectiveness in handling the two complainant interactions.
Second, principals were consistent in the handling of each complaint scenario. Third, there was a
change in effectiveness in one of the six skills, with principals being more skillful when they
sought to understand the teacher’s point of view than when they sought the parent’s point of
view (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015). Overall, the skill effectiveness of the principals across the
two scenarios demonstrated principals have modest to low skill levels for having the sort of
conversations tested. Le Fevre and Robinson (2015) highlighted the following skills:
92

Skill 1, principals had higher skills overall for advocating their own point of view. In the
face of a complaint, principals tended to offer little substantive point of views about what they
thought the problem was or what could be done about it. Even when they did so, they offered
few reasons or grounds to support their point of view. There were exceptions to this low score,
and for those exceptions, when the principal did provide a grounded point of view, the parent
was able to evaluate reasonableness and they were able to develop an agreed upon plan of action.
Skill three was the weakest skill in both scenarios and saw overall lower scores for
checking for understanding of the parent/teacher’s point of view. None of the principals rated a
five on this skill because a rating of five required the principal to provide summaries and
overviews of the whole conversation as it progressed to check for evolving understanding of the
main issues. However, since checking for understanding was central to effective inquiry because
it enabled conversation partners to trust they had been heard, trust all the issues were on the
table, and know the leader was trying to help them, Le Fevre and Robinson (2015) stated they
were reluctant to lower the bar. The authors explored possible reasons for the principals’ low
scores for this skill and found principals avoided checking for understanding when they feared
doing so would confirm the existence of a disagreement and they were too concentrated on what
they were going to say to be able to listen to the other person (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015).
Principals struggled to help either the parent or the teacher consider alternative points of
view as demonstrated by the low scores achieved in skill four. In both scenarios, few principals
were willing to challenge the parent or teacher’s beliefs or offer an alternative for consideration.
This limited ability to challenge either the parent (scenario one) or the teacher (scenario two)
contributed to the overall low to moderate capability of having effective conversations (Le Fevre
& Robinson, 2015).
93

This study demonstrated a consistent level of overall skill when dealing with complaints.
For five of the six skills, there was no significant difference in the way principals performed in
each scenario. Principals typically either finished the conversation without a clear plan of next
steps or with the next steps articulated by the principal but not agreed to by the parent/teacher
(Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015). There was greater effectiveness in advocacy than inquiry skills
with principals more skilled at advocating for their own point of view than they were in checking
for understanding (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015).
In skill two, there was a significant difference between scenarios one and two, indicating
principals were more effective at seeking an understanding of the teacher’s point of view than
they were at seeking the parents’ point of view. They were also more likely to move beyond
inquiry of basic facts to inquiry about the broader understandings with the teacher and less likely
to invite further elaboration from the parent. Principals were more likely to help the teacher
consider another point of view (Skill 4) than the parent. Failure to challenge the parent’s strongly
held convictions about what happened to her daughter meant the parent was unlikely to
understand why the principal could not act upon one party’s uncorroborated point of view.
Principals who scored highly on skill two challenged assumptions by providing alternative
explanations and strategies that encouraged critical reflection (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015). The
pursuit of high-quality problem solving and valid information required critical examination of
taken for granted assumptions. One way to accomplish this was by creating a competition of
ideas (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015).
Within this study, Le Fevre and Robinson (2015) found the total scores for six principals
differed by at least seven points between scenarios one and two, five showing improvement and
one regressing. Two skills accounted for the majority of improvement, with the biggest in
94

gaining agreement on a plan of action (Skill 6) and the next biggest in helping the other party
consider alternatives (Skill 4). This improvement saw principals jumping to solutions in Scenario
one and taking a more inquiry stance, engaging in discussion in Scenario two.
Le Fevre and Robinson (2015) found educational leaders brought a modest level of skill
to conversations in which they were dealing with actual or anticipated threat or embarrassment.
The same pattern occurred across two separate conversations with behaviors that were not
consistent with an OTL stance. The absence of deeper inquiry limited the development of trust
that came when the other party knew their real view, including disagreements, were understood
and acknowledged (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015).
The literature demonstrated a school site principal affected the climate of the school they
lead through the practice of CRSL, communication, or leadership style (Hallinger, 2003; Khalifa
et al., 2016; Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015). It also points to the information a principal supervisor
must have to be able to support principal development toward a positive school climate.
Furthermore, the information in this literature provided insight into some elements a district
would need to build into its infrastructure to support the principal supervisor in executing their
job. This is important because a healthy school climate contributes to high-quality instruction
and culturally responsive school leadership contributes to a positive school climate and inclusion
for all students (Hitt & Tucker, 2015; Khalifa et al., 2016). Next, I present literature that
discusses the standards for both principal supervisors and principals.
Instruments and Assessments
Along with the skills and knowledge noted in the literature previously reviewed, it is
important to look at the accepted standards within the educational industry to understand the
necessary skills a principal supervisor must possess for fostering principal development. My
95

review highlights the skills principals are expected to master and the specific competencies
supervisors need to effectively guide principals toward the improvement of their practice.
In 2015, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) published their Model
Principal Supervisor Professional Standards. The standards were developed to address the need
for a clear definition of what a principal supervisor should do and identify the knowledge they
need to improve the effectiveness of principals with whom they work (Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2015). The standards were based on a theory of action that said if principal
supervisors shifted focus away from compliance to shaping principals’ leadership abilities and
provided the right training and support, their capacity would improve, resulting in effective
instruction and improved student achievement (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015).
The Model Professional Standards were grounded in the definition of principal work present in
the 2015 Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (reviewed below) and called for
principal supervisors to help principals master all the competencies noted in those standards. For
areas that fell outside their expertise, principal supervisors were called upon to serve as brokers,
connecting school leaders with resources and individuals who could provide help and/or
guidance (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015). The standards acknowledged the focus
of public education is student learning articulated in the knowledge and skills students should
have when they graduated from high school. The Model Principal Supervisor Professional
Standards (2015) fell into three broad categories that must be integrated to provide
comprehensive support for principals.
The first category, to support and improve principals’ capacity for instructional
leadership, included four of the eight standards. The inclusion of half the total number of
standards in one category demonstrated the importance the primary role the principal supervisor
96

played in supporting and improving principals’ capacity for instructional leadership (Council of
Chief State School Officers, 2015). The four standards were:
• Principal supervisors dedicate their time to helping principals grow as instructional
leaders.
• Principal supervisors coach and support individual principals and engage in effective,
professional learning strategies to help principals grow as instructional leaders.
• Principal supervisors use evidence of principals’ effectiveness to determine necessary
improvements in principals’ practice to foster a positive educational environment that
supports students’ diverse cultural and learning needs.
• Principal supervisors engage principals in the formal district principal evaluation
process in ways that help them grow as instructional leaders.
The second broad category aimed to ensure the smooth running of the school district. This
category recognized the unique position principal supervisors held within a district that required
them to act as a liaison between the district office and the school sites (Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2015). Because of their position, principal supervisors knew the perspectives of
both the central office and the individual schools and were able to inform policies and
procedures for both to ensure they were efficient and effective (Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2015). The two standards in this category were:
• Principal supervisors advocate for and inform the coherence of organizational vision,
policies, and strategies to support schools and student learning.
• Principal supervisors assist the district in ensuring the community of schools with
which they engage are culturally/socially responsive and have equitable access to
resources necessary for each student’s success.
97

The third category was aimed at ensuring the improved capacity and effectiveness of the
principal supervisor as a district leader (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015). These
standards were:
• Principal supervisors engage in their own development and continuous improvement
to help principals grow as instructional leaders.
• Principal supervisors lead strategic change that continuously elevates the school’s
performance and sustains high-quality educational programs and opportunities across
the district.
The Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (2015) were threaded throughout the
principal supervisor standards because the CCSSO asserted transformational leaders must bring
the qualities included in those standards to their work (Council of Chief State School Officers,
2015). The dispositions outlined in the 2015 standards maintained the focus on students, were
threaded throughout the work, and required principals to be: growth-oriented, collaborative,
innovative, analytical, ethical, perseverant, reflective, equity minded, and systems-focused
(Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015). The CCSSO standards were meant to serve as a
resource for local and statewide communities of principal supervisors to share practices and
focus their work and professional development toward helping principals improve instruction
(Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015).
Also, in 2015, the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA)
published the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (formerly known as ISLLC
Standards) as an update to standards first developed in 1996 and modestly updated in 2008. With
the advent of changes in the global economy and the transformation of the 21
st
century
workplace and shifts in educational policy, a comprehensive update was needed. While these
98

standards were geared toward principals rather than supervisors, they provide information about
the capacity principal supervisors should be trying to build (National Policy Board for
Educational Administration, 2015). The 2015 standards had the ability to inform the work of
principal supervisors because they communicated the important elements of leadership both at
the school and district levels and served as a guide for support, accountability, and development
of school-level leadership. The standards had a strong emphasis on student learning and
communicated the importance of academic rigor and the fact that support was required for
students to excel. The 2015 standards reflected interdependent domains along with qualities and
values of leadership that were integral to success (National Policy Board for Educational
Administration, 2015). The standards were as follows:
• Standard 1: Mission, Vision, and Core Values: Effective educational leaders develop,
advocate, and enact a shared mission, vision, and core values of high-quality
education and academic success and well-being of each student.
• Standard 2: Ethics and Professional Norms: Effective educational leaders act ethically
and according to professional norms to promote each student’s academic success and
well-being.
• Standard 3: Equity and Cultural Responsiveness: Effective educational leaders strive
for equity of educational opportunity and culturally responsive practices to promote
each student’s academic success and well-being.
• Standard 4: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment: Effective educational leaders
develop and support intellectually rigorous and coherent systems of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment to promote each student’s academic success and well-
being.
99

• Standard 5: Community of Care and Support for Students: Effective educational
leaders cultivate an inclusive, caring and supportive school community that promotes
each student’s academic success and well-being.
• Standard 6: Professional Capacity of School Personnel: Effective educational leaders
develop the professional capacity and practice of school personnel to promote each
student’s academic success and well-being.
• Standard 7: Professional Community for Teachers and Staff: Effective educational
leaders foster a professional community of teachers and other professional staff to
promote each student’s academic success and well-being.
• Standard 8: Meaningful Engagement of Families and Community: Effective
educational leaders engage families and the community in meaningful, reciprocal, and
mutually beneficial ways to promote each student’s academic success and well-being.
• Standard 9: Operations and Management: Effective educational leaders manage
school operations and resources to promote each student’s academic success and
well-being.
• Standard 10: School Improvement: Effective educational leaders act as agents of
continuous improvement to promote each student’s academic success and well-being.
The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) adopted the California
Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSEL) in 2014. The standards were a broad set
of policies foundational for administrator preparation, development, induction, learning, and
evaluation. In the standards, the commission identified the elements and knowledge an
administrator must have to practice effectively. The standards were meant to be a structure for
100

supporting and developing educational leaders (California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, 2014).
The commission developed the CPSELs based on a set of guiding principles that
identified foundational beliefs reflecting current and emerging expectations for education
leaders. The beliefs included informing leadership development across a career continuum,
acknowledged the need for ongoing dialogue and continued learning, and incorporated guides for
professional education leadership.
The CPSELs were organized into three levels: standards, elements, and example
indicators of practice. Within the standards level, six broad categories represented an educational
leader’s responsibilities in both personal and professional practice (California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing, 2014). The elements level highlighted three to four focus areas within
each standard with the intent to clarify, organize, and define key areas of leader actions within
the standard. The commission further delineated leader action through the indicators. These were
examples of how an educational leader might demonstrate an element or standard within their
practice.
Standard one, development and implementation of a shared vision, stated that education
leaders facilitate developing and implementing a shared vision of learning and growth for all
students. This standard had three elements. Element A called on educators to use multiple
measures of data to focus on equitable access, opportunities, and outcomes for all students.
Element B asked principals to develop a shared vision through a collaborative process supported
by all stakeholders. Element C called on leaders to guide and monitor actions, outcomes, and
goals using shared vision as a guide (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2014).
101

Standard two called on educational leaders to shape a collaborative culture of teaching
and learning informed by professional standards and focused on professional growth. Standard
two also had three elements. Element A asked leaders to promote a culture in which staff
engages in collective professional learning and individuals engage in professional learning
leading to continuous learning and high performance. Element B focused on the guidance and
support of leaders for the implementation of standards-based curriculum, instruction, and
assessments to address student expectations and outcomes. Element C challenged leaders to
monitor, extend, and improve educator practice through the development and use of assessment
and accountability systems (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2014).
Standard three asked education leaders to manage the organization to cultivate a safe and
productive learning and working environment. It has four elements. Element A called on leaders
to oversee and provide a clean, safe, and functional learning environment. Element B asks for
established structures and policies that support college and career readiness for students. Element
C directed leaders to facilitate fair, safe, and respectful environments to meet each learner’s
social-emotional, intellectual, physical, and linguistic needs. Ensuring leaders aligned fiscal and
human resources to build productive learning environments was the focus of Element D
(California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2014).
Standard four focused on family and community engagement when it asked leaders to
collaborate with families and other stakeholders to mobilize community resources to address
diverse student and community interests. Element A asked leaders to meaningfully involve all
parents and families in student learning and support programs. Element B focused on leaders
promoting and supporting students by establishing community partnerships to meet performance
102

expectations. Element C stated leaders must integrate community resources and services to meet
the various needs of all students (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2014).
Standard five called for educational leaders to make decisions, model, and behave in
ways that demonstrated ethics, justice, professionalism, equity, and integrity and to hold staff to
the same standard. Element A spoke about leaders reflecting and learning by acting upon a
personal code of ethics. Element B urged leaders to make fair and ethical decisions using
relevant evidence and available research. Element C asked leaders to recognize and use their
influence to establish a climate where equitable decisions are made on behalf of all students
(California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2014).
Standard six stated educational leaders should influence political, social, economic, legal,
and cultural contexts affecting education as a way to improve education policies and practices. In
Element A, leaders were asked to develop a greater understanding of education policy. Element
B urged leaders to use their understanding of political contexts to shape policies that lead
students to college and career readiness. Element C required leaders to engage with policymakers
and stakeholders to collaborate on education policies focused on improving education for all
students (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2014).
Identifying and articulating standards for educational administrators gives the field a
common language with which to measure competency. The standards highlighted in this section
are for both principal supervisors and principals because it is important to touch on both as they
each play a part in the support, accountability, and development of effective leaders. Together,
they also helped me identify essential elements for how a principal supervisor’s job should be
constructed by a district and enacted by the principal supervisor. Across all three sets of
standards, goals such as improving the instructional leadership capacity of principals, engaging
103

in professional development, defining a mission and/or vision for a school, and ensuring equity
in the education of students were emphasized. While some of the standards are voluntary and
others are mandated, they all share the common goal of defining qualities leaders must possess to
effectively engage in the development of principals toward improving schools through
instructional improvement and a positive school climate.
Conceptual Framework
According to Miles and Huberman (1994), the conceptual framework can be descriptive
or causal, theory-driven or commonsensical, rudimentary, or elaborate. They define it as
explaining “either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be studied–the key factors,
constructs or variables–and presumed relationships among them” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.
18). Maxwell (2012) broadens the definition by referring to the conceptual framework as the
actual ideas and beliefs the author holds about the phenomenon they studied, a “theoretical
framework” or “idea context” (p. 39). In crafting my conceptual framework, I included the
district as an entity that constructs the principal supervisor’s role and within which the principal
supervisor must enact their job. I aimed to define the elements both a principal supervisor and a
principal must have to form a successful relationship that supports improvement in teachers’
instruction and the school’s climate while working within the district’s structure. In so doing, I
combine Miles and Huberman’s (1994) graphical form with Maxwell’s (2012) assertion that the
conceptual framework is a tentative theory to present my own framework as an overall guide for
this study. My initial research goal was to explore what role the principal supervisor played in
the development of a principal in their efforts to support instructional improvement and a
positive school climate. My framework was based on what I expected the collective elements
principal supervisors and principals must have individually and shared to develop the capacity to
104

support instructional improvement and a positive school climate. Drawing on literature, thought
experiments, and my personal experiences as an assistant principal and a former teacher, I argued
that each individual brings a set of skills to form a relationship essential to the success of the
coaching/mentoring relationship. Surrounding this relationship were the school district’s
supports and structures within which the principal supervisor and the principal must work. The
figure (Figure 1) below visually presented the design of my study:
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework: The relationship between the principal supervisor and principal in
support of instructional improvement and a positive school climate.

105

First, I described the elements a principal supervisor needed to foster the development of
a principal toward supporting instructional improvement and developing a positive school
climate. Next, I discussed the elements necessary for a principal to have for the relationship to be
successful. Last, I focused on the elements both the principal supervisor and the principal shared
for them to successfully build capacity.
Principal Supervisor
Drawing upon the literature of leadership as it related to coaching, I argued that a
principal supervisor must act as a coach to foster principal development. Within the coaching
role, several elements such as providing feedback, having critical conversations, goal setting, and
support were essential to successfully coach a principal.
Drawing from Celoria and Roberson (2015), Wise and Cavazos (2017), as well as the
Model Principal Supervisor Professional Standards (2015), I argued that principal supervisors
must create supportive and safe spaces within which to successfully coach principals. While the
traditional role of a supervisor was to critically examine principals’ performance and judge it
based on a set of criteria to create a level of trust necessary for growth, the principal supervisor
must be non-judgmental and sensitive when coaching. This manifested itself in the principal
supervisor taking a nurturing, supportive stance when interacting with principals rather than a
punitive one. The principal supervisor accomplished this when they encouraged, nurtured, and
validated principals’ choices. This did not preclude the principal supervisor from correcting or
guiding the principal, it did require the principal supervisor to do so in a supportive manner that
fostered a positive environment ensuring the principal was in an emotionally safe space.
Using Lochmiller (2018), Gimble and Kefor (2018), and Hvidston et al. (2018) as a
guide, I asserted the importance of principal supervisors stepping out of their supervisory role to
106

establish trust as a means to effectively coach principals. An important element in establishing
that trust was accepting input from principals, especially when it came to goal setting and
establishing a vision for the coaching relationship’s direction. Even when the goal was building
the capacity of principals, principal supervisors often reverted to supervisory roles in the interest
of time and/or efficiency (Lochmiller, 2018). This interfered with the goal’s accomplishment
because the relationship was weakened by the fact that principals could not fully trust the
supervisor would not use the principals’ admitted weakness or questions against them in a
review. I suggested it would take a concerted effort and purposeful direction for a supervisor to
keep the relationship strong by stepping away from evaluation toward engaging in coaching
conversations. It was necessary for the role of supervisor and the role of coach to be
compartmentalized so the purposes of coaching were able to be attained. This was difficult to
accomplish but could be done with purposeful planning such as scheduling protected time for
coaching and structuring the evaluative process toward support and improvement instead of
retribution and dismissal. Included in the separation of coaching and supervising was the
principal supervisor intentionally not letting themself fall into what was familiar or letting
immediate, pressing needs interfere with coaching.
Drawing on the research of Hvidston et al. (2018), Le Fevre and Robinson (2015), and
Lochmiller (2014), I asserted an essential element to a successful coaching relationship was the
ability to engage in courageous conversations. The research of Le Fevre and Robinson (2015)
found that principals were not able to engage in critical conversations with teachers or parents
effectively and that weakened the development of trust between them. Lochmiller (2014) stated
principals responded well to coaches when they model behaviors such as engaging in difficult
conversations and share solutions with them. The deficit in a principal’s ability to hold critical
107

conversations with those they supervised was most effectively addressed in modeling such
conversations by the principal supervisor. Courageous conversations clarified principals’
thinking and allowed them to engage in reflection that pointed them to a deeper understanding of
issues and possible solutions. Principal supervisors who were willing to press administrators out
of their places of comfort toward growth demonstrated for the many who were unwilling to
challenge the beliefs of those they supervised the benefit of doing so.
To effectively foster the development of principals, Hvidston, et al. (2015), the California
Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSEL), and the Model Principal Supervisor
Professional Standards (2015), all pointed toward goal setting as essential to the process of
developing principal capacity. Principal supervisors collaborating with principals to set goals for
the coaching process was essential to its success. Principals’ involvement in the process ensured
that goals were meaningful to both parties and contributed to the successful long-range planning
of coaching. Additionally, meeting regularly to monitor the process of the goals, adjusting when
necessary, and discussing strategies toward attaining goals, was necessary to the success of the
coaching relationship. Having a clear set of goals made the strategy of asking guided questions
easier to develop. Observations of instruction by the principal supervisor became more directive
when they had a clearly stated purpose aligned to the goals.
Principal
Drawing on the research of Wise and Cavazos (2017) and Lochmiller (2014), I argued
principals were more receptive to and would receive more benefit from the coaching relationship
when they had input into the process. Principals who requested coaching overwhelmingly
reported the relationship as having a positive effect on their performance and the improvement of
their school (Wise & Cavazos, 2017). Even when principals did not request coaching, the
108

establishment of a collaborative culture where the input of principals was valued enhanced the
coaching relationship, making it more successful. The supportive actions of principal supervisors
further enhanced the trusting relationship. When overwhelmed by the job’s demands, principals
leaned on the culture of trust established by the principal supervisor. The trust was further
evidenced through the modeling of appropriate leadership strategies by the principal supervisor.
Both Principal Supervisor and Principal
Drawing on the research of Lochmiller (2014) and Celoria and Robinson (2018), I
suggested time was essential to the success of the coaching relationship. Regular and frequent
contact between the principal supervisor and the principal allowed the relationship to develop,
trust be established, and a rhythm of support happen. As the relationship developed through time,
the culture of trust was established and strengthened, enabling the coaching relationship to
function effectively.
The work of Khalifa et al. (2016), Hitt and Tucker (2015), and Elmore (2006), informed
my assertion that both principal supervisors and principals needed to keep culturally responsive
pedagogy at the forefront of their coaching/mentoring relationship when creating a supportive
learning environment. To fully achieve the goal of instructional improvement, one needed to
meet the needs of students by providing instruction in a way that provided them with the tools
they needed to construct knowledge on their own. Educational leaders were in the best position
to transform the culture of a school toward high internal accountability that embraced culturally
relevant pedagogy because even the most dedicated and successful teachers could not do it on
their own. Principal supervisors had to fully understand their own positionality as it related to
Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL) to effectively coach principals toward a
culturally responsive school community. Likewise, principals had to understand their own
109

positionality to lead their school communities effectively. This mutual exploration and
understanding of the tenets of CRSL resulting from the leadership of the principal supervisor will
lead to the development of principals who were able to support instructional improvement and
foster a positive school climate.
Drawing upon the work of Hvidston et al. (2018), the importance of reflection for both
principal supervisor and principal must be noted. For the principal supervisor, the process of
reflection would be twofold. First of all, the principal supervisor had to reflect upon their
practice in order to understand strengths and weaknesses and use those understandings to
improve. Second, a principal supervisor needed to engage in reflection as a means of self-
improvement and to model the process for the principals they were coaching. Reflection could be
taught and practiced, and reflective conversations aided in that process. Principal supervisors
fostered the development of self-reflection in principals through reflective conversations and
modeling the process of reflection for principals. Through that type of interaction, the principals’
confidence increased as they began to think more deeply and grow in self-reflection. The
principal supervisor would then be able to pull back the reflective support and allow principals to
continue to think deeply.
Finally, both the principal supervisor and principals had standards to guide their practice.
While standards for each differ in some ways, they shared commonalities. Both sets of standards
called for CRSL, reflection, goal setting, and vision. The principal standards served as an ideal
toward which a principal may strive, and the principal supervisor standards served as a
framework for getting them there.
110

District Office
Serving as a frame within which the principal supervisor must work, were the policies,
restrictions, systems, and supports the district set for the coaching/mentoring relationship. For
example, Lochmiller (2018) studied district office artifacts relating to a principal supervisor’s
role. The job descriptions focused exclusively on the managerial role of the principal supervisor
without mentioning a coaching role. District expectations such as these created a barrier to the
coaching process because it made it difficult for the principal supervisor to separate roles and
establish the necessary trust. Lochmiller (2018) reported that the expectations of the district had
a profound effect on the ability of a principal supervisor to establish a coaching relationship with
a principal because evaluative expectations interfered with the ability to create a safe space
within which to coach. However, built within the principal supervisor standards was the
expectation that the district construct principal supervisors’ role as one of instructional leaders
(Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015). Ultimately, the infrastructure a district office set
up and the amount of support built into it affected the principal supervisors’ ability to enact their
role as a coach.
Relationship
After reviewing the relevant literature, I concluded that establishing a relationship
between the principal supervisor and the principal was the critical element necessary for
fostering principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school
climate. Taking the time to nurture and develop a rapport, instill trust, and create a positive
connection was essential to the success of the coaching/mentoring process. Combining all the
elements the principal supervisor brought with the elements the principal brought and the
111

elements they shared were meaningless without a relationship acting as the glue to hold them
together.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed literature relevant to the research question asking how principal
supervisors foster principals’ development in support of instructional improvement and a
positive school climate. The coaching relationship components, leadership practices related to
the coaching of principals and the standards that guided expectations of best practices for
principal supervisors and principals were all reviewed. The conceptual framework model (Figure
1) represented the roles both the principal supervisor and principals play in establishing a
successful coaching relationship. The model also emphasized what I argued was the necessity of
establishing a successful relationship between principals and the principal supervisor in
supporting the development of ambitious teaching and a positive school climate. The conceptual
model set the foundation for the research study I conducted using qualitative methods to examine
whether the components discussed above are found in school site principals’ coaching.

112

Chapter Three: Methods
This chapter describes the qualitative approach, instrumentation, and data collection
methods used to conduct this research. The purpose of this study was to explore the role two
principal supervisors, in this case directors, in two different districts played in fostering the
development of principals to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate. I
also studied how the structure of the two districts and the choices district leadership made
affected the directors’ ability to support principals. Specifically, the study examined how each
district approached the supervising of principals, the improvement of instruction and school
climate as they related to the director’s role, and how their theory of action supported or
undermined directors’ efforts to foster principals’ development. Practices directors put in place
to influence principals they supervised and how they used (or did not use) coaching moves to
motivate principals to improve their practice was also a focus of this study. The research
questions for this study asked:
1. How do two school districts construct the role a principal supervisor plays in
fostering the development of school site principals to lead toward instructional
improvement and a positive school climate?
2. How do principal supervisors enact the role constructed by the district to work with
principals toward fostering their development to support instructional improvement
and a positive school climate?
This chapter is comprised of five sections. First, I discuss the reasoning behind my
decision to conduct a qualitative case study. Second, I describe sampling procedures and the
population I chose for the two case studies. Third, data collection methods are explained. Fourth,
113

the analysis of the data is explained, and finally, I discuss the credibility, trustworthiness,
limitations, delimitations, and ethics of this study.
Research Design
For this study, I conducted qualitative research in the form of two case studies. Merriam
and Tisdell (2015) suggest that qualitative methods are appropriate when one is interested in
uncovering the meaning of a phenomenon rather than determining cause and effect. My research
questions demanded I explore principal supervisors’ role as perceived by themselves and their
perception of the role the school district played in their ability to coach principals. In order to
fully answer the questions, I sought understanding. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2015),
“Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their experiences,
how they construct their world, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (p. 6).
Through a qualitative approach, I discovered how principal supervisors enacted a role that was
constructed for them by the district in which they worked. I chose to conduct a case study
because, as a bounded system, it was the best vehicle for providing an in-depth analysis of a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Yin, 2009). For
this dissertation, I studied four principal supervisors in the context of their continuous
supervision and coaching of principals in pursuit of instructional improvement and positive
school climates. As such, it explored how the structure of the districts and how their jobs were
defined influenced their ability to foster principal development. The study’s context included two
districts, one located in a suburb of a major metropolitan city with an upper-income population
and the other in a rural county with a middle-class population. Even though one district was
more diverse than the other, in neither district was more than 50% of their population students of
color. Both districts were located in California. A case study is particularly suited to situations
114

such as this where it is impossible to separate the phenomenon’s variables such as support of the
district, amount of time for training, and professional learning, from their context (Yin, 2009). In
looking for answers to my research questions, I attempted to make sense of the way the districts
positioned their directors to foster the development of school site principals toward instructional
improvement and a positive school climate and how the directors perceived themselves to be
doing the work.
Sample and Population
My study’s focus was to gain insight into how districts position principal supervisors to
foster school site principals toward instructional improvement and a positive school climate and
how principal supervisors believe themselves to be doing that work. I discovered how choices
the districts made influenced the directors’ ability to increase principals’ capacity. In order to
identify participants for my inquiry, I first established criteria to guide my case selection. Then,
consistent with Merriam and Tisdell (2015), I identified people within the case with whom to
conduct the study. The particular type of purposeful sampling I used was unique sampling.
Unique sampling involved an atypical, possibly rare attribute of the phenomenon of interest, in
this case principal supervisors who were working outside the norm (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
By outside the norm, I mean principal supervisors who focused on coaching principals to
improve capacity rather than supervisors who lacked a specific system for supporting and
coaching school site principals (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015; Hitt & Tucker,
2015, Lochmiller, 2018). Thus, I used nomination sampling to identify possible respondents and
then screened for subjects who were more closely aligned with the criteria I identified.

