Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement
(USC Thesis Other)
Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
i
BUILDING CAPACITY IN URBAN SCHOOLS BY COACHING PRINCIPAL
PRACTICE TOWARD GREATER STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
by
John J. Fox
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
December 2009
Copyright 2009 John J. Fox
ii
DEDICATION
My dissertation is dedicated to my loving wife, Stacy Fox, whose
encouragement and patience provided the impetus to make this dream come true.
Her wisdom and understanding was inspiring. A special thanks to my parents, John
and Karen Fox, whose interest and support of my continuing education was
supreme. I also dedicate this to my two daughters, Kate and Caroline whose smiles
and high fives cheered me on to work on this project long into the night.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the high quality support that I received from
the faculty at The Rossier School of Education. I am grateful for the leadership and
guidance of my dissertation chair, Dr. Margaret Reed, and my committee members,
Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, Dr. Kathy Stowe and Dr. Dennis Hocevar. Additionally, I
am indebted to the friends and colleagues in the program who passed their best
practices along and kept our hopes high that we would achieve our doctorate
together.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 14
Significance of the Study 14
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 15
Conceptual Framework 16
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for this Case Study 17
Definitions of Terms 18
Organization of the Study 19
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 20
Introduction 20
Background of the Problem 22
Review of Leadership Frameworks 22
Leadership Defined 22
Evolution of Leadership Paradigms 24
Learning-Centered Leadership 26
Instructional Leadership 28
Transformational Leadership 29
Distributed Leadership 31
Professional Learning Communities 32
Social Justice Research Leadership 33
Features of Effective Preparation Programs 37
Coaching and Mentoring Programs 39
Effective Coaching Programs 44
Change and Content Coaching Models 47
Coaching Leaders to Attain Student
Success Program 49
Conclusion 52
v
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 54
Introduction 54
Research Design 55
Coaching Leaders for Student Success Intervention 56
Sample Criteria and Process 56
Overview of the District and School 57
Gaining Access to Participants 59
Data Collection Procedures 60
Instrumentation 61
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in
Education (VAL-ED) 62
Interview Protocols 65
Data Analysis Procedures 67
Validity 71
Ethical Considerations 72
Summary 73
CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 74
Introduction 74
School Case Study 75
Description of the School Context 75
Introduction to the Principal 76
Introduction to the Coach 77
Baseline School Data 77
Summary of the Data 81
Research Question One 81
VAL-ED Survey Data 82
Interview Data 88
Document Analysis 96
Data Analysis 96
Summary of Key Findings: Research
Question One 107
Research Question Two 108
Summary of the Data 109
Classroom Observations 116
Document Analysis 117
Analysis of the Data 117
Summary of Key Findings: Research
Question Two 123
Research Question Three 125
Summary of the Data 125
Document Analysis 130
vi
Analysis of the Data 130
Summary of Key Findings: Research
Question Three 135
Summary 135
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 138
Introduction 138
Problem Statement 138
Purpose of the Study 139
Methodology 140
Research Questions 141
Discussion of Findings and Theoretical Implications 147
Suggestions for Future Research 148
Implications for Policy and Practices for Educators 150
Limitations 151
Conclusions 152
REFERENCES 154
APPENDICES 161
Appendix A: Principal Post Interview Protocol 161
Appendix B: CLASS Coach Interview Protocol 163
Appendix C: Teacher Interview Protocol 165
Appendix D: Initial Principal Interview 167
Appendix E: Assistant Superintendent Interview 168
Appendix F: VAL-ED Reliability/Internal Correlations 170
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Responsibilities Correlation with Student Achievement 7
Table 2. The Dimensions of Learning-Centered Leadership 27
Table 3. Annual Yearly Progress, Percent Proficient in English-
Language Arts 58
Table 4. Annual Yearly Progress, Percent Proficient in
Mathematics 58
Table 5. Implementation Timeline 61
Table 6. Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education:
Core Components and Key Processes Intersecting
With the ISLLC Standards 63
Table 7. Triangulation Matrix 70
Table 8. California High School Exit Exam, Percent Passing 78
English-Language Arts
Table 9. California High School Exit Exam, Percent Passing
Mathematics 79
Table 10. California Standards Test in Mathematics, Percent
Proficient or Above 80
Table 11. Core Components Results — Principal and Teacher
Fall 2008 VAL-ED Survey 83
Table 12. Key Processes Results — Principal and Teacher Fall 2008
VAL-ED Survey 84
Table 13. Core Components Results — Principal and Teacher
Spring 2009 VAL-ED Survey 85
Table 14. Key Processes Results — Principal and Teacher
Spring (2009) VAL-ED Survey 86
viii
Table 15. VAL-ED Survey Principal Effectiveness Ratings for
Spring 2009 87
Table 16. The Dimensions of Learning-Centered Leadership 97
Table 17. Pseudonyms for Teacher Participants 110
Table 18. Internal Consistency for VAL-ED Pilot (Scales and
Total, Nine-school Pilot, Spring 2007 171
Table 19. Correlations for VAL-ED Core Components and
Key Processes 173
ix
ABSTRACT
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 challenged educational leadership
across the nation to ensure that every student either met or exceeded standards by
the year 2014. The call to realize world class standards was inspiring on one hand
and daunting on the other, especially for urban school leaders who were under
prepared for the challenges they faced on a day to day basis. Increasing the
capacity of everyone in the system, including the principal, was a top priority.
One way some districts increased their principal’s capacity was through coaching.
The purpose of this mix-ed methods case study was to examine the impact
that coaching had on a high school principal’s professional behaviors as defined by
the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, and to investigate
the principal’s influence on teacher practices. The three research questions
developed for the study were: (1) How did working with a CLASS leadership
coach influence the leadership practices of an urban school principal? (2) In what
ways did leadership practice influence the professional practice of teachers? (3)
What organizational structures supported the implementation of the coaching
model?
Although the research on coaching principals is in its infancy, this study
demonstrated that coaching provided the kind of support to an urban principal that
can help ensure they implement research-based practices in order to improve
student outcomes. Implementing research-based staff development strategies such
x
as professional learning communities and research-based instructional strategies
such as SDAIE and differentiated instruction can be done more successfully when
the principal is supported by a coach who has experience in leading such initiatives.
CLASS coaching helps to transform the principal’s awareness and cognition
around implementation of reform initiatives. If reform and the constant
improvement of our educational system are going to become a reality, then policy
makers must seriously consider how they invest in their school leaders’ capacity to
handle the dynamics of the change process.
1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
“If you want 1 year of prosperity, grow grain.
If you want 10 years of prosperity, grow trees.
If you want 100 years of prosperity, grow people.”
- Chinese Proverb
Introduction
The endeavor to improve the quality of education for all of our children was
not simply for economic reasons, but more importantly, it was as Fullan (2007)
described, a moral imperative. The public school system should have provided an
excellent and equitable education for all of its children. It did not however, and
unfortunately it simply replicated the old system that reproduced barriers, “on the
basis of racial, class, and gender distinctions” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 3). The
standards movement dramatically challenged the status quo in education. It could
no longer be business as usual.
The data from the Third International Math and Science Study Report
(1999) showed that of the thirty-eight countries in the study, 8
th
graders in the US
placed in the middle of world achievement. The National Assessment of Education
Progress (2000) for grades 4, 8, and 12, showed a very small increase in math
achievement, but reading achievement was flat. There were some mitigating
circumstances that explained why test scores might be low, such as the increased
2
population of non-English speaking students (Loveless, 2001, p. 7). Urban school
districts that led the Nation, scored about as well as urban districts in Singapore and
Japan (Loveless, 2001, p. 32). Loveless (2001) also noted that, on average, US
urban school districts did about as well as Thailand and Iran according to the Third
International Math and Science Study Report (2001). Results from these studies
raised alarm, especially for politicians and policy-makers entrusted to ensure that
all students could contribute to the economic viability of their families and our
nation.
Over the last 10 years there were many reforms to improve student
achievement, but realizing gains for the nation’s 12
th
graders was an unresolved
challenge. The National Assessment of Educational Progress gave achievement
tests in all states to track student performance across the country. NAEP reading
scores dropped for 12
th
graders from a score of 292 in 1992 to 286 in 2005.
Student proficiency in reading declined by 5%, dropping from 40% to 35%. In
Math, only 23% of the 12
th
graders demonstrated that they were proficient in math.
It was clear we could no longer keep educating students at this level, if we were to
continue to enjoy the benefits of a country that would lead the world.
When public officials in the 1990’s realized that their children’s education
ranked behind other competitive countries, they had a right to expect that things
should improve. However, there was not a way to effectively measure what all
students were learning. The essence of standards-based reform was that “Society
must make it clear what it expects students should know and be able to do; and
3
schools and school systems must be held accountable for making sure students
meet these standards” (Elmore, 2000, p. 2). Before the standards movement, each
teacher had control over their curriculum, which meant that what was taught in the
class varied from school to school. There was a heavy reliance on following the
adopted text, but those also varied from school to school and district to district
within each state. The standards movement aligned content area standards, such as
Language Arts, math, science and social studies, with high stakes assessments.
Once the content standards were in place, the next step was to assess students’
skills and knowledge and evaluate how well schools were serving their students.
In 1999, the Public Schools Accountability Act brought the Academic
Performance Index to the public in California. This annual report ranked schools’
and school districts’ performance with comparable schools within the state. More
importantly, all of the schools were expected to improve according to an
established growth target each year. Once the pubic was aware of how well their
school was doing, or not doing, it became imperative for school leadership to
discover ways to improve student achievement annually. Additionally, the federal
government established a second parallel system of accountability, through the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which applied pressure to states, districts and
schools to continually improve.
