University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The principal, the achievement gap and Children's Literacy Initiative: a promising practice

(USC Thesis Other)

The principal, the achievement gap and Children's Literacy Initiative: a promising practice

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 1

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP AND CHILDREN’S LITERACY
INITIATIVE: A PROMISING PRACTICE

by

Frank L. Gettridge

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

August 2018

Copyright 2018 Frank L. Gettridge

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 2

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my dad, Ferdinand Alexander Gettridge,
Sr. Treating people with respect and getting an education was always important to you. I know
you have watched over me during this journey and you know what my challenges have been.
However, if not what you instilled in me, the will to never quit and always finish what you
started, I don’t know if I would have finished. Dad, I carry your spirit with me everywhere I go
and I try to give people what you have always given to me, my brothers, my mother, grandpa and
grandma, “respect, love, forgiveness, toughness, and hope.” I hope your lived example shines
throughout my dissertation and I can feel that you are smiling and proudly looking down on me.
I love you and will never forget the sacrifices you made to pave the way for me. You have
always been my hero and role model!
I also dedicate this dissertation to my mom, Delco Angie Gettridge, you have been more
of an inspiration to me than you know. I love you!
I also thank the rest of my family, grandmother, Elmer Decquir, who has been my
spiritual rock throughout my life; my brothers, Ferdinand A. Gettridge, Jr. and Bronson W.
Gettridge; my best friend (who has become a brother to me and my brothers) Ferron L. Brown;
my sister-in-law, Monique Gettridge; my niece, Hunter Gettridge; and my nephew, Ferdinand
Gettridge, III. They have walked this journey with me and supported me all the way, even when
I didn’t come home for the holidays they understood. I am blessed for having each of you in my
life.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I acknowledge my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, as without Him none of this
would have been possible. There are no words to convey my deep appreciation and gratitude for
my Chair, Dr. Cathy Krop. I know she has exercised a lot of patience and understanding with
me and at every bump she displayed a quiet, yet relaxed confidence that I would get it done. Dr.
Krop you have been a friend on this journey with me and your encouragement on my research
and career has been invaluable.
My sincere thanks also go to the members of my committee, Dr. Larry Picus and Dr.
Monique Datta. I know that your time is important and I was grateful you choose to share some
of it with me. You calmed me down during my defense and gave me good feedback to help
improve my dissertation.
I am grateful to W.K. Kellogg Foundation for supporting and allowing me the flexibility
to further my education and experience the world. Never have I worked for an organization so
supportive of its employees. More specifically, I want to thank Dr. Carla Thompson-Payton and
Dr. Felicia DeHaney for being a pillar of support throughout my journey. I also acknowledge,
Dr. Carol-Brunson Day and Dr. Barbara Bowman, for mentoring me through much of my early
career and for creating opportunities that have contributed to the man I am today. I also want to
thank Joelle-Jude Fontaine and Dr. Elisabeth Luevanos for their support and friendship.
Lastly, to Cohort 5, you have been a blessing to me in this journey. Our friendships will
last beyond this experience. I look forward to what the future holds for all of you.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Introduction 10
Background of the Problem 11
Organizational Context and Mission 19
Organizational Performance Status 20
Organizational Performance Goal and Current Performance 21
Description of Stakeholder Groups 22
Stakeholder Group for the Study 22
Purpose of the Project and Questions 24
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 24
Organization of the Project 25
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 26
Race and Education in the United States 27
The Education of Blacks in the U.S. 27
The Latina/o and the U.S. Education System 28
The Native American History in U.S. Education 30
Critical Race Theory in Education 31
Literacy Achievement Gap 34
The Role of the Principal and Teacher Professional Development in Closing Student
Achievement Gaps 37
Evidence-Based Literacy Reforms 41
Principal Leadership and School Performance 45
Types of Principal Leadership Styles 47
Factors Influencing Principal Leadership 50
School Culture, Climate, and Achievement 54
Principal Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences on Performance 54
Knowledge and Skills 55
Summary and Conclusions 61
Chapter Three: Methodology 63
Purpose of the Project and Questions 63
Stakeholders of Focus 63
Methodological Framework 64
Assumed Principal Assets Promoting Early Literacy Achievement 66
Preliminary Scanning Data and Critical Observations 68
Knowledge and Skills 68
Motivation 68
Organization 69
Study Population 69
Data Collection 70
Surveys 70
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 5

Interviews 71
Document Analysis 72
Validation of Assumed Principal Assets 72
Trustworthiness of Data 73
Role of Investigator 74
Data Analysis 74
Limitations and Delimitations 75
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 76
Findings for Knowledge and Skills Assets 78
Assumed Knowledge Asset #1: Principals Know the Meaning of an Instructional Leader 80
Assumed Knowledge Asset #2: Principals Know the Meaning of Teacher Self-Efficacy 83
Assumed Knowledge Asset #3: Principal Knows the Meaning and Purpose of a
Professional Learning Community 86
Assumed Knowledge Asset #4: Principals Know Why Trust Matters 88
Assumed Knowledge Asset #5: Principal Know the Meaning and Impact of School
Culture and Climate 90
Assumed Knowledge Asset #6: Principals Know the Meaning of Cultural Competence 92
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Assets 94
Findings for Motivation Assets 95
Assumed Motivation Asset #1: Principal Views Themself as an Instructional Leader 96
Assumed Motivation Asset #2: Principal Values Trust and Collaboration 99
Assumed Motivation Asset #3: Principal Focuses on Developing a School Culture and
Climate Focused on Learning 100
Assumed Motivation Asset #4: Principal Values a Learning Environment Designed to
Adapt to and Better Service Diverse Student Populations and Communities 103
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivation Assets 105
Findings for Organizational Assets 106
Assumed Organizational Asset #1: Principals Create Systems and Structures that
Support Professional Learning Communities Focused on Student Learning 108
Assumed Organizational Asset #2: Principal Provides Teachers with the Training,
Resources and Supports Needed to Help Improve Their Practice for All Students 110
Assumed Organizational Asset #3: Principal Provides Resources, Opportunities, and
Supports Designed to Strengthen the Cultural Competence of the Staff and Improve
Family and Community Partnerships 112
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Organizational Assets 116
Conclusion 117
Chapter Five: Recommendations, Implementation, and Evaluation 119
Recommendations Based on Knowledge Assets 122
Data-informed Learning Networks 123
Develop Teacher-Leader Support Structures Around the Principal Position 124
Recommendations Based on Motivation Assets 125
Cultivate Teacher Leaders Through Team-Based Coaching 126
Expand Evidenced-Based Programs 127
Recommendations for Organizational Assets 128
Cultural Competence Training 129
Principals Create Professional Learning Communities 130
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 6

Implementation Plan 131
Recommendations and Action Steps 136
Evaluation Plan 137
Level 1: Reaction 138
Level 2: Learning 139
Level 3: Behavior 139
Leadership 4: Results 140
Future Research 141
Conclusion 142
References 145
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 167
Appendix B: Survey: CLI and the Principal 170

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 7

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary Table of Assumed Assets 67
Table 2: Summary of Validation Methods of Assumed Assets 73
Table 3: Validated Assumed Knowledge Assets 79
Table 4: Assumed Motivational Assets Validated 96
Table 5: Validated Assumed Organizational Assets 107
Table 6: Recommendations Based on Validated Assets 121
Table 7: Summary of Policy Recommendations with Action Steps, Timelines, and
Associated Risk 132

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 8

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Example of programs identified by Best Evidence Encyclopedia. 45
Figure 2. The gap analysis process (Yates, 2016). 65
Figure 3. Principal survey responses to, “How familiar are you with the following types of
leadership?” 81
Figure 4. Principal survey responses to, “Teachers have autonomy within their classrooms.” 84
Figure 5. Principal survey responses to, “This school has systems and structures in place that
support professional learning communities.” 87
Figure 6. Principal survey responses to, “Without trust among staff, school reform efforts are
likely to fail.” 89
Figure 7. Principal survey responses to, “I know the impact a school’s culture and climate
has on student achievement.” 91
Figure 8. Principal survey responses to, “I am familiar with cultural competence.” 93
Figure 9. Principal survey responses to, “I view myself as an instructional leader.” 97
Figure 10. Principal survey responses to, “This school’s culture and climate is focused on
learning.” 102
Figure 11. Principal survey responses to, “This school is organized to adapt to and service
diverse student populations and communities.” 104
Figure 12. Principal survey responses to, “This school has systems and structures that
support professional learning communities.” 109
Figure 13. Principal survey responses to, “Teachers receive professional development
designed to support diverse student populations.” 111
Figure 14. Principal survey responses to, “This school provides resources, supports and
opportunities to strengthen the cultural competence of the staff.” 114
Figure 15. Principal survey responses to, “This school authentically and effectively include
families and communities into the planning process.” 115

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 9

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research study was to explore a promising practice, the Children’s
Literacy Initiative (CLI), and examine the role principals play in closing the 3
rd
grade literacy
achievement gap, particularly through the implementation of a literacy-based school
improvement strategy. This study applied the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis, which
diagnoses the human causes behind the desired goals and the actual performance of the
organization. Through a lens of critical race theory, this study examined the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational assets possessed by principals who successfully closed the
literacy achievement gap. This study used a mix-methods approach consisting of surveys,
interviews, and document analysis to validate assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational assets. Twenty principals from four cities, including Chicago, Illinois;
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Newark, New Jersey; and Houston, Texas participated. Key
findings showed that principals’ behaviors were consistent with that of being an instructional
leader, principals created a culture and climate focused on trust and learning, and principals had
structures in place to support professional learning communities. Utilizing the gap analysis
framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), recommendations will be discussed, including a timeline,
proposed barriers, and an evaluation plan.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 10

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The achievement gap continues to be a consistent problem in the United States,
particularly the gaps between Black and Latino students and their White peers (Boykin &
Noguera, 2011). In education, the achievement gap generally describes the academic
performance gap between different ethnic or income groups of students, usually comparing
students of color and their White peers and students characterized as low-income to students
characterized as middle class (Ansell, 2011). The 2015 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP; 2015) fourth grade reading results displayed double-digit gaps for the
percentage of White students ahead of their minority counterparts, including a 28% gap between
Black students, 25% between Latino students, and 25% between Native Americans. According
to Lynch and Oakford (2014), closing the achievement gap could create an economy that would
be 5.8% bigger by 2050. This improvement would signify changes in education and earnings
that could mitigate racial differences in crime, health and family structure (Arum & Beattie,
2000).
According to Murphy (2010), understanding and solving the achievement gap must
involve an investigation of its root causes. However, a key fact that many policymakers and
reformers have neglected to recognize was that the achievement gap developed on a historically
racial and socially discriminatory platform (Boykin & Noguera, 2011). Years of slavery,
political disenfranchisement, and exclusion from educational and economic opportunities
resulted in the inferiority and miseducation of generations of Blacks, Latinos and Native people
(Du Bois, trans. 1903).
Foremost was that influential leaders historically validated this conception. Two of this
nation’s founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, while supporting the
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 11

freedom of slaves and education of the American citizen, continued to own slaves and held the
belief that Blacks either did not deserve the right to be educated or were incapable of being
educated (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Conversely, critical to the European-Americans’ expansion
into the Indians’ lands, education was used to assimilate Indians into the European culture, with
the cruel intent to erase their cultural identities (Stannard, 1993). This juxtaposition about the
achievement gap continues to be represented by student outcomes and disparities in educational
investments today. As described by Amos Wilson (1993), social amnesia or the act of forgetting
one’s history does not mean that history is not influencing behaviors, decisions, and interactions.
Failing to recall or understand these historical realties only exacerbates the challenges of finding
solutions that are effective in closing the achievement gap.
Background of the Problem
Generating more than 11 million citations in Google, “the achievement gap” has become
one of the most widely researched and discussed terms in the sphere of education (Ladson-
Billings, 2006). The United States Department of Education defines the achievement gap as the
difference in academic performance between ethnic groups (Siverd, 2011). In the United States,
this gap is greatest between Black and Latino students and their White counterparts. Since its
inception in 1978, the NAEP, the only national longitudinal measure of student achievement, has
documented significant gains in fourth grade and eighth grade students. According to Lee
(2002), the reading and math gap per NAEP, closed by 20% to 40% or 0.2 to 0.5 standard
deviations, between the 1970s and 1990s. However, Ravitch (2011) points out that though this
was true, most of this progress took place in the 1970s and 1980s; presumably in response to the
government’s attempt to eliminate the legacy of slavery and discrimination through
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 12

desegregation, increased economic opportunity for African American families, class size
reduction and federal investments in early childhood education.
Disconcertingly, in spite of gains made by Black and Latino students, the achievement
gap continues to be a mirror of 20 years ago; in part, because White students have continued to
improve as well (Boykin & Noguera, 2011). Ladson-Billings (2006) described this phenomenon
as an education debt. Using an economics analogy, she drew connections between a national
deficit and national debt. Describing the deficit as the total of one’s expenses surpassing the
budgeted amount, she described the debt as equaling the sum of those deficits over a given time
span. In the case of education, this debt includes historical, economic, sociopolitical and moral
mechanisms (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Therefore, even while Black and Latino students’
performance has improved overtime, closing the achievement will require crafting new education
policies, and giving more resources and investments dedicated to addressing the education debt.
Simply stated, closing the achievement gap will require strategies and investments that will
presumable advantage the targeted groups (Murphy, 2010).
Historically, one notable policy contributing to the achievement gap or education debt
was called, “Jim Crow.” Patterson (2001) described Jim Crow as, a state sponsored and
constitutionally protected system of racial discrimination and segregation that deliberately
disadvantaged more than 10 million Black people in the South and parts of the border states.
The system stigmatized them, cut them off from avenues of opportunity, and in most cases
consigned them to inferior social, economic, and political status. It also dumped Black children,
two-thirds of whom still lived in southern and border states, into poorly funded, often ramshackle
schools (Patterson, 2001). Lasting for more than 70 years, many considered the collapse of Jim
Crow to be the direct result of the 1954 judicial decision of Brown v. Board of Education, in
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 13

which states were no longer allowed to maintain racially segregated schools (Alexander, 2012).
Consequently, the reasons for the achievement gaps are clear and it goes beyond the jurisdiction
of school buildings, as it involved racially motivated and unjust personal and political decisions
contributing to social, economic and political marginalization of poor people and people of color.
After the Brown decision of 1954, one of the earlier and more controversial reports
depicting the achievement gap was released, Equality of Educational Opportunity; later
becoming known as the “Coleman Report.” Commissioned by the Department of Education, the
1960s Coleman Report included more than 650,000 students and 4,000 schools and suggested
that schools had little to do with producing achievement gaps. Instead, the report attributed this
academic disparity to the family’s environment, rejecting other school factors such as funding
amounts, resources and teacher quality (Downey & Condron, 2016). Facing criticism for victim
blaming, many social scientists began focusing on school effects, eventually contradicting the
Coleman Report and presented new data showing school factors significantly impact students’
outcomes. School factors included resources such as quality teachers, smaller classroom sizes
and teacher expectations (Arum & Beattie, 2000).
The substantiation that resources mattered prompted the first major legislation with
national implications, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA; Osborne,
1965). As part of President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty agenda, ESEA’s Title I
represented the largest financial component of the law (Thomas & Brady, 2016). Its designation
was intended to support those students who were living in poverty and considered to be at-risk.
Ravitch (2014) described the enactment of these state and federal policies as the government’s
attempt to make amends for its past injustices. However, these actions were not enough to
overcome the generations of racism and the miseducation of people (Ravitch, 2016).
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 14

Following the Coleman Report, several reports focused on the failures of the United
States education system. Most notable was the 1993 report “A Nation at Risk.” Commissioned
by President Ronald Reagan and highlighting declines in the United States’ education
performance, the report provided several recommendations to improve the education system,
including “stronger high school graduation requirements; higher standards for academic
performance and student conduct; more time devoted to instruction and homework; and higher
standards for entry into the teaching professional and better salaries for teachers” (Ravitch, 2010,
p.25). This led to a wave of reforms aimed at fixing the American education system. Most
impactful, following ESEA, was the signing into law of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
This legislation, among many things, increased the influence of the federal government’s role in
education, ushering in a new focus on testing and accountability, aimed at ensuring all students
are reading at grade level by 2014. In exercising the government’s influence on local districts, if
schools could not demonstrate students were on track to be proficient, they risked federal
sanctions, including being closed, teachers and principals being terminated, and some schools
being privatized (Ravitch, 2010).
Many critics argued that NCLB may have exacerbated the achievement gap. According
to Ravitch (2010), because the law mandated states to set their own standards and grade their
own progress, this resulted in varying standards across states, leading to embellished claims of
progress. However controversial was this law, there were parts that were applauded, including
the requirement that for the first time in the history of the U.S., schools were required to
disaggregate data by race and other factors to produce evidence that all students were learning
(Boykin & Noguera, 2011). This new policy increased the level of accountability by no longer
allowing schools just to show overall student performance, which often masked the challenges of
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 15

certain groups of students. Instead, data had to be shared that represented the different groups of
students, including students with disabilities and English Language Learners, in comparison to
the overall group’s performance.
As NCLB took shape, another controversial report titled, “Perspectives on Education in
America,” was being released. According to Stedman (1994), the report, also known as the
Sandia Report, was so polemic and counter to the Bush administration’s education policy that the
Department of Education concealed it and threatened analysts with retaliation if they had
released it. The Sandia Report provided an alternative perspective on the United States
education system, arguing that the decline of schools was exaggerated and that reform efforts
were misguided and not focusing on actual problems (Stedman, 1994). Instead, the report
suggested that efforts be targeted around poor and urban areas and not the entire United States
education system. Although provocative, many found its recommendations to be observably
correct, yet critics dismissed the report as being flawed and lacking critical and sufficient
evidence. According to Stedman (1994), many education scholars questioned the validity of the
report, citing its lack of references and citations. As a result, reform efforts remained large in
scale, including a focus on charter school expansion, early childhood education and incentivizing
federal policies through the form of competitive grants (Stedman, 1994).
Constructed under NCLB was Race to the Top, a 4.3 billion dollar competitive grant
program that awarded money to the states that promised to address the government’s priorities
around standards and assessments, improved teacher and principal quality, and turned around
low-performing schools (American Enterprise Institute, 2015). As states received their grant
awards and grappled with creating rigorous standards and redesigning teacher and principal
evaluations (among other things), a new reform strategy began to evolve, and it became known
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 16

as the charter school movement. As part of Race to the Top, the U.S. Department of Education
required states to lift their charter school limits if they wanted to be considered for grant awards.
Consequently, with funding from the federal government, major corporations and foundations,
the charter school sector became the new remedy for closing the achievement gap (Ravitch,
2016).
One of the primary goals of charter schools was to create competition with public schools
that would push them to find new ways to improve student outcomes (Payne, 2010). However,
the impact of charter schools on closing the achievement has been characterized by mixed-results
and competing viewpoints. According to a meta-review by The Center for Education Reform
(2001), it was concluded that charter schools overall were successful, proving to be innovative,
accountable, creating opportunities for students, and impacting public school performance.
Ravitch (2016), however, contended that charter schools performed no better or worse than
public schools. Arizona charter schools, as determined by achievement data, outperformed their
public-school counterparts, particularly in reading (Finn, Manno, & Vanourek, 2000).
Conversely, Ohio, a state where the public was dissatisfied with its public schools, opened 328
charter schools since 1998. However, in 2007, 57% of charters were on the academic watch list,
compared to 43% of traditional public schools (Payne, 2010). To date, charter schools overall
have not fulfilled the hope of outputting superior academic performance; with many studies
suggesting that there is a wide variation among charter schools just as there is wide variation
among public schools (Ravitch, 2016).
Described as one of the investments used to close the achievement gap during the 1970s
and 1980s, Zigler, Gilliam, and Barnett (2011) declared that preschool education grew from an
experimental idea into one that has become widely accepted by leaders in the worlds of policy,
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 17

economics, and business. Access to high-quality early childhood education services is viewed as
one of the most effective means of improving the educational and later-life outcomes of young
children while addressing racial and class gaps in educational achievement (Zigler et al., 2011).
Aside from the social and academic benefits gained from a child’s participation in early
childhood education, some economists have reported a 7-1 return on investment (Adamson,
Astrand, & Darling-Hammond, 2013).
A notable study carried out by the Carnegie Corporation of New York titled, “From
Neurons to Neighborhood: The Science of Early Childhood Development” concluded that
individuals’ development of the brain and social and emotional capacities through adulthood
depended to a significant extent on the quality of their experiences before the age of three
(Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). While high-quality early childhood experiences has shown success
with closing the achievement gap, that success is not supported in the federal government’s fiscal
priorities, as they allocated nearly seven times as much money for K-12 education (Jacob &
Ludwig, 2008). Clifford and Cryer (2003) attributed this lack of investment to the early
childhood system in the United States being so complex, including varied cultural groups,
nonprofit, for-profit, private, public, family day care, and community-based organization,
resulting in many opinions concerning what is meant by a “high quality program” (Clifford &
Cryer, 2003). Nevertheless, if we are serious about closing the achievement gap, our knowledge
about the benefits of early childhood and education suggest that larger and earlier investments in
the lives of children are needed (Boykin & Noguera, 2011).
Importance of a Promising Practice Project
It is important to examine promising practices in the context of this problem of practice
for a variety of reasons. Closing the achievement gap continues to be a perennial challenge for
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 18

the United States education system. One of the challenges remain that while closing the
achievement gap tends to fall within the responsibilities of the school; there are many historical
and societal factors that also contribute to this gap and demand similar levels of examination.
Studies have suggested that education policies in the United States must support investments in
the delivery of equitable services, resources, and supports (Adamson, 2016). Consequently, the
role and capacity of teacher in closing the achievement becomes critically important.
According to Marzano (2003), a highly effective teacher can generate student gains of
almost 53 percentage points a year, compared to just 14 percentage points a year for an
ineffective teacher. As a result, identifying ways to support teachers will be critical in closing
the achievement gap.
In describing the important role of teachers, extant research has confirmed that well-
designed content-specific learning opportunities for teachers averaging about 50 hours over a 6
to 12-month period were associated with gains of up to 21 percentile points on the achievement
tests used to evaluate student learning (Linda Darling-Hammond & Wei, 2009). However true,
fewer than 20% of U.S. teachers receive this kind of professional development in any area, while
such opportunities are routine for teachers in high-achieving nations (L. Darling-Hammond,
Chung Wei, & Andree, 2010).
Studying promising practices can help identify successful and proven strategies that can
support our most under-resourced and lowest performing schools. Promising practices also
include understanding how external partners can link with schools and school districts to provide
the various supports and imbedded professional development needed to close the achievement
gap. Many non-school factors can act as barriers to student learning. Despite this, teachers and
principals in our lowest performing schools and districts are often asked to do more with less,
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 19

including inadequate funding that impacts schools’ ability to hire staff, purchase resources and
support programs. According to Leachman and Mai (2014), “states are providing less per-pupil
funding for kindergarten through 12
th
grade than they did seven years ago” (p. 1). Spatig-
Amerikaner (2012), of the American Center for Progress, outlined four key statistics highlighting
the lack of investment on students of color versus White student in the United States: (a) Schools
spent $334 more on White students than non-White students; (b) In racially isolated schools,
described as being more than 90% White or more than 90% nonwhite, schools spent $733 more
per student in the mostly White schools compared to the mostly nonwhite schools; (c) High
minority schools spends $293 less than all other schools (including those more evenly diverse);
and (d) Schools that experience an increase of at least 10% students of color are typically
correlated with a decrease in spending of $75 per student. The data are clear, when comparing
districts and school that are well-resourced and supported to those that are not, the achievement
outcomes are higher. Increased supports are necessary if our education system is to prepare all
students for this world (Berliner & Glass, 2014). As a result, studying a promising practice in
closing achievement gaps will provide districts and schools with an example of a successful
strategy to be considered in supporting under-resourced schools and strengthening their
principals’ and teachers’ capacity to improve student learning.
Organizational Context and Mission
The organization being studied is the CLI. CLI supports prekindergarten through third
grade literacy instruction by partnering with schools to provide professional development,
resources and supports to teachers, leaders, and families. CLI is located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and has remote offices in several other cities, including Chicago, IL; Denver, CO;
Houston, TX and Broward County, FL. This promising practice is related to the larger problem
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 20

of closing the achievement gap by 3
rd
grade between Black and Latino students and their White
peers. Founded by Emeritus Linda Katz in 1988, CLI has served approximately 1,669 educators,
40,225 students, and has distributed over 102,978 books. Since 2017, CLI has worked with 382
schools, including large projects in Camden NJ, Chicago, and Philadelphia.
The mission of CLI is to work with teachers to transform instruction so that children can
become powerful readers, writers, and thinkers. CLI delivers targeted professional development,
coaching, modeling, and resources to improve the quality of the classroom environment. More
specifically, they provide three years of training and one-on-one coaching by a CLI literacy
expert, who observes the teacher and provides real-time feedback (Scaling-up the Children’s
Literacy Initiative’s Validated Intervention, n.d.). As a result, CLI also works closely with the
school’s leadership team, including the principal, to increase its capacity to improve literacy
instruction.
Organizational Performance Status
Only 35% of U.S. fourth graders are proficient readers, and nearly a third (32%) are
“below basic” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Based on an impact evaluation
done by the American Institute for Research, CLI students significantly outperformed a group of
control group peers in reading achievement (Parkinson, Meakin, & Salinger, 2015). Also, each
year since 2008, The University of Pennsylvania’s Center for High Impact Philanthropy has
identified CLI as an exemplar program in improving teachers’ literacy instruction. Most
recently, CLI was awarded the 2017 David M. Rubenstein Prize, which is the top prize given by
the Library of Congress Literacy Awards program to organizations that have made outstanding
and measurable improvements in literacy performance.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 21

Organizational Performance Goal and Current Performance
Children’s Literacy Initiative’s goal is to close the literacy achievement gap between
disadvantage children and their more affluent peers. By providing three years of coaching and
professional development to teachers and administrators, including providing additional
classroom resources that support literacy practices, CLI hopes to create a sustainable impact on
teachers’ instruction, resulting in improved literacy achievement for students (Parkinson et al.,
2015). CLI uses three tools to measure whether or not they are achieving its goal. For teachers,
CLI use the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation Tool, which measures the
classroom environment and literacy instructional practices of teachers. Measures of student
literacy achievement are gathered using the Predictive Assessment of Reading (PAR), an
individually-administered assessment of students’ pre-reading skills; and the Group Reading
Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation, which is a group-administered test of reading skills
(Parkinson et al., 2015).
With funding from an Investing in Innovation (i3) validation grant through the U.S.
Department of Education, the CLI engaged the American Institutes for Research to conduct an
independent impact evaluation. This study was conducted in four large school districts located in
the Midwest and the Eastern United States including Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
The study was designed to evaluate the effect of the CLI Model Classroom coaching and
professional development program on teacher’s classroom environment and literacy instruction,
as well as the effect of the CLI program on student literacy achievement. According to the
research conducted by Parkinson et al. (2015), “compared to non-CLI students, the impact on a
group of cohort 2 kindergarten students’ PAR Early Reading Skills total score was positive and
significant, with an estimated standardized effect size of 0.18” (p. 4). According to Parkinson,
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 22