115

Participant and Site Selection
My goal was to conduct my study in a school district with principal supervisors actively
engaged in coaching principals to improve their practices in enacting instructional improvement
and a positive climate at their school sites. As part of the focus on the culture of schools, I was
interested in examining how principal supervisors coached principals to meet the needs of their
historically marginalized students; therefore, I included diversity in the criteria for the district.
My intent was to study the relationship between a principal supervisor and no fewer than two of
the principals they supervised. To that end, I used nomination sampling, someone nominated by
one or multiple individuals in a community (Trotter II, 2012), to find a principal supervisor with
a reputation for fostering principal development. To guide the selection process, I first identified
several attributes I determined were crucial to my study and then set out to find a district that met
the criteria (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It was essential that the principal supervisor I chose to
study was actively engaged in fostering principal development and had a reputation for doing the
work well. In order to find such a person, I reached out to several active and retired educators
with whom I was professionally acquainted. I chose to engage in nomination sampling with this
particular group because I knew and respected the people to whom I reached out and therefore
believed I would get the best, most reliable recommendations from them. It must be noted that by
asking for recommendations from my network of acquaintances, since they were all educators
near me, the geographic area was confined to the area within 30 miles of where I lived and
worked. If I had engaged in a broader approach to sampling, such as snowball sampling, I might
have been pushed geographically farther from what I consider to be my base. From the people I
asked for recommendations, I was given eight names of either principal supervisors they knew to
be doing the work of fostering principal development well or leaders of districts committed to
116

the work. I eliminated one superintendent because she was transitioning to another job outside of
the area, one because she was a former colleague, and I knew from experience she did not fit the
criteria, and one because he was outside the area. I sent emails to the other names I received.
Two said they were not able to help me. One did not respond, and two agreed to participate. Of
the two that agreed to participate, one was a superintendent and another an assistant
superintendent of different school districts. As my criteria called for one principal supervisor and
two principals from the same district, I chose Ulta Sierra Unified School District
6
because its
student population was more diverse than Happy Hills and my criteria called for a diverse
district. I emailed Superintendent Frank of Ulta Sierra asking for permission to conduct research
in his district and he referred me to the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, who
introduced me to Director Sandra Day. It is important to note that even though the people I chose
to go to for nomination sampling were my acquaintances, the principal supervisors and principals
I ended up interviewing for this study were previously unknown to me, a fact I deem important
because it indicates a step away from convenience sampling. I contacted Director Day and
reviewed the criteria for my study and the plan for collecting data with her and she agreed to
participate. However, it became apparent early on that Director Day was not willing to grant me
full access to her interactions with principals and she was extremely guarded in her answers to
my questions. I determined that I would not be able to obtain the needed data from her. After a
conversation, reiterating the criteria for my study and explaining my difficulties in obtaining the
data I needed from her, Director Day introduced me to Director James, another principal
supervisor in Ulta Sierra, who Director Day stated had a focus of coaching her principals. My

6
To maintain confidentiality, pseudonyms are used for the names of all districts,
directors, superintendents, and principals.
117

first meeting with Director James was with Director Day in attendance. Director James spoke
about taking a coaching stance and described her approach to supervising principals as coming
from a coaching perspective. After this meeting, based on Director Day’s reticence and view of
herself not as a coach, I pivoted to a two-case study approach comparing two principal
supervisors and the principals they coached. I intended to approach my study of the role a
principal supervisor plays in improving instruction and climate by comparing a principal
supervisor who saw herself as a coach with one that did not. When I presented my new criteria
and plan for a two-case study to Director James, she made it clear she would not give me
permission to interview the principals she supervised. She did, however, agree to role-play the
scenarios as a substitute. While the scenarios worked as a substitute for observing the directors
with principals, Director James’s refusal to allow me to interview her principals would be an
insurmountable hole in the data needed to complete my case studies. After discussions with my
dissertation chair, we agreed that because the district only had two principal supervisors, the data
from the two Ulta Sierra directors demonstrated a district perspective for the approach to
developing principals’ capacity. I determined I could approach my research question from a
district perspective if I had data from another district’s approach to developing principals’
capacity. I pivoted again and decided a two-case study approach comparing how districts’
infrastructure supports or impedes their directors’ efforts toward developing principal capacity
would best serve my research purpose.
As it had become clear after beginning in the field at Ulta Sierra, the reputation of their
directors was not what the data revealed. Therefore, to complete the second case study, I
searched for a district that was proven to have the development of principals’ capacity through
their supervisors as a focus. I approached a large urban district in California and was given
118

permission and introduced to their principal supervisors. I emailed them, one responded and then
did not respond to my follow up emails, and the other responded after it was too late to
participate in my study. In retrospect, the large urban district would not have been a strong case
because it had seven principal supervisors and interviewing only two (28%) would not have
allow me to make a case that their views represented those of the district.
I reviewed my methodological notes and confirmed that Happy Hills Unified School
District fit the criteria for a district-level case study. It was about the same size as Ulta Sierra and
had two directors supervising all (except one) the school site principals. Therefore, using the
same access as was afforded to me at Ulta Sierra, I determined I would be able to conduct a case
study, the completion of which would allow me to compare the two district’s approaches to
supporting their principal supervisors and how the directors enact the role constructed by the
district. In doing so, I ended up with case studies covering two districts similar enough in size
and composition that the data revealed strong comparisons for how each district approached the
development of their principals’ capacity.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The purpose of this study was to explore the role of a principal supervisor in fostering
principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate and
how the district’s infrastructure affected the principal supervisor’s ability to do so. Qualitative
researchers collect data themselves through observing behavior, examining documents, and/or
interviewing participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Therefore, the researcher serves as the
primary instrument for data collection and analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). In order to gain
information about different aspects of principal supervision and the context of the district in
119

which they work (Maxwell, 2013), I collected data through interviews, scenarios, one
observation, and documents.
Interviews
During data collection for the two case studies, I interviewed four directors from two
different districts using my designed research protocol I constructed using my conceptual
framework as a guide. I spent 3 hours with Director Day over the course of three interviews, two
hours with Director James over the course of two interviews, and one and a half hours each with
Directors Rivera and Taylor spanning just one interview. A research interview is a vehicle for the
researcher and participant to engage in a conversation focused on questions that identify how the
subject interprets the world around them (DeMarrais & Lapan, 2004; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Because of the abovementioned difficulties gaining access to Ulta Sierra and the onset of the
Covid-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted over a six-month period. A semi-structured
interview protocol was used for formal interviews to allow more flexibility for the respondent to
explain how they defined the world in their unique ways (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The semi-
structured format consisted of flexibly worded questions that allowed me to respond to the
situation at hand so the respondent’s world view was able to emerge (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
The interviews remained focused because I followed a set of questions from a case study
protocol I designed (Yin, 2009). The interview protocol included follow-up probes intended to
yield information about how the directors approached developing principal capacity toward
instructional improvement and a positive school climate. Specifically, the protocol asked the
directors about goal setting, reflection, developing relationships, and culturally responsive school
leadership. The protocol also focused on how the directors differentiated their coaching and the
supports or hindrances the district had in place that affected their ability to do their job.
120

Patton (2002) stated it is possible to ask any combination of six types of questions
covering any given topic. Distinguishing the types of questions to ask forces the interviewer to
be clear about the information being sought and helps the interviewee answer appropriately
(Patton, 2002). Using Patton (2002) and my conceptual framework as a guide, interviews with
directors focused on questions exploring the participants’ behavior, experience, opinions, and
knowledge. Using my conceptual framework as a guide, I included questions specifically
designed to connect to instructional improvement and a positive school climate. The interview
questions also focused on the support, other duties, and expectations the district demanded of
their principal supervisors and how the demands of the district work either for or against the goal
of building principal capacity. The interviews also explored elements such as reflection, CRSL,
protected time to meet, and whether the subjects were familiar with the standards for their
profession and how (if at all) they were incorporated into their work with principals.
Three interviews were conducted with principals, two from Ulta Sierra and one from
Happy Hills, who had two of the directors I interviewed as direct reports. The original intent was
to ascertain the qualities principals must share with their supervisors to form a successful
coaching relationship. As previously stated, I originally planned to interview two principals per
director. However, since not all the directors allowed their principals to be interviewed, I chose
to stop the principal interviews and focus on district support for my two case studies. Informal
interviews were not conducted with any of the directors.
Observation
While the goal of interviewing is to understand the subject’s perspectives and goals, the
purpose of observation is to describe settings, behaviors and events (Maxwell, 2013). For this
study, six to eight observations of each principal supervisor/principal pair were planned. One
121

observation was conducted, lasting approximately 3 hours. During the observation, I traveled
with the director and visited three different schools. I was allowed to observe conversations that
covered sports, the principal’s family, and a superficial recap of how the school was doing. I was
then asked to leave so the director could discuss “confidential” information with the principal. I
recorded the data using field notes while observing the physical setting, the participants, the
activities and interactions among participants, the content of conversations, other subtle factors,
and my own behavior (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). However, since it
was apparent that the substantive portion of the coaching conversations would be closed to me
from one director, and I would not be allowed to observe interactions with another director, I
chose to end the observations.
Vignettes
A vignette is a technique used in structured interviews providing sketches of fictional
scenarios (Jenkins et al., 2010). In order to simulate the planned observations, I was not able to
complete, I designed four scenarios to discuss with the directors. The scenarios I designed
emulated the scenarios found in Le Fevre and Robinson’s (2011) study and were closely based
on their model where the researchers designed scenarios to study how school site principals
engaged in critical conversations. As my intent for observing each director was to ascertain how
they put into practice the ideals and beliefs they expressed in their interviews, I designed the
scenarios as “real-life situations” to act as a substitute for seeing them in action. Two of my
scenarios were designed as problems of instruction and two were designed as problems of school
climate. As I presented my scenarios, I invited the respondents to, as Jenkins et al. (2010) state,
draw on their own experiences to imagine how they would behave in each scenario. I asked each
director questions about how they would handle each situation as if it were happening in real
122

time. Question and answer, role playing, and situational discussions were all used in the
presentation and answering of the vignettes that lasted approximately one hour each and took
place in one sitting.
Documents and Artifacts
During data analysis, I collected documents that supported data from my interviews,
either by providing context or more information connected to them. I sought out documents
because of their ability to help uncover meaning, discover insights, and develop understanding
relevant to my research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I searched the web using the
Google search engine to find documents that supported the data I gained from interviews. First, I
collected newsletters from Ulta Sierra Unified School District that discussed training the district
was offering for teachers and expecting principals to attend alongside. I also collected newspaper
articles as documents that detailed the process of rebranding that Ulta Sierra Unified School
District went through to raise community awareness about the district. I also collected Twitter
postings that confirmed inferences I had made as I analyzed the data. For Happy Hills, the
documents I collected were newspaper articles focused on district initiatives supporting the
social-emotional needs of their students. For both districts, I searched websites, both their own
and those of initiatives and programs they adopted, to ensure I understood the orientations of the
programs they offered and the ones they adopted. My intent in searching for and reviewing
documents was to gain more information connected to the interviews and scenarios and provide
further insight into information shared during the interview process.
Data Analysis
The goal of data analysis is answering research questions by making sense out of the data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Maxwell (2013) states there is not a “cookbook or single correct way
123

for doing qualitative analysis” (p. 105) so the researcher must plan and modify strategies to fit
the data. Maxwell’s assertion certainly fit the journey of this study as the focus and direction
were adjusted to fit the information that emerged from the data collected. Data for this study
consisted of qualitative interviews with four directors and three principals
7
as well as one
observation and four vignettes presented to the four directors. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) name
data analysis as the most difficult part of the process, requiring a certain tolerance for ambiguity,
particularly at the beginning because qualitative data is emergent. The analysis of each set of
data informs and directs future research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). To organize the data, I
created a codebook to serve as a vehicle to sort data into related categories and to aid in
identifying themes. Each interview and transcription were treated at individual entities and coded
separately so the information from one did not influence the data from another. I wrote analytic
memos as I wrestled with the data to clarify my thinking around what the data was telling me.
Before embarking on data analysis, I reviewed my conceptual framework and developed
a priori codes to help guide the development of my codebook and my first cycle of coding.
Through this process, I identified the words and phrases that represented ideas about the
phenomenon I was trying to understand (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
I began data analysis as soon as possible, while still in the field, by writing reflective
notes as part of my data collection and analysis. I did this by first recording my impressions
immediately after finishing an interview then listening to the recording while writing my notes.
When a particularly difficult situation occurred, I used the notes to coalesce my thoughts into an
analytic memo. For example, during the time spent with one director, my experience was that she

7
Of the three principals, two were from Ulta Sierra with Director Day as a supervisor and
one was from Happy Hills with Director Rivera as a direct report.
124

was not forthcoming in her answers or information she provided. Her vague answers and
unwillingness to provide specific examples seemed to indicate there was something she was
hiding or trying to protect. I turned to the writing of an analytic memo to document and process
my interactions with her to confirm my impression and attempt to understand the reasoning
behind her actions. I also wrote methodological memos covering the work of collecting data to
document when I ran into things I did not anticipate from a methods perspective. For example,
when it became apparent that my initial research plan of observing one principal supervisor and
interact with their principals, I turned to methodological notes to work out alternate research
methods for answering my research questions.
Rev.com was used to transcribe the interviews immediately after they concluded for me
to read over and annotate. This was so I remained familiar with the content of the interviews as
an aid in the data analysis process. Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) analytic tools identify various
strategies used in data analysis. The analytic tools I used most often during my first read of the
transcribed data were making comparisons and drawing on personal experience. For example, I
was immediately struck by the difference in the aspect of the directors from the two different
districts. In comparison, I found the directors from Happy Hills to be open, thoughtful, and
willing to share challenges, while the directors from Ulta Sierra were guarded, less analytical,
and only shared district successes. I drew from personal experience when I spoke to the directors
about the time element in relation to their job. As a school site principal, and a former teacher on
special assignment (TOSA) working in a district office, I know the demands both sites place on
time. My personal experience helped me understand their challenges when it came to the amount
of time available. I had to stop and remind myself to ask questions of the data as a check for my
125

own biases and to ensure I was not making assumptions or taking anything for granted (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008).
I coded each case study independently, not beginning to code the second case until I had
finished the first. I approached analysis the same way for both cases, approaching each director’s
interview and scenario first and then analyzing data across directors. I then conducted a within
case analysis to come to district-level conclusions. After both cases were analyzed, I looked
across the two cases to find comparisons and contrasts.
For the data analysis, I began by reviewing my a priori codes then continued with the
process of open coding, including empirical codes that emerged from the data as being useful to
answer my research question (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The a priori
codes came from words and phrases contained in my conceptual framework. For example, I used
“Coaching” and “Goal Setting” from my conceptual framework to guide my initial analysis. I
continued with open coding, continuing to jot down labels for my data. For example, I used this
phase to break up my a priori codes into smaller pieces of data such as “Informal Coaching” and
“Coaching, Asking Questions” or “Goals Set by Principal” and “Goals Set by District.” During
open coding, empirical codes emerged. For example, I noticed one of the directors used the word
“support” in many different contexts. When I organized my codebook to compare the contexts in
which she used the word, I discovered she often used the word “support” as a stand in for the
word “coach.” I then embarked on a second cycle of coding, the axial coding process, where I
found relationships among my open codes and refined them into categories (Corbin & Strauss,
2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As part of the axial coding, I clearly defined categories to
ensure the meaning emerging from the data was clear and placed data into the category in which
it belonged. For example, through the axial coding process, I discovered the strength of the
126

vision of one of the districts I studied. During this process, the themes of my findings emerged,
and it became apparent the overarching questions for my study were about how the districts were
set up to support the principal supervisors’ efforts to foster principal development.
I also analyzed documents in the form of district newsletters, Twitter posts, and
newspaper articles. These documents helped me understand the context of the information the
directors furnished and provided insight into the way the districts approached the adoption and
implementation of curriculum and the improvement of instruction. During data analysis, I used
documents to infer conclusions based on information the Ulta Sierra directors provided and
strengthen my findings. I also used documents to deepen my understanding of how the districts
and their directors approached their work. For example, I looked at Marzano’s nine strategies
and the professional development the district offered to understand how the directors in one
district understood and enacted their role. I used websites to understand the way initiatives
aligned with instructional improvement and a positive school climate.
During my interrogation of the data, I looked for discrepant evidence and negative cases
(Maxwell, 2013). In other words, I worked to ensure I was not simply seeing what I wanted to
see by looking for evidence that contradicted my inclinations. For example, entering data
collection, I was inclined to dismiss any indication by one particular district I studied to work
toward providing access for their historically marginalized population. My inclination was based
on the (small) size of their marginalized population and the fact that it was a high achieving, high
economic district. In looking for discrepant evidence, I found robust data indicating this district
had a strong initiative to provide access to their underserved population. I interrogated my data
so when I landed on themes, I was sure they were based on a thorough and rigorous review of the
127

evidence and not influenced by prior inclination. Finally, as a result of the abovementioned
cycles of coding, my findings emerged.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Research results are valid to the extent that the research has been conducted in an ethical
manner and there was rigor in carrying out the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As the primary
instrument for data collection, I was mindful of personal prejudices and/or biases that might
influence the results of my research. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) say validity (credible) and
reliability (trustworthiness) are addressed through careful attention to the conceptualization of
the study and the way in which data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted. Maxwell (2013)
addresses credibility through validity checks. I ensured the credibility and trustworthiness of my
study through the careful planning of the interview and observation protocols and the data
collection and analysis. During my research and analysis, I took the following steps to ensure
credibility.
First, I engaged in triangulation by using multiple methods of gathering data including
interviews, vignettes, and documents. I engaged in interviews with the directors, spending 3
hours with Director Day, two with Director James from Ulta Sierra, and 1 hour each with
Directors Rivera and Taylor from Happy Hills. During the interview process, I asked open-ended
questions aimed at obtaining rich, descriptive data. I also probed for follow up responses to gain
more information when I suspected they had more to say or I required more detail or clarification
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Another method of gathering data was the vignettes that differed
from the interviews in that they asked the directors to respond as if in the moment of handling a
principal through coaching. The vignettes differed from the interviews in that they required the
directors to directly address how they would handle a situational dilemma in a concrete manner
128

rather than the more theoretical or abstract direction the interviews tended to take. I also
triangulated the data by using documents such as district produced newsletters, newspaper
articles, and Twitter posts. I sought the documents as further explanation or confirmation of my
data analysis. For example, I used electronic sources to triangulate information from my
interviews that indicated training for a district adopted program was brought in and administered
by an outside entity. Each form of document provided further insight and solidified the
conclusions I gleaned from the interview and scenario data. For example, I used documents to
compare information presented in document form with information I received during interviews.
I was able to gain insight into the difference between each district’s approach to engaging in data
to address the needs of students from historically marginalized groups.
I also took steps to ensure I collected what Maxwell (2013) referred to as rich data by
using multiple sources, keeping a chain of evidence, and maintaining consistency. Along with
interviewing the four directors, I also interviewed three principals (two from USUSD and one
from HHUSD) who directly reported to two of the four directors, one in each district. While the
principals’ interviews did not provide data, I was able to use to answer my research questions
directly, they gave me valuable background information and insight as to how each district
operated. Yin (2009) suggests maintaining a chain of evidence so that an external observer could
follow the derivation of evidence from the research questions to the ultimate conclusions and
trace the steps the researcher took to ensure a high degree of reliability. I kept a record of my
contacts with the study participants before, during, and after data collection. All interviews and
vignette discussions were recorded and transcribed for accuracy. I used color codes and labels to
organize my data in my codebook during the second round of coding and noted when and where
a piece of data was used in the study. Miles et al. (2014) also speak to consistency when they ask
129

if the data is consistent and reasonably stable over time. To achieve this, I spent time with the
data, not only coding them but reviewing them and reorganizing them. For example, when I
determined my findings and themes for a particular section, I went back into the data, looking at
them through the lens of my findings and themes to ensure the data supported my findings.
Merriam and Tisdell (2015) point out that in order to achieve consistency, the human instrument
can become more reliable through training, so I worked closely with my dissertation chair,
meeting with her two to three times per week, to ensure I was guided and trained to minimize the
threat of inconsistency. This was an important step because throughout the process, I often
worried I was not interacting with the data in a robust way. My concern was that I was not being
critical or analytical enough and meeting with my dissertation chair was a way for me to be sure
I was seeing beyond the surface of the data. Verbally articulating my thoughts surrounding the
data helped me dig deep into the data for analysis. The meetings were recorded, and I went back
to listen to them as I revisited my coding and analysis as well as my writing to ensure I was
accurately following correct procedures as I reported on my study.
During all interviews I engaged in member checks (Maxwell, 2013) by asking follow-up
questions, probes, and summarizing to accurately understand what the interview respondent was
saying. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) define reliability for qualitative research as ensuring the
results are consistent with the data collected. I used this same technique to ensure I was not
leading my interview respondents toward particular answers that I had presupposed.
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) suggest the practice of writing memos throughout data
collection as a way of synthesizing thinking, organizing information, and reflection. They also
suggest memos can help a researcher work through discouragement and/or chart one’s own
development (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). In the case of this study, analytic memos did a little of
130

both. For example, after my first interview with Director Day, I felt confused and upset without
knowing why. I dictated then jotted down my thoughts after that interview, expressing and
working through the confusion. I continued journaling my confusion through the process of
setting up the second interview. I then wrote a reflective memo. This process helped me work
through my initial reaction to her bearing and led me to a point where I understood her stance as
one of structure and authority. I used this knowledge as I continued to engage with her through
the one observation and the scenarios. Also, this realization helped with the analysis of the data.
To ensure trustworthiness, I employed a strategy Merriam and Tisdell (2015) refer to as
“researchers position or reflexivity” (p. 249) in which I was aware of how I affected or was
affected by the research process and how that may or may not influence my findings. Maxwell
(2013) says the goal in a qualitative study is to understand the influence the researcher may have
in the respondent’s answering of questions, not to eliminate it. For example, the directors in one
of the districts I studied were guarded in their answers. To encourage the directors to open up
more and to get to a real understanding through my collection of data, I encouraged the use of
generalizations and examples when I asked questions. For example, I changed my questions
from “please describe a time…” to “think of an example that demonstrates….” I also turned to
the vignettes as a nonthreatening way to obtain the thoughtful answers I was seeking. I recognize
that this shift in my strategy from direct questions and observations to constructed scenarios
affected how the directors thought about and presented the information, I did my best to account
for it during my data analysis.
Selecting data that fit my existing goals, theory, or preconceptions is referred to by
Maxwell (2013) as researcher bias. I recognized that I am a white, middle-class female working
as a school site principal and as such, came into the study with my own ideas of how the
131

coaching relationship should look. I asked myself questions to uncover my own biases and see
where they may be showing in the data. For example, I found myself expecting the “gold
standard” of coaching to look like my first administrative experience when my principal took me
under her wing. As I met and interviewed the four directors, I had to let go of that preconceived
notion and ground myself in the literature to properly analyze what the data was revealing.
I also worked in schools that serve a high population of historically marginalized students
and schools where the population was homogeneous, I recognized the differences in the two
experiences and worked to not let the opinions and biases I developed from them taint the
objective analysis of the data. Reflective notes allowed me to ensure trustworthiness by acting as
a safeguard through recognizing my biases and assumptions, so they did not affect the clear
interpretation of the data.
Ethics
Even though the federal government, institutions, and professional organizations have all
developed policies, guidelines, and codes of ethics, actual ethical practice comes down to the
researcher’s own individual values and ethics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Because of this, it was
my responsibility as the researcher to act ethically in every part of the design, implementation,
analysis, and reporting of the research process (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Patton,
2002; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). In planning the study, I articulated a full explanation of the study’s
purpose and inquiry methods (Patton, 2002). There were no promises of reciprocity to either the
principal supervisor, principals, or any other study participants (Patton, 2002; Rubin & Rubin,
2012). I ensured the interviews did not cause the subjects undue risk such as stress or fear of
repercussions and I maintained the confidentiality of all the subjects and their data by using
pseudonyms and general descriptions in my notes and throughout the report (Patton, 2014; Rubin
132

& Rubin, 2012). I gained verbal informed consent from the participants and followed the
requirements and guidelines of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Participants were asked for
permission before I recorded their interviews and they were informed they may withdraw from
the study at any point (Glesne, 2011; Patton, 2002; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Throughout the
research study’s design and implementation, I ensured no harm was inflicted on the participants
(Patton, 2002; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). I was thoughtful about how I presented the findings when
writing so as to not diminish or minimize the directors in one district. I thought about the ethics
of representation and thought about how they would see themselves if they were to read my
study (Glesne, 2011). I continually sought my dissertation chair’s advice and counsel as a source
of knowledge for accepted methods and practices of qualitative research (Patton, 2002). My goal
for this study was to represent each director’s experience to the best of my ability and faithfully
represent their side. As a researcher, my ethics are inseparable from my everyday interactions
with the participants of this research study (Glesne, 2011) so at all times I strove to conduct
myself ethically.
Limitations
Limitations to this study are factors outside of the researcher’s control that may affect the
findings or the outcome. This study contained the following limitations. The study was limited to
two variations of one type of data, interviews, and discussions about vignettes. Because of the
Ulta Sierra Directors’ reticence, my data collection did not include the planned observations. The
participants’ responses given during the interviews cannot be guaranteed to be truthful. For
example, respondents may have tried to paint a particular picture of their work and that of the
district such as portraying their work or that of the district more positively than reflective. I had
to assume their answers were honest and open and evaluate the data accordingly. The availability
133

of the principal supervisors and the principals was not within my control. The directors of Ulta
Sierra did not make themselves or their principals as available as I would have liked. For
example, I could not observe either director coaching individually, in a group through leadership
meetings, or in supervisory conferences. While the directors at Happy Hills were more open to
observations, they were constrained in their availability because of the onset of the Covid-19
pandemic that rendered observation impossible during the time of data collection.
Delimitations
Delimitations are factors within the researchers’ control that may affect the interpretation
of data and the results of the study. This study included the following delimitations of which I
was aware. Because of the nature of the graduate program, I only had a few months within which
to conduct my study, so I was constrained to observing the work being done within that
particular timeframe. I was the primary instrument of data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015)
and am a novice researcher, so mistakes were made. For example, I relied on people I knew and
respected for their recommendations for districts and principal supervisors without realizing their
definition of “doing the job of coaching well” well may not have matched mine. Also, markers
and cues from interviewees were missed that caused missed opportunities to ask probing
questions. I controlled the questions designed for the interview protocols and stayed with my
planned protocol, so information I was not looking for was missed. In some instances, I realized
I did not have information that would have benefited me in my ability to understand the districts
and the participants. The study only had two cases with two school districts. While it can be
transferred to other school districts, having more than two districts would strengthen the study.
The size and type of the districts was a delimitation, larger more diverse school districts would
have yielded a larger data set. My sampling strategy confined me to a small geographic area. Had
134

I chosen to use a different sampling strategy; more diverse interview subjects would have
emerged.
Conclusion
Through my research, I sought to understand the role principal supervisors played in
fostering principal development and how their districts’ structure supported or impeded that role.
I interviewed four principal supervisors and three principals who worked in two different school
districts and collected data through semi-structured interviews vignettes, documents, and one
observation. I argued that support for fostering principal development toward instructional
improvement and a positive school climate must be built into the district’s infrastructure for it to
be successful. I utilized a two-case study approach using my conceptual framework as a guide
for my data collection and my analysis.

135

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore the role of principal supervisors, in this case
directors, in fostering the development of the principals they supervised to support instructional
improvement and positive school climates. Specifically, this study asked the following research
questions:
1. How do two school districts construct the role a principal supervisor plays in
fostering the development of school site principals to lead toward instructional
improvement, a positive school climate and access for its most vulnerable students?
2. How do principal supervisors enact the role constructed by the district to work with
principals toward fostering their development to support instructional improvement, a
positive school climate and access for its most vulnerable students?
Data analysis of interviews and scenarios revealed that in case one the district constructed the
directors’ role so they effectively bypassed the principals as instructional leaders in favor of
adopting and implementing programs. The directors internalized that expectation and did not see
it as their responsibility to build principal capacity to lead toward instructional improvement or a
positive school climate. The data from case two revealed a district with a clear vision for
increasing access to learning opportunities, instructional improvement, and equitable access for
its most vulnerable students. Yet, despite tasking the directors with the responsibility of building
principal capacity to achieve the vision, the district did not structure the directors’ role in a way
that supported their ability to do the work. While directors internalized the district vision and
enacted their role to foster principal development, district structures impeded their ability to do
so.