The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, reauthorized the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act and established clear expectations for student
performance and consequences for schools that under perform. This
4
accountability system used the school achievement data from state standardized
tests to determine Annual Measurable Objective growth targets. Schools were
expected to meet their Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) in specific areas:
mathematics, language arts and percentage taking the state test. According to the
2008 Adequately Yearly Progress Report Information Guide, prepared by the
California Department of Education, performance in specific sub-groups, defined
by ethnicity, poverty, English language learners and special education, were
factored into the AYP. Many urban schools had as many as thirty AYP criteria to
successfully meet. Schools were now responsible for ensuring that all students met
or exceeded the standards. Otherwise, they were held accountable through
sanctions, such as being labeled program improvement, which could have lead to
parents choosing to leave the school, undergo dramatic restructuring, turning the
school into a charter school or closing it. The accountability aspect created a
significant disruption in education, because it forced teachers and administrators to
shift their focus from sustaining the status quo to ensuring that all students met or
exceeded standards by 2014. Admittedly, this was a tall order that seriously
challenged the urban school’s capacity to deliver. Building capacity to meet the
educational needs of all students was the essential thrust of research and resources
around the nation.
School leadership was responsible for ensuring that students continued to
improve by increasing the school’s capacity to improve student performance.
Newmann, King, and Youngs (2000) stated that there were “five aspects of school
5
capacity: 1) teachers' knowledge, skills, and dispositions; 2) professional
community; 3) program coherence; 4) technical resources; and
5) principal leadership” (p. 259). Principal leadership was a key component of
school success (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson &
Wahlstrom, 2004; Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005).
In a large scale study of elementary schools in urban areas in California,
Williams, Kirst, and Haertel (2005), found that principal leadership was a
predictable component in schools who out performed their comparison school.
Principals who took an active role in ensuring change and improvement realized
results. The study reported that “API scores were higher in schools with principals
whose responses indicate that they act as managers of school improvement, driving
the reform process, cultivating the school vision, and extensively using student
assessment data for a wide variety of school improvement areas of focus, including
evaluation of teacher practice and assistance to struggling students” (Williams,
Kirst, Haertel, 2005, p. 3). The link between principal leadership and student
outcomes became increasingly clearer.
Research on the basic skills of good principal leadership was established in
qualitative and quantitative studies (Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson &
Wahlstrom 2004). According to Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson &
Wahlstrom (2004), the impact that principal behavior had on student achievement,
after accounting for across-school variation, was between 10-20%. Citing
Hallinger and Heck (1996) and Leithwood and Jantzi (2000), Leithwood, Seashore-
6
Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, (2004) stated that the “total [direct and indirect]
effects of leadership on student learning account for about a quarter of total school
effects” (p. 5), and they concluded that leadership was the second most powerful
school influence on student learning next to classroom instruction.
Marzano, Waters & McNulty, (2005) determined through a meta-analysis of
the empirical research, that there was a .25 correlation between leadership behavior
and student achievement. The meta-analysis used 69 studies from 1978 to 2001 and
measured principal behavior through teacher surveys and correlated with school
achievement data. From these studies, Marzano, Waters & McNulty (2005)
identified specific leadership characteristics defined as “responsibilities,” that
demonstrated a significant relationship to raising student achievement. Table 1
lists the twenty-one responsibilities and their correlation with student achievement
that were determined by Marzano, Waters & McNulty (2005).
These “responsibilities” were behaviors that effective principals enact in
order to produce greater student achievement at their schools (Marzano, Waters &
McNulty, 2005). Additionally, Marzano, Waters & McNulty (2005), used statistics
to deduce that, if a principal increased their abilities and actions among the twenty-
one leadership responsibilities by one standard deviation, then student achievement
would effectively be increased by ten percentage points (p. 30). Researchers
concluded that there were common behaviors that principals could enact that would
result in increased student achievement (Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson &
Wahlstrom, 2004; Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr & Cohen, 2007;
7
Murphy, Elliott, Goldring & Porter, 2006). Research established a clear and
positive direction towards building leadership capacity among principals in order to
realize greater student achievement.
Table 1. Responsibilities of Leadership – Correlated with Achievement
Correlation
with
Achievement
Responsibilities
Correlation
with
Achievement
Responsibilities
.33 Situational Awareness .25 Change Agent
.28 Flexibility .24 Focus
.27 Discipline .24 Contingent
Rewards
.27 Outreach .24 Intellectual
Stimulation
.27 Monitoring/Evaluation .23 Communication
.25 Culture .22 Ideas/Beliefs
.25 Order .20 Involvement in
Curriculum,
Instruction and
Assessment
.25 Resources .20 Visibility
.25 Knowledge of
Curriculum, Instruction
and Assessment
.20 Optimizer
.25 Input .19 Affirmation
.18 Relationships
Source: Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005.
The essential principal behaviors that impacted student achievement were
captured in the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards
for school leadership. The Council of Chief State School Officers developed these
standards to guide educational leaders and policymakers with a common
understanding of what leaders should do in order to create and sustain effective
schools and raise student achievement. Recently revised, the 2008 standards
8
covered the same areas as did the standards set in 1996, with a few changes that
reflected new research. The six ISLLC standards were:
Standard 1: An education leader promotes the success of every student by
facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship
of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by all stakeholders.
Standard 2: An education leader promotes the success of every student by
advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional
program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
Standard 3: An education leader promotes the success of every student by
ensuring management of the organization, operation, and resources for a
safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
Standard 4: An education leader promotes the success of every student by
collaborating with faculty and community members, responding to diverse
community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
Standard 5: An education leader promotes the success of every student by acting
with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
Standard 6: An education leader promotes the success of every student by
understanding, responding to, and influencing the political, social,
economic, legal, and cultural context.
The idea was simply that student performance increased with the implementation of
the ISLLC standards. After the ISLLC standards were created, the California
Department of Education, along with the Association of California School
Administrators, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, West Ed, and leading
universities established the California Professional Standards for Educational
Leaders in 2001. Known as the CPSEL’s, these were almost identically aligned
with the ISLLC standards. The six CPSEL standards were:
Standard 1: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the
success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation,
implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and
supported by the school community.
9
Standard 2: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the
success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school
culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff
professional growth.
Standard 3: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the
success of all students by ensuring management of the organization,
operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning
environment.
Standard 4: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the
success of all students by collaborating with families and community
members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and
mobilizing community resources.
Standard 5: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the
success of all students by modeling a personal code of ethics and
developing professional leadership capacity.
Standard 6: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the
success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing
the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
The nearly identical alignment was not unreasonable given that the goal was to
provide leadership with a framework for improving school achievement. These
standards became the backbone for improving leadership capacity in principal
preparation programs.
Statement of the Problem
With principal leadership practices linked to student achievement, preparing
them and supporting their success became a major focus for school districts
throughout the Nation. Many states had standards for student learning, standards
for teacher professionalism and standards for administrators. Ensuring that
administrators had the capacity to meet the standards set for them was problematic,
10
primarily because preparation programs had fallen short of giving them the skills
and knowledge required to meet the challenges of NCLB (Darling-Hammond,
LaPoint, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007). Cambron-McCabe and Cunningham
(2002) reported on the work done by the National Commission for Advancement of
Educational Leadership noting that the “need for change in leadership preparation
is not contested” (p. 289), and that there was a serious “lack of relevancy in
leadership preparation programs… for the crisis conditions facing many school
administrators in this country” (p. 289-290). Preparation programs often failed to
address the needs of the urban school leaders (Cambron-McCabe and Cunningham,
2002).
Urban leaders were unprepared in traditional preparation programs for two
reasons. Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy (2005), held that the social justice
agenda, which serves to improve the performance of underserved students was not
clearly stated in the new standards or preparation programs for school leadership
(p. 201-202). Preparation programs based on the professional standards of either
the ISLLCs or the CPSELs did not adequately address the dynamics of mitigating
race, poverty and class in schools. CPSEL standard three stated, that the school
leaders should promote the success of all students, but it was general enough to
avoid such politically challenging issues such as full inclusion, which gave special
education students access to the regular classroom setting. If professional
standards were not adequately articulating the expectations, then preparation
programs were not going to spend much time on addressing difficult social justice
11
topics that challenged the status quo. Hess and Kelly (2007) analyzed 210 syllabi
from administrative preparation programs and found that just 12% of the time spent
in the program was dedicated to values addressing issues of diversity, equity and
social justice.
Theoharis (2007) defined “social justice leadership to mean that these
principals make issues of race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other
historically and currently marginalizing conditions in the United States central to their
advocacy, leadership practice, and vision” (p. 223). In his study on principal practice
and social justice, Theoharis (2007) found that all of the participating principals felt
that their preparation program did not prepare them for adequately addressing social
justice issues. Lopez (2003) made the point that principal preparation programs
inadequately addressed critical issues such as racism and how to create learning
environments that nurtured tolerance and respect. Preparation programs alone were
insufficient in providing adequate training for the urban school leader, because the
contexts they addressed were likely to be generalized and not specific to the
knowledge and skill set required for urban leaders. Principals could not adequately
address urban issues unless they were specifically trained to do so, or they learned to
do so within the context of the job. A support structure was needed to ensure that
principals could successfully lead in the urban setting.
The academic training for urban school principals did not sufficiently
prepare them to educate students in the context of their work. They faced an array
of complex social, economic, political and human resource dilemmas on a level
typically beyond the capacity of most people. Leithwood, Seashore-Louis,
12
Anderson & Wahlstron, (2004), noted that urban districts were challenged by
problems such as having an inexperienced faculty, high turn over, low expectations
and low academic performance for poor or minority students, as well as operational
and political issues that hindered an effective focus on learning. Brooks-Gunn and
Duncan (1997) noted that one in five children in America lived below the poverty
line and that was significantly related to their overall physical health, cognitive
ability, behavior and school achievement. Urban leaders needed support within the
context of their setting, if they were to effectively address the challenges besetting
urban schools.