Salinger, Meakin, and Smith (2015), one reason why this initiative had positive outcomes was
because “the CLI program aligns with the core features of effective professional development
identified by Garet and colleagues (2001): (1) a focus on content knowledge, (2) opportunities
for active learning, and (3) coherence with other learning activities” (p. 16).
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Principals, teachers, and students involved in CLI are the primary stakeholder groups
identified in this promising practice study as having an impact on performance. Principals are
considered the leaders and the key decision makers at the school level. They play a critical role
in implementing CLI’s literacy reform, including creating teacher buy-in, ensuring accountability
to the process and prioritizing the literacy initiative by creating structures and systems designed
to support teachers through the process. Teachers, a second stakeholder group, have daily direct
contact with students. As a result, they are central to improving the academic achievement of
students. They must ensure that students are meeting and exceeding the academic standards by
delivering instruction that is rigorous, engaging and aligned to the standards. Students are the
beneficiaries of the efforts of teachers and principals. They are expected to improve their
thinking and the application of knowledge by completing assignments and passing the required
assessments.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
While all stakeholder groups played a role in this promising practice, the stakeholder
group for this study was school principals. The importance of principal leadership to teacher
success and student performance is well documented by research (S. Anderson, Leithwood, &
Strauss, 2010; Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Waters & Grubb, 2004).
Research conducted by Marzano et al. (as cited in Dufour & Marzano, 2011), for example, has
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 23

revealed a strong relationship between principal capacity and student performance. While CLI
has documented success in improving teachers’ capacity and student outcomes, understanding
the role of the principal in this success can be a key learning component in understanding what is
needed to scale successful literacy improvement strategies. Principals can be a catalyst or a
barrier to successful school reform and improvement efforts. They create, monitor and manage
the school’s structures and policies that influence teachers’ behaviors and performance.
Michael Fullan (1991) suggested that the main job of the principal is to build school
capacity, which includes building knowledge, skills, and dispositions of individuals; including
program coherence. These areas describe human capacities or management areas that, if not
supported, can trump the impact of a single teacher in a single classroom. Principals create the
structures and policies under which teachers, students, and parents must interact. Critical to the
success of a school, the principal’s disposition, leadership style and ability to prioritize can
determine whether a school is organized for success or failure.
While principals’ actions do not directly impact student performance, they do impact
teachers’ behaviors and performance, which does have a direct impact on student learning
(Dufour & Marzano, 2011). It is through this dynamic that the role of the principal becomes
critical to ensuring successful implementation of school improvement strategies. According to
Fullan (2007), the principal has the capacity to allow everyone to see themselves in the success
of the school and defined goal. Successful leaders are good at setting directions, developing and
supporting people and redesigning organizations for success (Fullan, 1991). For the stated
reasons, it is important to study the principals’ capacity to effectively implement CLI in their
respective schools, including the role of the school principal with closing the achievement gap.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 24

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to explore a promising practice and examine the role that
the principal played in the successful implementation of its school improvement strategies. CLI
is known for their work with improving teachers’ capacities and student outcomes. While
research supports the impact of teachers’ capacity to student outcomes, it is also important to
understand the influence of the principal. Research supporting the relationship between
principals’ behavior and students’ outcomes is emerging. Therefore, a closer examination of this
leader’s role can yield quality learning for similar reform efforts.
As such, the questions that will guide the promising practice study are the following:
● What are the principals’ knowledge and motivation assets related to effectively
implementing CLI in their school context?
● What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and principal
knowledge and motivation?
● What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at another organization?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This conceptual framework applied to this promising practice study will be a gap
analysis, which is designed to systematically analyze an organizational goal and the causes
contributing to the achievement of that goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). The assumed knowledge,
motivation and organizational assets of CLI principals in closing literacy achievement gaps will
be identified based on personal and research-based evidence. A qualitative case study will be the
methodological framework used to assess and better understand these assets via surveys,
interviews, literature review and content analysis. As a result, recommended solutions for others
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 25

looking to close early literacy achievement gaps will be grounded in research and
comprehensively evaluated.
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with key
concepts and terminology about student achievement gaps and the role of the principal in
improving student achievement. The organization of study's mission, goals, and stakeholders, as
well as the review of the promising practice framework, was provided. Chapter Two provides a
review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of race and education,
critical race theory, principal leadership and literacy reforms will be addressed. Chapter Three
details the study methodology including assumed assets, choice of participants, data collection
and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and findings are described and analyzed. Chapter Five
provides recommendations for practice, based on the findings presented in Chapter Four, as well
as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for other schools looking to
improve early literacy achievement.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 26

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
It is incumbent upon the next generation of leaders in America to understand race, as the
future of the United States will be one characterized by multiculturalism (Blackwell, Kwoh, &
Pastor, 2010). Why race? Blackwell et al. (2010) asserted that despite the claim of a post racial
America and the socioeconomic success of some people of color, the historical residue and
impacts of racism continue to evolve and exist in this present day. There has been considerable
discourse in the literature regarding the historical positioning, relationship, and influence of
various forms of oppression including race, class, and gender (Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997).
According to Derman-Sparks and Phillips (1997), as all Whites have institutionalized privilege,
all people of color are impacted by racism-factors of class, gender, and sexual orientation-which
determines the ways individuals will either gain from their “whiteness” or be oppressed based on
their color. In this way, Clair and Denis (2015) defines racism as “when the presumed biological
or cultural superiority of one or more racial groups is used to justify or prescribe the inferior
treatment or social position(s) of other racial groups” (p. 857).
Consequently, this chapter will focus on the historical interactions between race and
education in the United States, including the historical, systematic and racial injustices enacted
upon people of color and its entanglement with the educational experiences of Black Americans,
Native Americans, and Mexican Americans. The chapter will then move to an examination of a
persistent literacy achievement gap based on ethnicity and income, the impact of professional
development and evidence-based literacy reforms student achievement, and the role of principal
leadership in school performance. The chapter concludes with a discussion of principal
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on performance, and ultimately, closing the
literacy achievement gaps in our schools.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 27

Race and Education in the United States
W.E.B. Dubois (1903/2014) stated, “the problem of the twentieth century is the problem
of the color-line, -the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Asia and Africa, in
America and the islands of the sea” (p. 9). While the significance of race cannot be exaggerated,
Toni Morrison, a respected American writer, argued that it is present in every social fabric of our
lives (Strong-Wilson, 2016). In fact, the U.S. educational system has played a debatable role in
this country’s history, at times being criticized for imposing the values of the American culture
onto other groups of people at the expense of their cultures (Haynes, 2008).
The Education of Blacks in the U.S.
According to West (1994), Black people in the United States differ from all other people
due to the unprecedented levels of physical and psychic violence they have had to endure. As a
result, the system of second-class education for Blacks was not a coincidence, as it was the result
of a social ideology created to ensure political, social and economic subordination (Anderson,
1989). The ideology and discriminatory practices, for more than 400 years, have exploited and
controlled the minds and bodies of Black people, including slavery and Jim Crow (Tatum, 2003).
During the early years of slaver, educational opportunities for Blacks – freed or enslaved
– was prohibited by Whites (Noltemeyer, 2012). According to Anderson (1989), one ex-slave
stated, “There is one sin that slavery committed against me, which I will never forgive. It robbed
me of my education” (p.5). Throughout the period of enslavement, Black slaves valued and died
for one right alongside freedom and that was the right to an education. They consistently put
their lives on the line to learn how to read and write.
The history of Black education is often dominated with ideological debate, neglecting
discussions of how power, politics and ideology have interacted to shape educational
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 28

opportunities for Blacks (Anderson, 1989). In spite of these challenges Blacks educators
continued to find ways to educate their communities and develop partnerships to help build and
operate their own schools.
The Latina/o and the U.S. Education System
Latino Americans have also struggled against the ideology and practices of White
Supremacy. As stated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the Latino population consists largely
of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans. Although these groups are listed under Latino, each
has its related history to the United States. Important to note, more than 60% of Latinos are of
Mexican ancestry, including U.S. born Mexican Americans, also known as Chicanos (Finning-
Kwoka, 2007). As a result, the Mexican American experience will be the frame of reference for
this discussion.
Tatum (2003) asserted that Mexican Americans, like African Americans, Native
Americans and Puerto Ricans, were forced to become part of the United States. Described in
Mexican American studies as the point of demarcation, the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo in 1848 ended the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) and signaled the annexation or
takeover of over of 525,000 square miles of territory of what is now considered the American
Southwest to the United States, including Arizona, California, western Colorado, Nevada, New
Mexico, Texas, and Utah (Miguel & Valencia, 1998). Consequently, the United States
recognized these groups of people, except African Americans, as immigrants.
Segal and Mayadas (2005) have described immigrants as a group of people coming to the
United States on their own choice. Consequently, while various groups of people have
voluntarily come to the U.S. throughout its time, the historical events of the Mexican Americans,
and Puerto Ricans suggest otherwise. It is for this reason many Latino, and Chicano
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 29

communities object to being characterized as immigrants (suggesting they journeyed to the
United States) and have embraced the motto, “We did not cross the border, the border crossed
us” (Villenas, 2007).
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was to ensure the civil and property rights of the
former Mexican citizens who choose to continue in the United States. However, those
guarantees were never completely satisfied (Miguel & Valencia, 1998). Similar to the broken
promises of the U.S. government’s Freedmen’s Bureau “40 acres and a mule”, which guaranteed
land to former slaves as reparations for slavery; the Hidalgo Treaty’s provisions that guaranteed
citizenship and property rights for former Mexican citizens was also reversed and counteracted
by the American courts’ ruling that provisions could be superseded by local laws (Kilty &
Haymes, 2000). These actions supported the ideology and practices of White supremacy,
believing that Mexican Americans were inferior, leading to segregated schools, segregated
housing and employment discriminations (Finning-Kwoka, 2007). Subsequently, Latinos and
African Americans battled simultaneously against the unfair and prejudice practices of the
United States.
Particularly related to education in the United States, the experience and significance of
the Latino history have been neglected and unappreciated. Nieto (2004) asserts, “the Black-
White framing of education is not only incorrect, but it helps to obscure the common struggles of
African Americans, Latinos, and others for equal education” (p. 22). Before the 1954 landmark
case, Brown v. the Board of Education, which historically has framed the discussion for
addressing inequities in education, the educational conditions for Latinos and African Americans
were very similar (Contreras & Valverde, 1994). Both groups were made to feel inferior to
Whites and segregated in less than equal educational facilities. In fact, some of the cases relative
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 30

to Mexican Americans served as a legal precedent for Brown v. the Board of Education (Nieto,
2004). The most notable case predating the Brown decision was the 1945 case, Mendez v.
Westminster School District. The Mendez case “argued that segregated Mexican American
children in California suffered stigmatization and unhealthy psychological development, similar
to the argument made later by Kenneth Clark in the Brown case” (Valencia, 2005, p. 391). The
Mendez case never made it to the Supreme Court due to the school districts assenting and
desegregating, however, had it made to the court we might instead have celebrated the 60
th

anniversary of the Mendez decision (Nieto, 2004).
Unlike the segregation of African Americans, based overwhelmingly on race, closer
scrutiny of education policies revealed that the segregation of Mexican American children from
White children entwined factors related to culture and language (Paradise, 1999). As African
Americans’ struggles with slavery and education have often dominated the frame of reference for
discussions on education reform; evidence also shows that Latino Americans have fought against
discriminatory education policies in the United States (Paradise, 1999).
The Native American History in U.S. Education
According to Martin and Midgley (2006), except for Native Americans, the United States
is a nation of immigrants. The term Native American describes and recognizes indigenous
people as the first inhabitants and discoverers of America (Garrett & Pichette, 2000). As a
result, it is typical for most Indians to first identify with their ancestral community before Native
American (Finning-Kwoka, 2007). Garrett and Pichette (2000) also notes that while Native
Americans typically identify each other as “Indian,” they find it disrespectful for outsiders to do
so, preferring to be called “Native American.” This salutation recognizes them as the “first”
inhabitants of this land. Little Soldier (as cited in Zimmerman, Ramirez-Valles, Washienko,
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 31

Walter, & Dyer, 1996) has referred to this prerequisite as part of a process called enculturation,
which he described as the various ways in which one identifies with his or her native culture
absent the labeling of the dominant culture. Because the history of Native Americans involved
the subjugation and the attempted genocide of its people and culture, enculturation served as a
process to align with their cultural heritage and strengthen the Native Americans’ sense of
community (Zimmerman et al., 1996).
Scholars in history, anthropology, archaeology, and other disciplines have substantiated
the existence of Native Americans before the arrival of European explorers and the beginning of
European colonization (Salisbury, 1996). Cultural conflicts arose from the beginning, as the
Native American culture valued collective harmony versus that of the European settlers, which
valued individual achievements and capitalism. For this reason, the Native American’s were
killed and enslaved, while much of their land, rich in oil and natural resources, was stolen for
monetary benefit (Brayboy, 2005).
According to Tatum (2003), between 1492 and 1850, war with the European settlers lead
to a decrease in the Indian population, from five million to 250,000. Leading up to the
nineteenth century, the White man’s law became the primary tool for both the extermination and
preservation of Native culture and economy (Strickland, 1986). The legal genocide of the Indian
played out on two fronts, the use of the law and the use of education. Under the law, White men
used policies to eliminate the Indians’ culture and to steal and attack their land (Strickland,
1986). In parallel, Indian residential schools, according to Churchill (2004) were used to train
rather than educate American Indians in order to legitimize the unwanted occupation of their
land by Whites.
Critical Race Theory in Education
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 32

In the 21
st
century, the U.S. political, legal and education system continues to be
grounded in policies and practices that have historically and systematically denigrated American
Indians, Blacks, Latinos, and other people of color, while favoring Whites (Strong-Wilson,
2016). For example, statistics have showed little difference among racial groups in drug use;
however, Blacks-who are approximately 12% of the U.S. population-account for 37% of drug
arrests, 59% of drug convictions, and 74% of drug-related prison sentences (Burrell, 2010).
Similarly, in 2006, the University of Stanford psychologist Jennifer Eberhardt examined death
penalty sentencing involving people of color (Vedantam, 2010). According to Vedantam (2010),
Dr. Eberhardt’s study revealed that “blacker blacks” were twice as likely, a 57.5% chance, to
receive the death penalty versus their “lesser black” counterparts, who stood a 24% chance.
These data also typify the academic achievement gap and the disparity in the provision of
equitable education between different groups of students.
Extensive research suggests that racial disparities in poor school quality, education
resources, school funding, housing segregation, and socioeconomic conditions contribute to
White students outperforming students of color (Lee, 2002; Murphy, 2010; Noguera & Pierce,
2016; Ravitch, 2016). As a result of these complex racial and social issues, scholars suggest
Critical race theory (CRT) to be the perspective through which solutions are explored (Gillborn,
2014; Ladson-billings & Tate IV, 1995; Solorzano & Yosso, 2002; Strong-Wilson, 2016).
Critical Race Theory centers itself around race and racism, while also focusing on the
intersections of gender, class, sexual orientation, income and other factors (Brayboy, 2005).
According to Leary (2005), James King, author of “The Biology of Race,” defines the issue of
race best:
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 33

Race is a concept of society that insists there is a genetic significance behind human
variation in skin color that transcends outward appearance. However, race has no
scientific merit outside of sociological classifications. There are no significant genetic
variations within the human species to justify the division of “races.” (p. 22)
As depicted, the concept of race is misleading, however, racism in America is real
(DeGruy & Leary, 2012). Therefore, strategies must begin with uncovering the various
mutations of racism relative to each group and their observed challenges (Gillborn & Ladson-
Billings, 2016). Appositely, CRT developed out of critical legal studies to examine the
relationship between race, racism, and power, in response to the 1970s civil rights litigation in
the United States (Haynes, 2008). Like other forms of critical inquiry-CRT examined the
interplay between knowledge construction, naming, and power-more specifically, identifying
how the ideology of White European supremacy systematized itself and acted on the processes of
litigation and enforcement during the civil rights era (Strong-Wilson, 2016). For that reason, in
CRT, the basic assumption refers to racism as less of an individual act and more of a historical,
systematic, and ideological power structure designed to reinforce and preserve White privilege
(Haynes, 2008).
Although CRT has been around for some time, it does not exist without its critics.
Gillborn and Ladson-Billings (2016) declares that any methodology involving the criticism of
White racism as its major tenet of its work must expect opposition. However, Gillborn (2005)
makes the point that critical scholarship is not a direct attack against White people; instead, it is a
denigration on the social and systematic construction of White supremacy. White people “do not
necessarily reinforce whiteness any more than heterosexual people are necessarily homophobic,
or men are necessarily sexist” (Gillborn, 2005, p. 488).
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 34

Gillborn (2014) refers to education as a key apparatus through which White supremacy
has been sustained and normalized in the United States. Throughout U.S. history, education has
been a paradox, both suppressing and empowering various groups. Solorzano and Yosso (2002)
asserts that CRT comprehends the contradictory ways of educational institutions, including
recognizing one’s history, yet revising its content in textbooks or praising one’s culture, while
also blaming it as the reason for failure for students of color. According to Singleton and Linton
(2006), many of the disparities among racial groups exist due to a lack of understanding and
empathy towards each group’s racial perspective, including their historical and present-day
experience with these systems. Consequently, avoiding, forgetting, or neglecting to discuss these
realities risk one viewing these educational challenges as new problems, rather than expected
outcomes created by intentional policies and practices (Strong-Wilson, 2016). Equally
important, as suggested by Blackwell et al. (2010), if America’s goal is to achieve racial equity,
closing the achievement gap is the best strategy to realizing that goal.
Literacy Achievement Gap
The achievement gap represents test score disparities between White students and other
students of color, including taking into account socio-economic status (Boykin & Noguera,
2011). Analogous to the achievement gap, the literacy achievement gap describes the disparity
in reading and writing scores between African American and Latino students and their higher
scoring Caucasian peers, including similar gaps between children from poverty backgrounds
when compared to their middle to high income peers (Teale, Paciga, & Hoffman, 2007). In fact,
anthropologists have long attributed the educational disparities of students of color to the cultural
dissonance these students experience in mainstream U.S. schools (Lipman, 1998). Ravitch
(2014) points out that the achievement gap is not a novel occurrence, but instead is the result of a
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 35

long history of various forms of racism and oppression enacted upon people of color in the
United States.
Linked to this history were the persistent apprehensions and objections challenging
school inequality that led to advances in the U.S. society (Carusi, 2014). Adamson, Astrand, and
Darling-Hammond (2016) identified some key efforts that contributed to closing the
achievement gap, including the civil rights movement and the Brown v. Board of Education
decision in 1954 that expanded the right to vote for African Americans and the desegregation of
schools; and the Great Society era, under Presidents’ Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s, which
shaped the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act supporting desegregation and
creating Title 1-federal funding designated to school districts to support disadvantage and
underserved students. According to Ravitch (2014), along with other federal investments, such
as class size reduction and early childhood education, it was during this period and through the
1980s that the achievement gap narrowed the most.
Most of the federal investments that nearly eliminated the achievement gap by the1980s
began to vanish under the Reagan administration, with a new agenda driven by a more
conservative and economic approach (Adamson et al., 2013). According to Adamson et al.
(2016), this new ideology supporting private interests over public governance, led to increased
inequality in both income and education outcomes. Concurrently and relative to education, it
was the 1983 U.S. Department of Education report A Nation at Risk, labeling the U.S. education
system as failing and threatening its economic and technological dominance, which shifted the
focus from quality to achievement and accountability (Guthrie & Springer, 2004). This reshaped
the nature of public education and education reform, through the deregulation of market reforms
to increase innovation and efficiency with improving student outcomes (Rigby, 2014).
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 36

The 1966 Coleman Report concluded that schools had little influence on student
achievement gaps, suggesting that the inequalities of homelife, society and the immediate
community shaped achievement gaps (Downey & Condron, 2016). According to Rothstein
(2004), the Coleman Report is often mischaracterized. Rothstein (2004) asserts that all students
learn when attending school, however the Coleman Report suggested that the quality of schools
had limited impact on increasing the rate of learning of students from a lower social class
compared to their White counterparts. Given the discriminatory and unjust policies, segregation,
and treatment of Black people during that era, it was plausible to understand why White students
arrived to better schools being better prepared to learn. Consequently, the value of the Coleman
Report depreciated overtime, as critics argued that the Coleman Report focused more on the
external environment and neglected to measure those school-related factors, such as principals
and teachers, that later proved to have a substantial impact on student achievement (Downey &
Condron, 2016).
Nonetheless, the Coleman Report, while eluding to social class as a factor in the
achievement gap, also made salient the impact of segregation on closing the achievement gap.
Since the Brown v. Board of Education decision, studies have concluded that desegregation had a
positive impact on Black students (Barton & Coley, 2010). Similarly, in the 1990s, according to
Wagner (2017), the achievement gap expanded significantly as many cities were released from
desegregation orders and segregation increased.
Since the Coleman Report, numerous studies have shown that schools do indeed have a
significant impact on student achievement (Dufour & Marzano, 2011; Fullan, 1991; Marzano,
Livingston, & Frontier, 2011; McLaughlin, 2006; Nilsen, 2009; Seashore Louis, Leithwood,
Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). Most notably, the capacity of the teacher has been cited as the
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 37

strongest school lever impacting student achievement (Mihaly, 2013; Peterson, Rubie-Davies,
Osborne, & Sibley, 2016; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004; Villegas & Lucas, 2005). Rothwell
(2012) asserts that “teacher experience is highly correlated with test scores, even after adjusting
for other factors, the average Black, Hispanic or low-income students attends the school with the
least experienced teachers than their White and Asian peers” (p. 10). Consequently, the capacity
and support for teachers is an important lever to addressing achievement (Bristow & Williams,
2015).
The Role of the Principal and Teacher Professional Development in Closing Student
Achievement Gaps

The United States education student population is increasingly becoming more diverse;
therefore, teachers must build the capacity and employ the appropriate strategies necessary to
support the diverse needs of students and their families. However, according to Hirsh (2013),
“not all teachers are adequately prepared to meet the diverse needs of today’s student” (p. 38).
Similarly, teacher and leader preparation programs cannot account for every challenge educators
will face once employed (Mizell, 2014). Consequently, the next line of defense in closing the
achievement gap is the school. According to Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2016), the
difference between high-performing, high poverty schools and low-performing schools is
effective collaborative professional development.
In spite of this, the last decade has produced little research documenting the consistent
effectiveness of professional development on student learning (DeMonte, 2013). According to
DeMonte (2013), one reason for this inconsistency is the challenge in deciding what features of
professional development to study; including student growth, teacher practice or both; individual
features versus programs as a whole; or considerations to school context. Nonetheless, in the
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 38

history of education, there has never been a successful school improvement effort without well-
designed professional development activities supporting teachers and principals (Guskey, 2009).
Marzano et al. (2016), defined professional development as “a comprehensive, ongoing,
and intensive approach to improving teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness in raising student
achievement” (p. 1). In school settings, professional development has also been referred to as
staff development, in-service, training, professional learning, or continuing education (Mizell,
2014). When compared to other countries, less than 20% of U.S. teachers receive the type of
sustained, continuous professional development that research indicates improves teaching and
learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010). As a result, Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner
(2017) reviewed several studies focused on professional development and identified seven
common features of what is considered to be “effective professional development”:
1. Is content focused: Focusing on teaching strategies relative to a specific curriculum and
content area.
2. Incorporates active learning utilizing adult learning theory: Professional development is
action oriented and hands-on, while aligned to the realities of the classroom and students.
3. Supports collaboration, typically in job-embedded contexts: Learning is job-embedded,
allowing teachers to collaborate and share their practice.
4. Uses models and modeling of effective practices: Professional development models are
research-based, providing examples, videos, artifacts and modeling of best practices.
5. Provides coaching and expert support: Expert coaching and modeling tailored to the
individual needs of the teacher.
6. Offers opportunities for feedback and reflection: Teachers are able to think critically
about their practice and make changes when appropriate.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 39