136

Case One
Ulta Sierra Unified School District (USUSD) was located in a semi-rural county in
California. The district’s schools served students beginning in preschool up to 12
th
grade. Ulta
Sierra Unified School District’s enrollment was approximately 16,510 students with 39%
Hispanic or Latino, 8% Asian, and 5% two or more races. Approximately 36% of the student
population were English Learners, foster youth, or eligible for free and reduced-price meals.
Approximately 11% of USUSD’s students spoke a language other than English, including
Spanish, Arabic, Farsi, Tagalog, and Telugu. The district’s test score results indicated
approximately 54% of students met or exceeded the English Language Arts (ELA) standards,
and 43% met or exceeded the math standards. Among Ulta Sierra’s low-income students,
approximately 37% met or exceeded ELA standards, and 26% met or exceeded math standards.
Ulta Sierra Unified School District went through a rebranding process in 2016 to change
public perception of the district within the community. A new logo, vision, and mission
statement were unveiled, along with a promise to the community to provide a high-quality
education for their children. The rebranding was deemed necessary because of declining
enrollment, budget deficits, and low morale among employees. Ulta Sierra’s superintendent
initiated the rebranding because he wanted the community to be aware of and see all the good
things happening in the district.
For this study, the two directors who supervised principals were interviewed and
presented with vignettes. Director of Secondary Education, Susan Day, oversaw the district’s
three middle schools, three comprehensive high schools, and one continuation high school.
Director Day was a 20-year veteran of Ulta Sierra Unified School District, serving as teacher,
137

activities director, dean, assistant principal, and principal before becoming Director of Secondary
Education six years ago. Director Elinore James was in her second year as Director of
Elementary Education at Ulta Sierra. After serving the district as a teacher, Teacher on Special
Assignment (TOSA), and elementary principal, Director James stepped into the Director’s role,
supervising the principals of the district’s 18 elementary schools. Both directors served on Ulta
Sierra’s district cabinet. I met with Director Day a total of four times, and Director James twice.
During my time with them, I conducted interviews, discussed scenarios, role played, and
accompanied Director Day one day as she visited schools. The reason for only one observation
was that during my three hours observing Director Day, the time was not spent coaching
principals or discussing work related topics. Therefore, I chose to discontinue observations as a
form of data collection and developed the scenarios as a replacement.
The findings revealed the district was focused on initiatives other than building the
capacity of principals and both directors favored the procedural and operational over deepening
principals’ knowledge and skills as leaders to improve instruction and climate. The district’s
orientation caused the directors to enact their roles to search for obvious solutions and hand the
task of instructional improvement to an outside provider. This was done by adopting programs
instead of guiding principals to develop a deep understanding of instructional improvement and a
positive school climate. Neither director saw it as her job to ensure principals had a complex
understanding of instruction or school climate, so they failed to directly and actively promote or
facilitate the improvement of either. Instead, they focused their energy on structural matters.
Each director forged a different path, yet when presented with a problem, both looked to simplify
it and find obvious answers at the expense of principal growth. Each director used an approach
focused on procedure, limiting the investigation of a given problem to quick, simple solutions
138

rather than a deep understanding of its underlying cause. Thus, they did not really perceive their
jobs as coaches and therefore did not enact coaching in their role as director.
Finding 1: The Role of the Director in Fostering the Development of Principals was to
Ensure Their Ability to Implement Programs and Manage Their School Site in Relation to
District Goals That Were Focused on Communicating Positive Operations Present in the
District.
Data revealed the district constructed the directors’ roles in a way that called them to
focus on program implementation as a means to improve instruction as opposed to fostering
principal development. Therefore, the directors enacted their role by working to secure
principals’ ability to implement programs adopted by the school district in relation to district
goals. When managing principals, each director saw it as her job to ensure district priorities so
programs were implemented rather than developing principal’s capacity to improve instruction.
Theme 1: Ulta Sierra Unified School District’s Overall Approach to Instructional
Improvement was to Adopt and Implement Programs That Were Targeted Toward Teachers,
Not to Have the Director Build (Through Mentoring and Coaching) Principals’ Capacity to
Lead and Improve Instruction
Ulta Sierra Unified School District (USUSD) did not rely on the director to build
principals’ capacity to lead toward instructional improvement. Instead, the role of the principal
supervisor was to identify and oversee program implementation. The district outsourced the
work of building instructional capacity by adopting programs directed toward teachers,
effectively bypassing principals as instructional leaders. This approach of not empowering
principal supervisors diverged from my conceptual framework where I argued that to achieve
instructional improvement, principal supervisors must focus on developing principals’ capacity
139

to lead for instructional change, including developing as Culturally Responsive School Leaders
(CRSL) (Celoria & Roberson, 2015; Hvidston et al., 2018; Khalifa, et al., 2016; Lochmiller,
2014).
The district presented a pattern
8
of adopting programs from outside sources that identified
mechanisms for improving teaching over building principals’ capacity to engage as culturally
responsive leaders and identify and support the unique strengths and limitations of teachers to
guide them toward instructional improvement. At the time of data collection, the district was
relying on two such programs, Marzano’s Classroom Instruction that Works with its nine
instructional strategies and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), each supported by an
outside organization. In both cases, principal supervisors did not have an explicit responsibility
to coach or mentor principals to build their capacity to lead instructional improvement at their
sites.
The first program USUSD adopted was Classroom Instruction That Works. Director Day
explained how this program grew to be fully implemented districtwide, “One of the first things I
did as a director is, I brought the Nine Instructional Practices from Classroom Instruction that
Works on board. My counterpart liked it, so she brought it on board to the elementary.” Here,
Director Day explained how she brought a program focused on instructional strategies “on
board” in her work with her secondary principals and their schools. The fact that she saw
bringing in an instructional program as something she was empowered or expected to do was
indicated by her saying, “One of the first things I did as director.” This implied the district saw it
as her role to identify and implement tools capable of building teachers’ instructional capacity,

8
This pattern of adopting programs from outside extended to the Medal of Honor
Character Development Program and Equal Opportunity Schools with their Action For Equity
(A4E) program.
140

not to directly foster principals’ capacity to do same. She further explained her counterpart at the
time thought well enough of the program to use it with elementary school principals and their
teachers and also brought it “on board” making it a districtwide initiative. Those actions resulted
in a focus on improving instruction that did not explicitly account for the role of the principal as
an instructional leader. Instead, the focus was centered directly on the teachers’ actions in the
classroom.
In 2016, to support full implementation of Marzano’s Nine Instructional Strategies, Ulta
Sierra offered four days of training by an outside provider (Ulta Sierra Unified School District,
2016). Director Day related the process, “We brought them in, the Classroom Instruction That
Works trainers, and got everybody trained, all the principals and lead teachers were trained.”
Here Director Day explained that her job was to bring principals in for training by someone else
as “everybody” included teacher leaders and principals. Thus, it was her and the district’s
expectation that principals were to learn how to supervise the program’s implementation by
attending training with their teachers, not by receiving direct support from their directors. In
addition, newsletters disseminated to members of the community at the time announced the
trainings for teachers and principals to attend (Ulta Sierra Unified School District, 2016). The
newsletters also demonstrated that attendance at all four sessions was required for the training to
be considered complete. Director Day recounted how continuing professional development was
conducted, “For the past six years the school sites have done a book study, and handbook study,
and professional development in every one of their faculty meetings around one of the nine
instructional practices.” This indicated support (after the initial training) for this program
implementation was achieved through school level activities focused on instruction through
“book study, handbook study, and professional development at faculty meetings.” Suggested in
141

her description was that she viewed her role as a facilitator for the chosen program, not as a
direct support for the principals to build their capacity. Implied in everything Director Day said
was that the district supported her adoption of this approach to working with principals and
teachers that outsourced work in relation to improving instruction. Moreover, there was nothing
in the description offered by Director Day or the newsletters that indicated the principal was
expected to learn how to supervise and support teachers’ adoption and implementation of the
nine strategies. This is in contrast to literature that stressed the importance of building the
capacity of leaders as a path to the improvement of the quality of instructional practice (Elmore,
2006). Moreover, Standard 1 of the Model Principal Supervisor Professional Standards (2015)
necessitated that principal supervisors dedicate their time to helping principals grow as
instructional leaders (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015).
Absent in Director Day’s discussions regarding the implementation of Marzano’s nine
instructional strategies was a focus on meeting the needs of the district’s underserved population.
Khalifa et al. (2016) noted that as population demographics shift in schools, the leadership
practices must also shift to meet their needs. While the district did have students from
historically marginalized groups, the directors did not indicate a specific focus on addressing
their particular needs. By bringing in a program with nine elements meant to address the needs of
all students, instead of one that specifically addressed the needs of historically marginalized
students, Ulta Sierra did not take the opportunity to train and position their principals as
culturally responsive school leaders. To do so would have required an individualistic approach
not present in the adoption of a structured program consisting of a set number of strategies to be
implemented uniformly across the district that were colorblind and content neutral.
142

In 2018, Ulta Sierra adopted Professional Learning Communities as an additional vehicle
to improve instruction. As part of the three-year training process, Ulta Sierra Unified School
District sent teachers and district leaders to trainings in two different cities. Director James
described how the district PLC training was employed for teachers and principals:
We’ve invested a lot, especially in the PLC process and we have some top names.
Michael Turner, he leads us, and we took the principals through first year and now we
have principal and teacher leaders, second year and we’ll have a third year with those
same teams, half of which are in Denver right now at a huge summit and getting all that
training behind it as well. So, the PLC piece in the way it’s being rolled out, if there is an
educator that could deny that this is the right work, then I would have a hard time with it.
Could I coach it? Of course, I could.
Director James demonstrated the district’s PLC training was outsourced by indicating a “top”
name in the PLC community was leading principal and teacher leaders through a three-year
professional development process. She also stated Ulta Sierra sent employees to train outside of
the district, further indicating the district did not expect directors to be the point people for
building principals’ capacity. Her assertion that she would have a “hard time” if an educator
denied PLCs was the right work because of how it was being rolled out indicated a belief that
outsourcing training was the appropriate approach to developing principals’ capacity to do the
work. Her assertion that she could have coached the PLC process but did not do so, suggested
she did not see it as her job to directly raise the capacity of principals and teachers to improve
instruction. Instead, the responsibility was given to an outside source who was seen as an expert.
Director James communicated the district supported the outsourcing of the PLC training process
and did not expect directors to support principals in instructional improvement through an
143

examination of practice and coaching. Director James continued to describe how principal
supervisors were not involved as coaches for principals, who themselves were not acting as
instructional leaders in the PLC process. When describing the type of conversation she would
have with a principal who was reluctant to adopt PLCs, she said:
Its [PLCs] so student centered, four essential questions about students and student
learning and how do we support student learning…I’d ask a lot of questions about how
can that not benefit your school? So, if you don’t want to do this, what do you see as the
negative results of doing this? And versus, what’s the benefit? And so, we do a lot of
pros and cons.
Here, Director James described her role as one of convincing principals that adopting the PLC
program was the right solution to improving instructional practice and their role was to accept
and implement a centrally adopted program. Running through the pros and cons of the PLC
process was a way for Director James to convince a disinclined principal to embrace and
implement the district initiative. As expressed by Director James, the district did not believe it
was the director’s responsibility to facilitate principals’ development by providing direct support
toward instructional improvement through coaching or mentoring.
Additionally, after district representatives returned from the outside PLC training, the
responsibility for support continued to fall on the outside source. Director Day explained:
We have data, we have surveys and they’ve done panorama coordinates with us, we
know we do big training and then they break it down by site. So, sites determine their
own focus areas based on their personal data. And then the company supports us with
next steps, goals, action steps and things like that.
144

Her explanation that an outside source conducted PLC training, both general and focused,
solidified the district’s pattern of bypassing directors as instructional leaders. Furthermore, her
assertion that sites determined their own focus areas for next steps was also absent of direct
involvement by the directors. This was contrary to a practice of building professional capacity,
which Hitt and Tucker (2005) defined as being necessary for an effective leader. It also did not
align with the Model Principals Supervisor Standards’ (2015) call to “focus a substantial portion
of their time on developing instructional leadership capacity when working with individual
principals as well as groups of principals” (p.14). Additionally, Director James did not mention
how, or if at all, Ulta Sierra’s historically marginalized students’ needs were addressed through
this initiative. Khalifa et al. (2016) stated a culturally responsive classroom is a joint effort,
particularly between school leaders and teachers. By outsourcing the improvement of instruction
to a programmatic concept such as a professional learning community at the expense of
including directors in the development of principal capacity, USUSD did not use the opportunity
to create conditions leading to culturally responsive teaching and a focus on improving access for
their historically marginalized students.
145

Theme 2: Ulta Sierra Unified School District’s Approach to Improving the Dimensions of a
Positive School Climate was to Manage Relationships That Supported the Productive
Functioning of the Schoolwide System
9
and to Partner with Outside Programs. This Approach
Effectively Removed the Responsibility of Developing the Capacity of Principals to Build a
Positive School Climate from the Directors who Supervised Them
The Ulta Sierra School District directors were not expected to build the principals’
capacity to operate as culturally responsive school leaders. Nor were they expected to work
toward positive school climates supportive of instructional improvement resulting in meaningful
student learning. For the purpose of this analysis, I focused on the following elements of the
definitions put forth in my conceptual framework: elements of Culturally Responsive School
Leadership (CRSL) include a focus on the educational needs of minoritized students (Khalifa et
al., 2016); a positive school climate occurs when there is trust among adults, clear
communication, along with high instructional and academic expectations (Darling-Hammond &
Cook-Harvey, 2018; Hallinger, 2003); meaningful learning occurs when sophisticated cognitive
strategies are used by students leading to deep understanding and problem solving (Mayer,
2002). Instead of building principals’ capacity to work toward a positive school climate,
USUSD’s directors focused on ensuring productive relationships among adults who had an
investment in how the schoolwide system operated.
Elmore (2005) defined internal accountability as coherence among individuals’
conceptions and collective expectations at the organizational level (pp. 140-141). During this
period of data collection, several examples of how climate was represented within USUSD

9
Schoolwide system refers to the entirety of the district to include the central office,
school sites, and support entities.
146

emerged that were consistent with Elmore’s (2005) notion of internal accountability. A review of
the district’s website revealed it did not have a district “vision” statement but instead contained a
“promise” to the community. This promise included a common purpose of inspiring each and
every student to succeed, rigorous programs relevant to a diverse and changing world, and high
expectations that respected differences in students (Ulta Sierra Unified School District, 2020).
Consistent with this promise, the two directors who supervised principals and two of the four
high school principals touched upon definitions such as healthy communication with parents,
active extracurriculars, and increased access for historically marginalized students when asked
about school climate. Their answers connected to the district’s promise by citing elements that
helped lead to the fulfillment of the promise. For example, Director Day expressed her
understanding of the elements of a healthy school climate when she said:
First of all, communication with parents is huge. You need to overcommunicate with
your community. Welcoming parents onto campus, valuing the work that they do…just
thanking them, and making sure they know they’re valued. The athletic pieces of schools,
huge; the performing arts pieces of schools, huge. To support those, and to show up at
some of those events, and to be there, and be present, and acknowledge the hard work
that many volunteers do to run the school as well. Families, volunteers, extracurriculars.
Being supportive of all that is also part of a healthy school climate.
Director Day defined a positive school climate as a focus on ensuring clear pathways of
communication between the school and parents when she stated that communication with parents
was “huge.” She also pointed to extracurricular activities as indications of a positive school
climate as they invited student and parental participation. Inferred when she said athletics and
performing arts were “huge” was a recognition of the role extracurriculars played in keeping kids
147

positively connected to school. Furthermore, her example of athletics and performing arts
telegraphed a certain emphasis on higher academic expectations as students must reach a certain
level of academic achievement to participate. Director Day’s demonstrated knowledge of a
healthy school climate is important because Hitt and Tucker (2015) found a healthy school
climate contributed to high-quality instruction.
Director Day’s emphasis on positive communication with parents was echoed by Director
James when she was presented with hypothetical situations inspired by real challenges a school
may face. In this example, she was given a vignette depicting parents who were upset with the
treatment their child was receiving from a teacher. In her response, Director James pointed to the
ineffectiveness of non-personal communication when she said:
We get wrapped up in the email thread, it’s gone back and forth like 12 times. You’re no
longer getting to solutions, pick up the phone. You have to, or bring them in, sometimes
you just have to do that…let’s just call each other and talk about solutions.
Director James’s directive, instructing the principal to “pick up the phone,” demonstrated her
belief in the importance of the principal being responsive and available to parents and proactive
in maintaining productive relationships among adults. This emphasis on positive parental
communication was in line with Director Day’s statements. Director James’s emphasis on
finding “solutions” within her directive to personally communicate with parents suggested her
view of a positive school climate was achieved “where collegiality exists (Drago-Severson,
2012).
While data from Directors Day and James did reveal the district had coherence on the
topic of climate, it was not clear how either director fostered the development of principals to
effectively lead toward creating a healthy school climate. Consistent with the first theme, the
148

directors were not tasked with, nor did they see it as their responsibility to foster principals’
development in this area. Instead, their responsibility was to ensure programs or structures were
in place and that principals functioned to implement those adopted programs or structures. For
example, when speaking about her approach to guiding her principals, Director Day expressed it
was the principal’s responsibility to manage the school’s climate, not hers. She explained this by
using the metaphor of guiding a ship in a specified direction and it was the principal’s
responsibility to drive that ship. She stated:
I certainly had that freedom when I was a principal to develop my own vision and I
looked to the district to support me in that. I had a director who would sit down and
discuss those things with me and help me to shape my vision for my school in that way.
That’s the same way that I handle my schools and it’s not so much of a vision as it is a
culture for their school. If there’s a principal that needs to change or tweak the culture of
their school, I help them find ways to do that. I always talk about change, cultural change
or change in any way has to happen at the pace of the Queen Mary because if you do it at
the pace of a speedboat, not a lot of people are going to be on that ship.
Director Day began by expressing when she was a school site principal, she had the freedom to
develop and shape the vision of her own school and adopted the same philosophy as a director.
She noted when she was a principal, her director would “discuss” and “help” her shape her
vision for her school so as a supervisor of principals, she saw her role as one of support. She
drew a line from her time as principal to explain her view as one where school “vision” meant
“culture.” When working with principals as their supervisor, she stated she helped “them find
ways” to change or tweak the climate they had decided upon, not develop their capacity to shape
the climate in the first place. She concluded by introducing the metaphor of a ship as describing
149

the climate of the school and one way of her providing support to her principals was to help them
recognize that a change in climate does not happen quickly. She situated herself in relation to her
principals as a support to their driving the climate of the school. Additionally, part of her support
was to help principals see that change in school climate not only takes time, it also requires the
buy in and participation of the community.
Director Day continued to explain how the specifics of improving school climate were
not the directors’ responsibility. She noted that USUSD’s approach to improving instruction as
outlined in theme one was similar to their approach to improving school climate when she said,
“I don’t guide those ships, they do. That’s why we have the principal, that’s what we pay the
principal to do, to guide that ship.” Director Day further emphasized the responsibility for the
direction of school climate was not hers when she said, “I don’t guide those ships.” Additionally,
she demonstrated the expectation that it was the principals who were supposed to guide the
direction of their school climate when she said, “that’s what we pay the principal to do.” She saw
it as the principal’s job to ensure a positive school climate, not hers.
Even when she disagreed with the direction a site principal wanted to take for a school,
Director Day still saw it as her role to support principals in making a change. She gave the
following example:
If the school wants to change their bell schedule, I may think that’s the worst academic
support idea that you’ve ever come up with. It’s not my ship, it’s their ship. My role
would be to help that principal guide that ship, talk to their teachers, guide their teacher
thinking, look at all the other factors that go with this, ask a few questions. Have you
considered this? Have you seen this data? Kind of bring more information to the table for
them and let them guide their own ship.
150

As a school climate issue, the example of the bell schedule demonstrated her deference to the
principals to make decisions for the direction of their schools. Her statement specifying she may
think changing the schedule was the “worst” idea the principal had come up with indicated she
did not perceive it as her role to directly coach principals to lead toward any particular vision
even though she had her own (negative) idea about how the decision might affect school climate.
Her statement indicating her role was to “help the principal” was further evidence of her view
that it should be the principal who was driving the direction of the school and the director’s role
was to respond to the principal’s lead. Director Day continued:
If the superintendent or the cabinet thinks the ship needs to go in a particular direction,
I’m all over that. I work with that principal, I give them information, I ask those guiding
questions, I give them data. I don’t see my role as guiding the ships of the schools. That’s
the principal’s role. We pay him big bucks to do that job. I’m not doing their job for
them. I’m here to support them.
Director Day explained that while school climate was the principals’ responsibility, other entities
in the district such as the cabinet or superintendent may step in and give direction, effectively
bypassing the director. When direction was given to the principals from the superintendent or
cabinet, Director Day stated she was “all over that,” providing support to principals through
information, data, and guiding questions. Her approach reflected the district’s view of the
directors’ role as one of supporting principals, not fostering their development.
Two of Director Day’s principals confirmed her assessment of the role she played. First,
Principal Kane, in response to an inquiry regarding whether he had conversations with Director
Day about school climate replied, “No.” As a follow up, when asked what role Director Day did
play in affecting the climate of his school, he replied, “I think if it (school climate) was bad her
151

role plays into, ‘Hey, would you give us a heads up, what are people saying?’” Principal Kane
communicated his perception that Director Day’s role was not to foster his development as it
related to school climate but to warn her, give her a “heads up,” about potential difficulties she
expected him to fix himself. Another school site principal responded to a query asking how he
thought Principal Day would react if a time came when he would want to make changes to the
direction of his school. Principal Miller replied:
We just make these decisions and it’s more of reporting back about what we’re doing and
how’s it going and those kinds of things. But I think she definitely does believe that it is
our school site, and we have the freedom to do a lot.
With his response, Principal Miller revealed his perception that deciding the direction of the
school climate was his decision to make. His belief that they could make decisions and report
back and they had the “freedom to do a lot” indicated that he did not perceive Director Day as a
direct source to guide his decisions. Instead, he was expected to make them himself.
Similar to the district’s approach to improving instruction, the specifics of managing the
improvement of school climate as it related to character education and CRSL was not directly
given to the directors to accomplish through coaching. Instead, a partnership was formed with
two entities to deliver character education and address the equity gap. At the time of data
collection, the two programs were The Medal of Honor character education program and Equal
Opportunity Schools. In relation to improving school climate, these programs were drivers for
the directors to introduce social-emotional programming to the schools and promote a culturally
responsive climate.
Director Day introduced a character education program to help students “explore the
concepts of courage, commitment, sacrifice, patriotism, integrity, and citizenship and how these
152

values can be exemplified in daily life” (Medal of Honor Foundation, 2020). She explained how
the Medal of Honor program was introduced to the district in much the same way as Marzano’s
Nine Instructional Strategies:
Another initiative that I did, I don’t know if you’ve heard of the Medal of Honor training.
It’s character education. I took all of my secondary principals up to be trained on that,
because I wanted them to see the value in that they could bring to their school sites. My
principals went, and then my colleague thought it was a good idea. She got all of her
(elementary) principals up there, and then we started getting our teachers. All of our
teachers have been trained in the Medal of Honor. That is our character education
program.
In this example, Director Day pointed out how the adoption of a character education program
included training for the secondary principals and was expanded to the elementary level. She
concluded by saying all the teachers have been trained on it and it is their adopted character
education program. Adopting the Medal of Honor program potentially brought many aspects of a
positive school climate, such as integrity and being a good citizen, to schools. Yet, it once again
excluded the directors from the responsibility of developing principals’ capacity through
coaching. Once again, all of the principals and teachers were taken to an outside training instead
of Director Day having the responsibility of coaching her principals to lead toward a positive
school climate. This adoption was another example of the district’s focus on pushing programs to
the principals instead of supporting principals in the development of their own capacity as
instructional leaders.
Similarly, when addressing the equity gap, Ulta Sierra opted to partner with an outside
source rather than task directors with the responsibility of fostering principal development to
153

improve school climate. Director Day stated, “So we took on an initiative for Equal Opportunity
Schools, where we wanted to open up rigorous classes, AP and IB courses to any student without
prerequisites.” She communicated this was a district goal when she said “we” and indicated an
understanding that there was a lack of equity and access for some students in USUSD so they
wanted to open up opportunities to “any student without prerequisites.” This language of “any
student without prerequisites” suggested she might have meant students from historically
marginalized groups. It was clear that this was the intent of Ulta Sierra’s partner, Equal
Opportunity Schools (EOS), as the organization’s mission was to “ensure that students of color
and low-income students have equitable access to America’s most academically intense high
school programs and succeed at the highest levels” (Equal Opportunity Schools, 2020). The
focus of EOS on bringing students who had been historically marginalized into higher academic
classes suggested USUSD reflected at least some alignment to Culturally Responsive School
leadership. As a means of addressing the equity gap, Khalifa (2018) called on leaders to
encourage high level learning for all student populations. Even so, Director Day’s statement
indicating the district wanted to open up classes to “any student” did not make it clear that she,
as the director, was specifically targeting historically marginalized students. It is possible this
disconnect between Director Day’s “all students” comment and Equal Opportunity Schools’
intent to target historically marginalized students occurred because, in partnering with this
program, the director was the pusher of an initiative she may not have fully understood, not the
driver responsible for building principals’ capacity.
The first phase of Equal Opportunity Schools’ “Action for Equity” model focused on
increasing participation rates in AP and IB classes for students of color and low-income students
154

(Equal Opportunity Schools, 2020). Director Day communicated that this was a goal for the
district when she said:
We convinced our school board, because it was in board policy that these prerequisites
were there. We convinced the school board to just take those out and they did. There are
no prerequisites to get into an AP class or an IB classes, there just aren’t. Then we did
something else, we went to the schools and we had them do outreach to kids.
Director Day mentioned an early step in the implementation of the program was to convince the
school board to change the policy regarding prerequisites, an important step in opening up
access. She then mentioned having schools do outreach. Absent in her statement was a
commensurate focus on the principal as an instructional leader driving the equity initiative or the
director as actively working with the principal to do the work. The district went straight from
changing the rules to recruitment. Director Day added:
Once we started this initiative, the equal opportunities for students, it exploded. We had
to get more teachers trained on how to teach AP or IB. We also had to give the teachers
more professional development around how to support a kid that’s not your typical AP
kid in an AP class. We offered bridge classes over the summer for these kids to go into to
prepare them to be successful in an AP class. We went from eight sections to 20 sections.
Then we held our breath that first year till we got the AP pass rates. Our AP pass rates
were about 80%. After this initiative, the AP pass rates, 82% didn’t go down at all and
we’ve maintained that percentage.
Director Day pointed to the initiative’s success by stating it “exploded” and they had to train
more teachers to meet demand. She also pointed to offering bridge classes to support students
and the AP pass rates as evidence of its success. Her statement suggested that it was an intention
155

at the district level to bring in a program more responsive to USUSD’s underserved population,
and on a certain level, it was successful. However, the initiative was not realized in a robust,
nuanced way ensuring long-term success by equipping principals to be culturally responsive
school leaders. Instead, principals were placed in the role of implementing a program the
director’s adopted for them. Absent was a role for the director to foster principals’ development
toward a positive school climate.
Finding 2: Ulta Sierra’s Directors Enacted the Role the Constructed by the District by
Focusing on the Procedures Related to the Operation of the District instead of Instruction
or School Culture, Resulting in a Superficial Approach to the Improvement of Both. Each
Director used Different Approaches when Supervising Principals so a Clear Pathway to the
Development of a School Site Principal was not Present.
The directors at Ulta Sierra Unified School District enacted the role the district
constructed tor them by focusing on procedure and limiting the investigation of any given
problem to the search for a quick, simple solution. There was a lack of emphasis on searching for
a deep understanding of the problems they were asking the principals to solve. Neither director
saw it as her job to ensure principals had a complex understanding of instruction or school
climate. Therefore, they failed to promote its improvement and actively handed the responsibility
for improving instruction to an outside provider. Instead of focusing their energy on the
improvement of instruction, they focused on structural matters within the district. Additionally,
in their approach to supervising principals, each director forged a different path. Director Day
did not see herself as a coach, instead viewing her principals as fully formed, needing support,
not direction. Director James took a coaching stance, believing her principals capable of growth
yet still working within the structure the district constructed.
156