Effective leadership in urban schools required support structures that
aligned with professional standards and the skills and knowledge acquired in
preparation programs. In High Schools for Equity-Policy Supports for Student
Learning in Communities of Color, Darling-Hammond & Friedlaender, (2007)
made the strong recommendation to California policy makers to support,
“professional learning opportunities for principals to develop the skills of
instructional leadership and organizational change” (p. ix). The skills and
knowledge that were acquired in administrative preparation programs were difficult
to apply when the chaotic demands of the urban setting caused principals to work
primarily in a reactive mode. One strategy for support that assisted principal’s
capacity to apply best practices was coaching.
Coaching and mentoring programs helped fill the gap between preparation
programs and realities faced by urban principals. Supporting principals with
13
coaching and mentoring was gaining popularity at the state level. Jeff Archer
(2006) reported in a September 16
th
, article in EdWeek, that Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Alaska, Arizona and Missouri began to
implement programs that mentor/coach principals in the field. Pennsylvania
mandated that all school leaders participate in the National Institute for School
Leadership courses to provide more effective pre-service and in-service training
and support for school leadership. Coaching for principals was needed if they are
going to learn, within the context of their school improvement challenges, how to
better meet their professional standards.
It was becoming increasingly clear that principal preparation programs were
falling short of building capacity for high performing principals. There was a need
to support principals by helping them bridge the gap between their prior training
based on the professional educator standards and what was actually practiced in the
context of their job. Coaching new principals had the potential to fulfill this need
and assisted principals in building their capacity by learning on the job in a relevant
context. However, while building leadership capacity for principals through
support programs such as coaching and mentoring was popular in the literature, it
was fair to say that their effectiveness at increasing principal behaviors related to
the professional standards was still undetermined. The impact of coaching as a
viable support technology needed to be further researched to determine if there was
a relationship between coaching and a change in principal practice.
14
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to provide new information on how coaching
was used as a viable support structure for improving an urban high school
principals' professional practice as defined by the CPSELs. Both empirical
evidence and qualitative data were collected to determine if there was a positive
change in principal actions as a result of support received through coaching. This
filled an important gap in the research. The following research questions guided
this study:
1. How did working with a CLASS leadership coach influence the leadership
practices of an urban school principal?
2. In what ways did leadership practice influence the professional practice of
teachers?
3. What organizational structures supported the implementation of the coaching
model?
Significance of the Study
Information about the effectiveness of coaching as a viable support program
for urban leaders added value to the body of knowledge necessary to improve the
capacity of principals to produce favorable student outcomes. There were a
number of different programs that made coaching available to districts and their
principals. This was a significant redirection of resources for which the empirical
15
support for such an undertaking was limited (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe,
Meyerson, Orr & Cohen, 2007). What needed to be learned through good research
was how coaching as a support structure impacted principals’ practices as defined
by the CPSELs. This study helped determine the efficacy of coaching as a viable
support component within a comprehensive support system for principal
leadership.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of the study were typical of case studies in general. Time
and resources limited the depth of the descriptions and analysis of the participants.
For example, if each faculty member was interviewed, that might have provided a
more rich data base; however, it was not feasible within a large high school. This
study did not intend to prove a causal connection between coaching and principal’s
practices or coaching and student achievement, because there were too many
mitigating variables for which to account. Since this study was purposeful in its
examination of one principal’s practices, the results cannot be generalized to other
populations. However, the study provided useful insight into what was effective in
that particular school setting, at that specific time. Another limitation was the
possibility of the "halo effect" with regards to survey data collected to ascertain
perceptions of leader practice. Participants completing the survey about him or
16
herself (the principal) or their principal (the teachers) might have had a tendency to
assume certain behaviors based on general impressions. However, to mitigate
against that, the VAL-ED survey was designed in such a way as to require raters to
identify the primary sources of evidence they used to rate each item (reports from
others, school documents, personal observations, etc.).
The delimitations of the study were primarily determined by the scope of
the dissertation program. There would only be four months between the
administration of the pre and post survey and collection of other qualitative data.
Additionally, four months was a short time for a principal to realize substantial
change in his or her practice as well as to realize any substantial change in teacher
practices as a result of participation in the leadership capacity building program.
Additionally, because of the purposeful sampling of faculty participating in the
interview, the strength of a truly representative group was limited, given the various
experiences found on a high school campus. These limitations and delimitations
were carefully taken into account during the final analysis.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study, shown in Figure 1, was based on
the literature review in Chapter 2. The following graphic represented the
17
importance of context as the foundation for a principal’s leadership and that the
leader must be firmly connected to the context in which they operate.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for this Case Study
This showed how leaders bring to their practice key variables such as prior
training, experiences, values and beliefs, that inform their choices and to an action
point that defines their practice. Many urban leaders needed additional support to
effectively engage in practices that influence teacher practices. Such supports were
both theoretical and practical. Learning-centered leadership was included as an
integrated model that could help reframe the choices and actions a leader might
18
pursue. Coaching was an additional support that guided the leader’s reflections
about the choices they made within the context of their own work setting, and
provided additional advice or resources that would enhance the leader’s practice and
increased their ability to influence teacher practice. Ultimately, all of the constructs
and actions were directed toward student achievement.
Definition of Terms
Achievement Gap — The difference in achievement scores between groups
of students.
Blended-Coaching — Was the process model used in CLASS coaching that
blends both facilitative and instructional coaching techniques to provide an optimal
and transformational experience for the participant, in this case the principal.
AYP — Adequate Yearly Progress was the measure of growth scores that
needed to be met in order to reach the goal of every student proficient by 2014.
CLASS — Coaching Leaders to Achieve Student Success was a coaching
program created by the New Teacher Center at the University of Santa Cruz .
Coachee — For this study, it was the principal.
CPSELs — California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders.
They defined the expected practices principals in California should exemplify.
ISLLC — Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium created and
19
defined the national standards for educational leadership.
NCLB — The No Child Left Behind Act (2002) established the current
system of accountability for schools throughout the nation.
VAL-ED — The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education
measured principal’s practices in alignment with the ISLLC standards.
Organization of the Study
This research paper was organized into five chapters that built a case for studying
the impact coaching had on the leadership practices of principals. Chapter 1
provided an overview of the background of the problem and the importance of the
study. Chapter 2 was a literature review that provided the foundation for the
important constructs and research conducted in the areas of leadership and
coaching. Chapter 3 described the methodology for the study, including the
instrumentation and data collection for the research. Chapter 4 presented an
analysis of the data and interpreted the findings. Chapter 5 provided a summary of
the results, articulated the implications and made suggestions for future research in
this area. Following the definition of terms, the literature review made the case for
coaching as a potential means of support for urban school principals.
20
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
“Lack of capacity is the Achilles heel of accountability”
- Richard Elmore
“A coach is someone who tells you what you don’t want to hear, so that
you can see what you don’t want to see, so that you can be what you’ve always
wanted to be.”
- Tom Landry, football coach
Introduction
Accountability measures established by the No Child Left Behind Act
seriously challenged the capacity of schools, teachers and principals to ensure that
their students meet or exceed standards by 2014. Many urban principals faced
increased demands from policymakers, stakeholders with competing interests,
along with the problem of how to effectively address the learning needs of students
whose environment was exposed to gang violence, drug use, and other societal
dilemmas. With all of the issues that caused principals to work from a response
mode, it was difficult for most principals to implement all of the 21 essential
responsibilities that Marzano, Walters and McNulty (2005) contended improved
student achievement. The School Leadership Study: Developing Successful
Principals commissioned by the Wallace Foundation (2005) made it clear that
“many scholars and practitioners argue that the job requirements far exceed the
21
reasonable capacities of any one person” (p. 3). Leithwood (2004) stated, “leaders
never have enough time to meet all of the expectations” (p. 6). The demands on
principals greatly increased, but preparation programs did not adapt to meet their
needs effectively. Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr & Cohen (2007)
made the point that traditional preparation programs no longer prepared principals
to handle the deep challenges of urban public schooling. Given the realities, urban
principals needed additional support structures to help ensure that they increased
their capacity in order to meet the accountability challenge set by NCLB.
The purpose of this study was to provide new knowledge regarding
leadership coaching as a support mechanism for improving principal’s practices
that led to increased student outcomes. This chapter established the theoretical
context that supported effective principal leadership practices, preparation
programs, mentor and coaching programs. First, the background of the problem
was presented, followed by a review of effective leadership frameworks and how
they have evolved and were blended within learning-centered leadership. Effective
principal preparation programs were then described. The point was made that
leadership frameworks and preparation programs were insufficient in meeting the
capacity of the urban principal to be successful within the context that they work.
Finally, effective mentoring and coaching models were described that have the
potential of filling the gap between principal preparation and effective practice.
Coaching was argued as the better choice for improving principal’s practices,
22
because of the kind of relationship that could be established and the strategic
methods for thinking through the real problems that principals must address.
Background of the Problem
Principals, especially those in urban settings where the demands of the
environment are considerable, needed support systems to assist them in their efforts
to effectively enact all of the responsibilities required for successful school
organization. Davis, Hammond, LaPointe & Meyerson (2005) noted that
nationwide, there were significant issues with school leadership such as recruiting
and retaining highly qualified principals in urban areas, and that their preparation
programs were often insufficient to meet the demands of their job (p. 3-4). Since
leadership preparation for principals was not sufficient, some school districts
provided support for their principals in a way to build their capacity to lead
successfully.