7. Provides sustained duration: Appropriate time is given to teachers to learn and implement
new strategies and classroom practices.
According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2010), effective professional development should
average at least 50 hours over a 6 to 12-month period and can improve teacher efficacy and
confidence; while improving student outcomes by 21 percentile points on achievement test.
Among school-related factors, principal leadership is second only to classroom instruction
(Seashore Louis et al., 2010). As a result, professional development and support for principals
must be a necessary component of any strategy designed to close the achievement gap.
According to Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2009), no school reform
initiative can be successful without effective and successful principal leadership, as they create
the vision, school conditions, and supports that helps teachers develop and sustain performance.
Marzano, R. J., Waters and McNulty (2016), also added that teachers and principals need to have
expert knowledge about instruction, including principals’ developing the capacity to observe and
analyze teacher practice. Due to the vast responsibilities of the principal’s role and the sphere of
their influence, there is often debate around the types of professional development activities most
critical for principals. Some scholars believe it is most important for principals to develop deep
content and instructional knowledge, while others believe activities should focus on principals
creating structures and processes to support and improve instruction (Seashore Louis et al.,
2010).
Similarly, Schwartz and Simon (2018) cited a 2010 study by Horng, Klasik, and Loeb on
Florida principals, and found that focusing more time to organizational management was
associated with higher academic achievement, as principals spent less than 10% of their time on
instructional related activities (i.e., classroom observations and professional development for
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 40

teachers), compared to 50% on organizational related activities (i.e., scheduling, supervision,
budgeting, etc.). Schwartz and Simon (2018) argued these findings did not debunk the belief that
the principal as an instructional leader is necessary to improve schools; however, this evidence
only recognized the need for organizational management to be included as an important
component of instructional leadership.
Among principal leadership styles, instructional leadership is shown to have positive
influence on improving teacher practice and student outcomes (Leithwood et al., 2004; Rew,
2014; Seashore Louis et al., 2010). However, Horng and Loeb (2010) suggest guarding against
narrowly focusing on classroom instruction. The Wallace Foundation (2013), which has been
studying principal leadership since 2000, suggests focusing on five key responsibilities
associated with successful principals:
1. Shaping a vision focused on academic success.
2. Creating a healthy school climate embodied by trust, collaboration, safety, parent
engagement, and caring.
3. Cultivating leadership in others by sharing leadership responsibilities and building
confidence in staff.
4. Improving instruction by organizing for and encouraging professional development, and
supporting teacher practice through observing classrooms, monitoring student outcomes
and providing teacher feedback.
5. Managing people, data and processes including personnel decisions, planning,
organizing, implementing, supporting and advocating.
Sebastian and Allensworth (2012) points out that the role of the principal is complex and, as a
result, principals are expected to develop capacity in multiple areas; particularly those listed
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 41

above. Likewise, Guskey (2009) warns that context overpowers content and process. As a
result, the variance across school contexts (i.e., teacher capacities, student characteristics,
environmental influences, etc.…) requires that effective professional development activities be
well-matched with the realities of the school’s context. Professional development cannot be a
one size fits all and must take into account the school’s context, culture and other environmental
factors.
Evidence-Based Literacy Reforms
Why literacy? According to the International Literacy Association (2016), “literacy is
the essential education, the through which all other learning takes place” (p. 2). In the United
States, with the advancement of technology and globalism, those who have low levels of literacy
make less money, are more often jobless, are less likely to vote, are less informed, are most
likely to go to jail, and typically have insufficient or no health care (National Early Literacy
Panel, 2008). For this reason, Mclanahan et al. (2012) declares advanced literacy as essential to
adult success in the twenty-first century. Advanced literacy goes beyond the rudimentary skills
of decoding and word recognition into more higher-level skills, such as synthesizing information
across different sources and having the ability to evaluate and present arguments (Mclanahan et
al., 2012). According to Haskins, Murnane, Sawhill, and Snow (2012), schools are consistently
challenged to teach students, especially poor students, the advanced literacy skills required to
effectively engage in a more advanced, diverse and information-technology rich society.
Consequently, studies have been careful to avoid the generalization of “all schools”
struggling, instead, highlighting that underachievement is focused in schools that consist of
majority low-income, and racially and culturally diverse and marginalized student populations
(Cummins, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2015). Maxwell (2014) echoes the new majority-minority
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 42

of students in America’s public schools, which is mostly led by the increase in the Latino
population. This increased population of English Language Learners has challenged teachers’
capacity to not only support students’ linguistic learning, but also students’ cultural and social
needs (Yoon, 2008).
Native American students present similar challenges to literacy achievement, as their
communities have a sophisticated knowledge and community style focused around storytelling
(Delpit, 1995); while Black students are generally challenged by negative social narratives
causing misaligned teacher responses to otherwise typical behavior (Delpit & Dowdy, 2008). As
a result, it is recommended that schools also include teacher supports focused on cultural
competence training, which helps teachers to become more self-aware and appreciative of
students’ diversity, including integrating cultural knowledge into their teaching (Hanover
Research, 2017).
According to Hiebert (2014), “there is no right or wrong literacy, just the one that is more
or less appropriate to the demands of a particular culture” (p. 11). Consequently, the literacy
challenge facing schools is of critical importance for two reasons: first, students must be better
prepared for the demands of a twenty-first century society, and second, there continues to be a
need to close the literacy achievement gap between poor and minority students and their White
peers (Mclanahan et al., 2012). Chubb and Loveless (2010) asserts that closing the achievement
gap will not only improve the personal circumstance of Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans,
but it will also alleviate the social, economic and racial tensions that have existed in this country.
According to Slavin (2008), if education in the U.S. expects to close the achievement gap
and prepare students for a twenty-first century society, it must use evidence-based reform.
Slavin (2005) describes evidence-base reform as the implementation of successful or effective
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 43

practices, programs and policies based on findings from rigorous research. According to the
International Literacy Association (2016), when it comes to effective approaches to literacy
reform, it is the research that differentiates the reliable from the uncertain. As is the case,
evidence-based literacy instruction is described as a particular program or set of instructional
practices that have been validated to be successful with a particular group of children
(International Reading Association, 2002).
According to Kennedy (2010), a combination of studies in the United States and the
United Kingdom have identified several characteristics of teachers who have been successful in
high poverty schools, including having effective classroom management skills, implementing a
balanced literacy framework, reflecting on instructional effectiveness, focusing on higher order
thinking, instructing in relevant and engaging activities, and utilizing a variety of formative
assessments.
Every Student Succeeds Act incentivizes states and school districts to use evidenced-
based practices for school and district-wide education improvements (Chiefs for Change, 2017).
However, districts and states must ensure that the literacy reform selected is aligned to the actual
challenges of the context, and that the chosen research-based approaches work and have had
previous success with the targeted student populations. As a result, it is important to
differentiate between an evidenced-based program versus an evidenced-based practice. Whereas
some reform efforts are a combination of both, evidenced-based programs are more dependent
on the materials (i.e., books, worksheets, technology programs, etc.) and evidenced-base
practices are more focused on the instructional behaviors and actions of teachers (International
Reading Association, 2002). Along these lines, through examination, there has been more
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 44

correlation between student achievement and best practices, as opposed to best programs
(International Reading Association, 2002).
Consequently, supporting successful reforms requires alignment between policies
designed to support evidenced-based reform and the gap between research, implementation and
school-level practice. For example, during the NCLB era, states were required to use evidence-
based practices, but without specific guidance identifying evidenced-based programs, states and
educators struggled selecting effective reforms (R. Slavin, 2005). As a result, the Reading First
program, which was considered an evidenced-based program, was being implemented in schools
using a basal textbook program that was not, by definition, considered evidence-based.
Therefore, teachers received more books and materials, but teacher practice never changed or
improved. In this case, the lack of guidance to schools opened the door for the influence of
marketing strategists and public relationist, as opposed to evidence being the deciding factor (R.
E. Slavin, 2008).
As suggested by Chiefs for Change (2017), states should consider creating an evidence
resource center helping districts and schools to identify and select evidence-based program. One
such source an evidence resource center could utilize would be the Best Evidence Encyclopedia,
shown in The Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center, which provides a database of
reviewed interventions with a grading scale, including very strong evidence, moderately strong
evidence, and moderate evidence. Figure 1 is an example of programs identified by Best
Evidence Encyclopedia.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 45

Program Ratings
Very Strong Evidence of Effectiveness
None
Moderately Strong Evidence of Effectiveness
Rating Program Description Contact / Website

Direct
Instruction (Full
immersion
model)
Focuses on accelerating student
performance using interactive, systematic,
and explicit instruction supported by a
system of data analysis and problem solving
tightly linked to instruction.
E-mail: kengel@nifdi.org
Website: www.nifdi.org

Success for All Instructional practices and procedures that
focus on
cooperative learning and aligned
professional development and materials.
E-mail: sfainfo@successforall.org
Website: www.successforall.org
Moderate Evidence of Effectiveness
Rating Program Description Contact / Website

Accelerated
Schools Plus
Uses a transformation process that
emphasizes placing school governance and
decision-making in the hands of school staff,
parents, and students, so they can take
responsibility for their own school culture
and practices.
E-mail: info@acceleratedschools.net
Website: www.acceleratedschools.net

America’s
Choice
Works with districts and schools to align
classroom instruction with state standards
and assessments. Through ongoing analysis
of student assessment data and student
work, teachers learn to focus instruction on
identified needs and move students toward
attainment of standards.
E-mail: info@americaschoice.org
Website: http://www.americaschoice.org/
Figure 1. Example of programs identified by Best Evidence Encyclopedia.
According to Glennan, Bodilly, Galegher, and Kerr (2004), no school reform is
successful without the buy-in and collaboration of principals and teachers. Improving teacher
practice is the primary goal of any school improvement effort. Likewise, principals must ensure
that schools are organized to support the goals of school improvement efforts (Hubbard, Stein, &
Mehan, 2006).
Principal Leadership and School Performance
The literature on school leadership and its effect on student achievement expands more
than 40 years (Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010). However, according to Martin (2009), the
position of the principal and its role in school improvement was not formally acknowledged until
the early 1920s when the National Association for Education (NEA) created the Department of
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 46

Elementary School Principals. Subsequently, the most notable study on the impact of school
principals involved a meta-analysis of 30 years of research, conducted by Waters, Marzano, and
McNulty (2003), which included a review of student achievement data and teacher perceptions.
According to Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003), findings suggested that principals had a
positive relationship on student achievement with an average effect size of .25, which is
considered substantial.
Similarly, a more recent study conducted by Branch, Hanushek, and Rivkin (2013) found
that effective principals were able to improve student achievement by two to seven months in
any school year. Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) argues that
principal impact in more underserved and impoverished schools is ever greater. In spite of these
results, many major school reform efforts focus more on teacher capacity, while struggling to
understand how to involve principals (Wallace Foundation, 2013).
Research indicates that at the school level, principal leadership is second only to teachers
when impacting student achievement (Haller, Hunt, Pacha, & Fazekas, 2016). It is also noted
that principal leadership is a vital component of any successful school reform, impacting all
levels of the school, including the student-level, teacher-level, and school-level (Toscani et al.,
2004). Principals’ ability to successfully navigate, influence and support these various school
levels requires an adaptable skillset. Since the 2000s, the Wallace Foundation (2013) has
examined principals across various context, and as a result they have identified five critical
behaviors most associated with effective principals:
1) Shaping a vision of academic success for all students, one based on high standards; 2)
Creating a climate hospitable to education in order that safety, a cooperative spirit and
other foundations of fruitful inter prevail; 3) Cultivating leadership in others so that
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 47

teachers and other adults assume their part in realizing the school vision; 4) Improving
instruction to enable teachers to teach at their best and students to learn to their utmost;
and 5) Managing people, data and processes to foster school improvement. (p. 6)
While effective principals share some common leadership behaviors, including
communicating a vision, providing professional development and coordinating instruction, the
actions that define these behaviors are highly contextualized and dependent on the needs of that
school community (Urick & Bowers, 2014).
Types of Principal Leadership Styles
According to Valentine and Prater (2011), the principal’s role was once considered to be
administrative, focusing on operational functions, personnel decisions, compliance issues, and
paperwork. However, due to evidence of principals’ impact, an urgency to reduce education
disparities, and increases in accountability, principals are now expected to do more (Robinson,
Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Seashore Louis et al. (2010) asserted that while many adjectives have
been used to describe principal leadership styles, there is still two core functions every leader is
tasked with, providing direction and exercising influence.
Leithwood et al. (2009) described three principal leadership styles that impacts student
achievement and classroom instruction in different ways; (a) Instructional leadership, focuses on
practice and organizational resources that improves teacher practice; (b) Transformational
leadership, focuses more on improving the school’s culture and, family and community
relationships; and (c) Distributive, focuses on sharing responsibilities and working more
collaborative with staff. Fittingly, Leithwood et al. (2009) confirmed, “these three sets of
practices or styles make up the basic core of successful leadership practice: setting directions,
developing people and redesigning organizations”.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 48

According to Krasnoff (2015), instructional leadership is believed to have the greatest
impact on student achievement, as compared to other leadership styles. By name, instructional
leadership infers more actions impacting teacher practice, which directly impacts student
achievement (Seashore Louis et al., 2010). According to Wahlstrom and Louis (2008),
instructional leaders are expected to be authorities at identifying quality instruction and
understanding curriculum and content. Principals as instructional leaders are also aware of their
behaviors and its direct impact on teachers and instruction. Some of the principal’s behavior
impacting instruction include monitoring and evaluating teacher performance, planning
professional development, providing teacher feedback, creating an environment of collaboration
and trust, and managing resources needed to support instruction (Pont, Nusche, & Moorman,
2008).
Instructional leadership is also a style that sometimes varies in its actions and practice.
According to Rigby (2014), the persistent failure of schools to close the achievement gap has
continued to challenge the notion of instructional leadership, leading to alternative approaches to
emerge. As a result, Rigby (2014) has identified two of those new approaches, which he refers
to as alternative logics to instructional leadership: (a) Entrepreneurial logic, which focuses on
innovation and influences from the private sector. Unlike traditional preparation programs, it
focuses on specific behaviors of leadership and student assessments that improve student
outcomes, and (b) Social justice logic, which challenges the neutral approach to instruction and
instead focus on the inequities of society through practices that focus on inclusion and diversity.
Moreover, there still remains other dilemmas regarding the role of instructional leadership,
including whether an instructional leader means being an expert in a subject area or being more
effective at organizing a school to support instruction (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012).
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 49

Valentine and Prater (2011) warn against such a narrow focus on instructional leadership,
suggesting it is not aligned with the changing culture and context of schools. As a result, the
concept of transformational leadership has surfaced (Valentine & Prater, 2011).
Transformational leadership inspires teachers to achieve a common vision and creates a
collective and moral purpose while working collaboratively to overcome problems (Allen,
Grigsby, & Peters, 2015; Robinson et al., 2008; Seashore Louis et al., 2010). In this definition,
transformational leadership is able to influence the person, the practice and the place. According
to Krasnoff (2015), when teachers are collaborating and motivated and schools’ environments
are healthy, classroom instruction can thrive. Unlike instructional leadership, where a positive
climate is an indirect result of a focus on instruction, transformational leadership focuses more
intently on building a school community through supporting the school and surrounding
community (Urick & Bowers, 2014). Finnigan and Stewart (2009), after observing
transformational leadership behaviors to be the most visible in high-performing schools, also
argued transformational leadership to be the most effective style of leadership. Transformational
leadership is also viewed as setting the stage for distributive leadership to emerge, as the former
encourages engagement, while the latter promotes collaboration (Urick & Bowers, 2014).
Conceived on the premise that no one can do it alone, distributive leadership depends
on the contributions of other actors (Leithwood et al., 2004). Consequently, distributive
leadership shares leadership responsibilities with all school actors, including giving them
influence over school decisions (Pont et al., 2008). Spillane (2013) describes distributive
leadership as more of a practice, rather than a role, focusing on the interactions between people
and their situation. Distributive leadership assumes that principals are no longer the sole
decision makers or influencers in the school. For instance, principals must trust teachers to lead
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 50

instructional activities that may be considered the principal’s responsibility, including observing
classrooms and providing teacher feedback (Urick & Bowers, 2014). Spillane (2013)
recommends distributive leadership as a lens through which we should think about leadership;
adding that the focus should be less on the act of distribution and more on “how” leadership is
being distributed.
Leithwood et al. (2004) asserted that the meaning of leadership does not always match
the adjective in front of it, and success, in most cases, require abilities across all forms of
leadership.
Factors Influencing Principal Leadership
According to Fullan (1991), a core strategy to any improvement initiative has to be the
building of relationships, including developing trust, collaboration and social cohesion.
Education has become a more complex and diverse landscape, requiring a more complex role of
leadership that is able to influence internal and external features of the school. Fullan (1991)
highlighted several factors that interact to change the trajectory of schools, including matters of
trust, student characteristics, and professional learning communities.
Trust. Trust is a reciprocal relationship based on fairness, honesty, reliability, optimism,
and competency (Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Trust is essential among school actors (i.e.,
teachers, parents, students, principals, etc.) for reform to be successful and student learning to
improve (Bryk & Schneider, 2003). For principals, trust is a critical component to their
leadership, it “is the essential link between leader and led, vital to people’s job satisfaction and
loyalty, as well as vital to followership” (Evans, 2001, p. 183). According to McGuigan and
Hoy (2006), when teachers collectively trust their schools’ students and families, academic
growth is the result, even when considering socioeconomic class.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 51

Trust is not always guaranteed and it is determined by the actions between two people or
groups of people. However, in the case of trust in school, it is the principal who has the
influence to foster an environment of trust. Tschannen-Moran (2004) points to the challenges of
hierarchy and structures in building trust, but acknowledges that principals can overcome these
barriers by being caring and supporting of teachers, honest in their interactions, open in their
communication, reliable, and by displaying competence in their abilities to lead.
Parents and the community. According to Osher et al. (2012), “Henderson and Mapp’s
synthesis of many studies suggests that high-performing schools share a common critical trait: a
high level of involvement with families and with the community” (p. 4). The family creates the
primary context in which children begin to develop and nurture their cognitive and social skills
that will later support their school experiences (OECD, 2012). Despite the role of school-family
partnerships in closing the achievement gap, including addressing issues of school safety, student
attendance, and school-to-home alignment, this feature is typically neglected and presented as a
barrier (Bryan, 2005). Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010) found that
when principals and teachers created authentic and collaborative relationships with parents, a
stronger relationship was built, and student achievement increased.
Factors of race, class, culture, gender, age and ethnicity play a role in the interactions
between schools, parents and communities (Fullan, 2007). Understanding these factors are
critical to successful family and community engagement efforts, as people can sometimes be
most challenged with interacting with those that are different from them (Delpit, 1995).
According to Delpit (2006), “educators must change their perspective and learn to recognize that
diversity of thought, language and worldview cannot only provide an exciting education setting,
but can also prepare our children for living in a more diverse national community” (pp. 66-67).
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 52

Consequently, families’ backgrounds and experiences can become assets to improving
instruction and increasing student achievement. Rios-Aguilar, Kiyama, Gravitt, and Moll (2011)
refers to this as funds of knowledge and argues that when educators are able to integrate
families’ and communities’ funds of knowledge into the curriculum, it can improve relationships,
eliminate deficit thinking, and make learning more relevant.
Student demographics. The fall of 2014 presented a new demographic era for the
nation’s public schools as the majority of minority school children surpassed the number of non-
Hispanic Whites (Maxwell, 2014). Maxwell (2014) asserted that the increases in student
diversity, including class, English language and students with multiple racial and ethnic
backgrounds will present a challenge for a public education whose teaching workforce remains
majority White, with just 10% of teachers being of color. Particularly in inner-city schools,
where there is observable variance between teacher-student characteristics, teachers must make
efforts to genuinely connect with and learn about their students. In this way, educators will be
able to provide the types of culturally relevant instruction that engages students and improves
their learning (International Literacy Association, 2016).
Similarly, the principal workforce doesn’t reflect the changing student demographic shift
either, with only 18% of public school principals in the United States identified as racial/ethnic
minorities (Clifford, 2012). This can present a challenge in both modeling for teachers’ cultural
competence and relating to students and their families. According to the National Policy Board
for Educational Administration (2015), formerly the Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium, principals are expected to promote equity and cultural responsiveness. Davis et al.
(2005) affirmed that principals require different cultural and technical knowledge when leading
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 53

across different kinds of communities, including small suburban elementary schools versus
larger, urban and low-income schools.
One of the misconceptions of the Coleman Report was that family characteristics had a
greater influence on student outcomes than schools (Rothstein, 2004). However, Rothstein
(2004) acknowledged that while all kids learned in schools, schools were not able to demonstrate
the ability to improve the learning of poor students and students of color. In the twenty-first
century, “a fundamental requirement of schools is to create a safe, welcoming, stimulating, and
nurturing environment focused on learning for all children” (p. 13). According to Fullan (2007),
cognitive scientists and sociologist agreed that motivation and relationships are important factors
to boosting learning in students. Explicitly, greater learning occurred when teachers value
students’ voices and create learning experiences that are relevant, engaging and meaningful.
Professional learning communities. The National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future concluded, from a study, that isolated teaching practices are the greatest barrier
to successful school reform efforts (Dufour & Marzano, 2011). Wahlstrom and Louis (2008)
asserted that sharing leadership and improving teacher relationships through the implementation
of professional learning communities may have the greatest impact on reducing teacher isolation
and improving instruction. A professional learning community is characterized by teachers
working collaboratively, with a focus on improving learning, teacher practice and student
outcomes (McLaughlin, 2006). According to Tschannen-Moran (2004), the principal’s role in
creating trust is the key to successful professional learning communities, as it impacts teachers’
behavior and willingness to open to new learning.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 54

School Culture, Climate, and Achievement
Hoy (1990) asserted that the organizational climate of a school influenced teachers’
behaviors and personalities, while the culture is more associated with the beliefs of a school or
individuals. MacNeil et al. (2009) contended that if school principals are to improve student
achievement and teacher effectiveness, it is essential that they focus on developing a school
culture and climate focused on learning. Creating a culture and climate focused on learning
means that all actions, planning, processes, policies, interactions, are taking place with end result
in mind, improving instruction. In an effective learning system, principals learn from experts,
their staff, and their peers, how to improve instruction, including working together to develop the
dispositions and structures needed to create a culture of learning and achievement (Darling-
Hammond, Chung Wei, & Andree, 2010).
Principal Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences on Performance
When diagnosing performance gaps, Clark and Estes (2008) list three important factors
that must be examined, including peoples’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
on performance. Clark and Estes (2008) defined knowledge gaps as determining whether people
know how what, when, why, where and who when accomplishing tasks; motivation gaps involve
the internal process of choosing, persisting and investing mental efforts to accomplishing a goal;
and organizational barriers are the organizational processes or resources that act against
accomplishing your goals, including missing tools, inadequate facilities or arcane procedures.
Relative to principal leadership, Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) argued that effective
leadership involved knowing the what, when, how and why aspects of leadership; including the
practices, knowledge, strategies, tools, resources, and responsibilities connected to improving
student achievement. This section discusses knowledge, motivation and organizational assets that
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 55

have contributed to principals’ success in raising literacy achievement in their schools, including
those principals in schools participating in the CLI.
Knowledge and Skills
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) listed four types of knowledge, factual, conceptual,
procedural and metacognitive. This section outlines how these types of knowledge, in terms of
principal knowledge assets, may impact literacy achievement.
Factual knowledge. Factual knowledge is knowing the facts that are relative to the
specific goal or discipline, including its terminologies and details (Rueda, 2011). For principals,
this means knowing the relationship between principal leadership and student achievement,
including the related skills and actions (Dufour & Marzano, 2011). Principal leadership is a
complex role, and while research supports its positive effects on student learning, it is less clear
which roles or levers are most important (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). Essentially, the
primary goal of the principal is to promote learning and student success, therefore principals
must know how to use data to drive instruction, promote collaboration, and align curriculum,
assessment and instruction (Blome & James, 2010).
Literature on principal leadership captures various approaches to leading schools,
including instructional leadership, which focuses on improving classroom practices of teachers;
transformational, which focuses more on broader levers of school improvement like culture and
climate, stakeholder buy-in and teacher motivation; and distributive leadership, which focuses on
sharing leadership and collaboration (Leithwood et al., 2004). Principals must know the various
advantages and skills relative to these styles, while equally knowing how to be flexible in their
leadership styles when adapting to various situations (Leithwood et al., 2004)
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 56

According to Leithwood et al. (2004), instructional leadership is considered to be the
preferred style of leadership for improving student outcomes. Relative to closing the literacy
achievement gap, Mclanahan et al. (2012) suggested that principals must know literacy and
reading instruction, including how to strengthen teachers’ literacy capacity through on-going
professional development and the design of structures promoting teacher collaboration across
classrooms and content areas. According to Pont, Nusche, and Moorman (2008), essential to this
goal is the principal’s knowledge around the use of data to manage curriculum and instruction,
and improve overall student performance. Creating a data-driven culture, shifts the education
paradigm from what is being taught to what is being learned; creating a clearly defined pathway
to academic achievement (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2010).
All-encompassing is the principal’s knowledge of professional learning communities and
its impact on student achievement through building trust and promoting collaboration, focusing
on student data and performance, and improving teachers practice (Dufour & Marzano, 2011;
Fullan, 1991; McLaughlin, 2006; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Principals must also know how to
support and sustain professional learning communities to achieve optimal outcomes. According
to Tschannen-Moran (2004), this requires principals knowing how to build in time and structures
to promote collaboration, foster a culture of trust with teachers to encourage the risk-taking
needed for professional growth, including focusing on cooperation rather than competition to
improve student learning.
Factual knowledge about leadership styles, instructional content, uses of data, and
creating a culture and climate based on trust and collaboration are critical first steps for knowing
what leadership behaviors are required to improve schools and closing the achievement gap.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 57

Conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge involves knowing the theories, models,
categories or principles related to the specific goal (Rueda, 2011). For principals, understanding
organizational culture in the context of education could serve as an asset when implementing
school improvement initiatives. Organizational theorists have repeatedly conveyed that the most
significant action a leader could do was to focus heavily on culture (MacNeil et al., 2009).
Equally, educational theorists have also touted that the effectiveness of the principal is also
dependent on the culture and climate of the school (Hallinger & Heck, as cited in MacNeil et al.,
2009). Also referred to as organizational culture, Evans (2001) defines culture and climate as
“the deep implicit, taken-for-granted assumptions that shape perception and govern behavior: (p.
17).
According to Leithwood et al. (2004), there is also a broader culture in which school exist
and interact with, including the family culture and the community culture. In many cases,
students arrived at school with their cultural norms and behaviors. However, little emphasis was
placed on the role school culture and climate might have on reinforcing the racial inequities in
achievement, including the biases and negative stereotypes that often-characterized minority
children and their families (Bryan, 2005). The goal of education reform is to improve student
learning and close the achievement gap. However, most reforms fail because they neglected to
address or consider the social and economic conditions that sometimes act as barriers to school
improvement (Hubbard et al., 2006). Hubbard et al. (2006) asserted, that the most impactful
reform efforts will be those that engage authentically with the social, cultural and economic
realities of the children and families they serve.
According to Hallinger and Wang (2015), principal leadership is situated within and
influenced by an organizational context, including the size and complexities of schools and
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 58

districts, the socio-economic position of the community, and the various socio-cultural signifiers
represented by the school and community members. Conceptual knowledge of the collective
impact of these features on student achievement could serve as an asset to principals when
transferring and applying their knowledge to literacy and school improvement efforts.
Procedural. Procedural knowledge involves being able to perform the task related to the
goal, i.e., doing a physical activity, knowing the techniques, or understanding the methods of
inquiry (Rueda, 2011). Data-driven instruction and decision-making are hallmarks of
instructional leadership, however, if principals lack the knowledge to make the appropriate
moves and set-up the related structures, creating a successful school environment will be
challenging to attain (Rigby, 2014). Seashore Louis et al. (2010) cited other tasks principal must
know how to do in order to be effective leaders, including observing classrooms and providing
teachers with constructive feedback, sharing school-wide decision-making responsibilities and
duties among staff, and develop trusting relationships.
These procedural knowledge assets are essential to principals closing the gap between
research and practice, ultimately improving student achievement.
Metacognitive. Metacognitive is the ability to think about your thinking (Rueda, 2011),
including being able to regulate and monitor your thinking (Prytula, 2012). Wilson and Bai
(2010) have found that those individuals who are considered good readers and who do well in
school are usually metacognitive individuals. According to Hiebert (2014), metacognition has
also been an effective strategy for teaching students reading. Wilson and Bai (2010), listed
several metacognitive strategies that could support a teacher’s metacognitive instruction,
including read alouds, small and whole group activities, reflection activities and think alouds.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 59