Theme 1: In the Context of Operations, Both Directors Favored an Approach to Supervising
Principals that Focused on Procedure, Limiting the Investigation of a Given Problem to
Quick, Simple Solutions Rather Than a Deep Understanding of Problems They were Asking
Principals to Solve
When managing principals, Ulta Sierra Unified School District’s directors emphasized a
procedural approach that oversimplified problems instead of recognizing them as complex issues
requiring a reflective act to investigate. Directors used a process with their principals where they
communicated a specific step by step approach to be used when solving problems and engaged
in a deductive process using questioning to reinforce their expectations. As a result, the district
turned situations into operational problems that were able to be solved with established
procedures. Neither director approached issues with a reflective practice designed to help
principals recognize situations as complex problems that led them to a deep understanding of the
ways in which problems were most likely instructional or cultural by nature. The necessary type
of reflective practice is a process comprised of several components: identifying elements of a
significant matter, engaging in dialogue and evaluating insights while considering additional
perspectives, examining one’s own values, and considering the larger context within which the
situation occurs (Jay & Johnson, 2002). The procedural approach taken by USUSD’s directors
differed from my conceptual framework where I argued reflective practice is necessary to
achieve instructional improvement, and a positive school climate and reflective practice should
be modeled and taught by directors responsible for supervising principals (Hvidston et al., 2018;
Jay & Johnson, 2002).
One example of the way Director Day demonstrated her inclination to approach problems
presented at the school site procedurally rather than by engaging her principals in reflection was
157

seen in her response to a vignette depicting a hypothetical situation between a parent and a
teacher. In this scenario, a parent was angry because the teacher consistently singled out her
daughter for alleged misbehavior while ignoring misbehavior on the part of other students.
Furthermore, the parent accused the teacher of ignoring her daughter when she asked for help,
volunteered, or raised her hand. The vignette culminated with the teacher accusing her daughter
of cheating on a test, an accusation the girl denied. Director Day’s approach with her principals
when presented with this scenario was to focus on the procedural instead of looking for the
complex roots of the problem. In describing how she would respond; she said her first step was
to redirect the parent back to the principal:
If a parent gets to me and they haven’t met with the principal, I don’t meet with them and
I don’t even have the conversation with them. I will tell them. Meet with the principal.
Go back to the site. If you’re still not satisfied, I’m all yours. But until you meet with the
principal, you haven’t done what you need to do to help resolve that.
Here Director Day explained the first step in the procedure she designed was for parents to talk
to or meet with the principal, bypassing Jay and Johnson’s (2002) reflective practice and
positioning herself as the second layer in an accountability process. Her quotation demonstrated
her focus on the structure of communication she expected to be in place and on the procedures
associated with that structure. This resulted in her characterizing the problem as being about how
the school operated in terms of communication between the principal and the parent. Her
procedural response turned a situation that was most likely a problem of classroom culture and
instructional practice into an operational problem with a simple solution. She did not herself, nor
did she ask her principal to, engage in Jay and Johnson’s (2002) reflective practice to investigate
158

the quality of instruction or the quality of the classroom climate as it related to the parent
complaint. She explained the continuation of the procedure:
And then, of course, let the principal know that the situation came to my desk. “I’ve
redirected them back to you and, oh, by the way, what’s going on? Tell me about it.”
So, this parent thinks that the teacher’s singling out her student for misbehavior and
letting others get away with misbehavior. So, the parent doesn’t trust that the teacher has
good classroom management, doesn’t think that her student is being treated fairly in the
classroom. So, the first thing I’m going to do when I talk to the principal about this is say,
“So, who’s been in that classroom? Who on your team has been in that classroom and
what are they observing?” We have a system in place where all classrooms should be
visited by administrators at all schools all the time, and there’s a paper trail behind that.
Director Day began with a “heads up” and an invitation for the principal to tell her about the
situation. It appeared at this point she was inviting the principal to reflect on their practice and
explore elements of the situation, consistent with Jay and Johnson’s (2003) reflective practice of
identifying elements of significance and engaging in dialogue. However, she quickly moved to
asking procedural questions such as, “who’s been in that classroom?” and “What are they
observing?” With these questions, Director Day closed the path to reflection in favor of a review
of the procedures she expected the principal to have in place. Her quotation demonstrated her
inclination to approach the problem procedurally and indicated she had already decided the
problem was one of communication. This was instead of approaching the situation reflectively,
which would have allowed her to recognize it as a problem of instruction or climate. She
concluded by stating clearly not only were there procedures in place that must be followed, there
also was a paper trail to ensure they were followed. Through this data, Director Day telegraphed
159

a highly structured, procedural approach suggestive of Bolman and Deal’s (2013) Four Frame
Model of Leadership. Her directive questioning pointed toward the structural frame with specific
roles, rules, and an identified chain of command (Bolman & Deal, 2001, 2013). Absent in her
approach was an invitation for the principal to self reflect and an opportunity to discuss those
insights in a deeply reflective or critical way leading to improving instruction or a positive
school climate (Hvidston et al., 2018; Jay & Johnson, 2002).
Additionally, during her interview, Director Day telegraphed that she created a system
favoring operations and, in some cases, had already decided upon an answer when her principals
brought a situation to her attention:
Sometimes, it doesn’t matter what they choose. Here are some ideas, and you make up
your mind, and let me know what you’ve decided. Sometimes, there is a right choice, and
here is what it is, and let me know when you’ve done that. Get back to me so that I can
make sure that I have the right information when I report to one of the assistant sups or
the sup.
Director Day began by saying, “Sometimes it doesn’t matter what they choose.” In this
statement, she asserted that if the principal was following the procedures she developed, they
would make the correct decision and report back to her. She continued, saying there was a “right
choice” and if the principal did not make the correct one, Director Day would tell them what it
was and expect them to follow through and report back to her so she could report to district
leadership. She communicated her tendency to focus on the operations of the district and
expected her principals to follow procedures to the exclusion of other options such as deep
reflection. Her focus on the procedural did not provide her principals with an opportunity to slow
160

down and discover a situation’s real problem and be in a position to respond in a thoughtful way
(Jay & Johnson, 2003; Rodgers, 2002).
Director James, when given the same vignette, also focused on procedures and took a
deductive approach, asking the following questions:
Have you seen any documentation from the teacher regarding these incidences? Is she
collecting data regarding these incidences or just the emails when she emails the parent?
And that discipline plan or whatever the classroom organization plan, management plan
that’s been shared with the parents? Okay. Are some of these behaviors being
documented in your SIS system?
Director James’s questioning demonstrated an operational approach ensuring procedures were
followed instead of discussing a path to a deeper understanding of the problem. She focused on
making sure the principal was equipped to provide data documenting the teacher’s performance
rather than guiding a deep reflective process. Director James’s approach differed from what
Hvidston et al. (2018) argued was necessary for a successful relationship between a principal and
a supervisor. They included self-reflection and then a process of discussing insights gained
through the act of reflection as necessary for growth as a principal (Hvidston et al., 2018).
Similar to Director Day, Director James’s approach was absent of any reflective process as she
immediately concentrated on a procedure her principals were expected to have in place and
follow.
As the scenario continued, Director James focused on the principal’s use of the word
“frustration” at the expense of digging deeper to find the root cause of the problem being
discussed:
161

You can’t really use the word frustration because it’s a standalone, it’s subjective. You
need to follow it up (with) data. Like in that case, you probably could even break it down
mathematically and say, 32 kids in a class and you addressed issues or corrections and or
supports with six students for a total of 32 comments, 20 of those were addressed to
Susie.
This focus on the effect the use of a certain word might have on the outcome of the scenario
demonstrated Director James’s emphasis on the procedural rather than a search for
understanding. In her reaction to the vignette, she suggested that if the principal’s language was
precise and backed up by data, the problem would be solved. In placing her focus on the
procedural collection of data, Director James did not lead her principal to an understanding of the
root cause of the problem in the classroom between the child and the teacher. This failure denied
the principal the ability to engage in a reflective process and be in a position to respond to a
problem in a thoughtful way.
Director James further explained the district focus on the operations of the organization
and how it helped principals be successful:
At Ulta Sierra, what we have is we have established this accountability process where all
of our certificated staff have a professional learning plan. And that really is the
foundation for us to be able to not only supervise, evaluate, but also is a document where
we can use a third point and talk about goals and supports that we can provide for them
and a tool for conversation as well.
Director James stated the professional learning plan served as a data point, a third point, to be
used to talk about goals and supports leading to accountability. Absent was a discussion of
reflection as a tool for principals to develop a path for improvement, suggesting the focus on
162

operations was present for interactions between principals and directors as well as between
principals and members of their school community.
Theme 2: Neither Director saw it as Her Job to Ensure Principals had Complex
Understanding of Instruction or School Climate. They Failed to Directly and Actively Promote
or Facilitate its Improvement. There was not an Overt Energy Focused on Improving
Instruction, its Improvement was Handed to an Outside Provider, as the Directors’ Energy was
Focused on Structural Matters Rather Than Instruction
During data collection, in response to interview questions and vignettes, when given an
opportunity to turn the conversation about the quality of instruction toward working to a deep
understanding, both Directors Day and James turned away from a common language toward
improving instruction. As standards for school leaders, the CPSELs call for principals to engage
in collaborative inquiry and problem solving (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing,
2014). To meet that standard, directors who supervise principals are called to establish and
sustain learning communities that promote innovative thinking (Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2015). Evidence from the previous finding demonstrated USUSD adopted programs as
a vehicle to improve instruction. Therefore, evidence showing a common analytic language
around those programs in both directors’ discourse when discussing developing principals’
capacity was expected. However, neither director demonstrated intentionality or commonality of
discourse around instruction that would lead to instructional improvement.
Director Day’s approach to creating a common language around instruction was to adopt
an outside source, in this case Marzano’s Nine Instructional Practices, centered on a set of steps
for teachers to take instead of creating a conversation around the improvement of instructional
practices. She explained:
163

We all have a common language when it comes to instructional practice. Every teacher
has the Classroom Instruction That Works poster. So that it’s consistent throughout the
district. These are research proven to improve student learning if you use these nine
instructional practices. That’s how you improve instruction.
The common language in Director Day’s reference was the language contained in the Classroom
Instruction That Works posters placed in all district classrooms. Her discussion of the poster did
not suggest an endeavor toward making it an interactive tool able to assist in the development
and continuation of a common analytic language. Instead, when she spoke of the posters creating
consistency around the district, her language communicated the posters as being something
physically present without being meant as a vehicle for discussion around good instructional
practice. Her language did not speak to the posters as an interactional tool for examining and
improving instruction. Instead, her discourse suggested her view of the posters as static tools not
able to guarantee the presence of a common analytic language. Absent from her discussion when
she spoke of the instructional practices as being research proven was any indication of an
expectation that the language of the practices would become a regular part of the vocabulary in
the district. In Elmore’s (2005) discussion of internal accountability, he defined it as the
alignment of individual values with collective experiences reinforced by the process of
accountability. His idea that internal accountability required coherence was not apparent in
Director Day’s description of how the Nine Instructional Strategies improve instruction. She
mentioned the adoption of the program without following it up with a plan to use it to develop
the consistency Elmore (2005) deemed necessary.
Director Day continued to explain how she sought to improve instruction in Ulta Sierra
Unified School District’s schools:
164

The training goes on in every faculty meeting in every school K-12, they touch on one
part of those instructional practices. Having a common language around proven
instruction, that works. It’s what I’ve done to improve instruction in the district.
Director Day’s assertion that during training they “touch” on one part of the nine instructional
practices suggested a surface level approach to the understanding of Marzano’s practices.
Implied in her discussion was the view that discourse created during these trainings was not
about digging in and understanding how each practice made instruction better, as would be
required for instructional improvement. Instead, it was about ensuring all teachers followed the
same set of procedures as an instructional method. Furthermore, her discourse around “a
common language around proven instruction that works” did not have a clear meaning. For
example, her answer did not specify how the principals would know if the teachers were enacting
practices in a way that supported learning or what kind of learning was being supported. Such
evidence about student achievement or lack thereof, was necessary for Director Day to have for
her to focus on how or whether students were learning (Council of Chief School State Officers,
2015). She was also not specific as to whether she directed principals toward an understanding of
how to recognize when the practices were being used or what it looked like when the practices
were successful.
Director Day spoke about the quality of instruction being delivered when she responded
to a vignette where a parent complained about a teacher’s treatment of her daughter. After she
acknowledged there were two issues in the vignette, Director Day turned her attention to
instruction:
In fact, you’ve got two issues in here. You’ve got the bullying, and somehow that’s being
allowed to happen, and you’ve got the inequity of access to education there. So, often,
165

you’ve got to do two things. You’ve got to reveal the data to the principal, but you’ve
also got to give the principal some skills and resources to be able to fix that, because the
principal is going to have to retrain his or her teachers so that they can know how to teach
a kid who doesn’t have the tutor at home and doesn’t have the parent who’s given them
world travel and expanded their horizons. But there needs to be some teacher training as
far as that goes. You might want to get that principal thinking about some summer bridge
classes during summer school that could help those marginalized students be prepared to
take a more rigorous course when they come to the campus. And you’ve got to find your
coalition of the willing and passionate teachers who would like to do that.
When Director Day stated her responsibility was to “reveal” data to the principal and give them
the resources to “fix” the problem, she depicted her job as one of guiding the principal to identify
and fix rather than investigate and understand. This is inconsistent with the case study method,
identified by Wagner (2007), often used to yield a deep understanding of a problem before
attempting a solution. She identified the problem as one of inequity of access and chose a path
toward solving a problem rather than initiating discourse to gain understanding. Absent in her
discussion of an instructional problem was any reference to the Nine Instructional Strategies that
were adopted as a means for instructional improvement and common instructional language for
the district. Data did not reveal an effort on her part to link the solution to this particular
instructional problem to any district developed or adopted common language around
investigating instructional practice to identify and address inequities. Her failure to link the
solution in the vignette to any district adopted program suggested an absence of a common
language around instruction. Her assertion that the teacher needed to be trained and the student
should be provided with a bridge program suggested a superficial fix to a problem she perceived
166

rather than a search for understanding leading to a lasting change in how instruction was
approached and delivered. In her response to this scenario, there was a lack of discussion of, or
reference to, the Nine Strategies Director Day had previously introduced as the vehicle for a
common analytic language in the district.
Director Day continued to describe her approach to addressing inequity in instruction
when she stated she would encourage her principals to bring the issue up at a staff meeting:
So I would encourage the principal to, first of all, understand the data for him or herself
and talk about that in a staff meeting. “We’re doing so great, look at us, we’re wonderful,
but we’ve got some kids we are leaving behind, and I know none of you want to do that.
None of you feel good about that and I don’t either. So, I’ve come up with a few ideas.
I’m going to ask you to come up with some ideas and then we’re going to continue to talk
about this and make improvements in that area.” Being an instructional leader, that’s
what I would tell the principal, and here’s how you do that. It’s access to education. And
if it’s unequal, then no one’s going to feel good about that because teachers are good
people.
After encouraging the principal to understand the data, Director Day directed the principal to
bring up the inequity of instruction at a staff meeting. Implied in her suggestion that the principal
bring in a few ideas and then ask for ideas from the teachers appeared to be an effort toward
discourse. Elmore (2006) stated a higher degree of internal accountably is accomplished through
the development of internal processes and common norms and expectations for instructional
practices. Therefore, in this vignette, it would be expected if the language of the Nine
Instructional Practices was embedded in the culture of the district as a common analytic
language, connections to it would be made when Director Day was guiding a principal how to
167

discuss addressing inequity in instruction. Instead, her direction was for the principal to open up
the discussion to “ideas” from the teachers rather than guiding them with a common vocabulary
around instructional improvement. In her discussion, it was not clear the discourse she suggested
the principals engage in would reveal an understanding of the teachers’ practice and how their
practice contributed to the inequity of education. Furthermore, she continued to describe the
discussion as ongoing when she said they would “continue to talk” with the aim of “making
improvements” without a clear reference to what she had previously put forward as the district’s
adopted strategy for improving instruction. This implied she saw the purpose of the talking
among the principals and teachers as directing them toward the fixing of a problem, not creating
conditions around a rich conversation about instructional practice or creating and conveying a
strategic vision as Hitt and Tucker (2016) suggested. She finished by telling her principals they
were to be an “instructional leader” without defining what that was or what it looked like.
10

Absent from her answer were any moves toward creating conditions through the use of her
adopted program that was supposed to support the development of common analytical language
around instruction.
When discussing the same vignette, Director James approached her principals with a
positive presupposition and an intent to help teachers improve without working toward
developing or referring to a common analytic language:
Because it’s either the teacher doesn’t have the tools, or the teacher is refusing to do the
job. Those are the two avenues and we’re always going to go with the positive
presupposition that they don’t have the tools. And so that’s where we’re going to start.

10
The Model Principal Supervisor Professional Standards (2015) defined instructional
leadership as, “Those actions that a principal takes, or delegates to others, to promote student
learning” (p. 3).
168

And so that’s what I would coach them through is, starting with this, how are you going
to support them? We talk a lot about, we actually use our induction TOSA a lot to support
even teachers outside of the program. So, go visit other teachers, see good instruction,
have conversations with them, use this process to guide them in their goal development
and what resources are available to them and things like that.
When Director James spoke of “tools,” her meaning was not clear. As the Nine Instructional
Strategies were a district adopted program for improving instruction, Director James’s lack of
reference to them when discussing “tools” suggested they were not embedded as common
language around examining practices and improving instruction in the district. Rather than taking
the opportunity when discussing this scenario to turn toward a discourse around examining
instruction as being the path to improvement as called for by Lochmiller (2014) and Hvidston et
al. (2018), Director James took a more superficial route, asking how the principal would
“support” the teacher. Moving on, Director James mentioned the use of the induction TOSA
(Teacher on Special Assignment) and observing other teachers as methods of “support” for
teachers to improve instruction. Absent from these two methods was any mention of a common
analytic language present in the district enabling teachers to examine their practice and discuss it
with a common frame of reference. Director James concluded by stating teachers have “good”
conversations with each other without defining the elements of a “good” conversation. In her
discussion, there was a lack of evidence of a common analytic language being present in the
district either in the form of the Nine Instructional Strategies mentioned by Director Day or
another form. If such a language were embedded into the district’s culture, one would expect to
have seen it in Director James’s discussion.
169

As a leadership practice, Director James asked her principals to reflect at the beginning of
each year before conducting a self-assessment based on the CPSELs. The guiding principles of
the CPSELs expected them to inform leadership development, challenge assumptions, promote
continued learning, and acknowledge the need for ongoing dialogue (California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing, 2014). The examples she used for the frame she constructed as their tool
did not relate to the CPSELs guiding principles because, among other things, they did not
mention a common analytic language or guide them to a level of reflection to help principals
evaluate and understand instruction or how to improve it:
So, it’s my preliminary activities before the self-assessment. So even an activity like,
what do you hope for your school this year? So, you’re setting the context. What was a
strength or weakness? Identify one strength and one weakness of your school. If a person,
a stranger walked onto your campus, what would they automatically know right away? Is
it good or bad? So, you have all those activities where you’re just priming the pump and
just getting them to raise those things to the surface so that when they do their self-
assessment, those CPSELs that they’re going to focus on, naturally jump out.
Director James’s first example asked principals to decide what they “hope” for the school this
year had the potential for something deeper than a surface level reflection. However, instead of
following up with questions that challenged principals into deeper thinking, such as exploring
motives for behavior or challenging viewpoints, she followed up with questions that returned to
surface reflection such as, “identify one strength and weakness” and what a stranger would
“know” about the school after walking on to it. Elmore (2006) stated the improvement process
requires analysis and discussions of instructional practice. However, the data did not reveal any
evidence of a common language with which to examine instruction and its improvement in the
170

way Director James talked to her principals about their work around instruction. While Director
James identified these questions as “priming the pump” for their self-assessment, none of her
questions contained common language, common knowledge, or a common skill base. These
elements were defined by Elmore (2006) as necessary to guide or challenge principals to actively
test their understanding of instruction or begin a conversation about its improvement. Director
James tied principals’ reflection to the school’s achievement, not to improving the understanding
of the principal. This did not lead to deep understanding or a focus on the causes of the strengths
and weaknesses she asked them to identify. Director James used the CPSELS as a jumping off
point, without mentioning a common analytic language. By not including reflection, she
prevented them from progressing toward a level of deep understanding that would help to lead to
deeper understanding and principal growth.
Both Director Day and Director James focused on fixing problems rather than an
understanding of the underlying causes of problems that would lead to improving practice. They
talked about program implementation without evidence demonstrating they internalized the
language of the programs they indicated were important. In particular, Director Day used the
verbiage of a common language across the district, yet it was not apparent in the way she spoke
about instruction or relayed how she communicated with her principals about instruction.
171

Theme 3: In Their Standard Approach to Supervising Principals, Each Director Forged a
Different Path. Director Day Did Not View Herself as a Coach and Believed Her Principals
Were Already Formed and Fixed in Their Abilities. Director James Took More of a Coaching
Stance, Believing Her Principals Were Capable of Growth and Improvement yet Still Worked
Within the Structure of a System that Favored the Procedural Over Reflective
In my conceptual framework, I argued a principal supervisor’s, in this case a director’s,
role in fostering the growth of principals toward improving instruction and a positive school
climate included coaching. I further argued several elements must be present in the coaching
relationship such as creating a safe space, providing feedback, goal setting, having critical
conversations, and support, for the relationship to be successful. For example, directors must
create a space with a chance to “authentically acknowledge the challenges, frustrations, and areas
of needed growth” (Celoria & Robinson, 2015, p. 95) and welcome input from principals,
especially regarding goal setting and vision (Celoria & Robinson, 2015; Gimble & Kefor, 2018;
Hvidston; et al., 2018; Lochmiller, 2018). I further argued that scheduling protected time for
coaching is essential to its success. Without protected time, other demands for the attention of
both the director and the supervisor often supersede coaching time, lessening the effectiveness of
the coaching relationship (Gimble & Kefor, 2018; Hvidston et al., 2018; Lochmiller, 2018).
Additionally, Lochmiller (2014) stated coaches should model behaviors such as courageous
conversations for principals as they clarify thinking and allow principals to engage in reflections
that point to a deeper understanding of issues and possible solutions. Directors who were willing
to press administrators out of places of comfort through courageous conversations help them
grow (Lochmiller, 2014). Also essential to the process of fostering the development of principals
was the goal setting process. Hvidston, et al. (2015), the CPSELs (2014), and Model Principal
172

Supervisor Professional Standards (2015) all pointed to directors collaborating with principals to
set goals for the coaching process as being essential to its success. When planning for data
collection, I expected to see some or all of these elements demonstrated by the USUSD’s
directors.
Neither of Ulta Sierra’s directors embraced all of the aforementioned elements necessary
for a successful coaching relationship. Director Day did not see herself as a coach when it came
to working with her principals. Therefore, she did not take a growth-oriented approach and treat
them as learners when working with them. Instead, she viewed her role as one of support and
giving information to principals who she believed already had the skills needed to find an
answer. Director James did see herself as a coach, and she saw the principals she supervised as
being capable of growing and improving in their work. She used open-ended questioning when
working with her principals and left room for their input and discovery. Additionally, rather than
telling a principal the answer when the solution was not immediately obvious, Director James
continued to question, allowing the principal to explore possible solutions in the process.
However, she used her questioning to guide principals to what she considered a viable solution
and if they did not get there, she would change to a consultant stance, becoming more directive.
Even though Director James enacted many attributes of coaching, they were insufficient to
promote the kind of interaction necessary for reflective practice that was able to identify
underlying problems principals were facing and to address them in more powerful ways. While
Director James engaged in certain practices consistent with those necessary for a good coaching
relationship, the approach she took to enacting them constrained the kind of experience she
created for her principals. While each director’s method of guiding principles contained some
elements of successful coaching capable of leading to growth, neither approach possessed all the
173

elements necessary to guide principals to a deep reflection and understanding capable of leading
them to instructional improvement or a positive school climate.
When working with her principals, Director Day did not see herself as a coach with the
goal of helping them grow as instructional leaders. Instead, she perceived herself as a support,
providing them with information to succeed in a job they already knew how to do. Director Day
explained her approach to working with the principals she supervised when she said:
Coaching, I don’t even use that word, but when a principal calls me with the problem,
they’re not going to get, “well this is what you should do.” They might get, well here’s
the ed codes, this is what you have to do. But they are going to get a couple of questions
for me and as they answered, I mean the conversations, maybe a minute, that’s all they
needed to just kind of bounce it off of me and feel confident that I’m going to support
their decision that they’re about to make.
Director Day did not see herself as a coach saying, “I don’t even use that word” when speaking
about how she worked with principals. Her approach to her work demonstrated her view that
principals already were positioned for success and possessed sufficient knowledge so when they
approached her with a problem, her role was to support, not guide. This was divergent from what
was expected in a successful coaching relationship where a director helps a principal clarify
thinking and guides them to engage in reflection (Lochmiller, 2014). Director Day’s approach
was reactive, expecting principals to initiate contact when they had a problem instead of
proactively working with principals to identify and work on areas of growth. Her statement
revealed this approach stemmed from her view of her principals as being well equipped to do
their job and able to recognize when they needed support. When principals initiated contact, her
approach was to probe for a minute by asking questions rather than telling the principal what to
174

do. Even though this asking of questions showed her to be engaged in a practice that might be
characterized as a coaching act, her main focus was to help the principal feel confident she
supported the solution they already knew to be right. This practice is divergent from the practice,
necessary for successful coaching, of acknowledging areas of needed growth (Celoria &
Robinson, 2015). Furthermore, the length of her typical interactions with principals demonstrated
her view that they already knew the way forward and just needed to bounce ideas off of her
rather than her doing as Lochmiller (2015) suggests, pointing them to a deeper understanding.
Her citing of education codes and stating, “this is what you have” to do, demonstrated a
procedural approach to working with principals where she relied on policies, not reflective
thought, to guide them. She finished by saying the conversations were generally short, indicating
her view that Lochmiller’s (2018) suggestion of a designated time carved out to focus on the
coaching relationship was not needed. Director Day elaborated:
There’s an assumption that I have formal coaching sessions with my principals. Not like
that. I have relationship with every one of them. They’re constantly calling me. I’m
constantly calling them. We text all the time. So, I don’t have formal coaching sessions
with any of my principals. I do go out to the school sites and sit in the office with the
principal and we close the door and we talk. You might consider that a formal coaching
session, but I don’t, doesn’t feel that way to me. It certainly doesn’t feel that way to them.
I’m just there supporting them and let (asking them to let) me know what’s new, what’s
going on at your site. I don’t calendar them. I don’t make an appointment with my
principals.
Her assertion that she did not calendar or schedule time with her principals demonstrated she did
not articulate her responsibilities as inclusive of scheduling protected time to coach her
175

principals, a necessity to ensure other demands of the job did not interfere with successful
coaching (Lochmiller, 2014). Her statement that she and her principals were “constantly” calling
each other suggested a reactive approach to guiding principles. Because she viewed her
principals as “fully formed” or “finished,” they were not on her radar unless they came to her
with a problem indicating she did not think they needed formal coaching time as they already
knew how to do their job.
When working with her principals, Director Day treated them as though they were
already formed instead of how Lochmiller (2014) stated they should be viewed, as learners in
need of guidance toward a deeper understanding. Here, she explained how she saw her role as
one of providing information:
So if a principal calls me and asks a question about what should I do in this particular
situation, and I know that principal already knows the answer, they just need that courage
to be able to make that decision on their own. I’m very intentional and not just giving
them an answer or making a decision in their behalf. So, I will ask them questions to help
guide their thinking so that they can have confidence in the decision that they already
know is the right decision to make…I use questions to help guide a principal’s thinking
around a particular decision that they need to make if they don’t come to the right
decision that I know must be made I help give them more information. This is the ed code
that we’re laboring under and these are the standards that we need to meet and kind of fill
out the information that they need in order to make good decisions.
Director Day explained that when she was working with principals, she knew they had already
had a decision in mind and her job was to ensure they made the decision she knew to be the right
one. If they did not get to the correct answer right away, she gave them more information,
176

expecting it would get them to where she wanted them to go. This directive questioning did not
leave room for, as Hvidston et al. (2018) call for, principals’ input or reflective conversations
between her and the principal. This suggested she did not provide opportunities or guidance for
principals to engage in reflection to discover how to explore issues or reflect upon their root
cause. Director Day’s quotation illustrated her reliance on structural systems such as “ed code”
(the California Education Code) and standards as the basis for decisions she expected principals
to make instead of Gimble and Kefor’s (2018) method of creating a relationship where both
principal and supervisor reflect on their practice. Director Day continued to describe her
approach to working with principals:
It’s more support, encouragement, emphasizing their strengths, allowing them
opportunities to showcase their strengths. That’s my operative mindset when I work with
my principals. So, if I had a principal that just wasn’t coming along, I mean at some point
you would have serious conversations with them about is this the right fit for you or
whatever. But I have not had that experience. I have nine principals that I coach and
they’ve all grown and continue to just amaze me with their skill and openness to grow in
whatever area we’re working on.
Her use of the words “encouragement” and “support” highlighted Director Day’s view that her
principals did not need guidance or instruction, just information. Her mindset was to give
principals “opportunities to show their strengths” because she believed they were already formed
as principals without a need to grow. Her quote suggested her view was they already knew how
to do their job and they already knew the correct decisions, they just needed support in
showcasing what they already knew. She stated that if there was a principal that “wasn’t coming
along,” she would have to have a serious conversation to determine whether the job was the right
177

fit for them. This suggested her view of her job was not to coach principals toward building their
capacity, it was to help them showcase skills they already had in place. If the skills were not
there, her instinct was to reevaluate whether that principal was the right fit for the job or not. Her
approach was in contrast to modeling behaviors and engaging in courageous conversations aimed
at helping the principal grow (Lochmiller, 2014). She concluded by saying she had never
experienced a principal “not come along” and her principals had all “grown” and continued to
amaze her. However, what she meant by “grown” was not immediately clear.
The literature (Bloom et al., 2003; Gimbel & Kefor, 2018; Hvidston et al., 2018;
Lochmiller, 2014) demonstrated an important way for principals to grow in their skills was
through the goal setting process. When asked about the importance of goals and how she set
priorities for her principals, Director Day explained:
But if I, for instance, have a principal that I know is needing support in some area, I
wouldn’t necessarily direct them to write some goals about that, but I on my end would
absolutely have some goals that were not written, were not used as evaluation, but goals
on my end how to help them grow in that area in a particular way. Well, one piece of that
is the work that we’re doing as a district, the district initiatives that we have for PLCs and
social-emotional learning, those sorts of things are non-negotiables as far as goal setting
and prioritizing the work of the principal. On the other hand, I give that right back to the
principals and let them set goals and let them evaluate where they’re at in their leadership
progress and what areas they want to work on and then I work with them on their goals.
Director Day began with the assertion that if she knew a principal needed to improve in some
way, she would not have them write goals. Instead, she would have goals in mind without
writing them down or making them part of the evaluation process. This diverged from the
178

literature that stated principals’ involvement in the goal setting, monitoring, and evaluating
process was essential to the success of the coaching relationship (Hvidston, et al., 2015; Model
Principal Supervisor Professional Standards, 2015). Director Day then explained the written
down and “non-negotiable” goals were the ones coming from district initiatives such as PLCs
and social-emotional learning instead of being based on self-reflection as Hvidston, et al. (2015)
deemed necessary. Her ending assertion that she let principals set their own goals and evaluate
their progress hinted at a collaborative goal setting process. However, her statements that she
gave “that right back” and “helps” them indicated her expectation the principals would have the
majority of the responsibility for establishing, monitoring, and evaluating their self-identified
goals and she expected to provide support. Implied in this was an emphasis by Director Day on
using goals to ensure initiatives were implemented and work was completed correctly instead of
providing a vehicle to collaboratively work toward growth. Her answer suggested her
“unwritten” goals and the principals’ self-identified goals were treated as extra, not within the
scope of the important part of her work. Therefore, because she saw principals as sufficiently
equipped to do their job, she expected formal goals to be aligned to their job and the goals she
had in her mind, or the goals the principal developed, were peripheral.
Director James, on the other hand, when working with her principals, began in a coaching
stance. She approached principals with the view they were capable of growth and she used
coaching moves suggested by Gimbel and Kefor (2018) such as feedback, support, and
questioning when working with principals. She consistently began her work by asking questions,
indicating she valued her principals’ input (Hvidston, et al., 2018). However, once the
conversation was underway, she assessed the information they shared, determined the principals’
skill level based on their answers, and adjusted her response to them based on what she heard:
179