Review of Leadership Frameworks
Leadership Defined
The image of a heroic principal striding in and transforming an
underperforming school into a thriving institution of learning was often prevalent in
the minds of those who wanted to transform the quality of the education for
students. This old paradigm was easy to hold on to, because it reinforced the idea
23
that one person can do it all, for us. However, newer paradigms about what
constituted next level leadership were focused on the need to build leadership
capacity in all areas of the organization (Tichy, 1997) and to do it collaboratively
(Covey, 2007). There was a dramatic shift in the idea that there should be a lone
leader at the head of an organization, towards leadership as a shared responsibility
throughout the organization. This paradigm had gained popularity with newer
models of leadership.
In Building a New Structure for School Leadership, Elmore (2000) defined
the leader as a person who will “guide instructional improvement that leads to
increased student performance” (p. 8). Elmore (2000) made the point that
educational leaders themselves must unlearn the old ideas and actions that served
only to sustain a disconnected system. Educational leaders needed to learn how to
lead their teachers to make fundamental shifts in the way they believed, thought
and acted. The paradigm shifts required to evolve out of the old system and into a
standards-based model would only happen if leaders involved others in the process
of school leadership. Collaborative efforts directed at improving instruction and
student outcomes had the potential to transform the schools from isolated enclaves
of “this is the way we have always done it” into organizations focused on the
constant improvement of student performance.
Lambert (1998) defined leadership in a constructivist context by framing
leadership as a social learning process in which leadership was “a shared
endeavor,” (p. 18), and it was “about learning that leads to constructive change” (p.
24
18). Fullan (2007) also held that leadership was about change within the school
culture and that collaborative leadership was a process that brought about increased
student achievement. DuFour (2002) made the case that the leader must focus on
creating structures that ensured the school collaborated towards getting results by
focusing on learning. For this study, good leadership was defined as a coherent,
concerted and collaborative process through which the whole school community
learned how to best work together to realize their vision.
Evolution of Leadership Paradigms
Two educational theories led the literature on principal leadership in the last
27 years (Hallinger, 2007). Research conducted during the 1980’s on effective
schools created the foundation for the instructional leadership framework (Bossert,
Dwyer, Rowan & Lee, 1982) and in the 1990’s, transformational leadership
emerged giving educators a framework for school restructuring (Hallinger, 2007;
Leithwood, 2004). The standards movement took hold and there was a need for
new frameworks to help shape leadership programs and improve the capacity of
our schools to increase student achievement (Elmore, 2002; Elmore, 2003). As
newer frameworks emerged, the need to study their effectiveness increased. Even
Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter (2006) admitted that their learning-centered
leadership “framework spotlights constructs whose logical linkages to learning
outcomes for students have not been extensively tested” (p. 8). However, their
framework was supported by research on many fronts.
25
If the standards-based reform movement was going to evolve and make a
difference in student learning, then the principal’s leadership required to make that
happen also had to evolve. DuFour (2002) made the point in The Learning-
Centered Principal, that although instructional leadership was considered the
paramount framework for improving schools, he described how his leadership
frame of mind had to transition from being an instructional leader to a learning-
centered principal. DuFour (2002) argued, “teachers and students benefit when
principals function as learning leaders rather than instructional leaders” (p. 13). He
described his paradigm shift as a movement from being focused on quality
instruction to one that was focused on getting teams to work together and learn how
to realize results. This meant transforming his high school culture into
collaborative teams dedicated to improving the learning of their students. He made
the point that principals were “gradually redefining the role of the principal from
instructional leader with a focus on teaching, to a leader of a professional community
with a focus on learning” (p. 15). DuFour’s description of his personal evolution
reflected how leadership frameworks were also adapting to incorporate the best that
each construct had to offer in guiding the actions of educational leaders.
The quality of foundational theories that supported the preparation and
assessment of quality leadership needed to evolve. To this end, frameworks for
exemplary leadership began to emerge that simultaneously synthesize established
theories such as instructional and transformational leadership frameworks, while
26
advancing newer perspectives on leadership at the next level, such as distributive
and social-justice leadership.
Learning-Centered Leadership
Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter (2006) developed the learning-centered
leadership framework to improve school leadership practices. They stated that
effective educational leadership was supported by educational literature in five
areas. According to Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter (2006) those areas were:
1. leadership matters;
2. in difficult times leadership matters even more;
3. in periods of significant organizational transition, leadership is the major
controllable factor in explaining organizational performance;
4. instructionally focused and change-oriented leadership are especially effective
frames for education; and
5. team leadership seems to offer promise for enhancing organizational
performance (p. 1-4).
The learning-centered leadership framework conceptualized how leadership
behavior stemming from prior experience, knowledge, personal characteristics,
values and beliefs influenced school and classroom practices, which led to student
outcomes. The learning-centered leadership framework had eight dimensions of
leadership, which were aligned with the Interstate School Leadership Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC) standards. They were 1) “vision for learning, 2) instructional
27
program, 3) curricular program, 4) assessment program, 5) communities of learning,
6) resource acquisition and use, 7) organizational culture, and 8) social advocacy”
(Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006, p. 6). Aspects of these concepts in
action were described further in this chapter. Learning-centered leadership
integrated five important leadership constructs: instructional leadership,
transformational leadership, distributed leadership, professional learning
communities, and social justice. Table 2 briefly outlines the concepts within the
eight dimensions (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006, p. 7).
Table 2. The Dimensions of Learning-Centered Leadership
Vision for Learning Instructional
Program
Curricular Program
Assessment Program
Developing vision Knowledge and
involvement
Knowledge and
involvement
Knowledge and
involvement
Articulating vision
Hiring and allocating
staff
Expectations,
standards
Assessment procedures
Implementing vision
Supporting staff
Opportunity to learn
Monitoring instruction
and curriculum
Stewarding vision Instructional time Curriculum
alignment
Communication and
use of data
Communities of
Learning
Resource
Acquisition and
Use
Organizational
Culture
Social Advocacy
Professional
development
Acquiring resources Production emphasis Stakeholder
engagement
Communities of
professional practice
Allocating resources
Accountability
Diversity
Community-anchored
schools
Using resources
Learning environment
Environmental context
Personalized
environment
Ethics
Continuous
improvement
28
Instructional Leadership
Instructional leaders focused resources and the organization on “the core
technology of schooling: learning, teaching, curriculum and assessment” (Murphy,
Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006, p. 3). Additionally, Elmore’s definition of an
instructional leader, one who would “guide instructional improvement” (Elmore,
2000, p. 8), was focused on guiding the instructional practices that led to greater
student achievement. Principals in this case initiated schoolwide focus strategies
such as note-taking, or writing across the curriculum in order to influence teacher
practices and thereby realizing improved student performance.
Over thirty years of research on this framework revealed important practices
that principals should engage in, such as 1) “defining an instructional vision or
mission; 2) managing the instructional program through teacher supervision, 3)
curriculum planning, 4) program coordination, 5) monitoring student learning; and
6) promoting a productive student and teacher learning environment through the
promotion of professional learning among staff and the enforcement of academic
standards,” (Coldren & Spillance, 2007, p. 371). Their case study revealed how a
hands-on approach by a principal influenced teacher practices through finding ways
to ensure that there were routines that connected faculty to the business of teaching
and learning. The instructional leadership provided by the principal was enacted
through analyzing student work, teacher lesson plans and assessment results that
engaged teachers in a dialogue about their practice. When the instructional leader
was connected to the classroom and teaching practice, they influenced teaching
29
practices (Coldren & Spillance, 2007, p. 391). When effective instructional
leadership influenced teacher practices the potential increased for raising student
achievement.
Transformational Leadership
Learning-centered leadership drew from transformational leadership as a
frame for advancing school processes and practices (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, &
Porter, 2006). Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, S., & Walstrom, K. (2004)
defined the actions of transformational leaders into three categories, “setting
directions, developing people and redesigning the organization” (p. 10).
Additionally, Hallinger (2007) cited Bass (1985) describing the model as “fostering
a collective vision and motivating members of an organization to achieve
extraordinary performance” (Hallinger, 2007, p. 1). Leithwood & Jantzi (2000)
more specifically defined transformational leadership as having the following six
dimensions: “building school vision and goals; providing intellectual stimulation;
offering individualized support; symbolizing professional practices and values;
demonstrating high performance expectations; and developing structures to foster
participation in school decisions” (p. 114). They noted that there was a small body
of evidence to support the effectiveness of this approach and that their own work
from survey data gathered from 1, 762 teachers and 9,941 students demonstrated
that transformational leadership had a strong effect on organizational conditions
such as shared vision and goals (Leiethwood & Jantzi, 2000, p. 124). Principals
30
who operated from this framework might influence teacher practice as they
implemented a new program by coaching and supporting them emotionally as they
experienced the change. Principals commonly established the vision and mission
for their schools, which was a practice shared by both instructional leadership and
transformational leadership.
The learning-centered leader incorporated instructional leadership and
transformational leadership. Marks and Printy (2003) studied twenty-four schools
who were restructuring and found that when transformational leadership and shared
instructional leadership were combined, teaching improved and achievement
increased. Hallinger (2007) provided theoretical support for combining
instructional leadership theory and transformational theory through contingency
theory and stated “the points of connection between the models are sufficient to
allow development of an integrated and more sophisticated model of educational
leadership” (p. 5). Hallinger (2007) articulated the similarities between
transformational leadership and instructional leadership as focused on:
1. creating a shared sense of purpose in the school;
2. developing a climate of high expectations and a school culture focused on
innovation and improvement of teaching and learning;
3. shaping the reward structure of the school to reflect the school’s mission as
well as goals set for staff and students;
4. organizing and providing a wide range of activities aimed at intellectual
31
stimulation and the continuous development of staff;
5. being a visible presence in the school, modeling the desired values of the
school’s culture. (p. 5)
A core body of knowledge and skills could be applied by learning-centered leaders
in order to build capacity within their organization. One of them was to ensure that
teamwork was central to how the school community operated through distributed
leadership.