Consequently, the need for teachers to become more knowledgeable about metacognition is
important.
Preparing teachers to teach metacognitive strategies would require intensive, group
oriented, and consistent professional development (Bristow & Williams, 2015). Prytula (2012)
recommended the idea of principals utilizing professional learning communities, as they are the
best vehicle to developing an environment supporting teachers’ metacognitive teaching and
learning. Professional learning communities allow for several actions relative to metacognition,
including reflection, dialogue, critical thinking, and knowledge sharing amongst its members.
Principal knowledge assets to promote literacy achievement includes understanding the role of
professional learning communities and how to best support teachers in these communities.
Motivation. Motivation can simply be described as being moved to take action (Ryan & Deci,
2000). Wigfield and Eccles (2000) discussed achievement motivation to explain a person’s task
of choice, their persistence in solving that task, and the level of performance reached. Similarly,
associated with motivation is work motivation, which Stajkovic and Luthans (2002) described as
the combined results of self-efficacy and social cognitive theory that controls and guides
behavior. “This increasingly recognized psychological construct deals specifically with the
control of human action through people's beliefs in their capabilities to affect the environment
and produce desired outcomes by their actions” (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2002, p. 127). In the case
of education, the principal creates the environmental or organizational conditions that in turn will
either motivate or discourage teachers, students and parents from taking actions towards the
desired goals.
According to Spillane, Hallett, and Diamond (2003), organizational change is hard and
the success involved depends heavily on the principal and their ability to create the conditions to
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 60

support learning and instruction. The potential of the Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
process to improve schools and teacher self-efficacy has been supported by researchers, people,
and principals (Dufour & Marzano, 2011). However, they are not always successful, as they
require principals to create the time and resources, including having an identified goal to achieve
within the PLC (Kennedy & Smith, 2013). The indirect influences that principals have direct
influence over, such as planning time, expectations, coherence and the enactment of
accountability, and recognition or lack thereof, can either act as negative consequences or as
forces of motivation that improves teachers’ self-efficacy and moves the school towards
improvement.
Principals who are able to improve literacy achievement in their schools may possess
particular motivation assets, including valuing trust and collaboration, and developing a school
culture and climate focused on learning, that affect their environment and produce the desired
outcomes.
Organizational influences. Paying attention to the organizational influences of schools
is one of the essential things a principal must do if they are going to be an effective leader
(MacNeil et al., 2009). Rueda (2011) described these features as the organization and structures
of the setting, including the policies, practices, and people that define it. In examining
organizational linkages to school improvement, Gamoran, Secada, and Marrett (2000) discussed
the impact of organizational conditions on the teacher’s effectiveness at the classroom level,
including allotted time for instruction and teacher collaboration, distribution of resources, and
teacher capacity building through professional development. An example by Leithwood, Louis,
Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) identified high-stakes testing as an organizational condition,
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 61

including how it encourages a drill-and-practice teacher mentality, neglecting the type of deep
and rigorous instruction needed for students to sustain learning.
Relative to student performance, the response from the larger institutional context of
schools to under achievement is often punitive, rendering a impractical solutions from principals
and teachers (Hiebert, 2014). On the contrary, successful principals are able to mitigate against
these conditions by developing effective organizational supports, policies, and structures that
reinforces learning and improves the performance of teachers and students (Leithwood et al.,
2004). According Gamoran et al. (2000), studies of school and student achievement has shifted,
focusing less on organizational constraints and more on the impacts of organizational processes
such as leadership, collaboration and teacher efficacy. McGuigan and Hoy (2006) list some of
these organizational structures and processes that effective principals have been able to capitalize
on, including providing relevant professional development, encouraging peer observations, and
creating structures and polices to promote group discussions and reflective practices focusing on
student performance.
Consequently, successful principals are able to identify and implement organizational
assets associated with improved student learning, including providing teachers with the
structures and supports needed to address the needs of all students and partner more effectively
with families and communities.
Summary and Conclusions
Principal leadership is essential to improving schools (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012).
While the impact of the principal on student achievement may be indirect, principals are
responsible for a variety of organizational factors that impact learning and supporting teachers
with providing instruction to students (Dufour & Marzano, 2011). School leadership is not
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 62

monolithic; there is no one style of leadership that covers all the skills required to successfully
lead a school. In fact, successful principals utilize an array of skills that display overlap of
several styles of leadership, including instructional, distributive and transformational (Urick &
Bowers, 2014). Effective principals set the mission and goals for the school, support trust and
collaboration and support instruction (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). Leithwood et al. (2004)
asserted that successful leaders create organizations that support teachers, staff, and families
toward the goal of improving student learning.
This chapter examined deep-rooted, historical causes of gaps in literacy achievement,
evidence-based literacy reforms, and the role of principal leadership in closing literacy
achievement gaps. This chapter also examined, in particular, possible principal knowledge,
motivation, and organizational assets that influence school and student literacy achievement. The
next chapter will explore the methodology that will be used in this study to better understand the
knowledge, motivation and organizational assets of principals participating in the CLI, a
promising practice, and their role in accelerating literacy achievement in their schools.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 63

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to explore a promising practice and examine the role
principals play in closing the literacy achievement gap, particularly through the implementation
of a literacy-based school improvement strategy. The CLI program, while providing coaching
and professional development to teachers and principals, has shown to be successful with closing
the literacy achievement gap (Parkinson, Salinger et al., 2015). The direct impact of the teacher
on student achievement is well documented, however, the influence of the principal is less
visible. Whereas the literature indicates that principals have a measurable effect on student
performance, it occurs through multiple actions that impact instructional climate and
instructional organization (Supovitz et al., 2010).
As such, the questions that guided the promising practice study were the following:
1. What are the principals’ knowledge and motivation assets related to effectively
implementing CLI in their school’s context?
2. What are the interactions between organizational culture and context and principal
knowledge and motivations?
3. What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at another organization?
Stakeholders of Focus
The stakeholder of focus for this research was CLI school principals. Among the school
variables impacting student learning, research indicated that principal leadership is second only
to classroom instruction (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). According to Sebastian and
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 64

Allensworth (2012), principal leadership is critical to leading school reforms and creating
environments that will affect classroom instruction and student achievement.
Methodological Framework
The Gap Analysis Model was adopted to a promising practice study and implemented as
the conceptual framework. As described by Clark and Estes (2008), a gap analysis diagnoses the
human causes behind the desired goal and the actual performance of the organization.
Consequently, three critical factors are examined when performing a gap analysis: (a)
knowledge, do individuals have relevant experience with or understanding of the knowledge or
skills in question; (b) motivation, do individuals have the will or persistence to achieve the
desired goal; and (c) organization, which describes the influence of processes, procedures,
resources and organizational culture on individuals’ ability to do their jobs effectively.
The gap analysis takes a systematic approach to identifying performance gaps, or in this
case assets, of the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) warned that
without clearly defined goals, the gap analysis is useless-in this case, the goal was closing
literacy achievement gaps. Defined goals at the macro-level of the organization ensures focus
and alignment at the micro-level, including the various expectations at the different management
levels and between the teams and individuals that play a part in meeting or surpassing the
identified goals. Examining the gap between the desired goal and performance must be
addressed and remedied if the organizational goal is to be met (Clark & Estes, 2008). As a
result, the role of the principal in closing achievement gap was examined, including the assets
related to the principal’s knowledge, motivation, and organization in this promising practice.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 65

Figure 2 shown below describes the process and stages of the gap analysis used to examine
the assumed principal knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets present to achieve
student literacy goals. The objectives of the gap analysis are to:
● Identify and support the larger goal of the organization.
● Recognize the gap(s) between the current level of performance and the desired goal.
● Identify and categorize possible knowledge, motivation and organizational assets or
barriers to get to the root cause of the problem.
● Design and develop solutions around validated barriers or assets
● Develop a plan to for implement those solutions.
● Evaluate the success of the implemented solutions.

Figure 2. The gap analysis process (Yates, 2016).
In the case of a promising practice study, the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors are viewed as potential assets to improving organizational performance
around early literacy achievement. For this study, these assumed assets were initially generated,
through personal knowledge and preliminary scanning of CLI, related literature on the problem
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 66

of practice, and learning, motivation and organizational theory. Assumed assets were then
assessed using surveys, individual interviews, literature review and content analysis. Based on
the principal knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets validated by this research,
recommendations are made for other organizations with the goal of improving early literacy
achievement.
Assumed Principal Assets Promoting Early Literacy Achievement
The most frustrating part of failed performance improvements is that there already exist
proven solutions for performance problems (Clark & Estes, 2008). People sometimes neglect to
do an extensive evidence-based analysis of the problem, leading to an oversight of the root
causes for the performance gap. The gap analysis provides a conceptual framework for allowing
the identification of real needs and assets of what is necessary to close the gap. Therefore, a
comprehensive examination of organizational performance must involve three components; a)
preliminary scanning; b) learning, motivation, and organization/culture theory; and c) review of
the literature on the specific topic under question.
The related literature and relevant concepts from learning, motivation and organizational
theory were discussed previously in Chapter Two. The assumed assets of principals in the CLI
program identified from that literature and theory are summarized in Table 1 below. A
discussion of the assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational assets from scanning data
are discussed below and also included in Table 1.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 67

Table 1
Summary Table of Assumed Assets

Sources Knowledge Motivation Organization
Preliminary
scanning,
literature and
theory
Principals know
the meaning of an
instructional
leader.
Principal views
themselves as an
instructional leader
Principals create systems and
structures that support
professional learning
communities focused on
student learning.
Principals know
the meaning of
teacher self-
efficacy.
Principal values trust
and collaboration.
Principal provides teachers
with the training, resources
and supports needed to help
improve their practice and the
success of all students.
Principals know
the meaning and
purpose of a
professional
learning
community.
Principal focuses on
developing a school
culture and climate
focused on learning.
Principal provides resources,
opportunities and supports
designed to strengthened the
cultural competence staff and
improve family and community
partnerships.
Principals know
why trust matters.
Principal values a
learning environment
designed to adapt to
and better service
diverse student
populations and
communities.

Principals know
the meaning and
impact of school
culture and
climate.

Principals know
the meaning of
cultural
competence.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 68

Preliminary Scanning Data and Critical Observations
Personal knowledge, unstructured interviews and preliminary scanning yielded critical
information in documenting assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets
impacting the principals’ role in effectively implementing the CLI school-based literacy
improvement strategy. Preliminary assets identified were organized into three categories as
discussed below: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization.
Knowledge and Skills
Principals participating in CLI were provided with professional development and
coaching, including participating in seminars designed to teach them best practice for literacy
instruction. Preliminary scanning suggested that as a result, principals may be better able to
recognize effective literacy practices when observing teachers’ classrooms. Additionally,
principals are also trained and coached on monitoring and sustaining high-quality literacy
instruction, which may allow them to have more impact on strengthening and improving
teachers’ practice by providing more specific and high-quality feedback.
Motivation
Children Literacy Initiative’s entry into schools always begins with a mutual compact and
understanding of goals and expectations between district managers, principals, and teachers.
Principals received three years of coaching and training to scaffold their learning of literacy best
practices and their ability to leverage CLI training to improve supervision, feedback, and
management skills, including their capacity to create a culture of learning. Together with
teachers, CLI’s coaching, and peer learning and collaboration, preliminary scanning data
suggested that these may allow principals to develop confidence in their ability to be effective
instructional leaders in their school buildings.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 69

Organization
Organizational factors include the resources, processes, and policies that can act as
barriers or supports in allowing people to do their jobs. Preliminary scanning data suggested
several organizational factors that are assets to principals effectively implementing CLI in their
school’s context. Principals work with district leaders, CLI coaches and teachers to design a
school schedule that supports people and data and processes promoting school improvement
efforts. Additionally, preliminary scanning showed that principals are provided with literacy
resources, including books, to create a literacy-rich environment and a home lending library. As
part of the coaching process, principals also receive literacy management tools to help them
monitor and support teachers’ instructional practice. They receive support and training around
the use of a literacy school assessment tool; Message Time Plus tool, a model writing and
instructional practice organizer that supports teachers with classroom planning; and the TELP or
the Teachers Effective Literacy Practices form, which evaluates everyone’s progress towards the
organizational goal. These organizational factors may serve as assets to principals in improving
literacy achievement in their schools.
Study Population
This promising practice study focused on principals participating in the CLI’s early
literacy instruction improvement strategy. CLI has provided professional development for
teachers in literacy instruction since 1988. Since beginning in 1988, teachers coached by CLI
have taught more than 1 million children, including partnering with school districts, Head Start
programs, and other organizations in more than 10 cities. CLI currently provides professional
development services to under-resourced classrooms in nine states, plus Washington, DC.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 70

The population for the study consisted of 20 CLI supported principals from four cities,
with five principals from each participating city – Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Newark, New Jersey; and Houston, Texas – included in the research. Of the 20 principals, 13
completed the survey and eight were interviewed. All schools served urban populations and
received federal government funding from Title 1. Title 1 funding is dedicated to closing the
achievement gap between low-income students and other students and provides assistance to
school districts serving the largest population of students (Thomas & Brady, 2016).
Data Collection
Permission to perform research activities was obtained from the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Review Board. The methods used in this study to collect data to
validate assumed principal knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets included a survey,
including open-ended questions and Likert-type questions, and semi-structured phone interviews.
A survey was administered from November, 2017 to January, 2018 on the influence of principal
leadership and their role with CLI in closing the achievement gap. For the same purpose, phone
interviews were conducted from December, 2017 to February, 2018. As each participating
principal had unique challenges based on their specific context, the unstructured approach to
interviewing was deemed appropriate. This approach allowed for the researcher to gather insight
and specific understanding to each context (Merriam, 2009). Moreover, Merriam (2009)
suggested that conducting interviews and surveys allows for triangulation, which increases the
credibility of the findings.
Surveys
A survey was used to validate assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational culture
assets that contribute to principals’ effectively implementing CLI in their schools’ context to
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 71

close literacy achievement gaps. Given in English, the survey was a self-administered, on-line
questionnaire taken by 20 CLI principals. Of the 20 principals sent the survey, 13 completed the
survey, for a response rate of 65%.
Before beginning the survey, participants received, via email, a consent form informing
them of the voluntary nature of the survey, including the absence of compensation related to
completing the survey. Responses were collected anonymously and tabulated through software.
Two copies, of both responses and tabulated results, maintained for backup purposes were stored
on a password-protected laptop as well as in a secured cloud-based location. No individual
identifiable demographic information was collected during the survey. Two years after the study
has been completed, all copies of data, responses, and tabulated results will be destroyed. The
survey was also pilot tested with three individuals similar to the stakeholder principals in
summer 2017. The survey instrument can be found in Appendix A.
Interviews
Five principals were randomly selected to do a follow-up phone interview. Each of the
four states, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, were represented in the five principals
doing the phone interview. Phone interviews were conducted following the survey completion,
from December, 2017 to February, 2018. In-depth interviews of principals allowed for greater
insights into survey responses and principal knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets
(Yin, 2009). Each principal selected to interview had participated in CLI for a minimum of one
year. The interview consisted of 13 open-ended questions designed to validate principal
knowledge, motivation and organizational assets related to closing early literacy achievement
gaps. Each interview began with a standard interview protocol that included obtaining
permission to record the interview for later transcription and coding. Two copies of the
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 72

interviews and transcriptions, transcribed using Rev.com, were maintained for backup purposes
and stored in a password-protected laptop, as well as a secured cloud-based location.
Additionally, two copies of identifiable information were stored separately from the interview
and transcripts in a password-protected laptop, as well as a secured cloud-based location. All
copies of the interview, transcripts and identifiable information will be destroyed two years after
the study is completed.
The interview instrument can be found in Appendix B.
Document Analysis
Document analysis consisted of principal meeting agendas and evaluation forms
assessing the effectiveness of CLI supports and professional development. Relevant to the case
study, the purpose of the document analysis is to go beyond the typical interview and observation
data collection to triangulate and support the evidence from other sources.
Validation of Assumed Principal Assets
According to Merriam (2009), triangulation is the best strategy to use when validating
research findings. This study used multiple methods, as shown in Table 2, including surveys,
interviews, and document analysis to validate assumed principal knowledge, motivation, and
organizational assets. The analysis of the information received from surveys, interviews and
document analysis was cross-checked against findings and the related literature. Additionally,
member checks were performed, whereby findings were shared with some of the participants to
ensure consistency with terminology and accuracy of meaning. This was used to minimize
researcher bias and misinterpretation of information (Merriam, 2009).

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 73

Table 2
Summary of Validation Methods of Assumed Assets
Assumed Assets Survey Interviews Document Review
Knowledge assets X X X
Motivation assets X X X
Organizational assets X X X

Trustworthiness of Data
Creswell (2014) described eight strategies to consider when strengthening the
trustworthiness of research: (a) triangulate, converging several data sources in order to identify
themes; (b) member checking, conducting follow-up interviews with participants to discuss the
major finding; (c) thick description, when conveying the findings provide a comprehensive
description of the context; (d) bias, present characteristics about the researcher that could
influence interpretations of the findings; (e) negative evidence, introduce counter arguments or
evidence about the themes; (f) prolonged time, spend a significant amount of time with
participants in their setting to gain a deeper understanding; (g) peer debriefing, find another
person or peer to review and ask questions about the research; and (h) external auditor, select an
independent investigator to offer an objective review of the research and findings.
Of the strategies above, triangulation, bias, and peer debriefing were used to establish the
credibility of the study. Triangulation involved cross-walking information gathered from
surveys, interviews, and documents to establish themes. Due to the background of the
researcher, including past experience of being a principal and being a past implementer of the
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 74

CLI, a peer was identified to review the research to ensure clarity, coherence, and interpretation
of findings throughout the study.
Role of Investigator
The purpose of this study was to observe the role of school principals participating in the
CLI and identify knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets they possessed that enabled
them to close literacy achievement gaps in their schools. The role of investigator was to conduct
a promising practice investigation related to closing literacy achievement gaps. However, as a
former elementary school principal, once leading a school-level implementation of the CLI, the
role of investigator had to be clearly understood. Merriam (2009) explains that ethical dilemmas
typically depends on the investigator’s own sensitivity and values.
The greatest opportunity for an ethical dilemma to occur was during the interview.
Interviews, due to the open-ended nature, can carry risk and rewards (Merriam, 2009). As the
researcher, the goal was not to solve problems, but instead to listen and gather data. Preparation
was made to be engaged, yet neutral in positions and responses associated with the study.
Due to personal experience with the CLI organization, an independent team, including
Children’s Literacy Initiative Chief Academic Officer and the respective Regional Managers,
identified the schools and principals to participate in the study. Due to not being the on-site
investigator, communicating the purpose of the study occurred via phone and email to CLI Chief
Academic Officer.
Data Analysis
Data analysis occurred through the framework of the Clark and Estes (1999) model,
which established a system for analyzing gaps in performance. Focusing on assumed CLI
principal knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets affecting early literacy achievement,
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 75

data were collected through a survey, interviews, and documents analysis to better understand
principal assets contributing to closing the achievement gap (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Limitations and Delimitations
There are several limitations to this study. First, no field visits were included as part of
this study to better understand the contexts in which the principals and schools were operating.
The results and findings may not represent the true contextual characteristics of the participants
and their surroundings. As part of the survey and interview items, terminology and the
comprehensiveness of questions may also be a limiting factor. Further, principals’ survey and
interview responses may reflect bias since they are self-reported, and may be subject to errors in
memory, telescoping and exaggeration.
The choice to only focus on principal assets in improving literacy achievement could
obstruct one’s opinion of the influence of other factors on student achievement, such as the
quality of the teachers, school funding and the social and economic status of families. Various
groups may be interested in these findings as principals, in many cases, are the most visible faces
in school buildings. However, the focus of this study may be limiting by not including an
examination of teacher assets contributing to improving literacy achievement and examining
strategies specifically focused on improving teacher capacity.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 76

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Children’s Literacy Initiative’s (CLI) goal is to work with teachers and principals to close
the literacy achievement gap between disadvantaged children and their more affluent peers. This
promising practice is related to the larger problem of closing the achievement gap by 3rd grade
between Black and Latino students and their White peers. In exhibiting its promise, CLI has
consistently and measurably increased PreK to 3
rd
grade literacy levels. As an example, Holm
Elementary in Denver, Colorado saw an increase from 73.5% of its students “meet expectation”
in literacy during the 2015-16 school year to 81% qualifying as “distinguished”, the highest
possible rating; followed by one full year working with CLI. Similarly, at Plantation Elementary
in Broward County, Florida after working with CLI for one year, student achievement in literacy
increased from 28% in the 2015-16 school year to 56% at the end of the 2016-17 school year.
As a result of these achievements and others, CLI was awarded the 2017 David
Rubenstein Prize, the top honor in the Library of Congress Literacy Awards program, which
awards organizations that have demonstrated exemplar and measurable achievements in literacy.
Founded by Emeritus Linda Katz in 1988, CLI continues to serve approximately 1,669
educators, 40,225 students, and has distributed over 102,978 books.
While teachers’ capacity is key to students’ success, Fullan (2007) asserted that “school
improvement is an organizational phenomenon, and therefore the principal, as leader, is the key”
(p. 167). As a result, the aim of this research study was to explore a promising practice and
examine the role principals play in closing the literacy achievement gap, particularly through the
implementation of a promising practice. Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis theoretical
framework, this section focused on the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization assets
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 77

or strengths of principals that are needed to close the achievement gap, including validating or
not validating those as operating in the schools within CLI participating in this study.
This study used a mixed-methods approach to gather data for analysis, using qualitative
and quantitative data, including surveys and interviews. An online survey was sent to 20
principals participating in CLI across four school districts, Chicago, IL; Houston, TX;
Philadelphia, PA; and Elizabeth, NJ. In total, 13 of those 20 principals completed the survey.
Principals were identified based on discussions with CLI leadership and a minimum number of
years of participation in CLI, at least one year. In addition, of the 20 principals that participated
in the survey, five of those principals were asked to participate in a follow-up phone interview.
Due to the complicated nature of principals’ jobs, phone interviews increased the chances that
principals would be available. Each of the four states were represented between the five
principals participating in the phone interviews. The data from surveys and interviews were then
analyzed to validate or not validate the assumed assets described in Chapter Three.
The following questions guide this promising practice study:
1. What are the principals’ knowledge and motivation assets related to effectively
implementing CLI in their school context?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and principal
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the target recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organization that are appropriate for solving the problem of practice at another
organization?
This chapter addresses the first two questions guiding this study. Following the
validation of principal knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets related to effectively
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 78

implementing CLI practices to close literacy achievement gaps, evidence-based
recommendations created from the validated assets in this chapter will then be presented in
Chapter Five.
Findings for Knowledge and Skills Assets
Knowledge of principals is critical if they are going to successfully lead their schools and
close the achievement gap. “During a gap analysis, it is necessary to determine whether people
know how (and when, what, why, where, and who) to achieve their performance goals” (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 44). Several practices consistently appear in the research surrounding effective
principal leadership, including the development and focus on a clear mission and vision; a school
culture and climate focused on trust and collaboration; and attention fixed on improving
instruction (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). While these practices are not exclusive to the
responsibilities of the principal, they are considered critical levers to improving student
outcomes.
This section details the findings related to CLI principal knowledge assumed assets to
closing the literacy achievement gap. Each assumed asset was addressed in the survey and
interviews. Table 3 highlights the assumed knowledge assets and whether or not they were
validated as principal knowledge assets in the CLI schools studied.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 79

Table 3
Validated Assumed Knowledge Assets
Assumed Knowledge
Assets
Survey Interview Validated
(Yes/No)
Principals know the
meaning of an
instructional leader
95% of principals were
either familiar or
extremely familiar with
the meaning of an
instructional leader.
“I mean, I've had a lot of
training on distributive
leadership, so I guess that's
where I would say I tend to
lean.”

“I think that principals have to
be able to understand
curriculum and instruction.”

Yes
Principals know the
meaning of teacher self-
efficacy.
62% of principals
somewhat agreed that
teachers have autonomy
within their classrooms.

39% of principals strongly
agreed that teachers have
autonomy within their
classrooms.
“That's been the toughest
thing for teachers, that they
need to trust themselves, trust
the data that they're
receiving…and not just blindly
follow a basal program.”
No
Principals know the
meaning and purpose of
a professional learning
community.
85% of principals said
they employ practices and
policies that create a
trusting and collaborative
school environment.
“We don't miss our PLCs…
We're very thoughtful about
what's happening during those
minutes, because we know
those minutes are precious.”
Yes
Principals know why
trust matters.
100% of principals
strongly or somewhat
agreed that without trust,
“Trust is built when we feel we
can be honest and transparent
and learn together.”
Yes
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 80

school reform efforts will
fail.
Principals know the
meaning and impact of
school culture and
climate.
100% of the principals
strongly or somewhat
agreed on knowing the
meaning and impact of a
school culture and climate
on learning.
“Depending on where schools
are, principals have to be really
skilled at gauging the
temperature of climate and
culture in a building first.”
Yes
Principals know the
meaning of cultural
competence.
85% of principals were
either familiar or
extremely familiar with
cultural competence.
“There is a lot more work
needed to be done, especially
in a city with high diversity.”
Yes

Assumed Knowledge Asset #1: Principals Know the Meaning of an Instructional Leader
When examining the combination of skills, knowledge, and characteristics identified with
being an effective school leader, instructional leadership appears to combine the various forms of
principal leadership (Herman et al., 2017). Several studies suggested the necessity and impact of
instructional leadership with improving school performance (Leithwood et al., 2004; Lunenburg,
2010; Seashore Louis et al., 2010). At the same time, there are varying descriptions of the
behaviors of principals as instructional leaders. Seashore Louis et al. (2010) identified a set of
four overarching core leadership practices that support instruction. These practices include (a)
Setting direction, which includes building a shared vision focused on high expectations and
student achievement; (b) Developing people, which includes providing individualized support,
professional development and mentoring for teachers; (c) Redesigning the organization, which
includes creating structures for teachers to collaborate and nurturing collaboration with families
and the broader community; and (d) Managing the instructional program, which includes
monitoring student progress, monitoring teachers classroom instruction and aligning resources.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 81

The first assumed principal knowledge asset at CLI schools included in this study was
that principals know the meaning of an instructional leader. Principals were asked about their
familiarity with three different leadership approaches commonly discussed as being aligned to
effective leadership: transformational leadership (Allen et al., 2015); instructional leadership
(Rigby, 2014); and distributional leadership (Seashore Louis et al., 2010).
As shown in the survey results presented in Figure 3, principals were most familiar with
instructional leadership.

Figure 3. Principal survey responses to, “How familiar are you with the following types of
leadership?”