I’m always going to start with the coaching stance, because I’m going to assume that you
have some base knowledge that I’m going to build upon. And so, the structure of that
stance and the structure of really all the stances is you always start with a question,
because you’re determining base knowledge
Director James stated she started with a “coaching stance” because she assumed her principals
had a “base knowledge” she could “build upon.” Beginning this way suggested she viewed her
principals as learners with “room to grow” and her first step was to determine the base
knowledge of the principal with whom she was working in order to determine how and where to
proceed. Director James continued, describing her next steps:
You have to go through the continuum. Sometimes I’m going to have to switch over to
collaboration, where we’re having a conversation, we have probably equal knowledge,
and we’re working through that and we’re coming up with solutions, supports in this
process. And there’s other times when I have to turn into a consultant, and that’s a little
bit more on the supervisor side. Because based on the person’s answers to my questions, I
can determine that they don’t have the skill set or knowledge.
Director James indicated she adjusted her coaching style once she assessed the needs of the
person she was coaching. She was collaborative with principals who were close to her in
knowledge and worked through solutions together. If the principal needed more support because
of a lack of skills or knowledge, she became more of a consultant that she equated to a
supervisory stance. This diverged from the completely inductive process that would be expected
in a successful coaching relationship that helped principals grow (Celoria & Roberson, 2015).
Indicated in her response was her initial view that her principals were growing, forming, and
changing, and how she adjusted her coaching style to fit their needs. However, at the end of the
180

day, data revealed she reverted to the procedural in order to ensure principals came to the “right”
answer:
Whenever I’m coaching, I know what my answer is, but I know that it’s my answer, and I
know that I am not the smartest person in the room. The room is the smartest,
collectively, and people have ideas outside the box, so I don’t go in knowing that’s the
only answer. But I have an idea. And so, what I’ve always learned in my coaching
practice is that even if I have a better understanding or more skills than the person I’m
coaching, if I can guide that person to a viable solution that they determine, they own it.
And that will most likely equal success. That’s the biggest difference. So, when I’m
having these conversations, I know what I want to get to, but I’m not going to ever state
it. I’m going to ask a question until we get there. That’s what really changes my stance. If
I asked them questions and we’re not anywhere closer, then I’m going to switch my
stance. But if I firmly believe that the person has the skills and the abilities to get to the
answer, I’m going to continually ask questions. Because they walk away from that
meeting empowered that they think they have the tools and the solutions, not someone
giving it to them.
Director James began by saying when she coached, she knew “what my answer is,” but also
acknowledged there might be another answer so she left room for input from her principals. This
indicated her view that principals had a role to play in finding a solution and guiding a principal
toward a viable solution they determined would equal success. However, Director James
returned to the procedural when she said, “I know what I want to get to…I’m going to ask
questions until we get there.” Implied in this was that Director James allowed her principals free
181

thought and input, but only up to a point. Ultimately, she saw it as her job to determine an
acceptable solution and ensure principals recognized and implemented it.
Even though Directors Day and James took different paths when guiding their principals,
both were operational in their outlook, limiting their ability to richly coach principals.
Additionally, neither approach contained all of the elements I argued in my conceptual
framework are necessary for a successful coaching relationship. Director Day saw her principals
as already formed and fixed in their ability to do their job. Therefore, she expected them to know
how to solve problems and saw it as her job to support them in doing what they already knew to
be right. Director James positioned her principals as learners and took a collaborative approach
with them as long as they were capable of arriving at a solution that fit within district’s
operational outlook.
Case Two
Happy Hills Unified School District (HHUSD) was located in the suburbs of a major
metropolitan city in California. The district’s schools served students beginning in kindergarten
up to 12
th
grade. Happy Hills Unified School District’s enrollment was approximately 10,886
students with 12% Hispanic or Latino, 6% Asian, and 5% two or more races. Approximately
16% of the student population were English Learners or eligible for free and reduced-price
meals. Approximately 4% of HHUSD’s students spoke a language other than English, including
Farsi, Hebrew, Mandarin, Russian, and Spanish. The district’s test score results indicated that
approximately 70% of students met or exceeded the English Language Arts (ELA) standards,
and 59% met or exceeded the math standards. Among Happy Hills’s low-income students,
approximately 54% met or exceeded ELA standards, and 41% met or exceeded math standards.
182

In 2017, Happy Hills introduced an initiative as an ongoing effort to support the social
and emotional needs of its students. As a follow up to a first initiative that was focused on
students, this program broadened the district’s reach to parents and community through
partnerships with mental health professionals, law enforcement, and the four areas from which
Happy Hills drew its students. The initiative served as a centralized place for families to find
information that students both in and out of school and parents could use to find resources. It also
aimed to show parents and students that as different as they all were, there were many pathways
to success. The reason for the creation of this program was the rise of student depression,
anxiety, the threat of suicide and because “a stressed-out brain can’t learn as well as one with
balance.”
For this study, the two directors who supervised principals were interviewed and
presented with vignettes. Director of Education and Leadership, George Rivera, oversaw the
district’s high schools. Director Rivera began his career out of state and then spent time as a
teacher and administrator on California’s Central Coast. Before joining Happy Hills, Director
Rivera supervised preliminary and clear administrative services credential programs and the
teacher induction program for a Central Coast County Office of Education. Along with
supervising principals, Director Rivera was responsible for the LCAP, state and federal
programs, English Learners, counseling, and college and career centers. He directed and
supported the HHUSD’s PK-12 educational program and served on the district management
team and the superintendent’s cabinet. Director Robert Taylor began his career in Happy Hills
Unified School District as a teacher and coach, then was promoted to high school vice-principal
and then elementary school principal. During data collection, Director Taylor was the Director of
183

Curriculum and Athletics with the responsibility of supervising elementary principals,
curriculum adoption, and overseeing all TK-5 education.
My findings will reveal there was consistency in the framing of the vision and goals for
HHUSD and both directors communicated a commitment to strategies aimed at fostering
principal development. As a district, Happy Hills espoused a theory of action where the directors
were responsible for cultivating environments that fostered principals’ adoption of identities,
values and beliefs that supported instructional improvement and a positive school climate.
However, the demands placed on the directors’ time created tension between their
responsibilities to build principals’ capacity and the pressures to accomplish other assigned tasks.
Furthermore, the district adopted many strategies and approaches to support its vision without
providing a coherent approach to guide the directors. Therefore, both directors were left to make
sense of each initiative as he saw fit, creating a lack of coherence in the strategies chosen as
paths toward the districts’ goals.
Finding 1: Happy Hills Unified School District Espoused a Theory of Action Where the
Directors Were Responsible for Building the Principals’ Capacity to Cultivate
Environments to Ensure Rigorous Instruction That Attended to Equity and School
Climates That Supported a Diverse Student Population.
Happy Hills Unified School District constructed a role for their principal supervisors
aimed at ensuring the district’s historically marginalized students received access to a high-
quality education along with the rest of the student population. The directors enacted their role
through a commitment to strategies aimed at fostering principal development toward
instructional improvement and a positive school climate. The directors also coached their
184

principals toward the district’s collective identity, values, and beliefs as a common path to reach
the district’s vision of equity for all students.
Theme 1: Both directors’ commitment to strategies aimed at fostering principal development to
instructional improvement and a positive school climate demonstrated a district-level
commitment to this approach
Data from both directors revealed the district’s orientation toward fostering principal
development toward instructional improvement through the coaching of the directors. Both
Directors Rivera and Taylor were well versed in coaching strategies aimed at developing
principals’ capacity as instructional leaders. The Council of Chief State School Officers (2015)
name coaching as an essential skill for principal supervisors to have and called for supervisors to
use coaching skills to address principals’ development. Furthermore, coaching has been found to
support the development of principals’ capacity, especially when coupled with feedback from the
principal supervisor (Bickman et al., 2012). Both HHUSD directors adopted coaching strategies
and worked to incorporate them into the district’s culture as a means of fostering principal
development. Additionally, the district constructed the directors’ role to address inequities
among the district’s students making the coaching of principals a district adopted tool for
addressing the underlying instructional inequities that affected historically marginalized
students’ performance.
Director Rivera spoke about strategies he employed in his role of developing the capacity
of principals he supervised. He used facilitative methods to build their skills toward relationship
building, trust, and vision, necessary elements for developing principals’ capacity to improve
instruction (Finnigan, 2010; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Wise & Cavazos, 2017):
185

A principal evaluator is going to come probably with stronger instructional skills, will tell
you what to do based on what they did. But it is the facilitative skills that really build
relationships, trust, vision and skills. I can tell you what to do, but if I can help you arrive
at what to do, you are more likely to have muscle memory that you can employ in future
scenarios.
Director Rivera recognized that even though those who defined the work as a principal evaluator
typically came to the job with strong instructional skills, they usually were inadequate to the task
of fostering principal development. The role he saw for himself was one in which he built the
capacity of the principals he supervised. His statement demonstrated his recognition that being
strong instructionally was not the most important element of a principal supervisor, so he
committed himself to doing something different. His assertion that facilitative skills were what
“really” developed skills demonstrated his agreement with Bloom et al. (2003) and his
commitment to using a strategy that built a principal’s capacity through metacognition and
reflection. His use of the analogy of “muscle memory” demonstrated his resolve to a facilitative
approach suggested by Lochmiller (2014) that led a principal to develop the skills to solve
problems and equip them to lead independently by identifying, making sense of, and taking
action to address challenges. He asserted his commitment to strategies that fostered principal
growth when he stated his goal was to help a principal “arrive at what to do” to build capacity for
long-term growth. Implied when he said he could tell the principals what to do but did not, was
that he saw that his role was one of being a coach who guided principals rather than strictly as a
supervisor or manager. This is in line with research that stated differentiating between the two
(supervisor and coach) roles with coaching addressing the individual principal’s need is essential
for growth (Bloom, et al., 2003). The data revealed his awareness of and commitment to research
186

that asserted strategies such as collaboration, building self-efficacy, and reflection are more
powerful than telling principals what to do (Wise & Cavazos, 2017).
Director Rivera also cited a strategy he employed aimed at fostering principal growth that
consisted of working toward understanding a problem before determining a solution. In many
cases, aspiring educational leaders are taught much more about management rather than how to
make change (Wagner, 2007). Before attempting to solve a problem, Wagner (2007) states it is
important to first ask questions that lead to a deep understanding of the issue. In the following
example, Director Rivera responded to a vignette involving a principal’s lack of recognition of
the lower achievement for a small percentage of students by comparing it to the situation in his
own district and how he coached the principals he supervised:
So, we have these continued growing needs of school refusal anxiety of truancy of just
not being able to access the core curriculum because the school that you described with
85% of students performing is every school in Happy Hills Unified. So, it’s easy to forget
about the 15%. So, I coached the principal, both our high school principals through how
might we approach this problem. So, in generating their thinking, that was my guiding
question, but it started with looking at the data, okay? So, we looked and saw that for our
low-income population, only 20%...accessed an honors course at some point in high
school, whereas 86% of non-low-income students did. We have looked and saw that
you’re twice as likely to graduate from a 4 year in our district if you were not in the low-
income bracket.
Director Rivera talked about how he worked with the principal as he explained the process he
used to attack the identified problem. He communicated through his explanation of his coaching
procedure of posing guiding questions he constructed that his goal was to stimulate thinking so
187

the principal would see the problem and address it. His coaching activity began with him using
data, in this case the disparity between 85% success and 15% not successful, to form the question
and then guided the principal in a deep examination of data that included not only that was
happening currently but how students achieved in the future. The data revealed that Director
Rivera’s commitment to a strategy of building principal capacity was internalized as he modeled
how he generated principal thinking through the use of guiding questions using data.
Director Rivera moved on to discuss his strategy for coaching principals toward
improving instruction and toward a positive school climate. He telegraphed that his agenda was
prioritizing the same things the district was trying to accomplish, mainly promoting opportunities
for all students to learn. He focused on the recognition that some students in the district were
achieving below where they should or could be. In other words, the status quo was not
acceptable, so his focus was geared toward instructional improvement and a positive school
climate in the service of improving the achievement of the district’s low SES population:
I’d ask a question of what might we do about it and where does this fall within your
priorities? My hope is that [not losing 15% of those kids] is going to be a top priority. If it
is, I don’t want to kind of generate their thinking because a lot of principals, they come
from other districts, they come from other places and I don’t want to presuppose the
answer that I have is the answer. So, we’d discuss more collectively on possible strategies
and then take those strategies for a test drive, solicit faculty input, solicit the input of the
sister schools, the PTA input, and with that board input, cabinet input, and with that
identify the best solution and that is 90% of the challenge. Then the other 10% is resource
and then get it over the goal line.
188

Director Rivera stated he did not have all the answers, demonstrating a strategy of posing a
question and giving the principal the room to make sense of the issue and see where they
emerged. This was consistent with Celoria and Robinson (2015) who said questioning, along
with reflective practices, effectively helped principals develop into independent thinkers and
supported their decision-making and problem-solving skills. Implied when he said he did not
want to “generate” principals’ thinking was he did not want to project onto his principals a set of
assumptions and instead help them notice problems others had not noticed, bring attention to
them, think it through carefully, discover where they were in their own thinking, and use that as a
beginning for discovering how to solve problems. He would then be able to help the principal
rather than tell them how to solve the problem and that would push them to grow as an
instructional leader as called for by the Council of Chief State School Officers (2011). The data
revealed Director Rivera internalized the district’s commitment to discovering and meeting the
needs of a population of students they may not have yet been serving. He indicated that he
believed that 90% of the challenge of doing so was bringing together the district’s many voices,
including the parent group, board of directors, and others, indicating the necessity of having
many voices in the conversation to identify the best solution. He suggested that principals did not
work in isolation so having the buy-in of the community was essential to a solution being
workable. His assertion that the solution should be taken “for a test drive” demonstrated his
commitment to guiding principles to work collaboratively toward discovering answers, testing
them, adjusting them, and bringing the community along, as opposed to simply finding an
answer and deciding it is the one that will solve the problem. His approach was in line with
Hallinger’s (2003) assertion that a principal must ensure the school’s goals are widely known
and supported throughout the community. Director Rivera’s method pointed to the district’s
189

vision of meeting the needs of all students, especially those who may be or remain marginalized
without the improvement of instruction and school climate. In this example, he challenged his
principals by coaching them to discover and bring attention to a problem that other people may
not have noticed, think the problem through carefully, bring a wide variety of people on board to
discover a solution, get their buy-in, and test it out.
Director Taylor’s commitment to strategies aimed at building the capacity of principals
toward supporting instructional improvement and a positive school climate also reflected the fact
that they were enacting a district adopted approach. In this quotation, he displayed a connection
to appropriate approaches to adult learning, in this case modeling vulnerability, not needing to
have the right answers, and reflection (Mezirow, 1991; Rodgers, 2002):
Another one where I’d say it’s a big one. I think the way that we learn, I think the way
that kids learn, I think the way that the adults learn is by mistakes. And so, I will share if
I make a mistake on something. It sticks out in my mind as something that I am not going
to do again. And I think the ability to reflect on, say, “Hey, we all know together this
didn’t go the way that it should have, or that you wanted it to. What are the steps that we
would take next time to make sure that it goes differently?” So, I think that’s really
important, because I think that’s the way that humans learn really well, is an ability to
reflect.
Director Taylor exhibited an understanding of how adults learned and used his own vulnerability
as a demonstration of his own learning stance to connect with principals and push them toward
improvement. Director Taylor’s use of modeling as a form of instructional coaching
demonstrated his connection to effective coaching strategies for adult learners and instructional
leaders such as those mentioned by Gallucci et al. (2010) and Lochmiller (2014). When he stated
190

learning was accomplished through mistakes, he acknowledged that real learning could not
happen without making mistakes and acknowledging that being wrong was okay. Director
Taylor also touched on reflection as a means for principals to self-evaluate and improve when he
gave examples of guiding questions that he would ask principals. This strategy was important
because it demonstrated Director Taylor’s stance that without reflecting on the mistakes the
principals made, learning would not occur. Implied in this was his understanding that a coaching
role involved exploration and understanding, not directives.
Theme 2: The District was Committed to Fostering Principals’ Adoption of School Identities,
Values, and Beliefs That Would Enable Them to Successfully Lead Toward Instructional
Improvement and a Positive School Climate
Both directors expressed the district’s dedication to developing in principals a consistent,
integrated identity, values, and beliefs to build a strong foundation from which to lead. This was
important because organizations with a high agreement around visible values have high internal
accountability and are more successful than organizations with lower levels of internal
accountability (Elmore, 2006). Elmore (2005) defined internal accountability as “the alignment
of individual values with collective expectations, reinforced by the processes of accountability”
(pp. 135-136). Happy Hills Unified School District’s emphasis, as evidenced through both
directors, on a well-articulated common set of values was in line with Hitt and Tucker’s (2016)
argument for the necessity of establishing and conveying a vision for a school as a necessary
ingredient for success. HHUSD chose—as its way of addressing the problem of inequity and
leading the district toward growing principals’ ability to effectively lead toward instructional
improvement and a positive school climate—an emphasis on the generation of a well-developed
identity, values, and beliefs and embedding it into the training and coaching of principals.
191

Consistent with Khalifa et al. (2016), who called for organizations to build an environment
responsive to the needs of marginalized students, HHUSD focused on constructing ways to
incorporate culturally responsive practices into the school community to build an environment
responsive to the needs of the district’s most vulnerable students. Data revealed the cohesive
actions of both directors made visible the district’s agenda of addressing inequity found in their
underserved population and HHUSD’s focus on addressing the needs of all the district’s
students.
Director Rivera expressed his commitment to fostering the development of principals’
identity, values, and beliefs as a foundation for decisions they would be required to make and the
actions they would take as leaders. In this response, he addressed a question about the use of data
by explaining the true foundation of an answer to a problem rested on principals’ having
successfully developed strong identity, values, and beliefs for their school:
Yeah, I’d say it’s data, but it’s also making sure that any strategy we employ is grounded
in identity, values and beliefs. So, I believe in Dilts’ Nested Levels of learning that your
strategies and your behaviors that shape your environment are informed by identity,
values, and beliefs. And if as a school you don’t have a clear identity, value, or belief
system it’s hard to make adjustments and it’s (important) especially when they’re
(principals) new to help clarify identity so they have to make hard decisions with
resources they can have a strong backbone about those hard conversations.
By emphasizing principals’ use of identity, values, and beliefs to guide their leadership, Director
Rivera demonstrated his commitment to a focused approach to coaching principals toward
having ownership of the culture and values of their school. He began with the section of Dilts’
192

nested levels of learning labeled beliefs and values that lead to identity.
11
In his message to his
principals he suggested that whatever their underlying belief system was, it manifested itself in
how they were going to express themselves. What they believed both consciously and
unconsciously was going to play out in the way they made decisions for their school. His
assertion that it would be difficult to make adjustments without first developing a clear identity,
values, and beliefs reinforced the district’s emphasis on the importance of a foundational
philosophy as a base for making good decisions. The data also demonstrated his understanding
that a clear articulation of identity, values, and beliefs helped a principal make the difficult
choices that inevitably came up and also gave them the ability to have hard conversations when
necessary. He seemed to be suggesting that when a principal had to do something that was going
to be unpopular in order to benefit students who might not otherwise have their needs met, the
principal must have internalized it as a belief, otherwise the execution would be difficult if not
impossible. The directional guidance he provided principals gave them the tools to create a
structure of identity, values, and beliefs that would lead to an improvement in the principals’
ability to lead their school by turning them away from unproductive and unhelpful beliefs they
may have been holding. When he spoke about “hard conversations,” he was acknowledging that
it was incumbent on the directors and the district to ensure the principals were on the same page
so when it came to having difficult conversations, they were strong in the face of opposition. He
acknowledged movement was difficult and in order have a strong backbone for the hard
conversations that by inference we can say he knew was coming, the principals needed to know

11
In Robert Dilts’ levels of learning, values and beliefs are the “why” of how one acts
and identity is the “who” one is. They interact with each other by values and beliefs forming
identity while identity can form a part of one’s values and beliefs as well. Identity, values, and
beliefs are what will motivate a person to develop (or not) the skills that will manifest itself in
the environment (Dilts, 2018; Oakwater, 2018).
193

who they were and what they were about because leaving the status quo in place was not an
option.
Moving on, Director Rivera spoke more directly about how he operationalized his stated
concept when he continued his discussion of the vignette presented in the previous theme where
a principal was not recognizing or working to improve a particular aspect of school performance,
in this case the achievement of the lowest performing 15% of students. Whereas he implied a
course of action in the previous set of data, he now explicitly discussed how he guided the
principal toward developing a set of identity, values, and beliefs that included success for all
students, especially those who may be forgotten or left behind:
Well, how do we move the needle? And so, if denial is at the foundation, that’s where
you get to identity and values. Where I’d want to work with that principal on a 5 year
timeline because you’re talking culture that needs to shift and for culture to shift on this
level means, cultural proficiency training, making sure we have strong PLCs in place to
look at the data and then to put in practices that inform both culturally relevant
instructional strategies but also systems that help raise up our lowest performing students.
And what I mean by that are: Is our RTI designed right? Are we a Title I school? Do we
have federal resources? Is any district-level allocation being used for closing the gap or is
it used for enrichment? And what should we prioritize?
When Director Rivera said how do “we” move the needle, he was acknowledging the importance
of a solidly developed set of identity, values, and beliefs as being the driver for solving his
district’s achievement gap. He suggested the culture of the entire district not just of a particular
portion of the district or school, was responsible for the lack of equity and it would take a
collective effort to address it. He defined the issue presented in the vignette as one of the
194

principal either not recognizing or denying that the data revealed a problem at the school and that
an 85% success rate was not in line with the larger identity, values, and beliefs of the district. In
this case, data suggested Director Rivera recognized the principal’s identity was that the school
was doing great, the status quo was acceptable, and adjustments were not needed. It can be
inferred that Director Rivera returned to Dilt’s nested levels and recognized that the principal’s
beliefs would inform their decisions so for the school to make a culture shift toward raising the
achievement of the 15% of the underperforming students, the principal would have to shift their
identity, values, and beliefs and internalize the vision the district. Director Rivera’s assertion that
the process of shifting the school’s culture would be a five-year process accomplished through
cultural proficiency training, Response to Intervention (RTI)
12
, PLCs, culturally relevant
instructional strategies, and marshalling resources, demonstrated his awareness that those, along
with raising the performance of their lowest performing students, comprised the district’s value
system and the vision of who they, as a district, aspired to be. Furthermore, his acknowledgment
was a recognition of Hallinger’s (2003) assertion that true change does not come quickly or
easily and the school site leader’s role was critical to being able to accomplish a change in order
to move a school toward instructional improvement and a positive school climate.
Director Taylor also spoke about coaching his principals toward the district’s coherent set
of values and his responsibility to ensure his principals reflected and enacted the same value
system when he overtly named the district’s mission while in the process of describing how he
would coach a principal through the same vignette:

12
RTI is an approach to the early identification and support of students with learning and
behavior needs
195

I’d say something along the lines of, “Given that if our primary motivation, that one of
our primary missions is to serve the underserved, what are some things that you might
consider for your staff to help support whether it be minorities or sub populations or
students with special needs?” and just really get them talking about that. Also, providing
resources and support. I don’t feel like you should be directive or suggestive without
saying, “Here are some things I can give you to help.” And hear what they need, but just
let them know that, within budgetary reasons, we can also provide whether it’s
curriculum resources or suggestions for a structure, like a MTSS structure that might be
better served, something like that.
Director Taylor’s reference to the “primary” mission of the district demonstrated he had
internalized the identity, values, and beliefs of the district and he expected his principals to do
the same. When Director Taylor said, “what are some things you might consider…” he
demonstrated his primary mechanism for getting principals to adopt the district’s vision was
through a coaching stance. This use of a questioning strategy was in line with what Lochmiller
(2018) states is effective at shaping a principal’s thinking about a particular problem of practice.
He followed up his direction with another question, this time focused on providing resources. His
suggestion that he did not believe there should be direction without support was further evidence
that the focus on raising the achievement of the most vulnerable students was a district-level
initiative with support and resources.
Director Taylor continued the discussion by connecting it to the real-life situation in his
own district and explained his vision for how resources could be distributed to support
vulnerable students. In his discussion, the vision and values of the district were reflected his
196

agenda. In his demonstration of what it would sound like when he coached principals, he
expressed a clear focus on vision and values:
And honestly, it’s a real-life scenario for us. We have these situations happening. I would
try to reframe a little bit. So, while you can take away fiscal resources or if you’re talking
about like, you could take away maybe it’s like a section from a GATE, TOSA,
whatever, I’m using an example, that doesn’t mean that that work shouldn’t sustain. So,
while that may feel like, “Hey, we’re losing this section,” or, “We’re losing this
resource,” I would frame it as, “You’re psyched and you’ve shown me the capacity to be
really successful in this area,” and I would say, “I know that you can do it without this.
And, right now, your area of need, an area where it’s showing that, hey, you need a little
bit more, is where we apply it. Now, if that changed in five years, totally changes the
ballgame. We would not be opposed to putting more resources back in the gifted program
if we noticed that, number one, most importantly, that are underserved students’
performance now has risen over the last five years and is now where we needed to be.
And then we notice that, hey, the Honors GATE is dipping, we can have that
conversation. But for right now, I see one area that’s thriving, see another area that needs
support. We’re trying to make sure we provide all that support while still maintaining the
elite program we have for GATE or Honors, or whatever.
When Director Taylor discussed the moving of resources, he demonstrated his understanding of
Elmore’s (2006) assertion that it is the responsibility of a school leader to mobilize and use
school capacity in the service of student improvement and it was his responsibility to coach the
principal to do so. When he spoke of reframing the principal’s approach to the reallocation of
resources, he was working to ensure the principal worked toward the district’s vision and values.
197

Instead of focusing on the loss for one program, he used the district priority to help the principal
see the shift positively because they were fulfilling the district’s mission by creating an
opportunity to raise the achievement of marginalized students. He continued his explanation with
the recognition that a well-established program should be able to sustain itself with fewer
resources, allowing those resources to be moved to concentrate on improving other areas, in this
case underperforming students. His discussion illustrated what Hitt and Tucker (2015) say about
it being the responsibility of a leader to strategically allocate resources to serve the
organization’s mission and vision. Consistent with Elmore (2006) and Hitt and Tucker (2015),
Director Taylor recognized school improvement was not a fixed point, but a continuum when he
stated the situation would have to be continuously monitored and resources reallocated if the
situation changed. Director Taylor articulated the district’s values were raising the achievement
of underserved students and he saw it as his job to help his principals reframe and reposition
themselves to be in line with the district’s agenda. The data revealed he did this by turning the
conversation away from the negative and turning it toward the opportunity of embracing district
vision.
Elmore (2005) states that higher levels of internal accountability are associated with
greater success. Internal accountability is achieved through coherence with an organization and
the work of school leaders being defined as explicit reinforcement of organizational values
(Elmore, 2005). Through their work, Directors Rivera and Taylor were clearly articulating the
same message saying the district’s vision was addressing the underserved and it was their
commitment to move to increase access to programs and high-quality instruction. Both directors
demonstrated through the way they approached their principals and what they presented as
important to the district that there was high internal accountability between the two of them.
198