Distributed Leadership
Distributed leadership was an evolving conceptual framework that focused
on “the work of all the individuals who have a hand in leadership and management
practice” (Spillance & Diamond, 2007, p. 7). Elmore (2000) described distributed
leadership as focused on the common goal of continuous improvement, with
“responsibility and authority for guiding and directing instruction, and learning
about instruction” shared by the school community (p. 9). Harris (2004) reported
in her research that the “studies point towards an emerging model of leadership that
is less concerned with individual capabilities, skills and talents and more
preoccupied with creating collective responsibility for leadership action and
activity” (p. 19). Lead teachers in this study were a collective agency taking on
greater leadership rolls that promoted school improvement, such as goal setting and
supporting the school vision. Shared leadership responsibilities and operating as a
team were fundamental to success. Elmore (2000) stated that “Organizations
32
improve because they agree on what is worth achieving and then create processes
that help their employees learn what they need to meet these goals” (p. 10).
Principals who distributed leadership drew on teachers’ expertise and involved
parents and teachers in the decisions that were made about their school so that they
were central to shaping and fulfilling the vision of their school (Murphy, Elliot,
Goldring and Porter 2006, p. 20). Genuine and meaningful involvement helped to
build community.
Professional Learning Communities
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Walstrom, K. (2004)
noted that a successful educational leader created organizational structures that
nurtured culture building and collaboration such as those found in professional
learning communities (p. 13). Professional learning communities were “composed
of collaborative teams whose members work interdependently to achieve common
goals linked to the purpose of learning for all” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker & Many,
2006, p. 3). The effective school leader ensured that teachers operated as good
team members and shared responsibility for student achievement. Lee and Smith
(1996) demonstrated in their research that schools with greater cooperation among
faculty experienced greater gains in achievement (p. 103). Additionally, in another
study of over 800 restructuring middle and high schools nationwide, they found
evidence that “students learn more in schools where more teachers report a
willingness to assume responsibility for their students’ learning” (Lee & Smith,
33
2001, p. 93). Murphy, Elliot, Goldring and Porter (2006) underscore how this
impacted teachers’ practices and that “communities of professional practice offer
the most appropriate cauldrons for professional learning and the forging of new
instructional skills” (p. 28). Learning-centered leaders established a collaborative
culture where leadership and responsibility were shared and where teams of
teachers worked together to improve teaching and learning at the school for all
students. These behaviors were similar to those that were promoted by scholars
writing about social justice.
Social Justice Research Leadership
Ensuring that all students received an excellent and equitable education was
a shared responsibility that was fundamental to social justice leadership. Murphy,
Elliot, Goldring and Porter (2006) stated that learning-centered leaders were social
advocates who honored diversity and proactively participated in engaging diverse
groups within the community as well addressing the context that potentially
adversely impacted learning (p. 28). As scholars developed the emerging
framework for social justice leadership, there were some researchers who were
attempting to establish some fundamental components that applied to principal
practices relating to such social justice concerns as values, justice, respect, care,
race, gender, oppression and equity (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005). They
made the point that the social justice leader was an activist who reconstructed “the
roles and relationships at the school level around a vibrant core purpose focused on
34
social justice and directed at improving student learning” (Cambron-McCabe &
McCarthy, 2005, p. 215). Principals who operated within a social justice
framework had strong core instructional skills, supported student and staff learning,
ensured that the whole school community took responsibility for student
improvement and critical social justice issues were raised. The social justice
framework supported the view that principals in urban settings were change agents
who transformed their schools into models of academic excellence while
incorporating social justice.
Principals with a social justice framework were in a position to influence
their faculty’s pedagogy and curriculum choices through professional development.
Kose (2007) provided a qualitative case study of three principals and their efforts to
promote social justice issues through their teacher professional development.
Social justice principal’s raised teacher’s awareness of their possible bias in choices
for pedagogy and curriculum, and they consistently ensured that there was a
supportive school culture that included all students and maintained high
expectations (Kose, 2007).
Theoharis (2007) conducted an empirical study to examine the resistance
principals faced in implementing social justice. Theoharis, (2007) outlined the
actions that the social justice leaders took that promoted more equitable and
successful schools:
1. Places significant value on diversity, deeply learns about and understands
that diversity, and extends cultural respect.
35
2. Ends segregated and pull-out programs that prohibit both emotional and
academic success for marginalized children.
3. Strengthens core teaching and curriculum and insures that diverse students have
access to that core.
4. Embeds professional development in collaborative structures and a context that
tries to make sense of race, class, gender, and disability.
5. Knows that school cannot be great until the students with the greatest struggles
are given the same rich opportunities both academically and socially as their
more privileged peers.
6. Demands that every child will be successful but collaboratively addresses the
problems of how to achieve that success.
7. Seeks out other activist administrators who can and will sustain her or him.
8. Sees all data through a lens of equity.
9. Knows that building community and differentiation are tools to ensure that all
students achieve success together.
10. Becomes intertwined with the life, community, and soul of the school. (p. 252)
He concluded his study by saying that there will be resistance when social justice
concerns are addressed, and that it was “irresponsible to prepare leaders to take on
enormous challenges and face significant resistance without an understanding of
how to weather the storms that will result” (Theoharis, 2007, p. 250). Adequate
preparation is crucial if principals are to be effective.
Brown (2004) offered a framework for developing leaders that is
transformative and focused on social justice to promote better preparation of
principals. Within the constructs of adult learning theory, transformative learning
36
and critical social theory, Brown (2004) developed activities for principal
preparation to challenge values and beliefs through critical reflection and rational
discourse. Through activities such as cross-cultural interviews and activist action
plans, leaders examined their beliefs about a social issue, developed a strategy, took
action and learned about the process of transformation in the educational setting.
The activities were interesting, but they were not clearly outlined for any practical
use at this point. What needed to be clearer for preparation programs were the
outcomes they wanted in their candidates related to the specific behaviors that led
to fulfilling the goals of social justice leadership. Preparation programs were not
adequately addressing the social justice leadership experience, therefore additional
support structures needed to be in place to help fulfill social justice values and
mitigate the challenges that urban principals faced.
These leadership frameworks were important, but they were insufficient in
preparing the urban school principal for adequately implementing the CPSELs and
increasing student achievement. Urban principals experienced demands on the job
that their certification coursework most likely failed to address, like gang violence,
drug use, teenage pregnancy, and other societal dilemmas that impact student
learning. There were a few preparation programs that others could benchmark,
because they effectively addressed the real concerns of urban leaders and they
directly provided additional support structures so that learning continued in the
context in which the principal led.
37
Features of Effective Preparation Programs
Leadership programs produced principals who were not sufficiently
prepared in and of themselves to ensure success in such a demanding role. It was
evident that the landscape for leadership had changed significantly with the advent
of accountability demanding a different kind of knowledge and skill set required
for raising achievement (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe & Meyerson, 2005).
A preparation and support program that was exemplary was a critical topic that
researchers were starting to describe.
In Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from
Exemplary Leadership Development Programs, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe,
Meyerson, Orr & Cohen, (2007), examined eight high profile programs to determine
the key features. The program in their study revealed features that show significant
promise. They reported that key program features were: “research-based content;
curricular coherence; field-based internships; problem-based learning strategies;
cohort structures; mentoring or coaching; collaboration between universities and
school districts” (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr & Cohen, 2007, p.
63). They found these components in all eight of the exemplary principal
development programs, along with other common components such as a vigorous
recruitment process for candidates, financial support for those in the program, and
district and state support for the school reform (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe,
38
Meyerson, Orr & Cohen, 2007, p. 63). They also made the point that the empirical
research on how to effectively build leadership capacity that impacts student
achievement was limited.
Peterson (2002) studied 10 exemplary principal preparation programs
throughout the United States, some of which had mentoring or coaching
components as a support structure. Recommendations from this research supported
the need for principals to have continued learning opportunities through coaching
that could be done through a variety of mediums, including phone calls, streaming
video, and online communication (Peterson, 2002). Coaching was increasingly
receiving attention as a viable support mechanism for principal leadership.
Leskiw and Singh (2007) reviewed the research literature from the business
setting that examined best practices in leadership development. They asserted that
there are six components for leadership programs that included 1) a needs
assessment, 2) carefully selected candidates, 3) solid internal support for the
program, 4) the design and execution of a learning system, 5) the evaluation and 6)
incentives for improvement. The key component within the learning system for
business organizations was coaching and mentoring (Leskiw & Singh, 2007). In
the business sector, coaching had been very popular as a means to increase
executive learning, while education had been less adept at supporting their
leadership (Bloom, Castagna, Warren, 2003; Leskiw & Singh, 2007; Grant, 2001).
39
Coaching and Mentoring Programs
Coaching and mentoring programs had been around for over 25 years
supporting principals (Strong, Barrett, Bloom, no date), but there was much to be
learned about how viable coaching as a support technology would be for principals.
Grant (2001) contended that a review of the literature suggested that the research
on coaching was relatively new and that there needed to be more empirical
evidence to support the effectiveness of coaching. Although there was a good
amount of research on mentoring and training, there was little research to support
executive coaching directed at improving people’s work performance. Thach
(2002) also noted the surprising popularity of coaching, “despite the lack of hard
numbers on coaching results” (p. 205). Griffiths (2005) also noted the popularity
of personal coaching in the business sector, but notes that education had yet to
embrace the process.
For the purpose of this study, the concepts of mentoring were used to build
the theoretical support for coaching, because they shared in essence the act of
giving one-to-one attention with a purpose of achieving a learning outcome or
change in behavior. However, there were clear distinctions to acknowledge. Grant
(2001) made the distinction that mentoring involved an expert transferring
knowledge to the mentee, while coaching facilitated the learning of the coachee.