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 82

The interview questions supported their knowledge of instructional leadership. Two
questions in particular; “In your experience, what types of skills and knowledge would principals
need to be successful with implementing school improvement strategies?” and “Based on your
knowledge around principal leadership, what kind of leader would you describe yourself as?
Why?” These questions provided insights into principals’ understanding of best practice
surrounding principal leadership and its relationship to instructional leadership. Principals were
also asked to identify and describe the different types of knowledge (prior knowledge and new
knowledge) they possessed that they felt contributed to the success of their performance,
including the knowledge they felt other principals needed to be successful with implementing
school improvement strategies. Murphy (2016) referred to this as banked intelligence, “content
knowledge essential to the task of leading” (p. 8) and described it as part of the DNA of
leadership.
Principals were asked to highlight the types of skills and knowledge they thought other
principals needed to be successful in implementing school improvement initiatives. Out of the
five principals interviewed, all discussed skills and knowledge related to instruction, including
knowing the standards, understanding instructional practices, and knowing how to build staff
capacity through the use of data. Principal 3 stated, “You have to have an understanding of
instructional practice…not ever single detail…you have to be aware of the current research and
understanding of what instructional practice makes sense for your students.” Similarly, Principal
1 stated, “principals have to be really skilled at gauging the culture and climate of the
building…then they have to have a pulse on instruction and know what that looks like in the
classroom.” This supported Supovitz et al. (2010) assertion that principals who focused on
instructional leadership practices also improved the school’s culture and climate.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 83

Based on the survey and interview data, this assumed knowledge asset was validated
among principals in the CLI schools included in this research.
Assumed Knowledge Asset #2: Principals Know the Meaning of Teacher Self-Efficacy
Teachers’ self-efficacy has been closely linked to student achievement, teacher leadership
and reduced job stress (Çalik, Sezgin, Kavgaci, & Kilinç, 2012). Kennedy (2010) describes self-
efficacy as one’s belief in their capacity to execute tasks and accomplish goals. Notably, while
teacher’s self-efficacy improves student learning at the classroom level, collective self-efficacy
or the belief that the group as a whole can accomplish a goal, can drastically improve the
school’s academic achievement regardless of students’ socioeconomic level (Bandura, 1993).
Principals indirectly impact student learning through teachers, whereby creating the conditions
(i.e., policies, providing resources and support, feedback, etc.) for teachers to be successful with
directly impacting students at the classroom level (Robinson et al., 2008).
Consequently, in looking at the principal’s behaviors that can influence teacher self-
efficacy, one of those behaviors, identified as necessary to sustain intrinsic motivation, was
autonomy (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). There are diverse ideas about the meaning of teacher
autonomy. Thus, teacher autonomy is not isolation; it cannot mean more task given to a teacher;
and neither is it the absolute freedom to work without supervision (Sehrawat, 2014). Richard
Smith (as cited in Sehrawat, 2014) describes teacher autonomy as “the ability to develop
appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes for oneself as a teacher, in cooperation with others”
(p. 2). Teacher autonomy does not exclude the learner’s needs and outcomes, but does include
principals providing teachers the support, knowledge and skills they need to excel at their work
and then trusting them with autonomy in their classroom practices. When principals were asked
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 84

if teacher autonomy was promoted, they responded with either some agreement or strong
agreement, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Principal survey responses to, “Teachers have autonomy within their classrooms.”
The majority of responses of “somewhat agree” were examined further through the
interviews. Tschannen-Moran (2004) asserts that principals support teacher efficacy by
demonstrating their confidence in teachers’ ability to improve student achievement. During the
interviews, principals discussed some early challenges that may have leaned them to respond,
“somewhat agree.” Principals shared how teachers’ literacy instruction has improved since
implementing CLI, including increased time on reading tasks provided to students, improved
classroom management, and improved instructional planning. In describing barriers to
implementation, one principal spoke of early challenges, stating, “teachers need to trust
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 85

themselves and the data they are getting from schools and not just blindly follow a basal
program”. Promising, however, the same principal described how, in year two, teachers began
showing evidence of trusting themselves and, as a result, they are now seeming to have found a
new love for teaching. The notion of teachers finding a new love for teaching supports the
evocation that teacher’s self-efficacy is a strong indicator of a positive learning climate (OECD,
2016).
Principals also discussed issues related to the adjustment periods of new teachers to CLI
practices. When asked about teachers’ improvement with literacy instruction, Principal 1 stated,
“my new teachers are starting to learn how to build a reading community. Then my veteran
teachers are moving to more concrete practice and planning, including having other teachers
come in to view their lessons.” Principal 4 stated, “CLI has provided our teachers with one-to-
one coaching and it has improved their skill in being able to use literacy-based strategies and
interventions…” These statements support the idea that teachers who are efficacious in their
instruction will collaborate and be more collegial with staff, share more of their practice and
engage more in common planning (OECD, 2016). So, while teachers are at very different levels,
CLI’s support appears to be improving teachers’ practice and positively impacting principals’
confidence in their teachers’ instructional capacities and allowing greater autonomy. Alas, while
principals exhibited the behaviors to develop and maintain teacher efficacy, it appeared to be a
more indirect result of working with CLI and less of the principals’ having a working definition.
Based on the survey and interview data, while principals involved with CLI are working
to allow more teacher autonomy in the classroom, they do not know the meaning of teacher self-
efficacy and the role autonomy played with teacher efficacy. This assumed knowledge asset is
not validated among CLI principals.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 86

Assumed Knowledge Asset #3: Principal Knows the Meaning and Purpose of a Professional
Learning Community
Isolated teaching, insulated teaching absent any collaborative practices, is described as
one of the most persistent barriers to school improvement (Carroll, Fulton, Yoon, & Lee, 2005).
Krasnoff (2015) described several features related to isolated teaching, including “closed doors,
negativism, defeatism, and teacher resistance” (p. 4). One approach to reducing isolated
teaching is PLCs. PLCs are structured and intentional communities of learning, operating at
multiple levels, across and between schools that allows teachers to work collaboratively and
focus on improving student learning through reflection, dialogue, observation and the
examination of student data and student work (McLaughlin, 2006). Described as the best
strategy for improving schools, the success of PLCs heavily depends on the leadership capacity
of the principal, as they must create the conditions to support the existence and effectiveness of
PLCs (Dufour & Marzano, 2011).
According to Figure 5, 58% of principals strongly agreed and 42% somewhat agreed that
their schools had systems and structures that supported PLCs. One critical component of CLI’s
program is teacher professional development opportunities, including performing peer
observations and participating in grade-level meetings, within school and jointly with
participating schools. According to CLI (2017), 96% of teachers experienced improved levels of
collaboration with their colleagues.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 87

Figure 5. Principal survey responses to, “This school has systems and structures in place that
support professional learning communities.”

CLI principals were asked, “What role, if any, has the use of a professional learning
community played in the implementation of CLI in your school?” According to the survey,
100% of the principals reported having structures in place to support PLCs. Principal 2 stated in
the interview, “The PLCs are critical, because they have to really be able to talk to each other
and try things and get feedback, and plan together.” Principal 5 highlighted the benefits of a
PLC saying, “Wow, it keeps us focused…it holds us all accountable…and teachers are no longer
afraid to share their practice, they want you to come into their room.” This reinforces the
importance of PLCs, as Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) asserted that PLCs influenced what they
considered three critical components of instructional practice, including reflective dialogue,
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 88

discussing and creating shared norms about learning, and the deprivatization of practice;
whereby teachers willingly allow others to observe their practice.
Interestingly, 42% of principals somewhat agreed they had structures in place to support
PLCs. In interviewing principals, some felt that while they had structures for PLCs, the
functioning of those PLCs where in question due to challenges with time and other district
priorities. Principal 2 expressed a need to have more cross-team PLCs in order to support
teachers better. When asked what the barriers were, Principal 2 responded, “Time…time
because we can only have one grade level meeting a month, due to contractual issues and other
competing issues that we need to use that time for.” Principal 4 when asked about the biggest
barriers to implementation also discussed time for planning as being an issue. According to
Principal 4, “Teachers are telling you that’s what they need…they need to plan, they need time,
but because of other laws that prohibit us from taking the time we are not able to do that yet.”
According to Archbald (2016) much of the literature on PLCs is about the “how to”, however
there is little that discusses the barriers to implementation and sustainability. In this case, some
principals, due to the barriers, may not have felt as confident about the utilization or time spent
in PLCs.
In any case, based on the survey and interview data, this assumed knowledge asset was
validated among principals in the CLI schools because while there are time constraints,
principals clearly knew the meaning and purpose of PLCs.
Assumed Knowledge Asset #4: Principals Know Why Trust Matters
Trust is a critical element in any school improvement effort (Kirkman & Kirkman, 2014).
When principals can build trusting relationships with teachers, teachers’ performance usually
improves, leading to improved student outcomes (Allen et al., 2015). Evans (2001) listed several
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 89

factors that promoted trust, including leaders who were honest, fair, competent, forward-looking
and most importantly, consistent. According to Evans (2001), “Consistency is the lifeblood of
trust, without it people can’t depend on you” (p. 84). Survey responses from CLI principals, as
shown in Figure 6, suggest they understand the importance of trust among staff in effective
school reform efforts.

Figure 6. Principal survey responses to, “Without trust among staff, school reform efforts are
likely to fail.”

Survey responses in Figure 6 was further supported by the interviews when principals
were asked, “How were you able to create teacher trust and buy-in around CLI?” Participant 2
stated, “I am still creating it...I try to be really transparent in communication and be honest with
teachers about the good, the bad and the ugly. And I try to hear their needs and support them.”
This principal illustrated several components of trust also described by Tschannen-Moran
(2004), including honesty, openness, and reliability.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 90

Another principal behavior associated with building trust is competence, including being
results oriented, setting teacher expectations and engaging in problem solving (Wahlstrom &
Louis, 2008). Similarly, Principal 1 responded,
As an assistance principal prior to becoming a principal, I was in the class all the time
providing teachers with feedback…I was also able to spend time as an assistant principal
cultivating relationships prior to becoming a principal. Teachers knew I was there to help
and it made it easier for them to trust me.
Principal 3 spoke about teachers trusting CLI’s partnership, stating, “Because CLI chooses and
supports instructional practices that our school supports and believes in, it’s easier for the buy-
in…in fact, people come to our school because we have CLI.” CLI’s approach to entering into
partnerships is very collaborative and supportive. They meet with district leaders, principals and
teachers in order to understand better the struggles and realities of the schools to more accurately
align their supports and resources. One of the biggest oversights with reform efforts is that they
often neglect the realities of the teachers who must accomplish the change, including the
organizational issues of the school (Evans, 2001). CLI mitigates this by developing trust through
their coaching and mentoring supports provided to teachers and principals (CLI, 2017).
Based on the survey and interview data, this assumed knowledge asset that CLI principals
know why trust matters was validated among principals in the CLI schools included in this
research.
Assumed Knowledge Asset #5: Principal Know the Meaning and Impact of School Culture
and Climate

Effective principals create school environments that allowed learning to flourish. A
report by the Wallace Foundation (2013) characterized these environments as providing teachers
with a sense of community focused on learning; protecting the basics for teachers and students
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 91

such as safety and order, “as well as less tangible qualities such as a supportive, responsive
attitude toward the children” (p. 8). Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) list other factors principals
have direct impact on that create a positive school culture and climate, including building trust,
developing principal-teacher relationships, and displaying shared leadership qualities. Shared
leadership, which is also used interchangeably with “distributive leadership,” “team leadership,”
and “democratic leadership,” focuses more on the behaviors and practices that evolve during the
interactions between principals, teachers, and other school actors (Spillane, 2013).
According to Allen et al. (2015) transformational leadership style also contributes to
improving a school’s culture and climate. As defined, transformational leaders are able to
transform teachers’ motivations from self-interest to a collective interest; they inspire people
through a focus on ideals, values, and a higher power (Kurt, Duyar, & Çalik, 2012).

Figure 7. Principal survey responses to, “I know the impact a school’s culture and climate has on
student achievement.”

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 92

When surveyed on whether or not principals knew the impact a school’s culture and
climate had on student achievement, the majority, 85%, responded strongly agree as shown in
Figure 7.
While principals overwhelmingly strongly agreed that they know the impact a school’s
culture and climate have on student achievement, the interviews were used to better understand
CLI principals’ investment in school culture. When asked if the principal would describe their
school’s culture and climate as one focused on learning, Principal 4 stated, “We have definitely
changed the culture of the campus so that there is less bias on the campus and that there is more
equity on the campus…more student-centered learning is happening.” Participant 2 stated, “CLI
has really helped us create a culture of learning through how they work with teachers in grade
level meeting. They support us in learning ways to look at student data and think more
collaboratively in teams.” According to Darling-Hammond and Wei (2009), transforming
schools requires creating a culture and climate focused on data-driven instruction, continuous
learning and student outcomes.
Based on the survey and interview data, this assumed knowledge asset was validated
among principals in the CLI schools included in this research.
Assumed Knowledge Asset #6: Principals Know the Meaning of Cultural Competence
Cultural competence allows us to understand and appreciate our differences, including
race, ethnicity, and nationality (Meaney, Bohler, Kopf, Hernandez, & Scott, 2008). Particularly
in school environments, a lack of cultural competence can create issues of trust (Tschannen-
Moran, 2004); inappropriate referrals and placement of students into special education (Moreno
& Segura-Herrera, 2013); and classroom discipline challenges (Osher et al., 2012).
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 93

When responding to the survey question, “Are you familiar with cultural competence?”,
most principals agreed, as shown in Figure 8. However, two principals answered they were
slightly familiar.

Figure 8. Principal survey responses to, “I am familiar with cultural competence.”
Although two principals stated they were less familiar than the others based on the
survey, through the interviews, they all responded to the importance of their role in enabling
teachers to understand students, parents and each other. Principals were asked, “How have
teachers been supported in addressing the diverse cultural and learning needs of students, both in
your school and through CLI’s program?” Principal 1 spoke to the reality of having a school
where teachers’ cultural backgrounds may not match that of their students. As a result, they have
the necessary conversations, in the words of Principal 1, “to make sure students are getting a
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 94

culturally rich curriculum, that they are seeing books that have kids that look like them and
sound like them.” Supported by Ladson-Billings and Henry (1990) culturally relevant teaching
empowers students by viewing their cultural uniqueness as an asset and using it to empower
them to become critical thinkers.
Highlighting the importance of cultural competence, Principal 4 stated, “We examine the
biases teachers may have in their classrooms with regard to student populations and we address
those so that teachers can put them aside and begin to create more equitable learning
environments.” Likewise, Principal 2 described how CLI supports teachers and schools around
enhancing their cultural competence. The principal described how CLI provided culturally
relevant books for classroom libraries and how CLI’s coaches remind teachers of the impact of
diversity. Principal 2 also recalled a CLI coach saying to a teacher, “You are dealing with
diversity and your impact can’t be discounted.” These issues and scenarios are also discussed
during CLI’s principal meetings and trainings. Murphy (2010) asserted, in order to close the
achievement gap, we must repair trust and cultural disconnects between schools and minority
students and eliminate false stereotypes attached to student performance based on the color of
their skin.
Based on the survey and interview data, this assumed knowledge asset that principals
know the meaning and impact of school culture and climate was validated among principals in
the CLI schools included in this research.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Assets
In conclusion, this research indicates that principals who have been successful with
closing the literacy achievement and implementing school-level improvement literacy initiatives
must be knowledgeable about literacy practices, teacher improvement strategies, and school
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 95

organization levers or those aspects of schools that have the most impact on student learning.
Overall, the ability to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of systems, policies and practices is
needed.
CLI principals understood the importance of being an instructional leader and described
many of the behaviors associated with instructional leadership, including attending professional
development with teachers, observing classroom, providing teachers with feedback and creating
a culture and climate focused on learning. As this was the case, principals also discussed other
leadership behaviors they felt were appropriate for their context. Understanding that the
principal’s job is a very dynamic experience that entails being the role of coach, surrogate parent,
manager, counselor, and motivator, there is no one leadership style that a principal could hold
constant throughout the typical school day. While this didn’t prohibit principals from identifying
with one style over the other style, the actions of principals will eventually require that they step
out of their perceived style. This highlights the importance of CLI, as they focus on knowledge
of those best leadership practices regarding what principals should know that have been tested
and validated, as demonstrated by the principals who participated in this study.
Findings for Motivation Assets
Motivation is described as the moment leading up to the decision to pursue and complete
a goal directed-activity, including whether or not the individual believes they have the capacity
to accomplish the activity. According to Rueda (2011), motivation influences the decision to
pursue the task; the persistence to complete the task; and the effort invested in completing the
task. The literature review outlined external and internal factors that influence motivation,
including goals, incentives, feedback and praise. In the case of this study, the goal is closing the
3
rd
grade literacy achievement gap. This section examines the motivation assets of principals
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 96

involved in CLI who have been successful in leading school initiatives aimed at closing the 3
rd

grade literacy achievement gap. In Table 4 are the validated assets associated with motivation.
Table 4
Assumed Motivational Assets Validated
Assumed Motivation
Assets
Survey Interview Validated
(Yes/No)
Principal views
themself as an
instructional leader
92% of principals
viewed themselves as
an instructional leader.
“I think, at first, they just were a
teacher support organization, and I
think, over time, they've realized
that they also need to support the
principals.”
Yes
Principal values trust
and collaboration.
75% of principals
agreed that without
trust among staff,
school reform efforts
are likely to fail.
“I think that builds trust
too…hearing their needs, not being
judgmental and helping them
through what they need.”
Yes
Principal focuses on
developing a school
culture and climate
focused on learning.
100% of principals
strongly agreed that
their school has a clear
vision aligned with
student learning
expectations.
“I am trying to create a culture of
learning…learning ways to look at
data, learning and to think in
teams.”
Yes
Principal values a
learning environment
designed to adapt to
and better service
diverse student
populations and
communities.
100% of principals
strongly or somewhat
agreed that their
school was organized
to adapt to and service
diverse student
populations.
“There's definitely a push for
identifying and for drawing
teacher's attention to the diversity
of the students…I asked teachers to
tap into their background
knowledge and their prior
knowledge about experiences they
had”
Yes

Assumed Motivation Asset #1: Principal Views Themself as an Instructional Leader
Above, the assumed knowledge asset examined whether principals know the meaning of
an instructional leader. In terms of motivation, this assumed asset examined whether principals
view themselves as instructional leaders. Instructional leadership, leadership which focuses on
all levers related to improving curriculum and instruction, has been found to have a significant
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 97

impact on student achievement (Urick & Bowers, 2014). As a result, principals were asked
whether or not they viewed themselves as instructional leaders. As the survey results suggest, in
Figure 5, the majority, 92% of principals, strongly viewed themselves as an instructional leader.

Figure 9. Principal survey responses to, “I view myself as an instructional leader.”
An efficient instructional leader demonstrates the behaviors that positively impact
teachers’ instruction, directly and indirectly (Çalik et al., 2012). Principals who have been
successful with improving student outcomes are more likely to believe in their abilities to move a
low-performing school to high-performing school. Waters et al. (2003) identified several actions
principals take that are related to student learning, including creating a collaborative school
climate; monitoring school and classroom practices; securing resources; creating a well-
organized school; and working collaboratively with teachers to design best practice around
curriculum, instruction and assessment.
The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), a survey about teachers,
teaching and learning environments, found that principals who participated in trainings on
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 98

instructional leadership engaged more often in instructional practices that supported teachers’
capacity and student learning (OECD, 2016). Contrary to the survey results, when asked to
describe their leadership styles during the interview, no principal described themself as an
instructional leader. Two principals described themselves as being distributive leaders.
Principal 5 specified, “I have grade level leads, I give them the autonomy within the structure
and expectations to develop activities they want to implement within their grade levels.” In this
case, further questioning suggested that this principal’s leadership practices, as described,
included many aspects instructional leadership, including a focus on learning, creating structures
for teacher collaboration, and setting teachers expectations.
Urick and Bowers (2014), based on their analysis of principal styles, argued that
leadership styles evidenced more intersectional practices rather than divergent. Principal 2’s
response supported this argument in stating, “I do a lot of things…leaders go through different
types of leadership styles in different settings…sometimes you are more authoritative and
sometimes more of a facilitator, it depends on the setting.” This principal continued to say, “I
really don’t know what type of leader of I am, I guess it depends on the situation. I like to
consider myself as one who works side by side with my peers and facilitate for teachers then step
back.” Similarly, Principal 1 described her leadership style as being more direct with a focus on
creating structures for learning and instructional goal-setting. However, this principal, recalling
the type of leadership of the previous principal of the school, described her (the previous
principal) as being more relational. Principal 1 went on to describe what she learned from the
previous principal, stating, “the principal prior to me was more relational, and I learned the
importance of and the ability to build and cultivate relationships with staff.”
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 99

These principals did not view leadership as only a set of behaviors tied to a particular
leadership style, instead, they focused more on the practice and the behaviors needed as relative
to their context. Nonetheless, one thing all these principals did was interact with their teachers
during the learning process. Another strength of CLI is the support they provide to principals in
concurrence with teachers. The CLI program provides principals support in the form of principal
meetings, principal coaching, and collaborative coaching meetings, including principals and
teachers together. Robinson et al. (2008) asserted that principals who promoted and participated
in teacher learning displayed leadership behaviors more strongly associated with positive student
achievement.
Based on the survey and interview data, this assumed motivation asset was validated
among principals in the CLI schools included in this research because their responses reflected
the complexity of the principal’s role per the literature involving instructional leadership and the
other forms leadership. Horng and Loeb (2010) emphasized a different view of instructional
leadership, as one not just focusing on day-to-day instruction, but also other organizational levels
that interact to support teachers’ instruction. Just the same, other studies have warned against
having such a narrow view of instructional leadership, including giving too much credence to the
adjective in front of leadership (Leithwood et al., 2004; Seashore Louis et al., 2010; Urick &
Bowers, 2014; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). These principals represent that complexity, in that
they were cognizant and intentional of the actions needed to support and improve instruction, yet
they did not necessarily subscribe to one style.
Assumed Motivation Asset #2: Principal Values Trust and Collaboration
The knowledge assumed asset presented above examined whether principals know the
importance of trust in spurring school improvement. Here, the focus is on the value placed on
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 100

trust among principals participating in CLI. The majority of principals viewed trust as critical to
improving schools. As stated earlier, when asked whether the presence of trust is necessary for
successful reform, 75% strongly agreed and 25% somewhat agreed. Trust and collaboration are
necessary, as trust continually plays out in critical relationships between teachers, principals,
students and parents (Fullan, 2007). Cultivating a trusting environment has been shown to
improve schools and students’ outcomes (Breakspear et al., 2017).
Previously, discussed was how principals’ knowledge builds trust in schools, including
being open and honest, being viewed as competent, and being reliable in efforts to meet teachers’
needs. Brewster and Railsback (2003), however, list some common barriers to creating trust,
including frequent turnover in leadership, providing misinformation, inconsistent support for
reform efforts and lack of communication. In addressing the potential barrier of communication
and support around improvement efforts, Principal 5 described the actions she took to ensure that
teachers were able to develop a healthy and authentic relationship with CLI’s literacy coach.
When asked about the value of creating trust and buy-in around CLI, Principal 5 stated, “I had to
make sure I explained to them that the CLI coach is definitely an external partner, in that what
you guys talk about is between you.” When trust is established, it minimizes the perceived risk
of the teacher and can strengthen the trust with the CLI coach, as “coaching encourages teachers
to expose problems in their instruction and to experiment with new practices that might not work
at first” (Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, & LeMahieu, 2016, p. 84). Seashore Louis et al. (2010)
supports this claim as they also described trust as a strong predictor for risk-taking.
Based on the survey and interview data, this assumed motivation asset around valuing
trust was validated among principals in the CLI schools included in this research.
Assumed Motivation Asset #3: Principal Focuses on Developing a School Culture and
Climate Focused on Learning
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 101

The literature on school improvement highlights school culture and climate as being
important, researchers tend to define culture or organizational culture, absent the accompanying
term climate (Hoy, 1990; MacNeil et al. 2009; OECD, 2016). Perhaps this is the case because
culture defined by Hoy (1990) considers climate as an indicator or behavior supporting the
culture. In this way, there must be a defined culture before we can assess the climate. For
example, schools that claim to have a culture of trust must further evaluate that claim by its
climate or by the behaviors observed and whether or not they reflect a positive trusting
environment or a distrusting environment. Another definition of culture is offered by Seashore
Louis et al. (2010), stating that a school’s culture should include features such as “a caring
atmosphere, significant family volunteering, and supportive environment for teachers’ work” (p.
110).

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 102

Figure 10. Principal survey responses to, “This school’s culture and climate is focused on
learning.”

When responding to whether or not their school’s culture and climate is focused on
learning, 85% of principals responded, “strongly agree,” as shown in Figure 10. According to
Elmore (2000), when a culture of learning is established:
Experimenting and discovery can be harnessed to social learning by connecting people
with new ideas to each other in an environment in which the ideas are subjected to
scrutiny, measured against the collective purposes of the organization, and tested by the
history of what has already been learned and is known. (p. 25)
The focus of the culture and climate on learning was supported through the interviews.
When asked, “Would you describe your school’s culture and climate as one focused on learning?
Why or why not?” Principal 4 stated, “I would say, yes…because there is more student-centered
learning happening and we don’t take feedback personal because it’s all about the kids.”
Principal 1 responded, “Yes, I came into a situation where teachers had a culture and climate of
learning. I just needed to provide more focus and now when you observe classrooms you see
kids engaged and asking other students questions…and teachers providing engaging lessons.”
These principals highlighted the importance of maintaining a focus on student learning and
outcomes. According to Seashore Louis et al. (2010), the culture and climate of highly effective
schools is not only focused on learning but is characterized by expectations of high achievement
standards and student learning.
Principals discussed more about the teachers’ practice, with Principal 2 saying, “I am
trying to create a culture and climate of learning…we are learning ways to look at data and think
in teams.” This principal also discussed overcoming barriers of risk and accepting feedback to
improve learning. The Principal 2 stated, “I want teachers to understand that there is a period
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 103

when you try something new and feels uneasy and the kids are uneasy, and that’s okay…that
level of discomfort means you are learning.” In this situation, the principal credited CLI’s lesson
studies and focus on learning during grade-level meetings as providing the needed support with
helping to create a culture focused on learning.
Based on the survey and interview data, this assumed motivation asset was validated
among principals in the CLI schools included in this research.
Assumed Motivation Asset #4: Principal Values a Learning Environment Designed to
Adapt to and Better Service Diverse Student Populations and Communities

According to the Office of Economic Co-operation and Development (2012), “Education
systems face the challenge of addressing the needs of increasingly diverse student populations”
(p.56). However, it is not just the diversity of the students that contributes to this issue, it is also
the diversity of the teaching workforce. Most notable, more than 50% of the student population
are students of color, but approximately 20% of the teaching population are teachers of color,
including 77% being female (Loewus, 2017). Leithwood et al. (2009) identified several
strategies successful principals have used with addressing the needs of diverse student
populations, including lowering classroom size; empowering the community to make significant
decisions; providing instructional guidance through a rich curriculum; implementing a school
improvement strategy; engaging in culturally responsive teaching; encouraging data-informed
decision-making; and forming effective professional communities.
When asked if the school was organized to adapt to and service diverse student
populations, 77% of principals “strongly agreed,” while 23% “somewhat agreed”, as shown in
Figure 11.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 104

Figure 11. Principal survey responses to, “This school is organized to adapt to and service
diverse student populations and communities.”