Therefore, in terms of district leadership, there was also a high degree of internal accountability
regarding the district’s agenda. Data revealed they saw it as their job to help principals frame the
issue of helping students who were marginalized so they could work to accomplish the district’s
espoused goals.
Finding 2: The Principal Supervisors Were Not Set Up for Success to Carry Out the
District’s Vision in Terms of Addressing Inequity and the Needs of Historically
Marginalized Students
Directors Rivera and Taylor enacted their role by embracing the district’s vision of
ensuring equal access to high-quality instruction for all students. Yet, their ability to do so was
hampered by the way the district constructed their role. Both directors were trained in effective
coaching strategies to foster principal development and had the skillset to implement their
training. However, through choices made at the district level, there were many impediments that
hampered their ability to successfully coach principals. Additionally, the district adopted too
many strategies and approaches to support a coherent approach toward the district’s espoused
goal of equity.
Theme 1: The Many Different Impediments, Including Time, Fiscal, and Training, Imposed
on the Directors by the District Combined to Create Tension Between the Espoused Goal of the
District and the Way the Directors Were Equipped to Fulfill the Goal
As described in Finding one Theme 2, Happy Hills Unified School District espoused a
philosophy aimed at meeting the needs of its historically marginalized students through
increasing access to programs or teaching that provided equitable learning experiences for all.
Even though the district telegraphed a goal of raising the achievement of their most vulnerable
populations and provided resources to support it, the directors’ engagement in building the
199

principals’ capacity to accomplish this goal was limited given the competing number of
responsibilities, structural constraints, and training that was insufficiently focused on their work
as principal supervisors. Both Director Rivera and Director Taylor were cabinet level
administrators with tasks assigned to them other than their role as a principal supervisor, so
coaching was just one responsibility amongst many others. Additionally, the district’s monetary
resources were distributed so a dedicated coach for principal supervisors was not possible. Also,
training for the directors was not specifically geared toward supervising principals. This created
a tension between their ability to be available to the principals and their responsibility to
complete district level requirements.
Director Rivera spoke about the ideal role for a principal supervisor within a larger
context of coaching a principal and how a director navigated the fine line between coaching and
managing. When asked about the ideal role a supervisor should play in fostering a school site
principal’s development, his answer was consistent with Wise and Cavazos (2017) when he
emphasized time and frequent, regular contact as essential ingredients to successful coaching. He
stated, “The ideal principal supervisor role is one where you can have frequency of
contact…They should be in regular contact with the principal at least a weekly or bi-monthly
conversation.” This was also consistent with Hvidston et al. (2018) when they speak to the
importance of time a coach spent with a principal as essential to improving their practice.
However, as one person with so many responsibilities, Director Rivera had limited bandwidth
available to give his principals as the ideal situation dictated. While discussing the reality of his
daily schedule, Director Rivera was asked if his approach to working with principals differed
from the ideal he described and he replied, “Yes, because of time.” He continued, listing the
responsibilities the district assigned to him that created a barrier to his coaching:
200

So, my job, I run three credential programs, I supervise principals, write the LCAP, do all
state and federal programs, all district professional development and serve on our cabinet.
So, all those things in some districts are separate jobs for separate people and I’m
sometimes playing Whack-A-Mole with the responsibility of the day and have to deal
with (things that come up). But ideally, I would be on campuses much, much more and
be walking campus as much, much more principals.
In this discussion, Director Rivera offered a contrast between what he deemed necessary for a
principal supervisor and the reality of his daily experience. The various duties Director Rivera
mentioned were of a high responsibility level, demanded a great deal of time, and pulled him
away from the coaching of his principals. His use of the phrase “Whack-A-Mole” suggested he
spent much of his day putting out fires rather than proactively coaching principals. He finished
by reiterating the ideal would be having the ability to walk the campus more and contact the
principals regularly.
Director Taylor also discussed tensions he experienced with the coaching process. When
addressing how his job as a principal supervisor differed from his vision of the ideal principal
supervisor, he answered, “I would say not at all. My answer to that question would be, you have
control over what your role should be. So hopefully that you’re making it the way that you want
it to be.” He began by denying a difference between the ideal and reality in the principal
supervisor’s role and asserted his control over how he enacts the job. However, he also
acknowledged constraints were thrust upon him by the way the district constructed his job and
that they worked as a barrier to his coaching. When asked if he had other duties assigned by the
district or if supervising principals was his main focus, he answered, “No, no, no, I wish. I have a
ton of. You wouldn’t even. A lot of stuff.” His answer suggested that on the one hand, he had the
201

ability to make the job “his own” while on the other hand, he was forced to manage how he
wanted to do the job against the many things he was expected to do. Similar to Director Rivera,
he did not get to choose what was or was not on his plate so the duties imposed upon him by the
district took away from his ability to do the job the way he might define it and would want to
enact it.
Director Rivera continued to discuss structural barriers to the coaching process, in this
case fiscal, by stating when confronted with the dilemma of too little time, the answer was
having another person take on some of the coaching responsibilities. This served as another
indication that district-level choices did not leave him enough with resources to fully coach his
principals:
It’s fiscal. In a world that was perfect, we’d have a recently retired or part time kind of
coach with an extraordinary amount of experience and wisdom, but also coaching tools
that can go do what you have and be that kind of that third point check-in of support and
can be (a place) where more candid conversations can happen, but that we can work as a
trio to support the growth of the school and also knowing and understanding that role (of
coach).
Director Rivera described as “perfect” the ability to have a part-time, knowledgeable coach for
his principals as recognition that the job of coaching required more bandwidth than he had
available. In what he said, he suggested that it did not matter that he possessed the knowledge
and skills to successfully coach his principals because the amount of work assigned to him was
more than one person could accomplish. Even though the district tried to equip both directors to
be the vehicle to develop principal capacity toward improving the achievement of all students, it
also pulled them in so many different directions as to make the accomplishment of the aim
202

difficult. If the district treated the job of coaching principals with the complexity it required, it
would recognize the demands of the job required multiple people. A possible solution was to
bring in an outside person to focus on coaching as Director Rivera suggested was the best path
toward developing principals’ capacity. Consistent with Popham (1988) and Lochmiller (2018),
he argued for a team approach that separated coaching from supervising and allowed for going at
the principal in multiple ways. Given the emphasis the district placed on raising the achievement
of their most vulnerable population, it is expected they also dedicate more resources to the
coaching of principals rather than giving the job to directors with already full plates. Director
Rivera called for someone who was experienced in the role, taught to be a coach, and operated
independently of other people, to team with the directors in the coaching of principals. Fiscal
constraints prevented them from building the needed team. The fact that the district did not
provide the fiscal resources for a dedicated coach that would ease some of the demand on the
directors’ bandwidth served as a barrier to the goal of raising the achievement of their most
vulnerable students.
Director Taylor mentioned as another structural barrier to coaching his professional
position in relation to that of the principals:
At the end of the day, you are their evaluator. So, in a way, for some people, I think it’s
hard to really completely spill their guts about everything if they’re struggling. If
somebody is a highflyer, there’s no barriers. They’re kicking butt. They want to get better
each and every day. No barriers. If somebody is really having a hard time, I think there’s
a little bit of a safety fear there because, if I share too much of what’s going wrong with
my evaluator, could be used for a poor evaluation or maybe even a change of assignment.
203

But that’s the one thing. If they’re struggling or really having a disaster of a year, I think
there’s probably some concern with sharing everything.
Director Taylor’s assertion was consistent with those of Director Rivera in that both were
examples of structural barriers to the directors working to advance HHUSD’s espoused goal by
coaching principals toward instructional improvement and a positive school climate. If resources
were provided for a dedicated coach for principals as was called for in Popham (1988), the
tension between supervisor and coach Director Taylor mentioned, consistent with Lochmiller
(2018), would not exist. His assertion the barrier did not exist for a principal who was successful,
reinforced the need for an outside coach with the skills to coach both struggling and successful
administrators.
Director Rivera stated that oftentimes another systemic barrier to coaching was a lack of
training and while he was well versed in several coaching moves, districts often made the
mistake of assuming principal supervisors were already equipped to do the job they were
promoted into:
I think training is a huge gap. So how does one become a principal supervisor? They’re
promoted. But they’re promoted and then what training do you give a principal
supervisor to coach and evaluate leadership? I think we assume it’s the same as. The
systemic assumption is that we’re all. We’ll just employ the same skills we’ve used in
supporting teachers or classified staff and it’s a very different animal. And there’s very
few books in supporting the principal evaluator. Once he gets into this kind of cabinet
level, it’s like they assume you know it and I think that’s a dangerous assumption.
He acknowledged the systemic belief that the same skills used in supporting teachers could be
used to support principals. He also labeled as “dangerous” for a person to assume one could take
204

what was learned about supervising teachers and transfer those skills into the context of
supporting principals because the two jobs are very different. He continued, stating few books
written for supporting the principal evaluator existed and suggested a lack of availability in
training specifically geared toward coaching and evaluating leadership. In his statement he
suggested that most principal supervisors were promoted into their position and that there was a
systemic lack of intentionality in recruiting persons with specific skill sets to become principal
supervisors. “States, school districts, and universities each play a role in producing members of
the educational leadership in our schools” (Slayton, 2017, p. 12) so those who were promoted
through the ranks may or may not possess the skills necessary for effectively developing the
capacity of the principals they supervise.
Both Director Rivera and Director Taylor had many experiences leading up to their roles
as principal supervisors. It does not mean, however, that those experiences were ones thought
about in terms of developing a principal supervisor. The district equipped Directors Rivera and
Taylor as the solution to their espoused goal of raising the achievement of underperforming
students, yet they filled their bandwidth with other duties and directed resources so they were not
able to supervise principals as a standalone position. The choices the district made regarding
time, structure, and training created barriers to the Directors’ ability to do the job of fostering
principal development toward the district’s espoused goal.
Theme 2: The District Adopted and Enacted Too Many Strategies and Approaches to Support
a Coherent Approach to Achieving the District’s Espoused Goal
As is evidenced by both directors, the district used goal setting processes and adopted and
implemented several programs, including cognitive coaching and adaptive schools. to fulfill their
espoused goal of increasing access to instructional improvement and learning opportunities for
205

historically marginalized students. Each director was left to his own devices to make sense of the
initiatives because of a lack of focused direction from the district regarding how the initiatives
melded together to work toward a single goal. Consequently, each director spoke about them in
siloed terms without evidence of how they tied together to work toward developing principal
capacity to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate. Even though the
goal of working toward improving access for the district’s most vulnerable students was clear,
the journey to the goal ran through many independent paths, creating impediments to its
achievement.
Director Rivera discussed the district adopted initiative of Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) in the context of setting goals for and with the principals he supervised. As
the PLCs were primarily a vehicle for improving teacher capacity, Director Rivera was helping
build principal capacity when he approached the implementation through the lens of goal setting:
Collectively as a leadership team we’ve identified that building stronger PLCs is the
work of the next few years. So, we’ll naturally have two goals that relate to that core
initiative. And then usually I’ll have one to two that are shaped by the principal and the
site needs. So that I think it’s important that to have ownership over a goal, you allow for
the principal to weigh in on what they see every single day and not have all their goals be
district mandates because we could be missing a lot from the data they have versus the
data we have.
Director Rivera referred to PLCs as a “core” initiative collectively adopted by district leadership.
As such, goals set by him for his principals were related to PLCs as a way for him to direct the
principals’ focus toward the successful implementation of this initiative, not necessarily to work
toward building the principal’s capacity. He also stated he gave principals two goals for them to
206

set that would be shaped by the site needs as a way of providing them with ownership over their
growth. Included in his statement was an acknowledgment that the principals knew their own
schools best and them setting their own goals would serve as a check against the district missing
something or misreading data. However, this also demonstrated a possible lack of coherence
because it left open the possibility of the principal choosing goals not aligned to what the district
was trying to accomplish. Additionally, the focus was on the implementation of an initiative that
was not connected to coaching a principal to do their work differently or better. Absent from
Director Rivera’s discussion was how he structured goals so initiatives such as the PLC process
interacted with other aspects of the district’s initiatives.
Director Taylor spoke of goals in the context of principals determining their own goals
and him coaching them through the implementation:
Usually, they have given the goal. They’ve given you the steps, and all you’re doing is
coaching them to make sure that they’ve done it. They might say, “I just haven’t had
time.” Then that’s where you say, “Well, look, this is your goal. If you want the stronger
relationships, this is what you’ve got to do. And you’ve got to make time.”
Similar to Director Rivera, Director Taylor pointed to the principal as the driver on their campus.
Here, Director Taylor spoke about the principals setting all of their own goals while he coached
them through the process of implementation. While Director Taylor did connect coaching and
goal setting, he did so absent of other connections that would make for a coherent approach to
accomplishing the district goals. Also, similar to Director Rivera, the danger of leaving the
decisions for goals to the principals’ discretion was that the principals’ goals might not be
aligned to the district’s goals. When he said, “Look, this is your goal,” he projected the idea that
principals’ goals were individual, not necessarily focused on a collective aim.
207

Both directors focused on the idea of growth when they talked about using cognitive
coaching moves while working with their principals to foster their development toward
instructional improvement and a positive school climate. Director Rivera discussed growth as a
decision-making process through discussion:
I mentioned that adaptive schools and cognitive coaching. And I’m a trainer for both. I
believe both in those practices. But there’s Art Costa and Bob Garmston in that works say
humans don’t learn from experience. They learn from processing experience. So, I take
that value with me in the conversations that I have. So, if something goes well, I want to
process….as much as possible they will then develop kind of those mental models around
okay, I did this and this and this for something to be successful. And if something doesn’t
go well, I also want to have that processing conversation. So, they have arrived in their
brain after going through the sequences of events where they could have changed and
potentially made a better decision.
Here, Director Rivera described the process for cognitive coaching where principals explored the
thinking behind their practice. His interpretation emphasized the processing of principals’
experiences and he stated that he took “that value with me in the conversations that I have.”
Implied in this was his approach to cognitive coaching involved conversation over listening as a
way for principals to process their experiences. His statement was consistent with the work of
Costa and Garmston (1992) that called for individuals to process their own experience as a tool
for growth. He used the phrase “mental model” as a way of stating that when something was
successful, learning happened, and it became something principals would do again and become a
basis for good decisions. Alternatively, when something did not go well, he used the experience
for a processing conversation that gave principals a new way of making a different and better
208

decision the next time. Once again, absent of direction from the district, Director Rivera was left
to his own interpretation and made sense of how cognitive coaching should be used. Because of
this, his interpretation did not specifically meld with the way Director Taylor approached
cognitive coaching.
Distinct from Director Rivera’s approach to cognitive coaching, Director Taylor spoke
about building principals’ capacity by listening. His interpretation was to focus his coaching on
the principal as a “doer” by having the principal talk while he listened:
I’d say if the calendar is talking about cognitive coach. So, just the role of bringing the
best out in that principal, growing capacity and then letting all of the ideas be theirs, but
doing your best to lead them there through cognitive coaching… So, from a supervisor
role in a coaching conversation, I shared with you before, a lot of it to me is just about
cognitive coaching, which involves a lot of listening. So, the principal should be doing
80% of the talking, and they would share what’s going on with me.
Director Taylor understood cognitive coaching to be about listening as evidenced when he said,
“the principal should be doing 80% of the talking.” His interpretation was also consistent with
Costa and Garmston (1992) even though it was slightly different than how Director Rivera made
sense of how cognitive coaching should be implemented. The aim of growth was the same for
both directors, yet they had a different understanding of what it meant and how to get there. This
further illustrated the point that without a theory of action from the district to guide the directors,
it was difficult to meld the initiatives to align toward district goals.
Another initiative spoken about by Director Rivera was Adaptive Schools. Director
Rivera stated that all principals go through adaptive schools training:
209

Especially when they’re new to help clarify identity so (if) they have to make hard
decisions with resources they can have a strong backbone about those hard conversations.
In terms of data, we have credential programs in our district that I run and so we teach, all
principals go through both adaptive schools and cognitive coaching training. So adaptive
schools is a similar approach. It’s a facilitative approach where you use data as the third
point and you ask a lot of meditative questions about what it means, how and what we do
about it. And so our principals are well-trained as facilitators of conversation and
movement of group to decision-making. But if you don’t have data, and it doesn’t need to
be just the traditional quantitative data, but in all our scenarios of if you’ve never been in
the teacher’s classroom, and the parents have never been in the teacher’s classroom,
we’re just going to sit and argue back and forth about something we don’t know.
Director Rivera recognized there were similarities between Adaptive Schools and cognitive
coaching. However, he did not overtly speak to how the two would work together to form
cohesion for the district initiatives. For example, he used Adaptive Schools as an illustration of a
way to prepare principals to have hard conversations with their teachers without mentioning how
it fits in with cognitive coaching. He continued to explain how Adaptive Schools used data
without tying it to how data was used in the PLC process. The fact that both directors spoke
about the initiatives as independent entities demonstrated a lack of coherence toward district
goals.
The data revealed that both directors internalized the district’s goal of increasing access
and learning opportunities for their historically marginalized students through instructional
improvement. In pursuit of the goal, the district adopted many different initiatives that pulled the
directors in various directions and made it difficult to find cohesion. Furthermore, the many
210

initiatives were adopted without the district providing the directors with a conceptual framework
or theory of action to guide them. Instead, they were left to their own devices to make sense of
each initiative, which led to enough incoherence to limit their ability to focus on the district’s
goals. Speaking about the initiatives as if they were independent of each other demonstrated a
lack of consistency and left both directors without a clear approach to developing principal
capacity. There was not any evidence in the data that demonstrated the district helped them see a
picture of why all the initiatives were chosen. There was no linchpin or a consistent coherent
narrative that ran through the ideas contained in the initiatives.
Cross Case Analysis
My conceptual framework built the elements necessary for principal supervisors to build
the capacity of principal to lead toward instructional improvement and a positive school climate
within the frame of the school district. I argued principal supervisors and principals would have
to bring separate elements as well as shared elements in order to build principals’ capacity and
they could only do so within the structures set up for them by the district office.
In my cross-case analysis, the following were patterns that emerged between the directors
of Ulta Sierra Unified School District and the directors from Happy Valley Unified School
District as they worked to foster principal development toward instructional improvement and a
positive school climate:
• District vision
• Building the capacity of principals
• Coaching stance
• Success
211

District Vision
When it came to the district vision for instructional improvement and a positive school
climate, the directors’ actions and words demonstrated that Ulta Sierra and Happy Hills took
different approaches to addressing the needs of their historically marginalized students. Ulta
Sierra’s instructional adoptions did not include a focus on their most vulnerable students and
therefore, the needs of their most vulnerable students were at the margins of their work. The
culture of Happy Hills ensured the work of the directors was centered on addressing the
instructional and affective needs of their historically marginalized students through the coaching
of their principals.
Ulta Sierra’s programmatic approach to instruction included adopting Robert Marzano’s
nine instructional strategies as a vehicle to improve instruction to raise student achievement in all
content areas across all grade levels (Varlas, 2002). However, instructional strategies alone
would not help teachers ensure all students, including low performers, have an opportunity to
experience academic success (Thomas & Green, 2015). To this end, the nine strategies were
absent of language that spoke directly to culturally relevant pedagogy. The district’s adoption of
such a program ostensibly geared toward the success of all students was agnostic to the needs of
their most vulnerable student population and resulted in a lack of focus on equitable learning
opportunities. Included among the adoption of nine instructional strategies and other programs
was a decision to take “on an initiative for equal opportunity schools.” Central to the mission of
Equal Opportunity Schools was increasing access to higher level classes for all students, so as a
result of this partnership, Ulta Sierra removed the requirement for prerequisites and opened up
AP and IB courses to any student who chose to take them. Also, as part of the program, Director
Day mentioned asking district schools to “do outreach to kids” in order to increase the
212

enrollment of students who might not otherwise have been eligible to take the AP or IB class.
While Director Day deemed the program’s implementation to be successful because the AP pass
rates were maintained even though “not your typical AP kid in an AP class” were taking the
tests, the adopting of the program to achieve that end ensured that the equipping of principals to
be culturally responsive school leaders was skipped in favor of implementing a district adopted
program. Absent from Director Day’s discussion about instructional program implementation or
giving historically marginalized students access to higher level classes was any mention of
equipping the principals to instructionally lead teachers to think differently about how they
instruct historically marginalized students. The data revealed Ulta Sierra’s focus was not to equip
principals to engage in culturally responsive school leadership as a true path to removing barriers
and creating conditions that gave their most vulnerable students the best chance of success.
Addressing the needs of the district’s most vulnerable population was central to both
directors’ vision, making it the core of their work at Happy Hills. The data demonstrated that
they internalized the district’s vision of providing access to all their students and made it part of
their ongoing interactions with principals. When discussing a vignette involving interaction with
a principal, Director Taylor sought to remind them “that one of our primary missions is to serve
the underserved,” demonstrating the district’s vision was not ancillary to their work as district
leaders. Additionally, Director Rivera returned to the district’s “identity, values, and beliefs”
throughout his discussions of how he interacted with principals in both a coaching and a
supervisory role. Central to both directors’ discourse were discussions such as looking at data,
analyzing student achievement, and looking at their success within the district and beyond.
213

Building the Capacity of Principals
Interview and vignette data from the directors of Ulta Sierra and Happy Hills
demonstrated each district approached the work of building the capacity of principals toward
instructional improvement and a positive school climate differently. Ulta Sierra’s approach
primarily focused on the directors’ adoption and implementation of programs and gave the
responsibility of overseeing those programs to the directors. HHUSD positioned its directors to
develop the capacity of its principals to work toward improving instruction and school climate
through initiatives the district brought in and expected the directors to support through their
coaching and managing of the principals.
By adopting programs for teachers to follow and bringing in outside companies for
professional development and implementation, Ulta Sierra effectively bypassed the principal as
an instructional leader in favor of program implementation. For example, Director Day stated
one of the first things she did as director was to bring Robert Marzano’s Classroom Instruction
That Works on board and assist in spreading it to the elementary level through her counterpart.
She also described how she mandated a poster of them be placed in every classroom on campus
for teachers with the intent they lead to “a common language” and consistency “throughout the
district.” Her goal of commonality within the district was in line with Elmore’s (2006) definition
of internal accountability that calls for coherence in an organization around norms. However, her
approach of placing a poster and adopting a program fell short of making the “common
language” being evident in practice as was called for in Elmore’s (2006) definition. Director Day
also described the part she played in bringing other programs such as PLCs, Medal of Honor, and
Equal Opportunity Schools, to the district, further demonstrating her approach to improving
instruction was to adopt programs rather than build the capacity of principals. Director James
214

demonstrated her support of adopting programs and the decision to outsource the training when
she spoke about PLCs and said, “Could I coach it? Of course, I could.” Her quotation
demonstrated the district’s choice to outsource professional development for its adopted
programs rather than task the directors to equip its principals to be instructional leaders. In both
cases, USUSD directors saw it as their job as to adopt and supervise the implementation of
programs rather than develop principals’ capacity.
The data revealed Happy Hills took a different approach to building the capacity of its
principals by using directors to enact support for raising the capacity of principals. Throughout
their discourse, both directors demonstrated they had internalized the district’s vision for
increasing access for their most vulnerable students and were focused on equipping the
principals to support and drive the district’s agenda toward that vision. When talking about the
achievement of the students in his district, Director Rivera acknowledged it was “easy to forget
about the 15%” of underperforming students. He also stated that it was not acceptable to rest on
the achievement of the other 85% when he expressed his hope that not losing the 15% “is going
to be a top priority” for his principals. To address this deficit, he took a coaching stance asking,
“how might we approach this problem” in order to begin “generating their thinking” consistent
with Lochmiller (2014) who spoke about the importance of helping an administrator clarify their
thinking about leadership challenges. This, along with Director Taylor’s focus on serving the
underserved as a primary mission, demonstrated the district’s focus on building principals’
capacity irrespective of program implementation.
Coaching Stance
In my conceptual framework, I argued that principal supervisors must be able to act as a
coach to develop the capacity of principals toward instructional improvement and a positive
215

school climate. To that end, the directors at Ulta Sierra and Happy Hills Unified School Districts
took different approaches to coaching. USUSD’s directors focused on finding simple solutions to
complex problems, and HHUSD’s directors worked toward developing the capacity of their
principals to carry out the district’s vision.
Ulta Sierra’s approach to supporting principals was not to have their directors function as
coaches; instead, they worked to set up policies and procedures aimed at ensuring the smooth
functioning of the district. When a principal needed help, both directors took a structural
approach and worked toward problem solving by ensuring principals followed structures set up
for them rather than work to understand the underlying problem. For example, in her approach to
working with principals, Director Day explicitly stated she did not see herself as a coach stating,
“Coaching, I don’t even use that word.” Instead, she saw herself as a support and source of
information for principals who were already formed and only needed reminding to do a job they
already knew how to do. This viewpoint was in contrast to research that demonstrates the
benefits of coaching. Celoria and Robinson (2015) and Wise and Cavazos (2017) found that
principals believe that the coaching they receive improves their ability to work with their
teachers, enabling them to raise student achievement. Director Day exhibited her inclination to
act from an operational stance when responding to a scenario that asked her to provide guidance
to a principal. Her focus was on solving the problem by reminding principals of the procedures
the district had in place and expected them to follow rather than coaching them toward a deep
understanding of the underlying cause. Furthermore, she stated, “I don’t have formal coaching
sessions,” opting instead for “talking” with the principals without a planned direction toward
improvement. On the other hand, Director James did consider herself as a coach saying, “I’m
always going to start with a coaching stance because I’m going to assume you have some base
216

knowledge I’m going build upon.” However, the approach she took was not what the literature
would define as a coaching stance meant to explore and generate thinking to understand the
underlying problem before trying to solve it (Lochmiller, 2014; Wagner, 2007). Instead, the
questions she asked were geared toward guiding the principal to a “viable” solution she had
already determined saying, “I know what I want to get to, but I’m not going to ever state it.”
Even though Director James approached her principals with questions, they were structural in
nature and not intended to probe principals’ thinking or foster their development. Both Directors
Day and James used their interactions with principals to achieve a structural outcome and
telegraphed an aim to fix the problem, not the principal.
The directors at HHUSD clearly understood and were invested in the role cognitive
coaching could play in the development of principals. They took a coaching stance in their roles
as principal supervisors when focusing on the development of their principals. Even though they
interpreted cognitive coaching slightly differently, both used coaching techniques to help their
principals examine their practice and work toward improvement. For example, Director Taylor
spoke about focusing on principal improvement when he explained he used cognitive coaching
to bring “the best out in that principal and growing capacity” when leading them. Director Rivera
spoke about being a trainer for cognitive coaching and his belief that humans “don’t learn from
experience, they learn from processing experience.” Thus, both directors demonstrated a focus
on principals’ development through discussion, examination, and listening rather than
procedurally identifying and fixing a problem or through program implementation.
Success
As each district had a different idea for what its directors’ responsibilities for building the
capacity of its principals were, neither district set them up in a way that would allow them to
217

affect practice to successfully foster the development of principals and build their capacity
toward instructional improvement or a positive school climate.
Ulta Sierra did not have an infrastructure that supported directors as being the vehicle to
develop principals as instructional leaders nor did they position them to fulfill that role. Instead,
the district set the directors up to develop a structure for principals to work within that was based
on bringing in programs and supervising their implementation. The district’s approach was
structural, aimed at ensuring the smooth running of the district, instead of developmental aimed
at fostering principal development toward the improvement of instruction. The district set its
directors up to look for easy answers to complex problems, not to seek to deeply understand
them in a way that would lead to change.
Happy Hills had several factors in place that pointed toward the directors being able to
successfully foster the development of the district’s principals. However, there were also barriers
in place that made it less likely they would be able to do so. Director Rivera spoke to the issue of
time when he listed the many duties he was asked to take on along with the coaching of
principals, including “write the LCAP, do all state and federal programs, all district professional
development and serve on our cabinet.” Time, money, and training combined to create a barrier
to the successful fostering of principal development even though Happy Hills had a clear intent
to do so and both Directors Rivera and Taylor were well positioned to complete the task.
Revised Conceptual Framework
Going into data collection, my focus was on the relationship between the principal
supervisor and the principal and how that led to building capacity toward instructional
improvement and a positive school climate. Even though the questions in my interview protocol
were designed to dig deeply into the relationship between the principal supervisor and principal,
218

the data did not support it as being central to the development of principal capacity. Instead, data
revealed the importance the district’s infrastructure played and how important its ability to
support principal supervisors in their job of fostering principal development was. In the
following section, I will present my revised conceptual framework that visually represents what I
learned after collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data during my time in the field. This
framework also represents my new way of making meaning and how I now see the world as it
relates to the construction and enactment of the role principal supervisors play in improving
instructional capacity and the improvement of school climate.
In designing my original conceptual framework, I expected to see separate elements of
the principal supervisor and principal interacting through their relationship to work toward
improving capacity. My original conceptual framework listed the elements, such as feedback,
critical conversations, etc., I expected to see from the principal supervisor as well as input,
vision, and trust as the elements I expected to see from the principal. My framework listed each
item as separate qualities that each person “brought to the table” rather than qualities to be
shared. Even though I did include a list of “shared” qualities, they were limited. Surrounding the
elements for the principal supervisor and principal, I drew a box that represented “district
structures” without including elements or context.
My revised framework includes the importance of the district infrastructure in framing
the success of the principal supervisors’ ability to develop principal capacity:

219

Figure 2
Conceptual Framework

As demonstrated in Figure 2, the principal supervisor’s ability to guide the principal to
instructional improvement and a positive school climate resides within the district’s
infrastructure. Without the overarching support built in from the top, principal supervisors do not
have a chance of success when working toward fostering principal development toward
instructional improvement and a positive school climate.
First and foremost, my conceptual framework demonstrates that the district as a whole
must value the building of principal capacity. In my original conception, the district was
represented by a rectangle labeled “district structures” as a visual representation of the district
220