Bloom, Castagna &Warren (2003) further made the distinction stating that mentors
were more likely to be more experienced people inside the district, but those
coaches who were the most effective, were trained specifically in leadership
40
coaching. The differences in the specific styles within mentoring and coaching
were interesting, but for this study, the act of personal attention focused on
improving the performance of another was the treatment we were examining.
Hansford and Ehrich (2006) provided a review of forty research papers that
examined mentoring for principals. They articulated that there were some positive
and some negative outcomes for mentoring programs. Specifically, the positive
aspects that principals who were mentees report are general support, sharing of
ideas and professional development and the negative aspects were lack of time, and
a mismatch with personality or expertise (Hansford & Ehrich, 2006, p. 1). The
primary practical implication that they suggested was for the program planner to
ensure that mentors were well trained and that there was an effective matching
process.
Coaching or mentoring was noted as a key feature of the exemplary
programs examined in the School Leadership Study, but it was unclear if all of the
programs had this feature in place. The three programs that were highlighted as
having this feature were the Bank Street’s Principals Institute, the Educational
Leadership Development Academy (ELDA), San Diego Unified School District,
and the Jefferson County (KY) Public Schools (JCPS). All of these programs
provided support to principals after their pre-service training. For example, the
Educational Leadership Development Academy (ELDA) at the University of San
Diego, in partnership with the San Diego Unified School District, provided a
continuum of preparation and support programs that aligned with the districts
41
reform efforts. This program provided coaching and networking learning
opportunities that focused on instructional leadership. The exemplary programs in
the School Leadership Study were more likely to have principals’ experiences
mentored by another established principal, than those principals in other programs.
These experiences were often learning opportunities that integrated theory and
practice. (Davis, Hammond, LaPoint, & Meyerson, 2007). Leithwood, Seashore-
Louis, Anderson and Wahlstrom (2004) reviewed the literature on pre-service
programs and found that “programs should also emphasize reflective practice,
provide for opportunities for peers to discuss and solve problems of practice and
provided a context for coaching and mentoring” (p. 57). The exemplary programs
had these components as part of their comprehensive plan to support their
principals.
Exemplary programs identified in the School Leadership Study (Davis,
Hammond, LaPoint, & Meyerson, 2007) had on average more opportunities for
participants to receive coaching than did other programs. The ELDA had 76%, the
San Diego Unified School District had 54% and JCPS had 70% of their participants
participating in mentoring or coaching via a principal with experience. The
national average was only 14%. (Davis, Hammond, LaPoint, & Meyerson, 2007, p.
88). These learning experiences were done in a safe environment, where
principals could share their frustrations and strategize how to manage a difficult
situation. This deepened their skills and knowledge. Results from the final report
also revealed that principals who participated in exemplary programs rated in a one
42
year period, being, “Mentored or coached by an experienced principal 3 or more
times,” as more helpful than those principals in the national comparison group
(Davis, Hammond, LaPoint, & Meyerson, 2007, p. 49). Furthermore, follow up
interviews showed that principals in these exemplary programs believed that
mentoring and coaching helped them to become better instructional leaders by
creating a vision and focusing on instruction.
Results from other mentor programs revealed that the one-to-one support
experience was valuable to the participants. Weingartner (2001) reported on the
Extra Support Program for principals in the Albuquerque Public School District,
where new principals were given the support of a mentor that they selected, along
with the guidance of the district coordinator. The impetus for the district to create
this program was to fulfill the shortage of principals, help assistant principals make
the transition to the principalship, reduce burnout, and mitigate the frustrations new
principals typically experience. The program has been in place for over six years,
but the data reported in the article was very limited (Weingartner, 2001). The data
reported was from an evaluative survey and the sample size is unreported; however,
the evaluation from 1998-99 did reveal that of those principals who completed the
survey, 84% reported that their mentor had helped them with their leadership. This
was encouraging but inconclusive. The direction of this study was to collect data on
principals’ behaviors as the outcome of coaching and not their own attitudes.
An action research study completed by Thach (2002), on mid-level
managers in a telecommunications company, provided quantitative and qualitative
43
data to support leadership effectiveness. There were 281 executive leaders in the
study, using a 360 degree survey based on the company’s five year strategic plan
for improving productivity. It was given to subordinates, peers, and executive
leaders at the beginning and then again at the end of the executive coaching
program. The coaches met to discuss the results of the survey, establish goals, and
up to three action plans in a weak area and one in an area of strength. Coaches met
on average 3.6 times during the study. The quantitative study reported an increase
in leadership effectiveness of 55% for the second group and 60% for the first
group. The qualitative data revealed the following themes as a result of coaching:
one-to-one coaching was most helpful; outside perspective was valuable; talking to
an independent point of view was helpful; coach provided support and direction;
direct feedback yielded growth (Thach, 2002, p. 210). The study also stated that
there was a limitation in determining if indeed the impact was as a result of the
coaching or the feedback from the survey results that were shared with them. One
important piece not established in the study is the link to the leader’s actual
productivity. However, as a result of the combination of quantitative and
qualitative data, Thach (2002) made the claim that the action research study
supported the significant impact that coaching had on improving leadership.
Research had demonstrated that when training programs were supported
with a coaching component, there were greater gains in changing behavior. Olivero,
Bane & Kopelman (1997) completed an action research study on 31 municipal
managers who participated in eight weeks of coaching following a training
44
workshop. Coaches helped them set goals, problem solved and received feedback
specific to their individual needs. The one-to-one coaching demonstrated an 88%
increase in performance as compared to a 22% increase with just training alone.
This presented some hope for the potential impact coaching new principals might
have on the actions that they take to raise student achievement. There was a need
however for additional research, because the link from coaching to principal
productivity was not prevalent. To sustain the idea that coaching made a
difference for principals, it was important to examine the change in behavior as a
result of the coaching.
Effective Coaching Programs
Coaches were not readily available to simply go into a district and coach
principals to success. They too required a body of knowledge and skills that they
would put into practice to assist principals one-on-one. Neufeld and Roper (2003)
suggested that coaching programs address the following key components:
1. Ensure that principals and coaches understand the “big picture” of the reform
in which they are engaged and the reasons that undergird the changes.
2. Develop a strong, focused, coherent orientation program for new content and
change coaches.
3. Develop differentiated professional development for experienced coaches.
4. Ensure that coaches are knowledgeable about the learning needs of special
populations of students.
45
5. Ensure that the coaches hear the same messages teachers do.
6. Enable some coaches to become “coach leaders.”
7. Be “one-step ahead” in their own capacity building strategies and the people
they coach. (p. 11-14)
There were important conditions that supported an effective coaching experience
that should be considered according to Neufeld and Roper (2003). These
suggestions were primarily directed at districts who might design a coaching
program for their internal use. The context needed to be right for coaching to work
and district leaders needed to do the following according to Neufeld and Roper,
(2003):
1. Provide clear, explicit, and continuing support for the coaching program.
2. Understand the reforms in which schools are engaged and possess the
knowledge and skill with which to support schools in implementing them.
3. Ensure that the coaches have well-specified roles and make coaches’ roles
and responsibilities clear to all of the district’s educators.
4. Provide principals with professional development that enables them to create
a school culture in which coaching is both routine and safe.
5. Ensure that the process of selecting coaches at the district and school levels is
rigorous and fair and results in the hiring of coaches who will be credible to
the teachers and principals with whom they work.
6. Honor coaches’ roles and not divert their time to other school needs.
46
7. Acknowledge that conversations between coaches and principals about
teachers’ work might cause tension.
8. Have substantial knowledge about the content reforms their teachers are
trying to implement. (p. 11-14)
The advantage of coaching was that it provided one-to-one feedback within
the context of learning on the job. Coaching new principals had the technology to
bridge the gap between principal preparation programs and actual practice at the
school site, because it promoted deeper reflection within the context of valued
experiences. Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom (2004) reported
that principals must continue to learn and build their capacity with the context in
which they work. Peterson (2002) made the point that learning should be job
embedded and that there should be opportunities for “reflection, analysis, and
practice with a strong component of coaching and feedback” (p. 231). Feedback
that promotes reflection was central to learning. The Bank Street’s Principals
Institute used inquiry, reflection, journaling and personal advisement where the
principal took ownership of their own learning. This had the effect in one
participant’s view, of getting them to “think outside of the box” (Hammond,
LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr & Cohen, 207, p.70). One-to-one feedback could deepen
understanding and strengthen learning. The research showed that training for
teachers improved with coaching (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). There was evidence to
surmise that the same might apply to coaching for principals.
47
There were significant limitations to mentoring that inhibited maximizing
the potential of the professional assistance. Districts typically used the “buddy”
system that involved someone within the district mentoring a new administrator,
which potentially limited reflective conversations. Also, the principal’s job was
still very big and so finding the time to implement coaching or mentoring was
difficult. One common obstacle was finding the time to meet when both parties had
demanding responsibilities. A study done on mentoring showed that “43 percent of
the time being spent together by mentors and mentees was devoted to management,
operations and budgeting, 35 percent on staffing and personnel issues, and just 10
percent on instructional matters” (Spiro, Mattis, Mary, Mitgang, & Lee, 2007, p.
19). Additionally, some mentors lacked the training to be fully supportive (Bloom,
Castagna, & Warren, 2003) and the capacity of coaches to coach more experienced
professionals meant that there could be a need to coach those who were doing the
coaching (Nuefeld & Roper, 2003, p. 35). Coaching had the potential to be more
effective than mentoring, because coaching established a higher level of trust with a
professional outside of their district, and coaching was strategically directed at
improving professional practice through problem solving the issues that principals
experience in real-time.
Change and Content Coaching Models
Neufeld and Roper (2003) articulated two kinds of coaching that held
promise for increased organizational capacity of schools to improve instruction.