Although 23% of principals “somewhat agreed,” through interviews all of the principals
provided examples of the different ways they were addressing diverse needs of the students in
their schools. When asked, “How have teachers been supported in addressing the diverse
cultural and learning needs of students, both in your school and through CLI?” Principal 4
responded, “Using data, we aggregate down to the different populations, in order to examine the
bias in teachers’ classroom practice.” Principal 5 stated, “We put structures in place, to make
sure teachers see their performers in small group at least three days a week.” Murphy (2010)
contends that closing achievement gaps will require an equity approach, meaning targeted
students on the wrong side of the gap will have to be disproportionately advantaged in order to
accelerate their learning.
Principal 2 discussed the advantage of having a teacher population that is representative
of the student population. According to this principal, “Many of our teachers are English
language learners and teachers of color just like our students...these teachers were also able to
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 105

draw on their diversity and experiences and better understand the students.” A report at the
Center for American Progress (2014) highlighted the benefits for students when they have
teachers with similar backgrounds or with whom they can relate to, including a relatable example
of success; increased scores and achievement; greater levels of engagement in the school
process; and greater self-confidence.
Important to note, CLI’s goal is to close the literacy achievement gap. Consequently,
they focus their attention most in urban and underserved school districts. As a result, their
coaches also live in those cities where the schools are located. Apart from the fact that 90% of
their coaches hold master’s degrees, they have also experienced success working in such
challenging environments.
Based on the survey and interview data, this assumed motivation asset was validated
among principals in the CLI schools included in this research.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivation Assets
Overall, the results of this section supported the principal motivation assets. It was
evidenced that principals overwhelmingly viewed themselves as instructional leaders and this
perception has contributed to their belief in their abilities to improve literacy achievement in
their schools. The complex roles and realities of the principals require actions that reflect the
various styles. CLI has played a critical role in ensuring principals’ perceptions become their
realities. Through the coaching model with principals, CLI build’s their capacity to become
effective instructional leaders and the confidence to be effective in their leadership role.
Children’s Literacy Initiative allows principals to rally around the goal of improving
literacy achievement and improving teacher practice. They support principals with shaping a
vision for academic improvement, then supporting them with creating the structures and
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 106

performing the actions necessary to achieve their goal. By ensuring buy-in and agreement before
entering into schools, CLI’s approach reinforces the importance of collaboration and trust in
school reform efforts, building principals’ motivation in these areas. Chapter 5 will share related
recommendations to building these assets in principals more generally.
Findings for Organizational Assets
According to Burke (2008), organizations are meant built to continue over time. Burke
(2008) explained his idea of continuous as being the connection between the various features of
organizations that are “interdependent, liner, homeostatic or highly dependable” (p. 2). Some of
these organizational features include: resources, processes, structures, policies, practices and
people (Rueda, 2011).
Subsequently, in describing the organizational culture, Schein (1984) discusses the
patterns or interactions of these features that a given group has developed or created in order to
solve problems and adapt to challenges.
Sometimes organizations are challenged with solving problems, with organizational
barriers being the reason. According to Clark and Estes (2008) some of these barriers may
include lack of resources, antiquated facilities, or misaligned policies. In the case of education,
the literature identifies the principal as a main factor in creating an effective school environment
(Elmore, 2000; Leithwood et al., 2004; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008; Wallace Foundation, 2013).
In Table 5 are the validated principal organizational assets associated with organizational
performance in CLI schools.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 107

Table 5
Validated Assumed Organizational Assets
Assumed Organizational
Assets
Survey Interview Validated
(Yes/No)
Principals create systems
and structures that support
professional learning
communities focused on
student learning.
85% of principals strongly
or somewhat agreed that
their school’s culture and
climate is focused on
learning.

75% of principals strongly
agreed school-wide
literacy procedures and
schedules prioritize
literacy achievement.
“I'm trying to create the
culture of learning.
Learning ways to look at
data, learning, think in
teams, and CLI has really
helped…”
Partially
Validated
Principal provides teachers
with the training, resources
and supports needed to
help improve their practice
and the success of all
students.
58% of teachers
somewhat agreed and
42% strongly agreed they
have resources and
support needed to
successfully address
students’ diverse needs.
“It has provided our
teachers with coaching
hours that are one-to-one
with the teacher and the
coach.”
Partially
Validated
Principal provides
resources, opportunities
and supports designed to
strengthened the cultural
competence of staff and
improve family and
community partnerships.
54% strongly agreed and
46.15% somewhat
agreed that teachers
received professional
development designed to
support diverse student
populations.

31% of principals strongly
agreed and 62%
somewhat agreed that
their school authentically
and effectively includes
families and communities
into the planning process.
“We do some work around
our professional learning
community, especially
around understanding the
way the approach is for
different cultures that we
may have in our school.”

“think we have a lot more
work to do with getting
parents in and getting
parents to understand and
see how their students,
their children are learning”
Partially
Validated

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 108

Table 5, continued
Assumed Organizational
Assets
Survey Interview Validated
(Yes/No)
79% of principals
somewhat agreed their
school provides
resources, supports, and
opportunities to
strengthen the cultural
competence of staff.

Assumed Organizational Asset #1: Principals Create Systems and Structures that Support
Professional Learning Communities Focused on Student Learning

School reform efforts often focus on improving instruction and student outcomes.
Successful education leaders are able to design organizational structures that supports the work
of teachers, including creating processes for collaboration (Leithwood et al., 2004). A perennial
challenge with improving schools continues to be the tradition of teacher isolation (Dufour &
Marzano, 2011). As a result, teacher isolation and collegiality share the starting points for
discussing what works for teachers (Fullan, 2007). PLCs have been found to not only combat
teacher isolation but also improve student learning. McLaughlin (2006) characterizes PLCs as
having a focus on student learning, teacher collaboration, improving instruction, and improving
teacher-to-teacher relationships.
According to Fullan (1991), effective principals are able to encourage teacher
collaboration, ensure teachers have the resources for their PLCs, and support the teachers as their
PLCs evolves. To that end, this assumed organizational asset is that principals participating in
CLI have created systems and structures that support PLCs. As shown in Figure 12, in response
to the survey question, “This school has systems and structures that support professional learning
communities,” 58% of principals “strongly agreed” and 42% “somewhat agreed”.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 109

Figure 12. Principal survey responses to, “This school has systems and structures that support
professional learning communities.”

The survey evidence was further supported by the principal interviews. In terms of the
somewhat agree answers, a few principals when asked about the role PLCs played in the success
of the CLI highlighted challenges with time and union rules. They expressed inconsistencies in
PLC meetings. Principal 2 expressed how critical PLCs are and the importance of teachers
getting feedback from one another after peer observations. At the same time, this principal
mentioned the need for more cross-grade meetings. When asked about challenges not permitting
that to happen, Principal 2 responded, “it’s time…because of teachers’ contractual issues we can
only mandate a limited number of grade-level meetings per week.” Similarly, Principal 1 spoke
of the challenge of teacher turnover, it’s negative impact on classrooms. Archbald (2016)
contributes these issues to a decentralized structure, where hierarchal control is at play and
external forces interfere with the school’s planning and processes. In this case, the school
district, teacher attrition and teachers’ union contracts were at times constraints on the operation
of PLCs.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 110

Other principals responded more favorably, as one principal indicated, “PLCs have
played an intentional role, as we have been able to use that time and apply it to the CLI model.”
Principal 5 added, “The PLC has increased the exposure of teacher practice…teachers are more
comfortable having peers visit their rooms…it has contributed to our culture and climate being
focused on learning.”
Based on the survey and interview data, this assumed organizational asset was partially
validated among principals in the CLI schools included in this research. Principals had
structures in place, yet the challenges with union rules and other priorities yielded uneven usage
across schools.
Assumed Organizational Asset #2: Principal Provides Teachers with the Training,
Resources and Supports Needed to Help Improve Their Practice for All Students

Principals play a critical role with aligning and integrating data, standards, and
accountability systems, by providing teachers with the resources and supports necessary to be
successful (OECD, 2008). One of the basics of successful leadership is developing people
(Leithwood et al., 2004). According to Leithwood et al. (2009), principals must know the
hallmarks of quality teaching and learning, which then must transfer to more specific practices
such as offering intellectual stimulation, differentiated professional development, and
appropriate modeling of instructional practice.
When asked to respond to the survey statement, “Teachers receive professional
development designed to support diverse student populations,” as shown in Figure 13, 46%
“strongly agreed” and 54% “somewhat agreed.” This response showed some differences with an
earlier survey item, in Figure 7, that stated, “The school is organized to adapt to and service
diverse student populations and communities” In response to that statement, 77% of principals
“strongly agreed” and 23% “somewhat agreed.” Differences in responses could be that one
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 111

question focused on the readiness of the school to support teachers and the other focused on the
implementation and action. Readiness to implement versus actually implementation was further
explored during the interviews.

Figure 13. Principal survey responses to, “Teachers receive professional development designed
to support diverse student populations.”

In the interview, principals were asked the question, “How have teachers been supported
in addressing the diverse cultural and learning needs of students, in your school and through
CLI’s program?” Principal 1 responded, “Allowing them the time to get the background
knowledge of the student and how they learn…it’s really about the data.” Principal 5 spoke
about teachers reviewing student work and offering recommendations based on the student’s
success or lack thereof with the task. Principal 3, when asked how teachers are being supported,
talked about addressing students through classroom strategies learned through CLI, including
differentiation and the workshop model. However, when asked if CLI provided support or
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 112

training relative to culture and diversity, Principal 3, “Other than providing diverse books for the
library, that is the extent of it.”
The previous examples suggest that principals have shown the readiness of their schools
to more systematically and intentionally address the diverse needs of students through teacher
training and curricular supports. While CLI is proving to be successful in its current school
improvement initiative, having a more explicit approach that supports teachers in developing the
skills to enhance their cultural competence or explore the idea of a multi-cultural educational
approach could help to catalyze student learning. Boykin and Noguera (2011) emphasize that
race, class, linguistic and cultural differences between students and teachers certainly do not
cause the achievement gap; however, they do present challenges with closing the gap.
While there was contrast in the responses, principals, in partnership with CLI, have been
taking steps to provide teachers with training, resources, and supports needed to help improve the
success of all students, addressing issues of diversity and building the teachers’ capacity to work
with all students. At the same time, the interview responses suggested additional supports
around culture and diversity could be provided. As a result, based on the survey and interview
data, this assumed organizational asset was partially validated among principals in the CLI
schools included in this research.
Assumed Organizational Asset #3: Principal Provides Resources, Opportunities, and
Supports Designed to Strengthen the Cultural Competence of the Staff and Improve
Family and Community Partnerships

While the evidence affirms the impact of families’ background on student success
(Epstein, Galindo, & Sheldon, 2011; Jeynes, 2016; Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011), there is a
divergence of opinion as to how this research should convert to practice. Henderson and Mapp
(2002) completed a synthesis of several studies and asserted that high-achieving schools shared a
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 113

commonality; a high level of family and community involvement. According to Henderson and
Mapp (2002), these schools focused on building trusting and collaborative relationships,
including sharing power and decision-making. As a result, Tschannen-Moran (2004) has
identified the principal as playing a critical role in providing the supports and creating the
systems and structures necessary to develop trust between schools, parents, teachers and
communities.
The issues of culture and diversity surrounding the ability for schools successfully
engaging parents warranted exploration into the principals’ role with strengthening teachers’
cultural competence toward the end of improving family engagement. According to the survey,
as shown in Figure 14, when asked to respond to the statement, “This school provides resources,
supports and opportunities to strengthen the cultural competence of the staff.” 77% of principals
responded, “somewhat agree” and 23% responded “strongly agree”. This issue was also
explored in the previous organizational asset that addressed the supports and training necessary
for teachers to be successful with all students. Here, principals’ responses where very surface, as
in speaking about learning the background knowledge of schools or adding culturally relevant
book to classroom libraries. Also, during interviews, few principals provided evidence to
authentically engaging with families or working with staff formally, through professional
development or PLCs around issues of bias. While all principals expressed a hope to involve
parents, their responses were more concerned with teaching and learning. According to
Leithwood et al. (2004), when principals develop a school’s mission and vision, improves
teacher engagement, and create a cultural and climate organized for learning, the addition of
developing strong relationships with parents and communities can be a powerful force to
improving student learning.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 114

Figure 14. Principal survey responses to, “This school provides resources, supports and
opportunities to strengthen the cultural competence of the staff.”

A second survey statement sought information on the school’s attempt to engage families
and communities, posing, “This school authentically and effectively include families and
communities into the planning process.” As shown in Figure 11, in response, 62% of principals
choose “somewhat agree” and 8% choose “somewhat disagree”.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 115

Figure 15. Principal survey responses to, “This school authentically and effectively include
families and communities into the planning process.”

The interviews corroborated this data, asking principals, “If applicable, how have you
engaged parents and community stakeholders in this process? How has this engagement
supported student learning?” Principal 2 responded, “We need to do more with engaging
families. We have had a lot on our plates…we have a lot to do with getting parents to
understand how their children are learning.” Similarly, Principal 3, when asked about engaging
parents and communities, added, “less so, we have done some work around explaining CLI to
them, and that’s been good…I don’t think we have been experts in that area.” These responses
can mischaracterize parents as a burden or something or someone additional, and not as
important, to focus on as part of the school improvement process. However, parents can be seen
as assets and engaged in a way that they improve student outcomes and school’s environment.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 116

Rios-Aguilar et al. (2011) speaks about the funds of knowledge or the capital that families bring
to the schools through their lived experiences. Teachers can begin to think of ways to use the
families’ background and culture as an instructional strategy or a way to engage families and
students into the school process.
Principal 4 responded more positively about one of their engagement opportunities.
According to this principal, “We’ve really elevated our literacy nights to a different level,
teaching parents how to do guided reading and read-a-loud sessions with their child.” CLI also
has a parent engagement component and, through that, focuses on imparting parents with the
knowledge and resources needed to make them and their children better readers. Likewise,
Principal 5 spoke of how she did a walkthrough of classroom observations with the parents and
they loved it. Gaitan's (2012) asserts that if parents and teachers work together, they can begin to
better understand each other and develop continuity between home and school. The activity of
performing classroom observations with families can also create the opportunity for families and
teachers to develop a relationship that could benefit the teacher’s classroom effectiveness.
Principals expressed continuing needs to fully engage families. However, there were
clear spots of success and an awareness of the importance and benefits of engaging families. As
a result, based on the survey and interview data, this assumed organizational asset was partially
validated among principals in the CLI schools included in this research.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Organizational Assets
The results and finding for organizational assets suggest that principals’ capacity to
support teachers, implement systems and structures of support, and adequately distribute
resources are critical to the success of implementing a school-based literacy initiative. Most
notable, in this section, was the focus on the structure and the use of PLCs, which are designed to
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 117

improve student outcomes and teacher practice. Principals prioritized the existence and use of
PLCs throughout this literacy initiative. CLI also utilized PLCs as part of their approach through
principals’ coaching and training sessions and teachers’ workshops and through seminars and
some cross-schools, grade-level meetings. CLI worked collaboratively with principals to align
these structures. According to the surveys and interviews, the organization of and prioritizing of
PLCs appeared to be a strong asset in the improvement of these schools.
An area of focus for improvement, an emerging asset, appears to be parent and
community relationship building, including the support needed to build teachers’ and principals’
cultural competence. The literature supports the benefits of being culturally competent,
regardless of your racial or ethnic background. The challenges expressed with engaging families
and addressing issues of diversity in the education process can be mitigated with more of an
explicit focus on building the cultural competence and awareness of educators. This will be
discussed further in the related recommendations in Chapter Five.
Conclusion
The findings presented in this chapter suggest that knowledge, motivational, and
organizational assets of principals are further developed and heavily supported through CLI’s
program. According to the research, principal assets relating to trust, instructional leadership and
PLCs have the biggest impact on student achievement (Dufour & Marzano, 2011; Fullan, 1991;
Leithwood et al., 2004; McLaughlin, 2006; Seashore Louis et al., 2010; Tschannen-Moran,
2004). Principals demonstrated the ability to exercise daily leadership behaviors that prioritized
instruction as the key driver to improving teacher capacity and student outcomes. Principals
discussed the focus of PLCs being on instructional topics such as student assessment data,
teacher practice, and CLI capacity building trainings.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 118

Another important finding, included several principals’ acknowledgment of participating
in CLI training with teachers. CLI’s focus on literacy improvement through PLCs, mentoring
and coaching created opportunities for principals and teachers to learn together and build
stronger relationships. This display of leadership behavior is highly correlated with improving
student achievement (Horng & Loeb, 2010; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Moreover, it
shows the power of authentic collaboration and provides evidence of a shared vision and
motivation towards improving student outcomes.
A necessary component of successful schools are principals understanding of and ability
to develop trust with their teachers, including a trusting dynamic between CLI coaches,
themselves and teachers. Principals had honest conversations with their teachers and CLI
coaches mirrored the same practice when working with teachers on improving their instruction.
This type of relational trust is the hallmark of successful schools, strong PLCs, and healthy
parent, teacher and student relationships (Fullan, 1991). Tschannen-Moran (2004) asserts that
trust is most difficult to develop across different cultures and groups of people. Therefore, while
principals attempt to support teachers with improving cultural competence was emerging, the
elements of a healthy trusting environment and functioning PLC lays the groundwork for
effectively address this issue in the future.
In conclusion, Chapter Fives examines ways to scale these practices for schools that may
not have the opportunity to partner with CLI.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 119

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model was used to examine a
promising practice that has shown success with closing the literacy achievement gap by 3
rd

grade, the CLI. More specifically, this analysis identified and then validated assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets, as shown in Table 6, possessed by principals
that enabled successful implementation of the CLI school improvement model and
improvements in early grade literacy achievement. These assumed assets were initially
identified based on research surrounding best practice in principal leadership. The CLI
principals’ assets were validated through a principal survey and principal interviews. This
chapter will explore the key validated assets that enabled and supported CLI principals closing
the 3
rd
grade achievement gap. In particular, Chapter Five responds to the third research
question guiding this study, “What recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at another
organization?”
The CLI principal validated assets and partially validated assets, as discussed in Chapter
Four, are presented in Table 6. The determination of validated assets is clear, as they describe
those principal behaviors that are shown to have a clear positive influence on the success of
principals’ leadership. Partially validated items, as relevant to this research, are those behaviors
also identified as positively influencing principals’ leadership, and if not present would weaken
the principals’ influence. Based on the data analysis, principals expressed a need to fully
implement or address partially validated assets. Therefore, these principal assets were observed
as not being fully performed or realized due to various reasons related to time constraints, district
priorities, or lack of resources. All partially validated assets where identified under organization
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 120

assets, including principals providing support for teachers to be successful with all students,
principals creating structures to support PLCs, and principals strengthening teachers’ cultural
competence. Consequently, these assets are considered as needing to be developed fully or
improved.
This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section presents recommendations,
based on the validated and partially validated CLI principal assets, to advance the role principal
leadership plays in driving literacy achievement. The second section provides an
implementation plan, including predicted timelines and resources. The third section discusses
the evaluation of what would be implemented. The fourth section discusses future research to
consider, then the conclusion.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 121

Table 6
Recommendations Based on Validated Assets
Knowledge Motivation Organization
Validated Assets Principal knows the
meaning of an
instructional leader

Principal knows the
meaning and purpose of
a professional learning
community.

Principal knows the
meaning and impact of
school culture and
climate.

Principal knows the
meaning of cultural
competence.
Principal views
themselves as an
instructional leader.

Principal values trust
and collaboration.

Principal focuses on
developing a school
culture, and climate
focused on learning.

Principal values a
learning environment
designed to adapt to and
better serve diverse
student populations and
communities.
Principal provides
teachers with the
training, resources, and
supports needed to
help improve their
practice and the
success of all students.

Principal creates
systems and structures
that support
professional learning
communities focused
on student learning.

The principal provides
resources,
opportunities and
supports designed to
strengthen the cultural
competence of staff
and improved family
and community
partnerships.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 122

Table 6, continued
Recommendations Recommendation One:
Districts can create data-
leadership networks
designed to support
principals with
improving school
performance and
supporting teachers
using a data-driven
approach.

Principals can develop
teacher-leader support
structures around the
principal position in
order to strengthen the
principal’s capacity as an
instructional leader and
to build teachers’
leadership capacity to
improve the school’s
culture and climate.

Recommendation Two:
Districts can incentivize
and support schools to
implement evidence-
based practices and
programs that have
proven to be successful
with diverse student
populations.

Principals can cultivate
teacher leadership by
creating team-based
coaching led by
exemplar teachers
focused on improving
instruction,
collaboration and
learning.

Recommendation
Three:
Principals can create
professional learning
communities in order
to develop a structure
focused on student
learning.

Principals can identify
an organization to
provide professional
development focus on
cultural competence to
ensure success for all
students and improve
relationships with
families.

Recommendations Based on Knowledge Assets
Chapter 4 findings suggest that principals closing literacy achievement gaps have
knowledge around instructional leadership, understanding the impact of culture and climate, and
understanding the importance of cultural competence. These assets were seen in principals in
this study as principals reported improvements resulting from CLI utilizing PLCs as a key
strategy to improving instruction; providing mentors for principals and hosting principal
meetings to share best practice with organizing their schools for learning; and principals
receiving professional development designed to strengthen their capacity and knowledge in
improving instruction.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 123

Principals also discussed how CLI supports schools around the challenges and
opportunities with having a diverse student and teacher population, including providing
culturally relevant instructional materials and engaging in conversations with teachers about the
impact of diversity on education. As a result, there are two recommendations based on
knowledge assets: (a) districts can design data-driven leadership networks focused on instruction,
and (b) principals can develop teacher-leader support structures around the principal position.
Data-informed Learning Networks
One validated knowledge asset for principals was knowing and understanding the
meaning of an instructional leaders. CLI focused on principals’ instructional leadership capacity
by providing professional development that strengthening their knowledge in literacy and data-
driven instruction. Also through coaching and principal cluster meetings, CLI supported
principals around other organizational challenges relative to its literacy school improvement
strategy. Leithwood et al. (2004) asserts that a common distinction of districts moving from low
to high achieving is a committed investment on building the instructional leadership capacity at
the school and district levels.
The research on principal leadership has consistently recognized the use of data as a key
competency, particularly with instructional leadership (Archbald, 2016; Heck, Larson, &
Marcoulides, 1990; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008; Seashore Louis et al., 2010).
Principals are key in defining the focus for data, including modeling its usage, developing
priorities, building consensus and increasing other’s capacity to use data (Knapp et al., 2006).
Knapp et al. (2006) affirms that without a focus, data-driven leadership is a mindless activity.
For this reason, Verbiest (2014) endorses supporting principals to become data-wise school
leaders by focusing on what data-wise leaders do and how can districts support them.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 124

Consequently, data most available to principals and schools is often limited to student
achievement; and while achievement is critical, when observed in a vacuum it can provide little
information about the actual cause or needed strategy (Anderson et al., 2010). A student’s
success with reading may have less to do with their actual ability and more to do with a high
percentage of teacher turnover in their respective classroom. As a result, a more systematic and
appropriate use of a data-centered approach is needed and can moves teachers away from
“teaching to the test” and support schools with creating a more clearly defined, comprehensive
and fact-based strategy towards school improvement, with an eye on student achievement
(Bambrick-Santoyo, 2010).
Therefore, it is recommended that school districts create data-informed learning
networks, utilizing the respective school’s data and focused on data-informed strategies needed
to address school improvement planning, teacher support and improvement ideas, and managing
other school programs and external relationships geared toward improving student achievement.
Through its principal cluster meetings with a focus on data-driven leadership, principal coaching,
and job-embedded school supports, CLI was successful with increasing the literacy knowledge
and supporting principals with creating a culture and climate focused on learning.
Develop Teacher-Leader Support Structures Around the Principal Position
A knowledge asset for principals is knowing the meaning and impact of school culture
and climate. Principals discussed creating a culture focused on learning, including teachers
systematically using data and working in together to solve problems. Principals also discussed
attending CLI workshops and seminars with their teachers in order to learn alongside of them.
Principal described how this improved not only their knowledge, but relationships with staff and
buy-in around the initiative. According to MacNeil, Prater, and Busch (2009), principals
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 125

wanting to improve student performance must focus improving the school’s culture by building
better relationships with between themselves and their teachers.
Alvoid and Black (2014) discussed the misconception of instructional leadership, with
principals feeling like they must be experts in every content area. According to Alvoid and
Black (2014), principals who are able to identify teachers with strong content expertise or master
teachers and learn from them and with them are also able to have an impact on instructional
leadership. CLI leveraged this notion by identifying model classroom teachers, who exhibited
exemplar instructional practices, and performed and modeled classroom observations with
principals. According to the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (2018) formalizing
instructional leadership roles for teachers in this way doesn’t diminish principals’ position,
instead it becomes an extension of their position and creates other opportunities for teachers to
engage in leadership practices.
As a result, it is recommended that principals create teacher-leader support structures
around the principal position designed to strengthen principals’ instructional capacity and
teachers’ overall leadership capacity. Teachers help principals develop coaching strategies,
implement peer observations and understand granular challenges that when addressed can
improve the culture of the school (Alvoid & Black, 2014). Principals can begin by identifying
these master teachers and cultivating relationships with them via meetings, attending workshops
togethers, and feedback sessions. According to MacNeil et al. (2009), schools demonstrating a
positive school culture and climate leads to improvements in student learning.
Recommendations Based on Motivation Assets
Most important to understand about motivation is that it is the “result from our
experiences and beliefs about ourselves, our coworkers, and our prospects for being effective”
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 126

(Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 82). Chapter 4 findings suggest that principals closing literacy
achievement gaps felt confident and motivated in their leadership roles due to their beliefs in
their ability to perform as instructional leaders, their ability to create a culture and climate
focused on learning and trust, and the belief that the school was organized to better serve diverse
populations and communities. These assets were seen in principals in this study as principals
discussed the importance of having grade-level meetings or PLCs focused on learning, the
importance of supporting teachers with instituting data-driven instruction practices, and their
abilities to work with CLI in developing a more culturally inclusive curriculum and mindset.
This section provides two recommendations based on those assets: (a) cultivate teacher
leadership through team-based coaching and (b) incentivizing schools to use evidence-based
programs and practices.
Cultivate Teacher Leaders Through Team-Based Coaching
Two principal motivation assets are principals valuing trust and collaboration, and
principals focusing on developing a school culture and climate focused on learning. CLI
identified “model classroom teachers”, who were teachers that exhibited exemplary instructional
practices and raised student achievement. Additionally, principals discussed the opportunities to
learn new ways of thinking in teams and encouraging teachers to take risk with learning new
skills. A new report from the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (2018) suggest that
school can drastically improve teaching and learning by employing school-based strategies that
maximizes instructional teacher leadership roles.
Teacher leadership refers to classroom teachers recognized as influencers by having
exhibited best practices in teaching, trusting relationships with staff, and having the leadership
skills to build the capacity of colleagues, thereby becoming key agents of change (Breakspear,
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 127

Peterson, Alfadala, & Khair, 2017). Beyond grade-level leads and other school responsibilities,
principals must identify teacher leaders as those that are collaborative, viewed as experts among
peers, are risk takers and willing to grow and change, and are willing to share their knowledge
with others (Dauksas & White, 2010). Principals are critical to creating learning cultures where
teachers can learning, lead, trust and improve (Breakspear et al., 2017).
Consequently, it is recommended for principals to create team-based coaching teams.
Team-based coaching refers to teacher leaders with content expertise, providing support to a
team of teachers through instructional planning meetings, peer observations and daily
opportunities given for feedback and reflection (Education Resource Strategies, 2013).
Considerations for approaching this recommendation requires that principals know how to
identify characteristics of teacher leaders, including being able to structure the time needed to
collaborate and meet the teams’ objective.
Expand Evidenced-Based Programs
A principal motivation asset was principals valuing a learning environment designed to
adapt to and better service diverse populations. When asked about addressing the diverse needs
of students in the school, principals talked about the impact of teachers’ culture on improving
instruction and creating better learning experiences for students. Principals also credited the
expertise of CLI coaches and their proven experience with being successful in similar
environments, therefore working collaborative with teachers and administrators to ensure student
materials and teacher practices are culturally relevant and engaging. Murphy (2016) asserts that
culturally appropriate schools are measured by the principle of instructional relevance.
According to Murphy (2016), scaffolding instruction in ways that reflects the diversity of
students allows students to learn more and create more meaning futures.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 128