“boxing in” or inhibiting the principal supervisor’s ability to foster principal development.
Including the word “structures” in the label further advanced the negative connotation of the
district and its role in helping or hindering principal supervisors. Consistent with Gamson and
Hodge (2016), Marsh (2002), and Spillane (1996), the two cases included in this study
demonstrated the school district could be a powerful agent of change and play a pivotal role in
improving teaching and learning. It can be a box that inhibits or something else that strives to
provide support to principal supervisors depending on how it operationalizes the ideas around
building principal capacity. For my revised conceptual framework, I chose to depict the district
as an oval and labeled it “district infrastructure” with the added label “reciprocal accountability.”
Both label choices invoke a positive connotation with “infrastructure” depicting built-in support
for the principal supervisor and “reciprocal accountability” promising the availability of tools to
ensure success. The framing was intentional as I now understand that depending on the outlook
of the district and the choices it makes, their policies can either “box in” principal supervisors,
making it more difficult for them to accomplish their job, or “frame” their support in a way that
empowers them to accomplish the task. Simply put, if the district wants its principal supervisors
to develop principal capacity toward instructional improvement and a positive school climate, it
must ensure they have the proper training and support in place so they have the knowledge and
skills to do what is expected.
On the right side of the outermost oval are the district infrastructure’s cultural elements
that support the fostering of principal development toward instructional improvement and a
positive school climate. First of all, the district must view principals as leaders who are able to
foster instructional improvement because principals are instrumental to teachers’ success and
impact the improvement of teaching and student learning (Davis & Wilson 2000; Finnigan,
221

2010). As was demonstrated in one case study, the district did not view its principals as
instructional leaders therefore the principal supervisors did not see it as their job to build
principal capacity. Without that foundational expectation of principals as instructional leaders,
the district inhibits its ability to improve instruction because research demonstrates the school
site principal is second only to the classroom teacher in their effect on student achievement
(Leithwood et al., 2004; Waters et al., 2003). With the primary purpose for principals
established, the agreed upon and stated vision of the district must include developing human
capital, of which principal capacity is a part, so all community members see it as a priority. Once
the vision is ingrained into the district’s culture, the value of principals’ role in the improvement
of instruction is established. With the value and vision established, the district can set about
ensuring the developing of principal capacity and making it a priority by building support into
the district’s operations. The abovementioned cultural elements combine to demonstrate the
district values developing principal capacity as important to improving instruction and culture.
Inhabiting the left side of the outermost circle are the operational elements necessary for
the district. Once the vision is established, the policies enacted by district leadership must be
designed to support the stated vision and further the district’s ability as a whole to work toward
district goals with one voice. Supporting the vision and policies are the fiscal choices a district
makes. All district offices have a finite amount of funds with which to work and it is their choice
how to allocate those funds. If an adequate amount is not earmarked toward developing principal
capacity, the principal supervisors will not be able to do their job. Training, targeted to give
principal supervisors the tools they need to effectively coach principals, is an essential
component of the district infrastructure. My study revealed that often principal supervisors are
either not trained at all for their job or attend training alongside principals and teachers. It is
222

essential that principal supervisors are trained in managing and coaching adults. Time is an
essential element that principal supervisors need to effectively coach principals. Without it,
coaching is in danger of becoming rushed or a “drop in” routine that does not allow for the deep,
thoughtful reflection necessary for growth. Supporting the principal supervisor’s need for time is
the district managing the number of duties it asks principal supervisors to perform. If the
principal supervisor is tasked with too many responsibilities other than developing principal
capacity, their ability to do so will be impaired.
Seven of the nine elements in the outermost circle are depicted equally and the other two
are in a slightly larger font and bolded. The choice of a largely “free flowing” depiction of the
elements of the district infrastructure is meant to show the situationally specific nature of the
elements necessary to support a principal supervisor develop principals’ capacity. For example, a
district such as Ulta Sierra would need priority bolded because it did not prioritize its directors as
instructional leaders. On the other hand, Happy Hills clearly did prioritize its directors as
instructional leaders so, in its context, “priority” would not be bolded. Because Happy Hills
encumbered its directors with too many district-level responsibilities, its context would require
that “duties” be bolded and given higher priority in the conceptual framework while at least one
of the directors at Ulta Sierra did not have other district duties, so “duties” would not have to be
bolded for USUSD. In another district, it is possible that it is successful with “priority” and
“duties” yet still fail because its principal supervisors have not received training and therefore do
not know how to successfully coach principals. In that fictionalized context, “training” would
have to be bolded in my conceptual framework. Depending on the district’s specific needs,
different element(s) of the “district infrastructure” oval may need to be prioritized and depicted
as such through a bolded, larger font.
223

However, there are elements (depicted in a larger font and bolded) in my conceptual
framework that are foundational, not situational, to supporting principal supervisors as they
develop principals’ capacity. As was evidenced in both cases in this study, for different reasons,
an adequate amount of time was not spent by the directors working with principals toward
instructional improvement and a positive school climate. Depicting time as foundational to a
district’s infrastructure is consistent with literature that says allocating an insufficient amount of
time is detrimental to reform efforts so time must be prioritized (Honig, 2012; Marsh et al.,
2005). Vision is depicted as a second foundational value for a district as it supports their
principal supervisors. Developing and aligning a comprehensive set of strategies and clear
expectations can reinforce instructional improvement goals (Marsh et al., 2005). Vision is a
precondition to the other elements depicted in the conceptual framework because without
expectations developed as a result of a clear vision, principal supervisors would not have a clear
idea of what they are trying to accomplish. A third element fundamental to others, trust, is found
in the middle oval labeled “principal supervisor.” Consistent with Marsh et al. (2005), a principal
must have trust in the principal supervisor’s credibility to facilitate the work of building principal
capacity. Without trust as a foundation, the relationship between a principal supervisor and
principal would have a difficulty producing improvement in the principal’s capacity.
The middle oval focuses on the elements a principal supervisor uses to develop principal
capacity. Similar to the elements that make up the district infrastructure, these are interconnected
to each other in various ways, with one (the abovementioned trust) being a precondition for
others. First of all, principal supervisors must be adept at coaching adults toward improvement
inclusive of a deep understanding of problems and how to search for long-term solutions rather
than short-term fixes as suggested by Wagner (2007). The coaching process is connected to
224

reflection and feedback in that the process includes guiding principles through a deep reflective
process using questioning and feedback as a guide. Additionally, feedback is related to critical
conversations because honest feedback includes the positive as well as areas of needed growth
which often involves difficult conversations. Related to reflection is CRSL because without
reflection, principals will not recognize their inherent biases and achieve lasting change
especially when it comes to historically marginalized students. In order to achieve a successful
coaching relationship, the principal supervisor must work to establish a working relationship
with the principal so the principal feels supported as opposed to threatened during the coaching
process as is shown to be necessary for success (California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, 2014; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015; Hvidston et al., 2018;
Lochmiller, 2014). Drawing on my argument that the coaching toward improvement be driven
by a unified vision, the principal supervisor must be effective in recognizing growth areas for
principals and effectively aid them in setting goals for their growth. Hvidston et al. (2018) cites
goal setting and meeting regularly to engage in reflective conversations based on the goals as
essential components to effective improvement. Essential to the success of all elements is trust.
For the principal supervisor to implement all the elements necessary to successfully coach
toward the development of principal capacity, they must establish trust in the coaching
relationship (Celoria & Roberson, 2015; Gimbel & Kefor, 2018; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Hvidston
et al., 2018; Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015; Wise & Cavazos, 2017). The development of principal
capacity is not a haphazard process. When an effective district infrastructure is in place to
support the principal supervisor, they are well equipped to design a map toward improvement.
The innermost oval represents the desired outcome, a principal who is effectively
working toward instructional improvement and a positive school climate. As part of the district
225

structure, these terms must be defined and with a common analytic language around their
meaning so there is no confusion around exactly what the district’s vision is. Absent from this
framework are the reciprocal arrows going back and forth between the principal and principal
supervisor. During my data collection, including interviews with three principals, it was apparent
that while the school site principal is an active partner in building their own capacity, the
guidance and direction is best served if it comes from the principal supervisor. This is in line
with research (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2014; Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2015; Elmore, 2006; Hallinger, 2003; Hitt & Tucker, 2015; Khalifa et al., 2016)
that stresses the importance of establishing a vision as a necessary component for improvement.
As revealed in my study, a centralized vision of improvement gives principal supervisors a
framework within which to work.
Conclusion
The revised conceptual framework provides a theory that emerged from my time in the
field. To arrive at this particular framework, I combined my study of the literature with the data I
collected through my case studies and rethought my original framework. I argue that a district
must design their infrastructure to support principal supervisors to foster principal development.
Without structural support in the form of a culture that supports and values the fostering of
principal development and practical support such as training, time, and fiscal support, principal
supervisors will fail to effectively foster principal development.

226

Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications, and Recommendations
This dissertation explored the role principal supervisors, in this case directors, played in
coaching principals toward instructional improvement and a positive school climate. A
qualitative multi-district case study was used to answer the following research questions:
1. How do two school districts construct the role a principal supervisor plays in
fostering the development of school site principals to lead toward instructional
improvement, a positive school climate, and access for its most vulnerable students?
2. How does a principal supervisor enact the role constructed by the district to work
with principals toward fostering their development to support instructional
improvement, a positive school climate and access for its most vulnerable students?
To answer the questions, I used purposeful sampling to select two districts with principal
supervisors who had reputations for being engaged in fostering principal development through
the coaching process and doing it well. I selected districts in California that diverged in the
number of historically marginalized students they served. Before beginning data collection, I
confirmed through the California Department of Education that in 2019-2020, approximately
35% of the student population were socioeconomically disadvantaged, approximately 40% were
Latino and/or African American, and approximately 11% were English Learners in one district,
and approximately 12% were socioeconomically disadvantaged, approximately 14% were Latino
and/or African American and approximately 4% were English Learners in the other. While
neither of the districts met my initial criteria of 40% historically marginalized students, the two
districts did diverge in the number of students who were low income, students of color, and
English Learners. The contrast provided a nice background to the questions being answered in
the interviews and vignettes. The data I collected to answer my research questions included in-
227

person interviews with four directors and three principals. I also presented the four directors with
four vignettes, two of which presented a problem of instruction and two of which presented a
problem of school climate and asked them questions pointing toward how they would handle
each scenario. I conducted one observation of one director and three principals during my data
collection.
Summary of Findings
Ulta Sierra Unified School District was a K-12 school district serving a city of
approximately 120,000 residents in a semi-rural county of California (United States Census,
2019). The district’s schools served approximately 17,000 students with an approximately 90%
graduation rate. Director of Secondary Education, Susan Day, supervised the principals of the
district’s middle and high schools and Director of Elementary Education, Elinore James,
supervised the elementary principals. Happy Hills Unified School District was located in the
suburbs of a major metropolitan city in California, serving four incorporated and unincorporated
areas of approximately 54,000 residents. The district’s schools served approximately 10,800
students with a graduation rate of approximately 95%. Director George Rivera supervised the
district’s high school principals and Director Robert Taylor supervised the elementary principals.
Together, the directors from each district, through their answers to the interview questions and
vignettes, projected their district’s particular approach to fostering principal development toward
instructional improvement and a positive school climate.
Ulta Sierra Unified School District’s objective in fostering principals’ development was
aimed toward ensuring their ability to implement programs targeted toward teachers, not to have
directors build principals’ capacity to lead toward instructional improvement and a positive
school climate. Data revealed the directors saw it as their role to make certain principals were
228

equipped to implement programs the district adopted and ensure district priorities and programs
were implemented. The district’s overall approach to instructional improvement was to task the
directors to adopt and implement programs that were targeted toward teachers rather than have
the directors build principals’ capacity to lead and improve instruction through mentoring and
coaching. This outsourcing of the work to build instructional capacity bypassed principals as
instructional leaders, so the responsibility of building their capacity was not seen as the job of the
directors who supervised them. Instead, the district’s focus was managing relationships that
supported the productive functioning of the schoolwide system. At Ulta Sierra, the directors were
not expected to build the capacity of principals, so the district did not equip them to do so.
The focus of Ulta Sierra’s Directors was on how the district operated instead of
instruction and school culture, resulting in a superficial approach to both. Ulta Sierra’s directors’
investigation of a given problem focused on procedure, resulting in limiting the investigation to
quick, simple solutions rather than a deep understanding of the problems they were asking
principals to solve. This approach oversimplified problems instead of recognizing them as
complex issues requiring a reflective act to investigate. When working with principals, they
communicated a specific step by step approach they expected them to follow when solving
problems and used a deductive questioning process that served to reinforce their own
expectations that established procedures were followed. Ultimately, Ulta Sierra did not see it as
the directors’ job to ensure principals had a complex understanding of instruction or school
climate so the directors failed to actively promote or facilitate its improvement. Instead, the overt
energy of improving instruction was handed to outside providers leaving the directors to focus on
structural matters. Also, Ulta Sierra’s directors did not have a common approach to supervising
principals, using different approaches so a clear pathway to their development was not present.
229

For her part, Director Day did not view herself as a coach and believed her principals were fixed
in their abilities and only needed support to make the decisions they already knew to be right.
Therefore, her approach was one of information gathering and direction. Director James, on the
other hand, treated her principals as if they were capable of growth yet still worked within the
structure of the system that favored the procedural over reflective. She saw herself as a coach
and approached her principals with a questioning stance, yet her questions were directive and
procedural in their objective.
Happy Hills Unified School District espoused a vision of their directors being responsible
for building principals’ capacity to cultivate environments supporting rigorous instruction that
attended to equity and supported a diverse student population. Within this context, both HHUSD
directors communicated their commitment to strategies aimed at fostering principal development
to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate. HHUSD’s directors were
well versed in coaching strategies and worked to incorporate them into the culture of their
interactions with principals. The aim was to help the strategies become an integrated tool for
addressing the instructional inequities that affected the performance of the district’s historically
marginalized students. In order to carry out its vision, Happy Hills, through its directors, was
committed to fostering principals’ adoption of identities, values, and beliefs that would give
them “one voice” to lead toward providing equitable access to the district’s most vulnerable
students.
Despite both directors’ focus on coaching and them instilling a consistent set of identity,
values, and beliefs in their principals, the district did not set the directors up for success to carry
out its vision in terms of addressing inequity and the needs of its historically marginalized
students. Among the impediments were impositions on the directors’ time, fiscal restraints, and a
230

lack of training targeted to the work of supervising principals. The district telegraphed a goal of
raising the achievement of their most vulnerable students and provided many resources,
however, the directors’ engagement in accomplishing this goal was limited because of structural
restraints imposed on them. For example, the district treated the directors as multi-dimensional,
giving them many and varied responsibilities that undermined their ability to do the job of
building principals’ capacity. Additionally, a coherent approach to achieving the district’s
espoused vision of providing access to their most vulnerable students was hampered by the
adoption of too many strategies and approaches. Furthermore, each director was left on his own
to make sense of the initiatives because of a lack of targeted training and direction from the
district as to how each initiative melded together to work toward their vision.
Implications and Recommendations
This dissertation explored how two public school districts approached fostering the
development of school site principals to lead toward instructional improvement and a positive
school climate. It examined the ways principal supervisors, in this case directors, approached
their principals when guiding them in leadership roles and how each district’s infrastructure
affected the directors’ ability to guide principals. In the following section, I will discuss the
implications that emerged from these findings as they relate to fostering the development of
principals.
Practice
One implication that emerged from this study is that if the coaching of principals to
develop their capacity is not privileged as a priority for the district as a whole and the principal
supervisors in particular, specifically through time, value and coaching, it will not be successful.
231

In order for the coaching of principals to be enacted, districts must create conditions that support
principal supervisors’ ability to engage in coaching behaviors.
Time
There is a constant battle for resources in a district, one of which is time. Principal
supervisors must create protected time through scheduling for them to be able to work with and
coach principals (Honig & Rainey, 2019). In order to have a supervisor who can coach to
develop principal capacity and supervise to evaluate, their “span of control” must be reduced
(Goldring et al., 2018). Having the number of responsibilities outside of the coaching of
principals reduced frees up time to allow directors to focus their efforts on coaching to raise
principals’ capacity (Goldring et al., 2018). Furthermore, principal supervisors must have the
fostering of principal development as the primary focus of their job, dedicating a substantial
portion of their time to developing instructional leadership capacity and minimize the amount of
time spent on activities unrelated to principal development (Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2015; Goldring et al., 2018).
Value
As demonstrated in the case of Happy Hills, the development of principal capacity is not
limited to giving principal supervisors the tools for coaching, it is also about ensuring all parties,
including the district, value coaching as part of the framework of principal supervisor’s duties.
The Council of Chief State School Officers (2015) called on principal supervisors to guide
principals to be instructional leaders through coaching, time, reflection, and evaluation. They
also emphasized the importance of the district as a partner in ensuring effective and efficient
policies and procedures (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015). Additionally, the
principal supervisor initiative, as part of strengthening central office structures, called upon
232

districts to reorganize district offices to support supervisors by reallocating nonmanagerial
responsibilities so principal supervisors were able to focus on instructional leadership (Goldring
et al., 2018). The implication for practice is that the support for developing principals’ capacity
must be integrated into the entire fabric of the district. There is always competition for resources
in a school district, it is incumbent on the district to determine how those resources are allocated.
Partially committing to the development of principals through effective training is not enough,
the district must structure the central office to support principal supervisors’ work with principals
(Goldring et al., 2018).
Coaching
The essential part of coaching is generating deep thinking of the principal through open
ended questions that allow for discovery (Costa & Garmston, 1992). However, if the goal of the
principal supervisor is discovering for procedure as it was in Ulta Sierra, the underlying capacity
of the principal will not change. Therefore, principal supervisors are being called upon to shift
from focusing on compliance to growth (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015; Honig &
Rainey, 2019). Furthermore, it is not just about giving principal supervisors tools for coaching,
the principal supervisor must fundamentally understand and embrace the essence of coaching as
a vehicle to recognize the right questions that generate thinking as was evidenced in Celoria and
Robinson’s (2015) study of new principal coaching. Based on this study’s research, districts
must build an infrastructure that will train principal supervisors to effectively coach principals
and implement a reciprocal accountability system that allows principal supervisors to learn,
practice, and get feedback as a practice of improvement (Elmore, 2000). Effectively
implementing this practice would help lead principal supervisors to an understanding of how to
233

use coaching moves to generate deep thinking and a thoughtful examination of practice (Costa &
Garmston, 2002).
Policy
An implication for policy revealed by the data was that if a district leader expects and
holds principal supervisors accountable to accomplish a goal, it is incumbent upon the district to
provide the support necessary, so they are able to accomplish what is expected. In the districts I
studied, neither had the infrastructure to fully support their principal supervisors building
principals’ capacity toward instructional improvement and a positive school climate. Ulta
Sierra’s program implementation was a superficial response to change that demonstrated
Elmore’s (2005) discussion about external accountability and how it embodied primitive and
unspecified theories of school improvement. Ulta Sierra recognized they wanted to meet the
needs of their historically marginalized students yet none of the approaches they took were likely
to produce real improvement. Happy Hills, on the other hand, had a high degree of internal
accountability consistent with what Elmore (2005) says about it being coherence and alignment
among individuals’ conceptions and collective expectations at the organizational level. Also
consistent with Elmore (2005) was the fact that both Happy Hills’s directors knew what they
were responsible for and that they were responsible to account for what they do. Both directors
pointed to meeting the needs of their historically marginalized students as a priority when
discussing developing principal capacity. While it was clear they and the district had a high
degree of internal accountability that preceded and determined responses to the external
environment (Elmore, 2005), they were prevented from fully realizing the district’s vision
because of impediments put in their way. The implication for policy is districts must have
reciprocal accountability where the district takes on the responsibility to provide the directors
234

with the support they need, and they are not expected to demonstrate knowledge or skill that they
have not had the opportunity to learn (Elmore, 2004). Goldring et al. (2018) outline many
methods to accomplish this, including revising the principal supervisors’ job description,
training, developing systems to identify potential supervisors, and strengthening central office
structures, all of which worked together to change the role of the principal supervisor.
Clarifying Role of the Principal Supervisor
Neither school district represented in this study relied on standards for principal
supervisors to guide their work toward developing principal capacity. This led to a lack of
cohesion that caused principal supervisors to take inconsistent paths toward developing
principals’ capacity and each director demonstrating a different viewpoint of how to do their job.
This is not an atypical situation as the Council of Chief State School Officers (2015) stated that
among districts, job descriptions vary, as do titles. The implication for practice is to adopt and
implement a principal supervisor evaluation tool based on the 2015 Model Principal Supervisor
Professional Standards as a tool to ensure commonality and professionalism in the supervision of
principals. Through the adoption of the standards, a district would be able to articulate a
coordinated vision for the principal supervisor’s role, allowing for cohesion across the district
(Goldring et al., 2018). Adopting the principal supervisor standards as a guide for accountability
and evaluations would help focus the principal supervisors’ job description and increase
cohesion within the district consistent with elements Elmore (2006) said are necessary for
increasing internal accountability.
Training
Related to the above implication is the lack of training principal supervisors receive both
before they rise to the job and after they are in it. Typically, districts promote teachers to
235

principals based on ability in the classroom, completion of a credentialing program, or prior
experience as a teacher (Slayton, 2017). Then, decisions for promotion to principal supervisor
are made for many of the same reasons, Slayton (2017) found that rarely is a promotion based on
the result of building capacity to develop and lead adults. None of the directors in this study were
groomed for the job they occupied, they all rose to their positions through the paths of teacher, to
principal to district office personnel to director, as Slayton (2017) states often happens in school
systems. Once they became directors, they did not receive training specifically designed for their
job and worked under the assumption that, as Director Rivera said, “they assume you know it.”
The implication for practice is school districts must first work toward developing systems to
identify and grow quality candidates to become principal supervisors then train them for the job
(Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015; Goldring et al., 2018; Slayton, 2017). It is
incumbent upon a district to identify, recruit, then develop principal supervisors through
apprenticeships for the job they will do so when they ascend to the level of principal supervisor,
they have the knowledge and are prepared for the job they are asked to do (Goldring, et al.,
2018).
Research
This study provided insights into the role a principal supervisor plays in fostering
principal development toward instructional improvement and a positive school climate. It also
spoke to the role the district’s infrastructure plays in helping or hindering principal supervisors in
the accomplishment of their job. Although measures were taken to ensure the data and the
findings of the two districts were as accurate as possible, the study was limited by factors that
would have otherwise provided a more complete picture of the directors’ roles. First, the study
was limited by the amount of time allotted to gather data. Future research should include
236

additional time for more comprehensive interviews with both principal supervisors and
principals. Future research should also include interviews with district office personnel to
determine the reasoning behind the choices made to either support or hinder principal
supervisors. Additionally, shadowing the directors would have provided a more complete picture
by allowing me to observe their practice and what their interactions with principals really looked
like. Future research would benefit by including observational data.
This study spoke to how a principal supervisor wore the “two hats” of coach and
supervisor. Further research that more narrowly focuses on the fine line principal supervisors
walk between coaching and supervising is warranted.
While this study examined the Model Principal Supervisor Professional Standards 2015,
evidence of them being adopted and used in a district is scarce. An implication for further
research is to study districts that have adopted and implemented the Model Principal Supervisor
Professional Standards 2015, to determine how they affect principal supervisors’ ability to foster
principal development.
This study focused on instructional improvement, further study is warranted to examine
how a district defines high-quality instruction and how they support improvement towards it.
Specifically, focusing on a district striving toward ambitious teaching as a means to provide
equitable access to all students would be an important area of study.

237

References
Barth, R. (1986). Principal centered professional development. Theory Into Practice, 25(3), 156-
160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848609543218
Bastian, K. C., & Henry, G. T. (2015). The apprentice: Pathways to the principalship and student
achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(4), 600-639.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14562213
Bickman, L., Goldring, E., De Andrade, A. R., Breda, C., & Goff, P. (2012). Improving Principal
Leadership Through Feedback and Coaching. Society for Research on Educational
Effectiveness.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how
principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration,
38(2), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320082
Bloom, G., Castagna, C., & Warren, B. (2003). More than mentors: principal coaching.
Leadership, 32(4), 20-23.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theories
and methods (5th ed.). Pearson.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame,
multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30(4), 509-534.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930300406
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership
(5
th
ed.). Jossy-Bass.

238

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2014). California Professional Standards for
Education Leaders (CPSEL) Adopted by the Commission, (February). Retrieved from
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/standards/cpsel-booklet-2014.pdf
Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the common core: accelerating
achievement (1
st
ed.). Heinemann.
Celoria, D., & Roberson, I. (2015). New Principal Coaching as a Safety Net. Educational
leadership and Administration, 26, 86-99.
Character Development. Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation. (2020).
https://themedalofhonor.com/character-development/
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1992). Cognitive coaching: A strategy for reflective teaching.
Journal for Supervision and Curriculum Improvement. California ASCD.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance
schools. Cristopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.,
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2015). Model principal supervisor professional
standards. Retrieved from https://ccsso.org/resource-library/model-principal-supervisor-
professional-standards
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the whole child: Improving
school climate to support student success. Learning Policy Institute.

239

Darling-Hammond, L., Orphanos, S., LaPointe, M., & Weeks, S. (2007). Leadership
development in California (Getting Down to Facts: Effectiveness Studies Series). Stanford.
Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principals’ efforts to empower teachers: Effects on teacher
motiation and job satisfaction and stress. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 73(6), 349-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650009599442
Davis, S., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Innovative principal preparation programs: What
works and how we know. Planning and Changing, 43, 25-45.
DeMarrais, K. B., & Lapan, S. D. (2004). Foundations for research: methods of inquiry in
education and the social sciences. Mahwah, J. J.: L. Eribaum Associates.
DeMatthews, D. (2018). Social justice dilemmas: evidence on the successes and shortcomings of
three principals trying to make a difference. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 21(5), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1206972
Elmore, R. (2005). Accountable Leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134-142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984677
Elmore, R. F. (2006). International perspectives on school leadership for systemic improvement
6. Politics, (July), 1-28.
Equal Opportunity Schools, (2020). https://eoschools.org
Figlio, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). School accountability. Handbook of the Economics of Education
(3) 383-421. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(11)03008-5
Finnigan, K. S. (2010). Principal leadership and teacher motivation under high stakes
accountability policies. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(2), 161-189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760903216174

240

Gallucci, C., Van Lare, M., Yoon, I., & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional Coaching. American
Educational Research Journal., 47(4), 919-963. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210371497
Gamson, H., Hodge, E. (2016). Education research and the shifting landscape of the American
school district, 1816 to 2016. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 216-249.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16670323
Gimbel, P., & Kefor, K. (2018). Perceptions of a principal mentoring initiative. NASSP Bulletin,
102(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636518754405
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction (4
th
ed.). Pearson.
Goldring, E. B., Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., Rogers, L. D., Neel, M., & Clark, M. A. (2018). A
new role emerges for principal supervisors: Evidence from six districts in the principal
supervisor initiative. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
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., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness:
1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090203
Helsing, D., Howell, A., Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2008). Putting the “Development” in
professional development: Understanding and overturning educational leaders’ immunities
to change. Harvard Educational Review, 78(3), 437-465.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.3.888l759g1qm54660
Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal-preparation
programs. Tachers College Record, 109(1), 1-28.
241

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
Honing, M. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office
administrators support principals' development as instructional leaders. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733-774. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12443258
Honing, M., & Rainey, L. (2019). Supporting principal supervisors: what really matters? Journal
of Educational Administration, 57(5), 445-462. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2019-
0089
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for
professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American educational research
journal, 47(1), 181-217. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345158
Hvidston, D. J., McKim, C. A., & Holmes, W. T. (2018). What are principals’ perceptions?
Recommendations for improving the supervision and evaluation of principals. NASSP
Bulletin, 102(3), 214-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636518802033
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73-85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8
Jenkins, B. (2010). Putting it in context: the use of vignettes in qualitative interviewing.
Qualitative research: QR, 10(2), 175-198. https://soi.org/10.1177/1468794109356737
Khalifa, M. A. (2018). Culturally responsive school leadership (Vol. 217). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.