48
They defined two types of coaches in their review that made a distinction between
change coaches and content coaches. Content coaches focused on building
teachers’ expertise collaboratively in their subject area. Change coaches worked
closely with the principal in creating the systems and structures that supported
teacher collaboration as they transformed their instructional capacity. Change
coaches also played a critical role in ensuring that principals provided instructional
leadership, distributed leadership and shared decision making.
They reported that there were significant outcomes that could be expected
as a result of coaching. The main link to student achievement was that if coaching
was a successful professional development model, supported within the overall
district plan as one component, then achievement would increase as capacity
increased. The main outcomes that the research had shown according to Neufeld
and Roper (2003) were:
1. better targeted school-based professional development that addresses
teachers’ and principals’ learning needs in light of students’ needs;
2. teacher learning that carries over into classroom practice because the coach
helps teachers implement what they have learned;
3. a willingness among teachers to share their practice with one another and
seek learning opportunities from their peers and their coaches, and a
willingness to assume collective responsibility for all of their students’
learning;
49
4. high-quality principal leadership of instructional improvement;
5. school cultures in which instruction is the focus of much teacher and
principal discussion, in which teachers and principals reflect on their
practice and its impact on students, and use achievement data to drive
instructional improvement. (p.28)
The role of principals had become more complex and challenging. They
needed one-to-one, on-site support and change coaches “can play a significant,
multifaceted role in providing principals with the help they need to take on their
newly defined roles” (Neufeld & Roper, 2003, p. 5). These results were very close
to the kinds of results that implementing the ISLLC standards might attain. One of
the key thrusts of change coaching was to role model leadership skills for teachers
as well as principals. The point here was that if coaching in these two veins truly
had this kind of potential impact, then coaching aimed at directly supporting the
principal in implementing the CPSELs had the potential to do the same.
Coaching Leaders to Attain Student Success (CLASS) Program
The Coaching Leaders to Attain Student Success (CLASS) program was a
partnership between the New Teacher Center at the University of California Santa
Cruz (UCSC) and the Association of California School Administrators with support
from the Stupski Family Foundation. Program implementation was based on
California’s Beginning Teacher Support Program (BTSA) which realized
significant success by retaining 84% of the educators who participated in the
50
program, when the national average was 67% after 4 years (Moir, 2003). BTSA
was developed through UCSC, as was the CLASS program, which strived to
support administrators in the same manner with one-to-one support directed at
improving professional practice.
CLASS trained coaches to support new principals in accord with principal
induction programs such as the New Administrators Program. Coaches also
supported established principals with personalized professional development in
order to meet the needs of their districts goals (Bloom, Castagna, & Warren, 2003).
They made the point that coaching was not training or therapy and that coaching
met individual needs within their context. The goal of the program was for
participants to implement the ISLLC standards and thus improve student
performance. The standards were important, but they were not sufficient to bring
about change. Coaching supported principals’ capacity to act according to the
professional standards. CLASS was different from other programs in that it was
focused on helping principals address the challenges that were immediately
pressing for them.
The Coaching Leaders to Attain Student Success followed these essential
concepts according to Bloom, Castagna, and Warren, (2003):
1. The coach is a “different observer” of the coachee and context bringing a
different perspective to the relationship, the coach can see both circumstances
and possibilities that the coachee can't.
2. The coaching relationship is based upon trust and permission.
51
3. The coach moves between instructional and facilitative coaching strategies
based upon assessment of the coachee’s needs and in pursuit of agreed-upon
goals.
4. The coach’s fundamental commitment is to student success, and the coach
will appropriately push the coachee to that end.
5. Professional standards (ISLLC, CAPSELs) are a framework for goal-setting
and ongoing formative assessment. (p. 8)
The Blended Coaching model was the foundation for the CLASS program (Strong,
Barrett & Bloom, 2002). The Blended Coaching model weaved instructional
coaching strategies and facilitative coaching strategies into one approach.
Instructional coaching was defined as “an approach in which the coach shared his
or her own experience, expertise, and craft wisdom with the coachee by using
traditional teaching strategies” (Bloom, Castagna, Moir, & Warren, 2005, p. 68).
Bloom, Castagna, Moir, & Warren, (2005) described facilitative coaching as a
method to “ support the coachee in developing the capacity to build expertise
through self-actualized reflective practice” (p. 60). Blended coaching was
described as a “model that requires a coach to be able to decide when it is
appropriate to take an instructional approach (for example, when a new principal
asks for help interpreting test scores) or a facilitative approach (as that same
principal determines how to work with faculty in improving those scores)” (Bloom,
Castagna & Warren, 2003, p. 6). Facilitation methods and instructional coaching
52
strategies, were blended to create an optimal framework for the CLASS coach to
guide and assist principals in their learning and problem solving.
The CLASS program trained coaches to support principals who were
grappling with real-time challenges and in that way it met their needs within their
context (Bloom, Castagna & Warren, 2003). Because principals experienced
challenges of emotional intelligence, especially new principals, as well as basic
management tasks, and cross-cultural issues, coaches were trained to assist in
effectively guiding the principal. These skills were necessary if coaches were
going to build principals’ capacity and transform their organizations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, because The No Child Left Behind Act established
accountability measures that required all students to meet state standards by 2014,
building leadership capacity in urban schools had become a high priority.
Improving leadership capacity had the potential to improve teacher capacity to
deliver high quality instruction that would result in improving student outcomes.
To this end, leadership within schools must be cultivated, focused on instruction,
while transforming their organization and its people. Principal preparation
programs were just one step toward high quality leadership, support mechanisms
should be in place that ensure that the principals learn how to effectively implement
the ISLLC standards while on the job. Principals who received coaching could
53
build their knowledge and skills and capacity to become learning centered leaders.
Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, & Porter (2006) made the point that empirical evidence
for the effectiveness of school leadership was not outstanding. If educators were to
establish coaching as a viable support structure, then its effectiveness must be more
evident.
54
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to provide insight and a descriptive analysis
of the impact that leadership coaching had on one high school principal’s
leadership behavior related to his enactment of practices outlined in the California
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders. The leadership coaching
intervention was designed to provide a support structure to enable principal practice
in accordance with California’s standards for professional school leaders. The
coaching strategies were based on the Coaching Leaders to Attain Student Success
(CLASS) model, which blended facilitative and instructional coaching strategies.
The unit of study was the principal. Data collected for this study were used to
respond to the following research questions:
1. How does working with a CLASS leadership coach influence the leadership
practices of an urban school principal?
2. In what ways does leadership practice influence the professional practice of
teachers?
3. What organizational structures support the implementation of the coaching
model?
55
Research Design
This research study used a mixed methods descriptive case study
methodology. The case study design was chosen because it had the potential to
reveal the beliefs, values and dispositions of the principal before and after their
coaching experience, while elucidating the impact that coaching had on the
principal’s practices. A case study was optimal because this approach focuses on
discovery and exploration rather than hypothesis testing and the development of
deductive inferences (Merriam, 1998). Case studies are most appropriate in
situations where the researcher has little control over the events in the context
surrounding the phenomenon (Yin, 2003). Therefore the focus of this study
centered on descriptive questions which sought to shed light on the “hows” and
“whys” of changes in principal leadership behavior through the first five months of
the principal having worked with a CLASS leadership coach.
Yin (1984) defines a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries
between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple
sources of evidence are used” (p. 23). For this study it was important to analyze
the phenomenon of a principal’s leadership practice and the influence of coaching
on that practice in a real-world context to gain a better understanding of what
factors influenced principal behavior.
56
Coaching Leaders for Student Success Intervention
The intervention that the principal received was coaching by a coach who
used the Coaching Leaders for Student Success (CLASS) model. Selection for
coaches and matching them with principals was done by the district leadership.
Determining the appropriateness of the match was up to the professional judgment
of the coach, the principal and district administrators overseeing the program. This
intervention was scheduled to begin by early fall (2008) and provided support for
the principal throughout the year. The outcomes of the coaching sessions were
determined by the goals established by the coach and the coachee. However, the
intent of the CLASS model was to meet the immediate needs of the principal.
Goals were informed by the school’s strategic plan, such as ensuring that 85% of
all their students will be proficient on the California Standards Test by 2010.
Coaching helped guide the principal’s own reflection, planning and execution
toward meeting their immediate needs at the school site.
Sample Criteria and Process
Purposeful sampling was used in order to meet the requirements of studying
a principal serving an urban population of students. From the population of all
principals working with a CLASS trained coach in California schools (N>300), one
secondary principal was identified as a result of a personal invitation to participate
57
in the study that was distributed at one of the statewide CLASS training sessions.
Selection of the principal was based on the following criteria:
1. the principal was working in a school with a diverse group of students
reflecting urban demographics;
2. the principal had been assigned a CLASS coach; and
3. school level data revealed that there was a significant, persistent gap in
achievement on state assessments in math and Language Arts between White
and Hispanic students.
Overview of the District and School
The school district in this study was located in California about 15 miles
east of Los Angeles and served a diverse urban-like student population. According
to the California Department of Education Policy and Evaluation Division’s
website, the school district reported in their 2007 STAR results that their student
population of nearly 4,700 is 69% Hispanic, 9% African American, 4% Asian, 4%
Filipino and 11% White. The high school in this study served just over 1200
students of which 69% Hispanic, 9% African American, 3% Asian, 5% Filipino
and 13% White. The English Language Learner population was 4% and 41% of
their students qualify for Title I services. Special education students made up 10%
of the student body. Table 3 shows the achievement gap among subgroups in
English and Math over three years as stated in the Annual Year Progress report.