The suggested recommendation is for districts to incentivize and support schools to
implement evidence-based practices and programs. Evidence-based means that a particular
program or set of instructional practices has trustworthy, reliable and valid evidence that it has
been successful with a particular group of children (International Reading Association, 2002).
The research-practice gap or variance between the evidence of scientific research on successful
practices and what happens at the school level has been a consistent barrier with school
improvement efforts (Cook, Smith, & Tankersley, 2012). According to Slavin (2008), districts
must provide schools with a variety of evidence-based programs to select from and they must
assist educators with determining the goodness of fit for their population of schools. Districts
can also leverage funding opportunities under Every Student Succeeds Act, which has allocated
funding for such school improvement efforts.
Children’s Literacy Initiative has been determined to be evidence-based and supports
principals around developing best practices in instructional leadership, teacher feedback and
literacy improvement. Yet, CLI met with district officials, principals and teachers prior to
entering into partnerships with schools. This type of preplanning and alignment of goals and
objectives are critical first steps for districts supporting principals in identifying evidence-based
programs
Recommendations for Organizational Assets
Relative to educational settings, when examining organizational assets, areas such as
culture, structures, policies, and practices must be considered (Rueda, 2011). Chapter 4
examined organizational assets assisting principals in closing literacy achievement gaps
determine it was critical for principals to have systems in place that focused on student learning,
including PLCs, in the form of grade-level meeting and CLI’s literacy meetings. Additionally,
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 129

principals, while having the structures in place to support teachers, spoke about the importance
of engaging families and developing cultural competence to better serve their diverse
populations. As this was the case, they were also expressed concerns with being challenge with
time constraints, district priorities and teacher’ contracts in feeling confident about providing
optimal support to teachers and engaging more with families.
This section provides two recommendations: (a) providing training in cultural
competence and (b) creating a professional learning community.
Cultural Competence Training
An organizational asset was principals knowing the meaning of cultural competence.
During interviews, principals shared the importance of teachers understanding students’
backgrounds and identities, including how teachers’ race and cultures could impact students’
learning environment. Principals’ also described examples of CLI coaches engaging in similar
conversations with teachers, relative to instruction. According to the National Education
Association (2008), there is a growing cultural gap, between students and teachers, which could
contribute to achievement gaps and student performance. Hiebert (2014) argues that schools
must improve at becoming more culturally relevant and culturally fair with instructional
decisions and assessment choices. As a result, the National Education Association (2008)
suggest supporting educators to become culturally competent.
Cultural competence is a set of acquired skills that improves individual’s ability to
understand and appreciate cultural differences, including understanding the influence of one’s
own culture and systems of beliefs (Wachtler & Troein, 2003). Delpit and Dowdy (2008)
indicates the goal of cultural competence is to strengthen students’ understanding and
appreciation of their own culture, whereby building their capacity to overcome the negative
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 130

assumptions of the dominant culture in society. According to Meaney et al. (2008), teachers
exhibiting this mindset are able to develop the culturally responsiveness and pedagogy that
improves students academically, socially and emotionally.
In order for principals to support teachers in developing cultural competence, they must
be made aware of diversity as well and reflect on how to best support teachers (Ringler & James,
2015). Based on interviews, principals have expressed a more formal strategy to improving
teachers’ cultural competence. My recommendation is for principals to identify an organization
to provide culturally competent training. This training should represent diversity as an asset,
focus on cultural self-awareness, cultural interaction, culturally accepting environments and
including cultural knowledge into teaching.
Principals Create Professional Learning Communities
An organizational asset of principals was creating structures and systems that support
PLCs focused on learning. Principals articulated the importance of PLCs, including teachers
sharing practice, CLI coaches providing feedback around the initiative, and teachers using data
to improve student learning. According to Dufour and Marzano (2011) there is great potential in
PLCs for improving schools. PLCs require trust, focus on student learning, professionalizes
teachers roles, facilitates collaboration and creates a culture of relationship building and learning
(Tschannen-Moran, 2004).
Principal play an important part in creating and sustaining PLCs, including proving
teachers with time, resources and materials, establishing clear rules of engagement around the
work, shaping the vision and expectations, and engaging staff through participation and support
(Dufour & Marzano, 2011). PLCs played a critical role in the CLI efforts, whereby through
teacher grade-band meetings, model teachers’ group trainings and principal cluster meetings,
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 131

participants were able to learn from one another, feel supported in the process, and remain
motivated around the initiative. McLaughlin (2006) described several examples of what can be
considered a professional learning community, including grade-level groups and departments.
Thus, Louis (2008) asserted that a professional learning community is not a program, instead it’s
a set of ideas or mindset that can augment current routines.
Therefore, it is recommended that principals create PLCs within their schools. In order to
begin, principals must backwards map from teachers’ work to their own and engage in dialogue
with teachers about creating a professional learning community (Louis, 2008). Principals in the
study discussed time as a challenge, however addressing this challenge with teachers may
provide a workable solution. Also, based on principals in the study, PLCs cannot be
accountability structures, instead they must provide opportunities for teachers to engage in
critical dialogue and to take risk with employing new strategies.
Implementation Plan
In this section, action steps, timelines, and potential barriers with implementing
recommendations will be shared. Table 7 includes implementation steps, timelines and potential
barriers, as relates to each recommendation.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 132

Table 7
Summary of Policy Recommendations with Action Steps, Timelines, and Associated Risk
Policy Recommendations Action Steps Timeline Constraints and
Challenges
Districts can create data-
leadership networks designed
to support principals with
improving school performance
and supporting teachers using a
data-driven approach.
• Districts must
identify district
office staff or
principal
managers to lead
this work and
create
expectations.
• Districts will
develop principal
networks that
will meet at
scheduled times
to collaborate
and participate in
the analysis and
discussion of the
data.
• Principals and
network staff will
support the
identified
principal in
developing a plan
of action and
follow-up.
1 year Districts must
ensure that point
persons identified
have the knowledge
and capacity to
effectively engage
in dialogue with
principals around
data-informed
school
improvement
strategies.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 133

Table 7, continued
Principals can develop teacher-
leader support structures
around the principal position in
order to strengthen the
principal’s capacity as an
instructional leader and to
build teachers’ leadership
capacity to improve the
school’s culture and climate.
• Principals can
identify master
teachers and
begin cultivating
relationships
with them.
• Principal and
identified
teachers can plan
joint-professional
development
opportunities.
• Principal can
observe teachers’
classroom as a
learning
opportunity.
• Principal can
garner teachers’
assistance
around
appropriate
leadership duties
(teacher
evaluation
discussion,
scheduling of
peer
observations, or
coaching
strategies).

Immediately

Principals must
think of ways to
avoid bias with
selecting teachers.
There could also be
an issue of time,
with principals
being able to attend
joint-workshops
with teachers.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 134

Table 7, continued
Districts can incentivize and
support schools to implement
evidence-based practices and
programs that have proven to
be successful with diverse
student populations.
• Districts can create
small district teams
to support schools
with identifying a
research-based
practice that has a
proven record of
success with that
school’s population
of students.

1 to 2 years Districts and schools
may be challenged
with fiscal issues at
the school and
district level. An
equitable approach
in determining
which schools are
priority would be
required.
Districts can also
utilize existing
websites that are
reputable and that
have already
identified evidence-
based practices.
Control should
remain at the
school-level with
the district playing
the role of advisor.
Principals can cultivate teacher
leadership by creating team-
based coaching led by exemplar
teachers focused on improving
instruction, collaboration and
learning.
• Principals must
establish selection
criteria, then
identify teachers
meeting that
criteria.
• Principals must
work
collaboratively with
teachers to identify
areas of focus.
• Principal and
Teacher-Leaders
must work together
to develop an
implementation
plan and next steps.
1 year Principals must be
clear around the
selection criteria of
teacher leaders in
order to avoid
accusations of bias,
favoritism, or
unfairness.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 135

Table 7, continued
Principals can create
professional learning
communities in order to
develop a structure focused on
student learning.

• Principals
collaborate with
teachers to
establish focus,
function, and
structure of PLCs.
• Through
collaboration,
feedback, and
participation,
principals establish
norms of and trust
within the PLC.
• Principals continue
supporting PLCs
through the
coordination of
resources, time and
maintaining
supportive
conditions.
6 months Principals may be
challenged with
time due to school
schedules or other
district priorities.
Principals can identify an
organization to provide
professional development focus
on cultural competence to
ensure success for all students
and improve relationships with
families.
• Principals can
identify
organizations that
have received high
marks from other
schools with
providing
professional
development in
cultural
competence.
• Principals will then
plan out dates of
availability and
create an
appropriate training
cycle for
implementation
efforts.
• Principals must
assess school
budgets to consider
other related
supports.
1 year Funding could be an
issue depending on
the school’s budget.
Principals may also
be challenged by
competing district
priorities.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 136

Recommendations and Action Steps
Based on the promising practice, the most critical recommendation needed to be taken by
principals include districts implementing data-leadership networks, principals establishing PLCs,
and principals creating team-based coaching teams. Table 7 above highlights suggested action
steps principals and districts must consider when adopting these recommendations. These
recommendations are focused keenly around developing principals’ instructional leadership
capacity. Particularly, because instructional leadership when compared to other styles of
leadership has shown to have three to four times more impact on student achievement (Krasnoff,
2015).
Additionally, Schwartz and Simon (2018) confirmed that principals focusing more on the
organizational aspects of supporting instruction experienced higher student achievement.
Principals’ judgements about the challenges of time, union contract issues and district priorities
with consistently utilizing PLCs, highlighted some challenges with organizing schools’
instructional environment. In spite of these organizational challenges creating and sustaining
PLCs and using data-driven methods to help principals focus improvements efforts must take
priority. McLaughlin (2006) affirmed that schools are successful when they develop a culture of
learning and collaboration focused on data-driven decision-making.
Districts developing data-leadership networks may want to consider assessing the
knowledge level of participating principals, including current leadership practices. This can help
districts create diverse networks, allowing for greater learning and collaboration. Principals will
be selected to discuss and analyze their data sets in front of the network colleagues. For this
reason, districts must ensure alignment and availability of the types of data to be used, as school
and district participants must have access to the same data to ensure everyone is one the same
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 137

page and that conversations are productive. Districts could also require that principals presenting
their data bring a team of school staff, including teachers, parents, and custodial staff, with
whom they have already prepared and reviewed the data. In this way, principals are building the
school’s capacity, developing stronger relationship and sense of collective responsibility for
improving the school.
Recommendations and action steps for creating PLCs and teacher-based coaching
overlap. Principals must build, together with teachers, a vision and alignment to student
learning, around the purpose of PLCs and teacher-based coaching. Principals should capitalize
on the leadership of other teachers and support them in being the initial implementers or risk-
taskers in performing new task and activities. Principals can show their commitment and
prioritization of these activities, by meeting with teacher teams to align schedules, budgets and
resources needed for teachers to be successful. Another important role of the principal is using
data to monitoring the success of the teams, this may be acknowledging changes in teachers’
practice based on classroom observations or improvements in student performance data.
Evaluation Plan
In determining if you have solved a performance problem, it is important to evaluate the
results of the solutions (Rueda, 2011). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) described the fours
levels of evaluation that act to influence each other: (a) reaction, the degree to which one finds
the program or strategy favorable and relevant to their jobs; (b) learning, the degree to which
there is an improvement in one's capacity (knowledge, skills, and attitude); (c) behavior, the
degree to which one can apply the learning; and (d) results, the degree to which targeted
outcomes were achieved. Assessing the recommendations utilizing this framework will enable
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 138

principals and district leaders to measure the impact of principal leadership behaviors on school
improvement efforts designed to close the literacy achievement.
Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) compares evaluating reaction to a customer
satisfaction survey, and describes it as one of the most recognized and easier evaluation levels to
measure. At the district level, evaluating principals’ reaction to their participation in the data-
leadership networks can be done using summative surveys to get principals’ overall reaction to
the experience. A summative survey could reveal if principals thought the process was punitive
or supportive, considering that the purpose of the data-leadership network is to support
principals’ leadership development. The facilitator could also gage the participants’ engagement
during the session to determine if other principals or participants are motivated by the
experience.
Principals implementing leadership teams and PLCs at the school-level can use more
informal methods of evaluation, for example during staff meetings principals can ask about
teachers’ satisfaction with participating in teams or during classroom visits principals can discuss
teachers’ feelings about their participation. According to Rueda (2011), while the goal is to get
honest feedback, it is also important to remember that some participants will never be satisfied
for reasons outside of your control.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 139

Level 2: Learning
Evaluating learning focused on three outcomes, a change in knowledge, a change in
skills, or a change in attitudes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In measuring principals’
participation in data-leadership networks districts are able to monitor the improvement of
principals when they return to do another analysis of their school’s data or during the follow-up
meeting with principals, at which time principals can address their plan based of the feedback
they received.
Principals measuring teachers’ participation in teacher leadership teams and PLCs may
want to focus more on teachers’ skills. The assumption here is that principals have previously
observed teachers and therefore are aware of the teachers’ strengths and weaknesses. There may
also be a change in teachers’ attitudes, depending on the relationship building and support given
resulting from working in teams.
Level 3: Behavior
Evaluating behavior focused on the application of the new learning or and whether or not
participants can implement it successfully (Rueda, 2011). In the case of principals’ participating
in data-leadership networks, teachers’ participation on learning teams and staffs’ participation in
professional development focused on cultural competence, evaluating the application of the
learning becomes more linear. There should be evidence of a change in the principal’s behavior
leading to a change in teacher practice; as well as changes in teachers practice leading to
improvements in student learning. Assessment at the district level requires site-visits or school-
walk throughs to observe the principal’s behavior and style of leadership. Another way to assess
a change in the principal’s behaviors would be through staff and parent surveys, including
reviewing student achievement data.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 140

A challenge to consider would be ensuring that principals are given an appropriate
amount of time to change. Principals cannot receive coaching on Monday and expect to see
student scores improve the next week. As with any assessment, considering an individual’s prior
knowledge or experiences is key in assessing a change in behavior. While one principal may
seem to have done better than another, it could be because they have already been exposed to the
intervention or training. Expectations to improvement must also be managed for teachers, as they
are at different levels of experience as well. Assessments for teacher behavior could include
classroom observations, teacher evaluations, or student performance data. Principals can engage
in more informal practices, such as compliments or acknowledgements received from parents of
the teachers’ students regarding improvements in practice.
Level 4: Results
The results from these recommendations are to improve student literacy outcomes from
prekindergarten to 3
rd
grade and close the achievement gap. There should be an immediate
positive impact given the support teachers and principal shall receive, particularly with attitudes
and knowledge. However, application of knowledge requires repetition, practice, and support.
As a result, districts and schools must be realistic about the type of change expected and the time
needed for that change to occur and become sustainable. Pierson (2014) suggested that due to
the adverse effects of principals leaving their jobs, it typically takes three years for a new
principal to see growth in student outcomes.
Children’s Literacy Initiative supports principals in an intentional way with knowing the
content and aspects of literacy, understanding best practices for improving literacy, and
providing mentoring and support. CLI supports teachers via classroom observations, providing
meaningful and specific feedback, and through coaching. While CLI’s approach is grounded in
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 141

features of instructional leadership, it allows for a broader framework that supports principals in
leading schools through mentoring and principal networks.
These four levels of evaluation offer a systematic path to determining the success of a
program. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), the end is the beginning and the
focus is on the learner. At each level, the satisfaction, engagement, learning and performance of
the learner is measured. The value of this evaluation process is not in the exposure to the
professional development, instead it is in the changes in performance and outcomes (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). In the case of this promising practice, the evaluation is intended to
measure stakeholders’ reactions, learning, behavior and overall results from the implementation
of the proposed recommendations to close early literacy achievement gaps.
Future Research
The increased use of assessments and school accountability measures to improve student
learning has required principals to become more instructionally focused, otherwise known as
becoming an instructional leader (Blome & James, 2010). In addition, the role of the principal in
today’s environment has become more complex and challenging. According to Alvoid and
Black (2014), of the Center for American Progress, 70% of principals reported their job being
different from just five years ago; 75% report their jobs are too complex and stressful; and 20%
of new principals left their job in two years. Such alarming data highlights the need for districts
to consider how they support principals.
Based on the findings, principals were challenged with time and union issues in creating
PLCs. Some principals attended workshops with teachers, while others were not able to due to
other principal responsibilities. As a result, a suggestion for future research would be examining
how districts are can make principals’ roles more manageable, whereby allowing them to be
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 142

effective instructional leaders. According to Tooley (2017) there is little research that provides
insight into addressing the issue of principals leading at the expense of instructional leadership.
Based on findings, principals also thought it was important for teachers to understand
students’ backgrounds and culture, including teachers’ being self-aware of their own bias and
how it impacts classroom learning. According to principals, CLI, while making attempts to
address teachers’ inquiry around this topic, were not able to adequately address issues associated
with bias, culture and race. Principals also discussed wanting to get parents more involved,
however it was not a priority. Consequently, it was concluded that principals needed support in
developing the capacity to effectively address issues of race and class and its impact on
instruction and the educational environment.
A second suggestion would be future research examining the impact of principal
preparation programs in comprehensively addressing issues of race, class and bias in educational
environments. According to Diem and Carpenter (2012), Hawley and James conducted a study
in 2010 that surveyed 62 traditional leadership programs across the U.S. In the study, of the 18
that responded, they concluded that diversity-related education only occurred in a single course,
focusing only on broader societal conditions, neglecting to address more granular school-related
influences. Schools in urban environments are characterized with issues of poverty, race and
diversity. Babo et al. (2017), asserted that preparation programs must provide opportunities for
future leaders to self-reflect and examine their biases in education settings, including developing
cultural competence.
Conclusion
When acting independently, most school variables have little impact; however, it is when
principals can create the conditions that unify these variables around a shared vision that schools
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 143

are able to improve student outcomes (Wallace Foundation, 2013). The evidence also suggested
that effectiveness of principals is most significant in schools with the most significant needs
(Leithwood et al., 2004; Rigby, 2014). The Children’s Literacy (CLI) Initiative was chosen as a
promising practice for this study, not only because of the success it has demonstrated working in
urban and underserved schools, but also because of its comprehensive support provided to both
teachers and principals.
This promising practice was intended to be an exemplar to inform organizations, school
districts, leadership preparation programs, principals, teachers and policymakers of what it takes
to support principals and build the skills needed to effectively lead schools and close the
achievement gap. For this reason, examining this promising practice through a lens of CRT was
intended to bring attention to the possibilities and assets of diversity. Solutions to improving
schools are often race neutral, but the outcomes of education are race packed. Therefore, one
cannot continue throwing neutral solutions at racial issues, while also neglecting the historical
beginnings of today’s systemic challenges.
Lisa Delpit (1995), the author of Other’s People Children, made mention of a reality of
our education system that still holds true today. According to Delpit (1995), education has relied
upon name calling and labeling to explain its failure, describing children with adjectives such as,
“at-risk,” “learning disabled,” “low-income,” and “disadvantage,”. As a result, when children
underperform educators sometimes absolve themselves of fault, because they view the child’s
pre-conditions as not their fault. However, a child who is at-risk will still take risks, a child
described as learning disabled is still able to learn, a child who is low-income still has an income,
and a child labeled as disadvantage still has an advantage. Educators have the opportunity and
the obligation to find the assets in each student and nurture them.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 144

Experience and expertise are vital to performing the job of principal, being successful on
the job requires meaningful relationships and believing in and trusting teachers. Therefore, even
in the toughest environments, creating a school culture and climate built on trust and healthy
relationships is crucial to success. An individual’s race or level of income should not matter, as
everyone should be valued, welcomed, heard and treated with respect. Solutions to closing the
achievement gap cannot rest on replacing principals, closing schools, firing teachers or
increasing accountability. Changing people does not change people. Therefore, educators must
be supported in being better partners with each other, with students, with families and with
communities. Closing the achievement gap will require taking an approach based on principles
of equity, not equality.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 145

REFERENCES
Adamson, F., Astrand, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Global education reform : how
privatization and public investment influence education outcomes.Alexander, M. (2012).
The new Jim Crow : mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
Alvoid, L., & Black, W. L. J. (2014). The Changing Role of the Principal The Changing Role of
the Principal. Center for American Progress, (July), 1–33. Retrieved from https://files-
eric-ed-gov.libproxy2.usc.edu/fulltext/ED561099.pdf
American Enterprise Institute. (2015). Education in America — And How to Improve It.
Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/publication/education-america-improve/
Anderson, J. D. (1989). The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935 - James D. Anderson -
Google Books. University of North Carolina Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sQ3Gd5DZ_TUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&
ots=1-NUOxewEj&sig=iqPw_z_QUyFrq8hLik7LgHX0HEE#v=onepage&q&f=false
Anderson, S., Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational
conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 9(3), 292–327. http://doi.org/10.1080/15700761003731492
Ansell, susan. (2011). Achievement Gap - Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/achievement-gap/
Archbald, D. (2016). System-level Instructional Leadership – A District-level Leadership Case:
Implementing PLCs in Schools Synopsis of PLC Theory. NCPEA International Journal
of Educational Leadership Preparation Mirel & Goldin, 11(2). Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1124011.pdf

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 146

Arum, R., & Beattie, I. R. (2000). The Structure of Schooling - Readings in the Sociology of
Education By Arum & Beattie: Richard Arum / Irenee R. Beattie: Amazon.com:
Books (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004US04Z4/sr=1-
4/qid=1471814024/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1471814024
&sr=1-4
Babo, G., Wells, C., Templeton, N. R., & Bizzell, B. E. (2017). Increasing Principal Preparation
Candidates’ Awareness of Biases in Educational Environments. NCPEA International
Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation Spring, 12(1). Retrieved from
http://www.ncpeapublications.org/attachments/article/734/IJELP Volume 12, Number 1
(Spring 2017).pdf#page=73
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2010). Driven by data : a practical guide to improve instruction. Jossey-
Bass.
Berliner, D. C., & Glass, G. V. (2014). 50 Myths and Lies That Threathen America’s aPublic
Schools-The Real Crisis in Education. Teachers College Press.
Blackwell, A. G., Kwoh, S., & Pastor, M. (2010). Uncommon common ground : race and
America’s future. W.W. Norton & Co.
Blome, A. C., & James, M. E. (2010). The Principal as Instructional Leader: An Evolving Role.
NASSP Bulletin, 69(481), 48–54. http://doi.org/10.1177/019263658506948107
Boykin, A. W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the Opportunity to Learn: Moving from
Research to Practice to Close. ASCD.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 147

Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2013). School leaders matter. Education Next,
13(1), 63–69. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/files/ednext_20131_branch.pdf
Brayboy, B. M. J. (2005). Toward a Tribal Critical Race Theory in Education. The Urban
Review, 37(5), 425–446. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-005-0018-y
Breakspear, S., Peterson, A., Alfadala, A., & Salman B.M Khair, M. (2017). Developing Agile
Leaders of Learning : School leadership policy for dynamic times. Qatar. Retrieved from
https://www.wise-qatar.org/sites/default/files/rr.7.2017_learnlabs.pdf
Brewster, C., & Railsback, J. (2003). Building trusting relationships for school improvement:
{Implications} for principals and teachers. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/trust.pdf
Bristow, D., & Williams, E. (2015). The Role of Continuous Professional Development in
Closing the Gap in Educational Attainment. Retrieved from
http://ppiw.org.uk/files/2016/10/PPIW-Report-The-Role-of-CPD-in-Closing-the-
Attainment-Gap-REVISED-docx.pdf
Brownsberger, W. (2000). Race Matters. Journal of Drug (Vol. 30). Vintage Books.
http://doi.org/10.1080/07256860050000768
Burke, W. (2008). Organization change : theory and practice. Sage Publications. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books/about/Organization_Change.html?id=rdMqpWUkQHoC
Çalik, T., Sezgin, F., Kavgaci, H., & Kilinç, A. Ç. (2012). Examination of relationships between
instructional leadership of school principals and self-efficacy of teachers and collective
teacher efficacy. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 12(4), 2498–2504. Retrieved
from www.edam.com.tr/estp

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 148

Carroll, T. G., Fulton, K., Yoon, I., & Lee, C. (2005). Induction Into Learning Communities
Prepared for the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. National
Commission and America’s Future. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494581.pdf
Carusi, F. T. (2014). The public school advantage: Why public schools outperform private
schools. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies (Vol. 49). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1554512006?accountid=167280
Chiefs for Change. (2017). Policy Brief ESSA and Evidence : Why It Matters 1. Retrieved from
http://chiefsforchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ESSA-and-Evidence-Why-It-
Matters.pdf
Chubb, J. E., & Loveless, T. (2010). Bridging the achievement gap, 1–10. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kirp-black-males-
20100922,0,6121369,print.story
Clair, M., & Denis, J. S. (2015). Racism, Sociology of. International Encyclopedia of Social &
Behavioral Sciences, 857–863. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.32122-5
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results : a guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Pub Inc.
Clifford, M. (2012). Hiring Quality School Leaders. American Institutes for Research, 1–20.
Retrieved from
http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Hiring_Quality_School_Leaders_
0.pdf
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 149

Clifford, R., & Cryer, D. (2003). Early Childhood Education and Care in the USA. Brookes
Publishing C., Inc. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/27856788.pdf
Cook, B. G., Smith, G. J., & Tankersley, M. (2012). Evidence-based practices in education. APA
Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol 1: Theories, Constructs, and Critical Issues.,
495–527. http://doi.org/10.1037/13273-017
Cummins, J. (2011). Literacy engagement: Fueling academic growth for english learners.
Reading Teacher, 65(2), 142–146. http://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01022
Dauksas, L., & White, J. (2010). Should I Stay or Should I Go? How Teacher Leadership Can
Improve Teacher Retention. Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 7(2), 27–32. Retrieved
from www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). Developing successful
principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute (SELI), The Finance
Project. Retrieved September, 17, 2005. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.123.7780&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Delpit, L. (1995). Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. College
Composition and Communication (Vol. 46). New Press. http://doi.org/10.2307/358724
Delpit, L. D., & Dowdy, J. K. (2008). The skin that we speak : thoughts on language and culture
in the classroom. New Press.
Derman-Sparks, L., & Phillips, C. B. (1997). Teaching/learning anti-racism : a developmental
approach. Teachers College Press.
Diem, S., & Carpenter, B. (2012). SOCIAL JUSTICE & LEADERSHIP PREPARATION:
DEVELOPING A TRANSFORMATIVE CURRICULUM. Planning and Changing,
43(1/2), 96–112.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 150

Downey, D. B., & Condron, D. J. (2016). Fifty Years since the Coleman Report. Sociology of
Education, 89(3), 207–220. http://doi.org/10.1177/0038040716651676
Dufour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2011). Leaders of learning : how district, school, and classroom
leaders improve student achievement. Solution Tree Press.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903/2014). The souls of Black folk. Millennium Publications.
Education Resource Strategies. (2013). A New Vision for Teacher Professional Growth &
Support. Retrieved from papers3://publication/uuid/92646CAE-06B1-4CCD-90EC-
3D57A1B92952
Evans, R. (2001). The human side of school change : reform, resistance, and the real-life
problems of innovation. Jossey-Bass.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a New Structure For School Leadership Building a New Structure.
American Educator, 23. Retrieved from
http://www.politicalscience.uncc.edu/godwink/PPOL8687/Wk10 March 22
Accountability/Elmore Building a New Structure for Leadership.pdf
Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter Schools in Action: Renewing Public
Education. Research Reports (Vol. 10). Princeton University Press. Retrieved from
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/6783.html
Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement (Vol. 2). Teachers College Press.
http://doi.org/10.1080/0924345910020406
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press.
Gamoran, A., Secada, W. G., & Marrett, C. B. (2000). The Organizational Context of Teaching
and Learning: Changing Theoretical Perspectives. Handbook of the Sociology of
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 151