242

Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership.
Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272-1311.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
Kwan, P. (2009). The vice-principal experience as a preparation for the principalship. Journal of
Educational Administration, 47(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910941048
Lampert, M., Boerst, T., & Graziani, F. (2011). Organizational resources in the service of
school-wide ambitious teaching. Teachers College Record, 113(7), 1361-1400.
Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., Cunard A.,
Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping It Complex: Using Rehearsals to Support Novice Teacher
Learning of Ambitious Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226-243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112473837
Le Fevre, D. M., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2015). The interpersonal challenges of instructional
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(1), 58-95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x13518218
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Executive Summary: How
Leadership Influences Student learning. Commissioned by the Wallace Foundation
Lochmiller, C. (2014). Leadership coaching in an induction program for novice principals.
Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 9(1), 59-84.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775113502020
Lochmiller, C. (2018). Principal coaching in central office supervisory roles: Exploring
persistent tensions. Voices of Reform: Educational Research to Inform and Reform, 1(1),
76–90. https://doi.org/10.32623/1.00007

243

MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on
student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120701576241
Marsh, J. (2002). How districts relate to states, schools, and communities: A review of emerging
literature. In Hightower, A. M., Knapp, M. S., Marsh, J. A., & McLaughlin, M.W. (Eds.),
School Districts and Instructional Renewal (pp. 25-40). Teachers College Press.
Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R. W., & Barney, H.
(2005). The Role of Districts in Fostering Instructional Improvement Lessons from Three
Urban Districts Partnered with the Institute for Learning. Rand Corporation/
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Third). Sage
Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology: Learning in the content areas. Vol.
1. Prentice Hall
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226-232.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. (1
st
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mission, Vision, and Values. Equal Opportunity Schools. (2020, April 24).
https://eoschools.org/why/mission-vision-and-values/.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015a). Professional standards for
educational leaders, (October), 1-14.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015b). Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders Retrieved from http://www.npbea.org.
244

Nettles, S. M., & Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school
leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvwement policy.
Peobody Journal of Education, 84(4), 724-736.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560701603239
NLP School. (2016, August 11). NLP logical levels and identity. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=25&v=NX3U9zspnVA&feature=emb_l
ogo
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Oakwater, H. (2018, May 18). Robert Dilts explains NLP logical levels of learning & change +
impact of trauma (Part 1). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrK9_ZPo790
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Depth Interviewing. Igarss 2014, (1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-
014-0173-7.2
Pellicer, L. O. (2003). Caring enough to lead: How reflective thought leads to moral leadership
(2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (1998). How leaders influence the culture of schools. Educational
Leadership, 56(1), 28-30.
Popham, W. J. (1988). The dysfunctional marriage of formative and summative teacher
evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(3), 269-273.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Seeing student learning: teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(2).
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (Third).
Sage Publications.
245

Slayton, J. (2017). Rethinking leadership in K-12: Ensuring that those in positions of leadership
are also positioned to lead. In The Dark Side of Leadership: Identifying and Overcoming
Unethical Practice in Organizations Advances in Educational Administ (pp. 57-72).
Spillane, J. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional
policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904896010001004
Thomas, I. A., Green, R. L., (2015, January). Using Instructional Strategies to Enhance Student
Achievement. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal (25)3
Trotter II, R. T. (2012). Qualitative research sample design and sample size: Resolved and
unresolved issues and inferential imperatives. Preventative Medicine, 55, 398-400.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.07.003
United States Census Bureau. (20129). American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/
Varlas, L. (2002). Getting acquainted with the essential nine. Curriculum Update, 4-5.
Wagner, T. (2007). Leading for change. Education Week, 26(45), 29.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research Tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora.

Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
The Free Press.
Wise, D., & Cavazos, B. (2017). Leadership coaching for principals: a national study. Mentoring
and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 25(2), 223-245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2017.1327690
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
246

Zepeda, S. J., Parylo, O., & Bengtson, E. (2013). Analyzing principal professional development
practices through the lens of adult learning theory. Professional Development in Education,
40(2), 295-315.

247

Appendix A: Principal Supervisor Interview Protocol
RQ: How do two school districts construct the role a principal supervisor plays in fostering the
development of school site principals to lead towards instructional improvement, a
positive school climate, and access for its most vulnerable students?

How do principal supervisors enact the role constructed by the district to work with
principals towards fostering their development to support ambitious teaching and a
positive school climate?

Introduction:

Good afternoon and thank you for sitting down with me today. I want to begin by letting
you know a little bit about what I have planned for our time together. I will be asking you
questions about your approach to the coaching of the principal you are supervising and how you
specifically support the principals you supervise in their efforts to improve. Do you have any
questions or would you like clarification about anything I have just said or what you read in the
informed consent paper?
With your permission, I would like to record our interview. Recording interviews is my
practice so I have an accurate record of what is said. Also, recording enables me to avoid
misinterpretations and to hear your accurate voice. If you would like me to stop the recording
for any portion of the interview, just let me know and I will put it on pause, so you may say what
you would like while the recording is off. The recording of our conversation will be transcribed
and used only by me and my dissertation chair. No other person will have access to the
recordings or transcriptions. You will also see me taking notes. The notes will be used as a
marker for the recordings and as a backup in case any portion of the recording fails. Do you
have any questions about what I just said to you? Do I have your permission to record our
interview?
I appreciate you taking the time to help me out with my dissertation research. As you
know there is not any payment attached to you providing me with this interview, but I want to
express in the strongest terms my appreciation for you sitting down with me at this time. I am
confident I will have all my questions answered at the end of this interview session, but if I need
to follow up, I may be contacting you with a few more questions.
Are you ready to begin?

We will begin our interview exploring how you view your approach to improving the
capacity of the principals you supervise.

Role

1. What is the ideal role for a supervisor to play when it comes to fostering the development
of a school site principal?
2. How, if at all, does your approach to working with the principals you supervise differ
from the ideal role you just described?
a. Thinking about your work with a principal you currently supervise, talk me
through how your approach reflects your beliefs about your role.
248

Goal Setting

3. In your view, what it the importance of having clear and measurable goals for the
coaching relationship?
4. How, if at all, do you set priorities/goals for your work with the principals you supervise?
a. Think about one of your principals. Walk me through that experience/process.
What did you do first? When, if at all, do you talk with the principal about
deciding what the goals should be? How, if at all, did you use the information that
the principal gave you?
5. In your view, what is your role in the setting of goals for the development of principals’
capacity as a school site leader?
a. What do you see as the role of the principal in this process?
6. What, if any, input should principals have into the purpose and direction of the coaching
relationship?
a. To what extent do you encourage principal input?
b. Describe a recent experience you have had with a principal where you sought out
the principal’s perspective in relation to the coaching relationship.
7. What type(s) of input from the principal are necessary to the success of the coaching
relationship?
8. To what degree to you believe principals’ vision for their school affects the coaching
relationship they have with you?
a. To what extent do you believe it is possible to have a successful coaching
relationship with a principal who has a vision for his/her school that is vastly
different from yours?
Support

9. What do you see as the difference between “positive” support and support aimed at
stimulating growth?
10. What does it mean to you to “support” a principal?
a. What would be an example of how you have provided support to a principal.
11. What would you say are the most important things to consider when you embark on
supporting the development of school site principals?
12. To what extent, if any, do you believe it is your responsibility to act as a cheerleader for
your principals?
a. What would be an example of a recent time when you would say you acted as a
cheerleader? How is that an example of support?
13. What role, if any, do you believe “critical conversations” play in the way you offer
support to principals?
a. Walk me through a recent time when you had a critical conversation with one of
your principals. How is that an example of support?
Coaching

14. How, if at all, do you see your role as a coach as different from your role as supervisor?
a. Thinking about the work you do with one of your principals, describe how you
have differentiated your work as a coach from your work as a supervisor.
249

b. Some people say that it is not possible to separate the role of evaluator and coach,
what would you say to them?
i. Talk me through one recent experience where you were able to separate
those two roles. What made it possible?
ii. Talk me through a recent experience where you were not able to separate
the two roles. What made it hard to do?
15. Think of a recent coaching session with a principal that you think was representative of
your typical coaching session. Describe that session to me.
16. What, if any barriers do you face when you engage in the coaching process?
a. Think of a recent experience you had with a principal where you ran into a
barrier. Walk me through that experience.
b. What, if anything, did you do to overcome the barrier?
17. What have been your most effective moves/supports when working with principals?
a. Describe an interaction you have had with a principal where you have used one or
more of these moves and what happened (one where you think using the move
accomplished what you set out to accomplish).
b. Describe an interaction you have had with a principal where you have used one or
more of these moves and what happened (one where you think using the move did
not accomplished what you set out to accomplish).
18. Describe the measures you use to assess whether the principals have made progress
towards the goal(s) you both have set for the principal’s improvement.
a. Think about a goal you and a principal agreed upon. Walk me through the
process you used to determine the degree to which the goal was achieved.
19. What has been easier than expected when coaching principals?
a. Talk me through an example of a time when a coaching experience was easy.
20. What type of feedback do you provide to the principals you supervise?
a. How do you expect the principals to use the feedback you give them?
b. Give me an example of a time when a principal used the feedback you gave them.
What happened?
c. How do you know when a principal has used feedback you have given him/her?
d. What do you do, if anything, if a principal does not use the feedback you have
offered?
21. Tell me about a recent time when you realized that one of the principals you supervise
was not providing leadership towards the improvement of instruction that was not up to
the quality you expected of him/her. What did you do?
a. How would you describe the interaction you had with him/her?
b. How did the principal react to that interaction?
c. How do you think being on the receiving end of a critical conversation/interaction
influenced the principal’s ability to have critical conversations in his/her own
leadership role?
22. Think of a recent time you were directed by your supervisor to give a directive to a
principal you supervise. How did you accomplish communicating the directive?
a. What, if any impact did the communication of the directive have on your
coaching relationship with that principal?
23. What specific steps do you take to ensure your coaching time is separate and distinct
from your supervising time?
250

a. How do you stay away from spending your time only “putting out fires” instead
of capacity building?
24. Walk me through the process you use with each principal to determine the importance of
an issue. How, if at all, does this determination process relate to the goals you and the
principal have set?
a. Once an issue is determined to be important, describe how you go about helping
the principal find a path towards a resolution?

Now that we have discussed your approach to improving the capacity of principals, I would
like to ask you a few questions about the specific support you provide principals as they strive to
improve their own instructional practices.

25. What factors do you think exert the greatest influence over improving the quality of
teaching at a school site?
a. How, if at all, are those factors influenced or affected by your work coaching
principals?
26. Describe to what extent your coaching is dedicated towards the improvement of the
quality of teaching on your principals’ campus.
a. To what extent do you think the principals you supervise are able to identify
teachers who need instructional support.
b. Think of a recent time a principal you coached identified a teacher who needed
support for the improvement of instruction. Describe how you coached him/her
through the process of providing instructional support.

I am now going to turn our attention to how you work with your principals in support of a
positive school climate.

27. To what extent do you think the climate of a school should be a focus of the school site
principal?
a. When you first began working with your principals, how would you describe the
status of the climate of the schools they led?
28. What are the specific elements that must be in place in order for a school’s climate to be
considered healthy?
a. How do you communicate those elements to the principals you supervise?
29. Think of a typical discussion you have had with a principal about the quality of the
climate of their school, describe the discussion.
a. Walk me through the process you use to coach principals in the improvement of
their school’s climate.
30. What is your impression of the current climate of the school your principals lead?
a. Describe whether it has (or not) changed since you began coaching the principal?
b. To what do you attribute the change or lack thereof to the school’s climate?
31. What role do you think you play through your coaching in building the capacity of the
principals you lead that results in shaping (or not) the climate of your principals’ schools?

251

We are finished with focusing on your role specifically, I am going to now ask you a few
questions about your perceptions of the role the principals you supervise should play in the
coaching relationship.

32. To what degree do you think your current principals trust your:
a. Judgement?
b. Decisions?
c. Advice?
d. Information?
33. Think about a time when you had a principal who absolutely trusted you and the
coaching relationship you established with him/her. How was that trust established?
a. Walk me through the elements of the relationship that established and maintained
that trust.
b. What part did you play?
c. What part did the principal play?
34. Think about a time when you had a coaching relationship with a principal where trust
was not as well established. How was that different than the relationship of absolute
trust?
a. Walk me through the elements of the relationship that you believe resulted in
skepticism on the part of the principal.
b. What part did you play?
c. What part did the principal play?
35. Think about a time when you had a principal who absolutely did not trust you resulting in
a difficult coaching relationship. How was the relationship difficult?
a. Walk me through the elements of the relationship that you believe resulted in a
lack of trust.
b. What part did you play?
c. What part did the principal play?
36. Think about the three different coaching relationships we just discussed. What
differentiates them from one another?
37. How does the degree of the trust you have for the principals you supervise contribute to
the trust they have for you?
38. Describe the steps, if any, you have taken to establish and maintain trust with the current
principals you supervise.
a. Think about the different principals you have supervised over the years. To what
degree do you differentiate your approach to the coaching relationship for each
principal.
b. Give me an example of how you approached the same or similar goal differently
with different principals.
39. What factors do you think exert the greatest influence over the quality of the relationship
you have with your principals?
a. To what degree are those factors within your control?
b. To what degree are they within the control of the principal?

252

For this set of questions, I would like to find out how the policies of the district office either
support or inhibit your coaching efforts.

40. Please describe any district initiatives that affect your efforts to build principal capacity
through coaching.
a. Explain how the initiative(s) affects your role as a coach.
b. Give an example of where a district initiative made it easier for you to do your
work coaching principals.
c. Give an example of where a district initiative made it more difficult for you to do
your work coaching principals
41. To what extent has district policy required, encouraged, and/or supported your efforts to
build principal capacity?
a. Give an example showing the degree of support you have from the district
through their policies.
42. What kinds of resources and assistance does the district make available to you?
a. Give an example and how the resource(s) were used

For this last set of questions, I am going to turn our attention to the elements of the coaching
relationship you and the principals share.

43. What are the specific elements you think both you and the principal have to have in order
to have a successful coaching relationship?
44. In your view, what, if any, role does reflection play in the coaching relationship between
you and your principals?
45. Think of an example of a time you actively sought to engage a principal in a reflective
act.
a. When and how has it led to reflection on the part of the principal?
b. When and how has it not?
46. To what extent are you familiar with the different levels of reflective practice?
a. At what level of reflective practice are you?
b. At what level do you believe your principals are?
c. As part of your coaching practice, to what level do you expect your principals to
reflect?
47. How does the amount of time spent in the act of coaching a principal affect the outcome
of fostering development?
48. Describe the steps you take to ensure time is available for coaching principals.
49. Think of an instance where the availability of time affected your coaching process.
a. Give me an example of when the availability of time had an adverse effect on
your ability to effectively coach.
b. Give me an example of when the availability of time had a positive effect on your
ability to effectively coach.
50. Describe your level of familiarity of the elements contained in the Model Principal
Supervisor Professional Standards.
a. How do you incorporate those or other standards into your coaching practice?
51. Describe what you perceive to be your principals’ level of familiarity with the California
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders.
253

a. How do you incorporate the CPSELs into your coaching practice?

I am going to end by asking you a few general questions in order to have a complete picture of
your experience of the coaching process.

52. How has your work with principals changed/evolved during the time you have been
coaching them?
a. Give me an example of something you do differently now than you did when you
first began coaching principals.
53. Thinking about your work with your current principals, what types of changes do you
plan to make as you continue with the coaching process.
a. How will your coaching practice be different in the future?
54. Think about your efforts to foster principal development. Is there anything I should have
asked you about that we did not discuss?
a. If you were me, what should I have asked that we have not discussed?

Closing

I have asked all the questions I wanted to ask, is there anything else you would like to
add? (After the respondent has answered and we have fully completed any further discussion
along this line, I will proceed)
Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with me today. You have a copy of
the informed consent paper, please hold on to it and contact me if you have any questions
regarding this interview.
Thank you again and have a nice day.

254

Appendix B: Principal Interview Protocol
RQ: How do two school districts construct the role a principal supervisor plays in fostering the
development of school site principals to lead towards instructional improvement, a
positive school climate, and access for its most vulnerable students?

Introduction:

Good (morning, afternoon, evening) and thank you for sitting down with me today. I
want to begin by letting you know a little bit about what I have planned for our time together. I
will be asking you questions about how your supervisor specifically supports you in your efforts
to improve. Do you have any questions or would you like clarification about anything I have just
said or what you read in the informed consent paper?
With your permission, I would like to record our interview. Recording interviews is my
practice so I have an accurate record of what is said. Also, recording enables me to avoid
misinterpretations and to hear your accurate voice. If you would like me to stop the recording
for any portion of the interview, just let me know and I will put it on pause, so you may say what
you would like while the recording is off. The recording of our conversation will be transcribed
and used only by me and my dissertation chair. No other person will have access to the
recordings or transcriptions. You will also see me taking notes. The notes will be used as a
marker for the recordings and as a backup in case any portion of the recording fails. Do you
have any questions about what I just said to you? Do I have your permission to record our
interview?
I appreciate you taking the time to help me out with my dissertation research. As you
know there is not any payment attached to you providing me with this interview, but I want to
express in the strongest terms my appreciation for you sitting down with me at this time. I am
confident I will have all my questions answered at the end of this interview session, but if I need
to follow up, I may be contacting you with a few more questions.
Are you ready to begin?

We will begin our interview exploring how you view the approach of your principal supervisor
to improving your capacity.

Role

1. What do you see as the ideal role for a supervisor to play when it comes to fostering the
development of a school site principal?
2. How, if at all, does your supervisor’s approach differ from the ideal role you just
described?
a. Thinking about your supervisor’s work with you, talk me through how your
supervisor’s approach reflects your beliefs about his/her role.
Goal Setting

3. In your view, what it the importance of having clear and measurable goals for your
coaching relationship with your supervisor?
4. How, if at all, are priorities/goals set for your work with your supervisor?
255

b. Walk me through that experience/process. What did you do first?
c. When, if at all, did your supervisor include you in deciding what the goals should
be?
d. How, if at all, was the information you provided used in the setting of the goals?
5. In your view, what is the role of your supervisor in the setting of goals for the
development of your capacity as a school site leader?
b. What do you see as the role of your supervisor in this process?
6. What, if any, input should you have into the purpose and direction of the coaching
relationship with your supervisor?
c. To what extent does your supervisor encourage your input?
d. Describe a recent experience you have had where your supervisor sought out your
perspective as it relates to the coaching relationship.
7. What type(s) of input from you are necessary to the success of the coaching relationship?
a. What type(s) of input from your supervisor are necessary?
8. To what degree to you believe your vision for your school affects the coaching
relationship you have with your supervisor?
b. To what extent do you believe it is possible to have a successful coaching
relationship with a supervisor who has a vision for the school that is vastly
different from yours?
c. To what extent do you think your supervisor should have input into the
development of the vision for your school?
Support

9. What do you see as the difference between “positive” support and support aimed at
stimulating growth?
10. What does it mean to you to have a supervisor “support” you?
b. What would be an example of how your supervisor has provided support to you as
a principal?
11. What would you say are the most important things for your supervisor to consider when
embarking on his/her work supporting the development of school site principals (you)?
12. To what extent, if any, do you believe it is your supervisor’s responsibility to act as a
cheerleader for you?
b. What would be an example of a recent time when you would say your supervisor
acted as a cheerleader? How is that an example of support?
13. What role, if any, do you believe “critical conversations” play in the way your supervisor
offers you support?
b. Walk me through a recent time when your supervisor had a critical conversation
with you. How is that an example of support?
Coaching

14. How, if at all, do you see your supervisor’s role as a coach as different from his/her role
as supervisor?
a. Thinking about the work your supervisor does with you, describe how he/she has
differentiated his/her work as a coach from his/her work as a supervisor.
b. Some people say that it is not possible to separate the role of evaluator and coach,
what would you say to them?
256

iii. Talk me through one recent experience where your supervisor was able to
separate those two roles. What do you think made it possible?
iv. Talk me through a recent experience where your supervisor was not able
to separate the two roles. What do you think made it hard to do?
15. Think of a recent coaching session with your supervisor that you think was representative
of a typical coaching session. Describe that session to me.
16. What, if any barriers do you face when you and your supervisor engage in the coaching
process?
a. Think of a recent experience you had with your supervisor where you ran into a
barrier. Walk me through that experience.
b. What, if anything, did you and/or your supervisor do to overcome the barrier?
17. What have been your supervisor’s most effective moves/supports when working with
you?
a. Describe an interaction you have had with your supervisor where your supervisor
has used one or more of these moves and what happened (one where you think
using the move accomplished what your supervisor set out to accomplish).
b. Describe an interaction your supervisor has had with you where he/she used one
or more of these moves and what happened (one where you think using the move
did not accomplished what he/she set out to accomplish).
18. Describe the measures your supervisor uses to assess whether you have made progress
towards the goal(s) you both have set for your improvement.
a. Think about a goal you and your supervisor agreed upon. Walk me through the
process you and your supervisor used to determine the degree to which the goal
was achieved.
19. What has been easier than expected when your supervisor has coached you?
a. Talk me through an example of a time when a coaching experience was easy for
you.
20. What type of feedback does your supervisor provide to you?
a. How do you to use the feedback your supervisor gives to you?
b. Give me an example of a time when you used the feedback your supervisor gave
to you. What happened?
c. How does your supervisor know when you have used feedback he/she has given
you?
21. Tell me about a recent time when your supervisor let you know that you were not
providing leadership towards the improvement of instruction that was not up to the
quality he/she expected of you. What did you do?
d. How would you describe the interaction you had with him/her?
e. How did the you react to that interaction?
f. How do you think being on the receiving end of a critical conversation/interaction
influenced your ability to have critical conversations in your own leadership role?
22. Think of a recent time your supervisor gave you a directive. How did he/she accomplish
communicating the directive?
a. What, if any impact did the communication of the directive have on your
coaching relationship with your supervisor?
23. What specific steps do you take to ensure the coaching time is separate and distinct from
the time spent supervising you directly?
257

b. How do you stay away from spending your time with your supervisor “putting out
fires” instead of capacity building?
24. Walk me through the process your supervisor uses to determine the importance of an
issue. How, if at all, does this determination process relate to the goals you and your
supervisor have set?
b. Once an issue is determined to be important, describe how your supervisor goes
about helping you find a path towards a resolution?

Now that we have discussed your approach to improving the capacity of principals, I would
like to ask you a few questions about the specific support your supervisor provides you as you
strive to improve your own instructional practices.

25. What factors do you think exert the greatest influence over improving the quality of
teaching at a school site?
a. How, if at all, are those factors influenced or affected by your work with your
supervisor coaching you?
26. Describe to what extent the coaching is dedicated towards the improvement of the quality
of teaching on your campus.
a. To what extent do you think you are able to identify teachers who need
instructional support?
b. Think of a recent time you identified a teacher who needed support for the
improvement of instruction. Describe how your supervisor coached you through
the process of providing that instructional support.

I am now going to turn our attention to how you work with your supervisor in support of a
positive school climate.

27. To what extent do you think the climate of a school should be a focus of the school site
principal?
a. When you first began working with your supervisor, how would you describe the
status of the climate of your school?
28. What are the specific elements that must be in place in order for a school’s climate to be
considered healthy?
a. How does your supervisor communicate those elements to you?
29. Think of a typical discussion you have had with your supervisor about the quality of the
climate of your school, describe the discussion.
a. Walk me through the process your supervisor uses to coach you in the
improvement of you school’s climate.
30. What is your impression of the current climate of your school?
a. Describe whether it has (or not) changed since you began working with your
supervisor?
b. To what do you attribute the change or lack thereof to the school’s climate?
31. What role do you think your supervisor plays though his/her coaching in building your
capacity that results in shaping (or not) the climate of your schools?

258

We are finished with focusing on the role of your supervisor specifically, I am going to now ask
you a few questions about your perceptions of the role you should play in the coaching
relationship.

32. To what degree do you trust your supervisor’s:
e. Judgement?
f. Decisions?
g. Advice?
h. Information?
33. Think about a time when you absolutely trusted your supervisor and the coaching
relationship he/she established with you. How was that trust established?
a. Walk me through the elements of the relationship that established and maintained
that trust.
b. What part did you play?
c. What part did your supervisor play?
34. Think about a time when your trust was not as well established. How was that different
than the relationship of absolute trust?
a. Walk me through the elements of the relationship that you believe resulted in
skepticism on your part.
b. What part did you play?
c. What part did your supervisor play?
35. Think about a time when you absolutely did not trust your supervisor, resulting in a
difficult coaching relationship. How was the relationship difficult?
a. Walk me through the elements of the relationship that you believe resulted in a
lack of trust.
b. What part did you play?
c. What part did your supervisor play?
36. Think about the three different coaching relationships we just discussed. What
differentiates them from one another?
37. How does the degree of the trust you have for your supervisor contribute to the trust they
have for you?
38. Describe the steps, if any, you have taken to establish and maintain trust with your
current supervisor.
39. What factors do you think exert the greatest influence over the quality of the relationship
you have with your supervisor?
a. To what degree are those factors within your control?
b. To what degree are they within the control of your supervisor?

For this set of questions, I would like to find out how the policies of the district office either
support or inhibit your coaching efforts.

40. Please describe any district initiatives that affect your supervisor’s efforts to build
principal capacity through coaching.
a. Explain how the initiative(s) affects your role as a principal.
b. Give an example of where a district initiative made it easier for you to do your
work with your supervisor.
259

c. Give an example of where a district initiative made it more difficult for you to do
your work with your supervisor in a coaching capacity.
41. To what extent has district policy required, encouraged, and/or supported your efforts to
build your own capacity with the help of your supervisor?
a. Give an example showing the degree of support you have from the district
through their policies.
42. What kinds of resources and assistance does the district make available to you?
a. Give an example and how the resource(s) were used

For this last set of questions, I am going to turn our attention to the elements of the coaching
relationship you and your supervisor share.

43. What are the specific elements you think both you and your supervisor have to have in
order to have a successful coaching relationship?
44. In your view, what, if any, role does reflection play in the coaching relationship between
you and your supervisor?
45. Think of an example of a time you actively sought to engage in a reflective act.
a. To what degree was the reflection a result of encouragement by your supervisor?
46. To what extent are you familiar with the different levels of reflective practice?
d. At what level of reflective practice are you?
e. To what level does your supervisor expect you to reflect?
47. How does the amount of time spent in the act of coaching affect the outcome of fostering
your development?
48. Describe the steps you take to ensure time is available for receiving your supervisor’s
coaching.
49. Think of an instance where the availability of time affected your coaching process with
your supervisor.
a. Give me an example of when the availability of time had an adverse effect on
your ability to effectively interact with your supervisor.
b. Give me an example of when the availability of time had a positive effect on your
ability to effectively interact with your supervisor.
50. Describe your level of familiarity with the California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders.
b. How do you incorporate the CPSELs into your practice?

I am going to end by asking you a few general questions in order to have a complete picture of
your experience of the coaching process.

51. Is there anything I should have asked you about that we did not discuss?
a. If you were me, what should I have asked that we have not discussed?

Closing

I have asked all the questions I wanted to ask, is there anything else you would like to
add? (After the respondent has answered and we have fully completed any further discussion
along this line, I will proceed)
260

Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with me today. You have a copy of
the informed consent paper, please hold on to it and contact me if you have any questions
regarding this interview.
Thank you again and have a nice day.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract For principal supervisors to foster the development of school site principals, they must have support built into the infrastructure of the district. However, formal development programs that prepare principal supervisors to support principals often do not exist, and those that do are usually not robust. There is little evidence of what constitutes a high-quality relationship between a principal supervisor and a principal or how it looks when principals are adequately supported. To understand the role a principal supervisor plays in the development of principals’ capacity, the following research questions informed my study: How do two school districts construct the role a principal supervisor plays in fostering the development of school site principals to lead toward instructional improvement, a positive school climate, and access for its most vulnerable students? How do principal supervisors enact the role constructed by the district to work with principals toward fostering their development to support instructional improvement, a positive school climate, and access for its most vulnerable students? This multicase study examined four principal supervisors working in two K-12 school districts. Data included interviews, scenarios, one observation, and documents. Findings revealed each district constructed different roles for their principal supervisors, one favoring program implementation and the other working toward a district vision. Neither district built comprehensive support for the principal supervisors into their infrastructure, so each enacted their role differently. Districts must privilege developing principals’ capacity through the work of their principal supervisors to lead toward instructional improvement and a positive school climate.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A case study of one poʻokumu kaiapuni

PDF

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

PDF

Anti-racist adaptive leadership: an action research study on supporting principals in predominantly white schools to develop color consciousness and support future anti-racist practices

PDF

Public school district principals in California: preparation, recruitment, and retention

PDF

Professional development at an international school

PDF

Principals' perceptions of their ability, as school leaders, to apply learning from district-provided professional development

PDF

A tale of two principals: the complexity of fostering and achieving organizational improvement

PDF

Ma ka hana ka ike perpetuating excellence in Native Hawaiian education: Native Hawaiian Education Council members' approaches to supporting the needs of Native Hawaiians

PDF

Authentic professional learning: a case study

PDF

Developing longevity in the K-12 principal position: strategies for preparation, recruitment, and retention

PDF

Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice

PDF

Developing cultural competence in relation to multilingual learners

PDF

Changing the story: an action research study on utilizing culturally relevant pedagogical practice to enact a movement toward liberatory curriculum and instruction

PDF

The role of leadership in using data to inform instruction: a case study

PDF

The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals

PDF

Following the leader: leadership and the enculturation of the involuntarily transferred teacher to their new school site

PDF

School leadership: preparation, recruitment, and retention of principals

PDF

Leadership styles conducive to creative tension in decision making among principals, vice principals, and deans at K-12 school sites

PDF

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

PDF

Engaging school leaders to conceptualize culturally relevant pedagogy

Asset Metadata

Creator Oplustic, Shirleen Yvonne (author)

Core Title Role of a principal supervisor in fostering principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 12/22/2020

Defense Date 11/24/2020

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

Tag Coaching,Education,instruction,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal,principal development,principal supervisor,school climate

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Marsh, Julie (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email oplustic@usc.edu,soplustic@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-414642

Unique identifier UC11668076

Identifier etd-OplusticSh-9227.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-414642 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-OplusticSh-9227.pdf

Dmrecord 414642

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Oplustic, Shirleen Yvonne

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