Education, 153–175. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/9780387325170-
c2.pdf
Garrett, M. T., & Pichette, E. F. (2000). Red as an Apple: Native American Acculturation and
Counseling With or Without Reservation. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(1),
3–13. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02554.x
Glennan, T. K., Bodilly, S. J., Galegher, J. R., & Kerr, K. A. (2004). Expanding the reach of
education reforms: perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions.
RAND, 2004. Xxii+723 Pp., xxii+723-xxii+723. Retrieved from
http://hz9pj6fe4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-
2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-
8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book
&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Glennan%2C+Thomas+K%3BBodilly%2C+Susan+J%3B
Galeghe
Guskey, T. R. (2009). Closing the Knowledge Gap on Effective Professional Development.
Educational Horizons. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ849021.pdf
Haller, A., Hunt, E., Pacha, J., & Fazekas, A. (2016). Lessons for States: The Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) Increases Focus on and Investment in Supporting Principal
Preparation and Development. Retrieved from
https://education.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/csep/policypapers/ESSA White Pape.pdf
Hallinger, P., & Wang, W. C. (2015). Conceptual Framework. Springer International Publishing
Switzerland.
Hanover Research. (2017). School-Based Strategies for Narrowing the Achievement Gap.
Retrieved from https://www.wasa-oly.org/WASA/images/WASA/1.0 Who We
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 152

Are/1.4.1.6 SIRS/Download_Files/LI 2017/May- School-Based Strategies for Narrowing
the Achievement Gap.pdf
Haskins, R., Murnane, R., Sawhill, I., & Snow, C. (2012). Can academic standards boost literacy
and close the achievement gap? Future of Children, 1–8. Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Child-Literacy-Policy-Brief.pdf
Haynes, J. W. (2008). Unmasking, Exposing, and Confronting: Critical Race Theory, Tribal
Critical Race Theory and Multicultural Education. International Journal of Multicultural
Education, 10(2). Retrieved from http://ijme-
journal.org/index.php/ijme/article/viewFile/137/226
Heck, R. H., Larson, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Principal instructional leadership and
school achievement: validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly,
26(2), 94–125. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0013161X90026002002
Hiebert, E. H. (2014). Literacy for a Diverse Society: Perspectives, Practices, and Policies
Reading Essentials Reprint Series. Retrieved from
http://textproject.org/assets/library/resources/Hiebert-Literacy-for-a-diverse-society.pdf
Horng, B. Y. E., & Loeb, S. (2010). New Thinking About Instructional Leadershpi. Phi Delta
Kappa, 92(3), 66–70. http://doi.org/10.1108/10569210910939681
Hoy, W. K. (1990). Organizational Climate and Culture: A Conceptual Analysis of the School
Workplace. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(2), 149–168.
http://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0102_4
Hubbard, L. A., Stein, M. K., & Mehan, H. (2006). Reform as Learning : School Reform,
Organizational Culture, and Community Politics in San Diego. Taylor and Francis.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 153

International Literacy Association. (2016). Frameworks for Literacy Education Reform.
Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-
stand/ila-literacy-education-reform.pdf
International Reading Association. (2002). What is Evidence Based Reading Instruction? Editors
Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice Roselmina Indrisano & James
R. Squire Editors. Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-
source/where-we-stand/evidence-based-position-statement.pdf?sfvrsn=cc4ea18e_6
Jacob, B., & Ludwig, J. (2008). Improving Educational Outcomes for Poor Children. Focus,
26(2), 56–61. http://doi.org/10.3386/w14550
Kennedy, E. (2010). Narrowing the Achievement Gap: Motivation, Engagement, and Self-
Efficacy Matter. Journal of Education, 190(3), 1–11. Retrieved from
http://simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc
t=true&db=pbh&AN=60408714&site=ehost-live
Kennedy, S. Y., & Smith, J. B. (2013). The relationship between school collective reflective
practice and teacher physiological efficacy sources. Teaching and Teacher Education,
29(1), 132–143. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.003
Kilty, K. M., & Vidal De Haymes, M. (2000). Racism, Nativism, and Exclusion: Public Policy,
Immigration, and the Latino Experience in the United States. Journal of Poverty, 4(12),
1–25. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1300/J134v04n01_01?needAc
cess=true
Kirkman, A., & Kirkman, J. (2014). Building a culture of trust: Trust in the use of educational
technology. Australian Educational Computing. Retrieved from
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 154

http://hdl.handle.net/10072/66279%0Ahttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/66279
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Krasnoff, B. (2015). Leadership Qualities of Effective Principals. Education Northwest, 1–10.
Retrieved from http://nwcc.educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/research-brief-
leadership-qualities-effective-principals.pdf
Ladson-Billings, G., & Henry, A. (1990). Blurring the Borders: Voices of African Liberatory
Pedagogy in the United States and Canada. Journal of Education. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ430705
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding
Achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
Leachman, M., & Mai, C. (2014). Most states funding schools less than before the recession.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4011
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and Ethnic Achievement Gap Trends: Reversing the Progress Toward
Equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3–12.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031001003
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27–42.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 155

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research How
leadership influences student learning. The Wallace Foundation Center for Applied
Research and Educational Improvement and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
New York NY. Minneapolis. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6
Loewus, L. (2017). The Nation’s Teaching Force Is Still Mostly White and Female - Education
Week. Retrieved May 26, 2018, from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/08/15/the-nations-teaching-force-is-still-
mostly.html
Louis, S. (2008). Creating and Sustaining Professional Communities 1. Sage, 1–15. Retrieved
from https://www.curriculum.org/LSA/files/LSAcreatingandsustainingFeb08.pdf
Lynch, R. G., & Oakford, P. (2014). The Economic Benefits of Closing Educational Achievement
Gaps. Retrieved from https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/WinningEconomyReport2.pdf
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.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13603120701576241
Martin, P., & Midgley, E. (2006). Immigration: Shaping and Reshaping America. Population
Bulletin (Vol. 61). Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.565.9&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Martin, S. T. (2009). Digital Commons@Georgia Southern Relationship Between the Leadership
Styles of Principals and School Culture THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
LEADERSHIP STYLES OF PRINCIPALS AND SCHOOL CULTURE. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 156

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action. Adolescence,
38(149), 195.
McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal Leadership: Creating a Culture of Academic
Optimism to Improve Achievement for All Students. Leadership and Policy in Schools,
5(3), 203–229. http://doi.org/10.1080/15700760600805816
Mclanahan, S., Currie, J. M., Haskins, R., Mcdonald, K., Moore, L., Szittya, B., … Wilkins, A.
(2012). Literacy Challenges for the Twenty-First Century. Brookings Institute, 22(2).
Retrieved from
https://futureofchildren.princeton.edu/sites/futureofchildren/files/media/literacy_challeng
es_for_the_twenty-first_century_22_02_fulljournal.pdf
McLaughlin, M. W. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities : professional
strategies to improve student achievement. The series on school reform. Teachers College
Press.
Meaney, K. S., Bohler, H. R., Kopf, K., Hernandez, L., & Scott, L. S. (2008). Service-Learning
and Pre-Service Educators’ Cultural Competence for Teaching: An Exploratory Study.
Journal of Experiential Education, 31(2), 189–208.
http://doi.org/10.1177/105382590803100206
Michael Knapp, B. S., Portin, B. S., Copland, M. A., Plecki, M. L., Ann Swinnerton, J., Monpas-
Huber, J., … Boatright, E. (2006). Data-Informed Leadership in Education. Retrieved
from
www.ctpweb.org,andalsofromTheWallaceFoundation’sKnowledgeCentersite,www.walla
cefoundation.org.

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 157

Miguel, Guadalupe S., J., & Valencia, Richard, R. (1998). From the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo to Hopwood: The educational plight and struggle of Mexican Americans in the
Southwest. Harvard Educational Review. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/out (3).pdf
Mizell, H. (2014). Why Professional Development Matters. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 30(4), 360–361. http://doi.org/10.1177/1043986214541602
Moreno, G., & Segura-Herrera, T. (2013). Special Education Referrals and Disciplinary Actions
for Latino Students in the United States. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 33–
51. http://doi.org/10.1515/mlt-2013-0022
Murphy, J. (2010). The educator’s handbook for undersatnding and closing achievement gaps.
Corwin.
Murphy, J. (2016). Leading School Improvement: A Framework for Action.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the national early
literacy panel. Literacy (Vol. 2). http://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.1.2
National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. (2018). New Report: Give Teacher Leaders
Formal Roles to Improve Instruction » NIET. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from
http://www.niet.org/newsroom/press-releases/view/335
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders 2015. Reston. Retrieved from http://npbea.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf
NEA. (2008). Promoting educators’ cultural competence to better serve culturally diverse
students (PB13). An NEW Policy Brief.
http://doi.org/http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB13_CulturalCompetence08.pdf
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 158

Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the
classroom:Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and
Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. http://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318
Nieto, S. (1954). Black, White, and Us: The Meaning of Brown v. Board of Education for
Latinos Latinos and the Struggle for Equal Education. Multicultural Perspectives, 22–25.
Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15327892mcp0604_7
Noltemeyer, A. L. (2012). The history of inequality in education. Disproportionality in
Education and Special Education, 1–21. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/his_fac
OECD. (2016). School Leadership for Learning. Paris: OECD Publishing.
http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264258341-en
Osher, D., Coggshall, J., Colombi, G., Woodruff, D., Francois, S., & Osher, T. (2012). Building
School and Teacher Capacity to Eliminate the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Teacher
Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children, 35(4), 284–295.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412453930

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 159

Paradise, R. (1999). The Other Struggle for Equal Schools: Mexican Americans during the Civil
Rights Era. Anthropology and Education Quarterly (Vol. 30). State University of New
York Press. Retrieved from
http://myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/218106
735?accountid=14771%5Cnhttp://bf4dv7zn3u.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.
88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-
8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aeducationalumni&rft_val_fmt=
Parkinson, J., Meakin, J., & Salinger, T. (2015). Longitudinal Impacts of the Children’s Literacy
Initiative Professional Development, Coaching, and Model Classroom Intervention on
Early Literacy Achievement.
Parkinson, J., Salinger, T., Meakin, J., & Smith, D.-M. (2015). Results From a Three-Year i3
Impact Evaluation of the Children’s Literacy Initiative (CLI) Implementation and Impact
Findings of an Intensive Professional Development and Coaching Program Results From
a Three-Year i3 Impact Evaluation of the Children’s Li. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/AIRCLI i3 Impact Report 2015 (1).pdf
Patterson, J. T. (2001). Brown v. Board of Education : a civil rights milestone and its troubled
legacy. Oxford University Press.
Payne, C. (2010). So Much Reform, So Little Change: The Persistence of Failure in Urban
Schools. American Ethnologist (Vol. 37). Harvard Education Press.
Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving School Leadership: Policy And
Practice. Improving School Leadership (Vol. 1). Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/education/school/44374889.pdf
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 160

Ravitch, D. (2011). A Review of “The Death and Life of the Great American School System:
How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education.” Educational Studies (Vol. 47).
Basic Books.
Rew, W. J. (2014). Instructional leadership practices and teacher efficacy beliefs: Cross-national
evidence from talis. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and
Social Sciences, 75(1–A(E)), No-Specified. Retrieved from
http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc11&NEWS=N&A
N=2014-99130-401
Ringler, M. C., & James, M. (2015). Strengthening a Principal Preparation Internship by
Focusing on Diversity Issues Regina Figueiredo-Brown. NCPEA International Journal of
Educational Leadership Preparation, 10(2). Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083098.pdf
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to
Close The Black/White Achievement Gap. School Effectiveness & School Improvement
(Vol. 16). Teachers College, Columbia University.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09243450500333716
Rothwell, J. (2012). Housing Costs, Zoning, and Access to HighScoring Schools. Brookings
Institute. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/0419_school_inequality_rothwell.pdf
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 161

Salisbury, N. (1996). The Indians’ Old World: Native Americans and the Coming of Europeans.
Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 53(3), 435–458. Retrieved
from file:///C:/Users/User/Desktop/USC
ED/Dissertation.Chapters/Indians_Old_World.pdf
Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture. Sloan
Management Review, 25(2). Retrieved from http://www.sietmanagement.fr/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/culture_schein-1.pdf
Schwartz, E. S., & Simon, A. F. (2018). Leadership matters. Applied Radiology (Vol. 47).
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00262.x
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The Influence of Principal Leadership on Classroom
Instruction and Student Learning: A Study of Mediated Pathways to Learning.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626–663.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11436273
Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K. a, Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning
from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning. ERS Informed
Educator (Vol. 2012). http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321501
Segal, U. A., & Mayadas, N. S. (2005). Assessment of issues facing immigrant and refugee
families. Child Welfare, 84(5), 563–583. http://doi.org/Article
Sehrawat, J. (2014). Teacher Autonomy : Key to Teaching success. Bhartiyam International
Journal of Research and Education, 4(1), 1–8. Retrieved from
http://gangainstituteofeducation.com/NewDocs/1.pdf
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 162

Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighbourhoods: The science of early
childhood development. National Academies Press, 588. http://doi.org/10.1097/00004703-
200104000-00011
Siverd, T. M. (2011). VA Engage Journal Closing the Achievement Gap: Favoring a Literacy-
Based Approach to Solving the Nation’ s Education Crisis. VA Engage Journal, 1.
Retrieved from http://scholarship.richmond.edu/vaej
Slavin, R. (2005). Evidence-based reform: Advancing the education of students at risk. … . A
National Task Force on Public Education. …, 1–34. Retrieved from
http://ap1.techprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/kf/Slavin 3 17 FINAL.pdf
Slavin, R. (2008). Evidence-Based Reform in Education: what will it take? Building the
Research Base for Effective Programs. European Educational Research Journal, 7(1).
http://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2008.7.1.124
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2006). L at i n o P o l i c y & Issues Brief Leaks in the Chicana
and Chicano Educational Pipeline by. Latino Policy & Issues Brief, 13, 3.
Spatig-Amerikaner, A. (2011). Unequal Education: Federal Loophole Enables Lower Spending
on Students of Color. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, (3), 1–
10. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/08/UnequalEduation.pdf
Stannard, D. E. (1993). American holocaust : the conquest of the New World. Oxford University
Press.
Stedman, L. C. (1994). The Sandia Report and U.S. Achievement: An Assessment. The Journal
of Educational Research, 87(3), 133–146. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27541911
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 163

Strickland, R. J. (1986). Genocide-at-Law: An Historic and Contemporary View of the Native
American Experience The University of Kansas Law Review THE LANGSTON
HUGHES LECTURES* GENOCIDE-AT-LAW: AN HISTORIC AND
CONTEMPORARY VIEW OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE. Kan. L.
Rev, 11(713). Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/rennard_strickland/114/
Strong-Wilson, T. (2016). Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education. Cultural and
Pedagogical Inquiry (Vol. 3). Routledge. http://doi.org/10.18733/C34S3C
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How Principals and Peers Influence Teaching and
Learning. Article Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509353043
Tatum, B. D. (2003). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other
conversations about race. Basic Books.
Teale, W. H., Paciga, K. A., & Hoffman, J. L. (2007). Beginning Reading Instruction in Urban
Schools: The Curriculum Gap Ensures a Continuing Achievement Gap. The Reading
Teacher, 61(4), 344–348. http://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.4.8
The Center for Education Reform. (2001). What the Research Reveals About Charter Schools.
Retrieved from https://www.edreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/What-the-
Research-Reveals-Final.pdf
Thomas, J. Y., & Brady, K. P. (2016). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at 40:
Equity, Accountability, and the Evolving Federal Role in Public Education. Review of
Research in Education, 29(1), 51–67.
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 164

Tooley, M. (2017). How School Staffing Models Can Support Principals as Instructional
Leaders. Retrieved from https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/From-
Frenzied-to-Focused.pdf
Toscani, G. K., Chaves, E. M., Cervi, F. L., Tavares, M. B., Brum Da Silva, L. S., Von Eye
Corleta, H., & Capp, E. (2004). Gene expression and tyrosine kinase activity of insulin
receptor in uterine leiomyoma and matched myometrium. Archives of Gynecology and
Obstetrics, 270(3), 170–173. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-003-0534-5
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust Matters : Leadership for Successful Schools (2) by
Tschannen-Moran, Megan. Jossey-Bass.
Urick, A., & Bowers, A. J. (2014). What Are the Different Types of Principals Across The U.S.?
A Latent Class Analysis of Principal Perception of Leadership Styles. Educational
Administration. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13489019
Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, Transformational, and Managerial
Leadership and Student Achievement: High School Principals Make a Difference. NASSP
Bulletin, 95(1), 5–30. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192636511404062
Verbiest, E. (2014). Becoming a data-wise school leader: Developing leadership capacity for
data-informed school improvement. Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies,
65(4), 64–78. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=100337255&site=ehos
t-live
Villenas, S. a. (2007). Diaspora and the Anthropology of Latino Education: Challenges,
Affinities, and Intersections. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(4), 419–425.
http://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2007.38.4.4
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 165

Wachtler, C., & Troein, M. (2003). A hidden curriculum: Mapping cultural competency in a
medical programme. Medical Education, 37(10), 861–868. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2923.2003.01624.x
Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). Leading schools: Distinguishing the essential from the
important. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and …. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Leading+Schools:+Dis
tinguishing+the+Essential+from+the+Important#0
Waters, T., Marzano, D. R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of
Research Tells Us about the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. Mid-
Continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved from
https://www.mcrel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Balanced-Leadership®-What-30-
Years-of-Research-Tells-Us-about-the-Effect-of-Leadership-on-Student-
Achievement.pdf
West, C. (1994). Race matters. Vintage Books.
Wilson, A. N. (1993). The falsification of Afrikan consciousness : Eurocentric history,
psychiatry, and the politics of white supremacy. Afrikan World InfoSystems.
Yates, K. (2016). Gap Analysis Worked Example - YouTube. Retrieved August 11, 2018, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKD63ilenDk
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research : design and methods.
Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited Guests: The Influence of Teachers’ Roles and Pedagogies on the
Positioning of English Language Learners in the Regular Classroom. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 495–522.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208316200
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 166

Zigler, E., Gilliam, W. S., & Barnett, W. S. (2011). Brookes Publishing: The Pre-K Debates.
Baltimore. Retrieved from http://products.brookespublishing.com/The-Pre-K-Debates-
P251.aspx
Zimmerman, M. A., Ramirez-Valles, J., Washienko, K. M., Walte~, B., & Dyer, S. (1996). The
Development of a Measure of Enculturation for Native American Youth 1. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 24(2). Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/User/Desktop/USC ED/Dissertation.Chapters/The development of a
measure of enculturation for Native American youth.pdf

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 167

APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol
Phone Interview
Dear Participant,
I want to thank you for participating in this research study. I am conducting research on
closing the literacy achievement gap. You were selected to participate in this study because you
are a principal who has implemented a school improvement literacy-based initiative, Children’s
Literacy Initiative, that is considered a promising practice.
Participation is strictly voluntary and you may refuse to participate at any time. There is
no compensation for participating nor is there any known risk. In order to ensure that all
information will remain confidential, I will not record your name. You will be identified by the
state in which you are employed and the number order of which you interviewed. For example,
Chicago 3.
I anticipate that this interview will take less than 60 minutes to complete. The data
collected will provide useful information regarding the influence of the principal in closing the
literacy achievement gap and implementing a school-based literacy reform. If you would like a
summary copy of this study please let me know at the end of the interview and I will add your
name to a list that I will maintain separately from my interview notes. If you have questions
later, please contact me at gettridg@usc.edu. If you are not satisfied with the manner in which
this study is being conducted, you may report any complaints to Dr. Cathy Krop, University of
Southern California Professor and Dissertation Committee Chair, at krop@usc.edu.
Thank you,
Frank L. Gettridge
Doctoral Student
THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 168

Principal Interview Questions
The following interview questions will examine the assumed knowledge, motivation and
organizational assets shown by principals who have been effective with closing the achievement
gap through implementing school-based literacy initiatives.

1. In your experience, what types of skills and knowledge principals need to have to be
successful with implementing school improvement initiatives?

2. How has the Children’s Literacy Initiative benefited your school?

3. How have you improved as a principal leader, since participating in CLI?

4. How has teachers’ literacy instruction improved since implementing CLI?

5. Please explain your biggest barriers to implementation, including how you were
able to address them?

6. What new knowledge and skills have you learned as a result of participating in CLI
that has helped you support teachers with improving instruction?

7. What prior, skills or knowledge did you have that you were able to draw from to
support successful implementation of CLI?

8. How have teachers been supported in addressing the diverse cultural and learning
needs of students, both in your school and through CLI’s program?

9. Based on your knowledge around principal leadership, what kind of leader would
you describe yourself as? Why?

10. Would you describe your school’s culture and climate as one focused on learning?
Why or why not?

11. How were you able to create teacher trust and buy-in around CLI?

12. How have you improved your classroom observation skills?

13. If applicable, how have you engaged parents and community stakeholders in this
process? How has this engagement supported student learning?

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 169

14. What role, if any, has the use of a professional learning community played in the
success of CLI in your school?

15. If applicable, how have differences in culture and diversity (i.e., gender, race, class,
etc.…) impacted student achievement? If so, how have teachers been supported to
effectively address these challenges?

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 170

APPENDIX B
Survey: CLI and the Principal

Start of Block: Default Question Block

Q1 Location of school:
o Chicago (1)
o Pennsylvania (2)
o New Jersey (3)
o Houston (4)

Q2 What is your total number of years of principal experience?
o <1 year (1)
o 1 to 3 Years (2)
o 4 to 10 Years (3)
o More than 10 Years (4)

Q3 How long have you been a principal at this school?
o 1 to 2 Years (1)
o 2 to 3 Years (2)
o 3 + Years (3)

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 171

Q4 How long has your school been a part of CLI
o 1 to 2 years (1)
o 2 to 3 years (2)
o 3 + Years (3)

Q5 How knowledgeable are you about literacy instruction?
o Extremely knowledgeable (1)
o Moderately knowledgeable (2)
o Slightly knowledgeable (3)
o Not knowledgeable at all (4)

Q6 How familiar are you with the following types of principal leadership?
Click to write Column 1
Transformation (1) Instructional (2) Distributional (3)
Extremely familiar (1)
o o o
Very familiar (2)
o o o
Moderately familiar
(3)
o o o
Slightly familiar (4)
o o o
Not familiar at all (5)
o o o

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 172

Q7 I am familiar with cultural competence.
o Extremely familiar (1)
o Very familiar (2)
o Moderately familiar (3)
o Slightly familiar (4)
o Not familiar at all (5)

Q8 I know the impact a school’s culture and climate has on student achievement.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q9 Teachers’ planning periods are used/structured to improve student learning.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 173

Q10 Teachers have autonomy within their classrooms.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q11 I view myself as an instructional leader.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q12 Without trust among staff, school reform efforts are likely to fail.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Neither agree nor disagree (3)
o Somewhat disagree (4)
o Strongly disagree (5)

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 174

Q13 I encourage vertical and horizontal alignment of students’ expectations.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q14 I know how to support teachers with using research-based literacy practices.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q15 This school’s culture and climate is focused on learning.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 175

Q16 This school is organized to adapt to and service diverse student populations and
communities.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q17 Teacher recognition is important to successfully implementing school improvement
strategies.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q18 This school has a clear vision aligned with student learning expectations.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 176

Q19 I employ practices and policies that create a trusting and collaborative school environment.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q20 School-wide procedures and schedules prioritize literacy achievement.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q21 We have the resources and support needed to successfully address students’ diverse needs.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 177

Q22 Teachers receive professional development designed to support diverse student populations.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q23 I know how to observe teachers’ literacy instruction to provide effective feedback.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q24 This school has systems and structures that support professional learning communities.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACHIEVEMENT 178

Q25 This school authentically and effectively includes families and communities into the
planning process.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q26 This school provides resources, supports, and opportunities to strengthen the cultural
competence of staff.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

Q27 District support and management play a major role in impacting the implementation of
school-level improvement reforms.
o Strongly agree (1)
o Somewhat agree (2)
o Somewhat disagree (3)
o Strongly disagree (4)

End of Block: Default Question Block

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this research study was to explore a promising practice, the Children’s Literacy Initiative (CLI), and examine the role principals play in closing the 3rd grade literacy achievement gap, particularly through the implementation of a literacy-based school improvement strategy. This study applied the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis, which diagnoses the human causes behind the desired goals and the actual performance of the organization. Through a lens of critical race theory, this study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets possessed by principals who successfully closed the literacy achievement gap. This study used a mix-methods approach consisting of surveys, interviews, and document analysis to validate assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets. Twenty principals from four cities, including Chicago, Illinois

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A gap analysis on improving teacher retention in kindergarten: a case of a private kindergarten in Hong Kong

PDF

Assessing and articulating the impact of the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies: an innovation study

PDF

Welcoming and retaining expatriate teachers in an international school

PDF

The impact of elementary school leadership on student achievement: a gap analysis

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for marginalized students using the college-going culture: a promising practices study

PDF

Making a case for teaching religious literacy in Ethiopian schools: an innovation study

PDF

Culturally responsive leadership in American K-12 education: a gap analysis of a large urban district

PDF

Diversity initiatives in a California independent school: from plans to reality

PDF

Improving educational attainment at a bridge program in Saudi Arabia: a gap analysis

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Analyzing the implementation of a learning management system into a post-merger & acquisition organization and its effects on sales performance (improvement model)

PDF

Closing the “college aspirations - enrollment gap” in America’s urban public high schools: an innovation study

PDF

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

PDF

High attrition rate of preschool teachers in Hong Kong: an evaluation study

PDF

Critical thinking, global mindedness, and curriculum in a Saudi Arabian secondary school

PDF

Equity and access: the under-identification of African American students in gifted programs

PDF

Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices

PDF

Building 21st century skills for school-age children in Colombia: lessons from a promising practice

PDF

Effective course design for improving student learning: a case study in application

Asset Metadata

Creator Gettridge, Frank London (author)

Core Title The principal, the achievement gap and Children's Literacy Initiative: a promising practice

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Publication Date 08/13/2018

Defense Date 08/13/2018

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

Tag achievement gap,critical race theory,leadership,Literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal,Teachers

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Krop, Cathy (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Picus, Larry (committee member)

Creator Email flgettridge@gmail.com,gettridg@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-67864

Unique identifier UC11670948

Identifier etd-GettridgeF-6735.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-67864 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GettridgeF-6735.pdf

Dmrecord 67864

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Gettridge, Frank London

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