58
Table 3. Annual Yearly Progress, Percent Proficient in English-Language
Arts
Subgroups 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
African American 30.8 29.6 32.1
Hispanic 45.8 34.9 50.2
White 73.9 53.3 74.5
Filipino 92.9 89.5 58.3
Economic-Disadvantaged 44.9 32.0 45.9
English Learners 25.4 18.9 29.7
Special Ed 3.0 n.a. 20.7
Over the last three years, the two highest scoring sub-groups in English and
Mathematics were White and Filipino. The Asian subgroup did not comprise
enough students to be included in this overview. In 2008, the gap in English
Language Arts, between the combined average of White and Filipino and African
American and Hispanic students was 26.4 percentage points. In 2007, this gap was
28.4 points, and in 2006, the gap was 44.1 points. Even though the gap has
narrowed over three years in English, the gap is still significant. Table 4 presents
the AYP data for mathematics.
Table 4. Annual Yearly Progress, Percent Proficient in Mathematics
Subgroups 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
African American 19.2 39.9 35.7
Hispanic 36.4 32.9 50.2
White 65.2 60.7 74.5
Filipino 78.6 68.4 66.7
Economic-Disadvantaged 34.8 37.1 42.2
Subgroups Continued: 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
English Learners 23.1 22.7 34.2
Special Ed 5.6 n.a. 27.6
59
White and Filipino students consistently realized greater proficiency than
African American and Hispanic students combined. In 2008, the gap between the
combined groups was 27.6 percentage points. In 2007, this gap was 28.15 points,
and in 2006, the gap was 44.1 points. Over the last three years, the achievement
gap has remained persistent in mathematics and language arts.
Gaining Access to Participants
Participants in the study were volunteers. Initially, a letter was sent to the
Superintendent of the school district inviting participation and funding for the
survey. Following their approval, this researcher sent a letter and an email to the
principal inviting participation and provided full disclosure of the project. A
meeting was held with the principal to articulate the purpose of the study, address
any concerns, and agree on the logistics for implementing the study. With the
principal’s approval, a presentation was made to the faculty that requested
volunteers to participate in the study by taking the pre and post VAL-ED survey
online. At the same time, each teacher was given the opportunity to anonymously
participate in the interview process or decline. A lead teacher agreed to assist with
the logistics of implementing the survey and arranging the interviews. All
participants signed a certified informed consent to participate in research form and
they remained anonymous throughout the study.
60
Data Collection Procedures
Quantitative data were collected from the VAL-Ed 360 survey. The VAL-
Ed was given as a pre and a post-test survey to the principal and teachers.
Following their written approval to participate in the study, the initial survey was
given to the principal and his faculty in the fall 2008, followed by a post survey in
the spring (2009), after the coaching intervention had been in place for six months.
The participants took the survey on-line and completed it within thirty minutes.
Although the coach and the supervisor of the principal did not take the VAL-Ed
survey, they participated in the interviews in order to provide information abut the
implementation and background of the coaching program. Every effort was made
to ensure that the study was not evaluative. Table 5 describes the study’s timeline
for data collection.
Table 5. Implementation Timeline
Date and Participants Instrument Time
Fall 2008
Principal Pre-VAL-Ed 30 min.
Teachers (All) Pre-VAL-Ed 30 min.
Principal Pre-Interview 30 min.
Observation Field Notes 30 min.
Collect Documents Field Notes 3 hours
Chief Academic Officer (CAO) Interview 30 min.
61
Table 5. Continued
Date and Participants Instrument Time
Spring 2009
Principal Post-VAL-Ed 30 min.
Teachers (All) Post-VAL-Ed 30 min.
Principal Post-Interview 30 min.
Teachers (N=10) Interview 30 min.
CLASS Coach Interview 30 min.
Observation Field Notes 30 min.
Collect Documents Field Notes 3 hours
Qualitative data were collected through pre and post- intervention
interviews conducted with the principal, coach, supervisor and faculty. The audio
transcripts were coded and analyzed. Informal field notes were taken as the
interviewees responded to the questions on the interview protocols. Classroom
observations were conducted in the fall (2008) in six classes. Collection of the
documents took place during the throughout the study.
Instrumentation
Qualitative data were collected through interviews grounded in the
CPSELS, as well as classroom observations and school documents. The data
collected from these sources were analyzed in order to address the research
questions. The questions were specifically about principal behavior and/or the
62
completion of leadership tasks that the principal might have distributed to others
that reflected components of the CPSELs. This gave depth to the study and
provided a rich description of the processes and components that were examined.
Because both quantitative and qualitative methods were used, this helped mitigate
the trade-offs associated with just one type of method in the research study.
The methodology in this research design used a deductive approach,
because we were looking for specific evidence of practices within the established
framework of the ISLLC/CPSELs. The interview questions were also based on the
CPSELs, which are in alignment with the VAL-ED. A variety of data points were
used to determine the degree to which coaching has an impact on the principal’s
practices and teacher practices.
The quantitative data revealed the level of the principal’s practices before
and after the treatment. The best practices were identified within the Interstate
School Leadership Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards, which the California
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSELs) mirrored. The
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) provided the
quantitative data that measured the behaviors of the principal.
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
The VAL-ED was a survey developed by Vanderbilt University that
focused on leadership processes and core components that were aligned with the
63
ISLLC standards. The VAL-ED was “conceptualized as a multi-component
assessment system for measuring critical leadership behaviors of individual
educators especially in urban settings for the purposes of diagnostic analysis,
performance feedback, progress monitoring, and personnel decisions” (Porter,
Goldring, Murphy, Elliott, and Cravens, 2006, p. 1). The core components and the
key processes reflect the essential leadership behaviors deemed critical to the
success of a principal. Table 6 shows how the ISLLC standards align with the
VAL-ED. The CPSELs directly reflect the ISLLC standards.
Table 6. The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education:
Core Components & Key Processes Intersecting with the
ISLLC Standards
Core
Components
Planning
Implementing
Supporting
Advocating
Communicating
Monitoring
High Standards
for Student
Learning
1 1 1 1 1 1
Rigorous
Curriculum
(content)
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quality
Instruction
(pedagogy)
2 2 2 2 2 2
Culture of
Learning &
Professional
Communities
2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3,5 2,3,5 2,3
Connections to
External
Communities
4 4 4 4,6 4,6 4
Performance
Accountability
5 5
Source: Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Cravens, X., 2007, p. 31.
* note the numbers in the chart refer to the ISLLC standards
64
The VAL-Ed was a 360 degree pre and post survey, completed by the
principal and teachers at the high school. It provided a wide range of information
connected to specific, research-based behaviors that effective principals enacted. In
accordance with the learning centered leadership framework developed by Murphy,
Elliott, Goldring, Porter (2006), the specific behaviors fell into six core components
and within six key processes. The core components were: 1) high standards for
student learning, 2) rigorous curriculum, 3) quality instruction, 4) culture of
learning and professional behavior, 5) connections to external communities and 6)
performance accountability. There were six processes associated with each
component, and they were 1) planning, 2) implementing, 3) supporting, 4)
advocating, 5) communicating, and 6) monitoring. Porter, Polikoff, Goldring,
Murphy, Elliot and May (2008) stated, “Core components refer to characteristics of
schools that support the learning of students and enhance the ability of teachers to
teach (and) key processes refer to how leaders refer to how leaders create and
manage those core components” (p. 4). They made the point that learning-centered
leadership occurs when core components were realized through the key processes.
The VAL-Ed was an on-line assessment that contained 72 items relating to
the six core components and six key processes. The survey was an evidence-based
assessment and rated principal’s effectiveness on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 as
ineffective and 5 as outstandingly effective. This instrument was test piloted prior
to this study and had shown to be reliable with a high Cronbach’s α of > .98 for all
72 items (Porter, Polikoff, Goldring, Murphy, Elliot, May, 2008). More specific
65
details on the reliability for specific core components and key processes in the
VAL-ED are available in Appendix F.
Interview Protocols
The interview protocols were designed using the learning-centered
leadership framework in alignment with the ISLLC standards and the VAL-Ed
matrix. The questions were directly connected to the VAL-Ed survey and attempted
to gain insight into the principal’s practices from both the faculty and the
principal’s point of view. Interview questions were used to elicit a more detailed
description of the participants’ experiences (Patton, 2002). Questions were open
ended with a funnel design. The questions were structured with a predetermined
order to ensure that respondents stay focused on each component of the
professional standards and they had the opportunity to share their knowledge about
any activities that were initiated by the principal. The interviews were also semi-
structured with essential questions designed prior to the interview, yet allowed for
probing questions to be asked (Merriam, 1998). Probing questions were added in
order to increase clarity and enhance participants’ descriptions of their experience
(Patton, 2002). Interview questions were vetted and approved by the committee
chair.
Interviews were conducted with the principal, the Assistant Superintendent
of Instruction, the coach, and the faculty. Each interview consisted of 6 primary
66
questions centered on the CAPSELs, with 3 to 4 follow-up questions for each
primary question. The interviews lasted about 30 minutes. Beginning in October,
2008, initial interviews were conducted with the principal and the coach. The
principal was asked questions regarding his educational background, teaching and
leadership experience, as well as his goals for the school. This was done to
ascertain some general knowledge about the principal. Similar background
questions were asked of the coach. The interview with the Assistant
Superintendent was done in January, 2009, and gathered information about the
reasons for choosing coaching for the principal and what progress had been noted.
In February, 2009, a post interview was conducted with the principal, as well as
interviews with the faculty. A total of 8 teachers, were interviewed individually
over the course of two days. They were purposely selected, so that there would be
one from each grade level, one from each of the four core curricular subjects, one
special education teacher and one teacher in the English Learners program. Special
education was selected, because students from this group did not make their AYP.
Data collected from the participants provided information directly connected to the
principal’s practices as it related to the CPSELs.
Classroom observations were conducted in six classrooms. These
observations were within the context of the school setting and done in math,
English, language arts, special education, social studies and science. Field notes
were made to “contain the description of what has been written observed” (Patton,
2002, p. 302). Field notes from classroom observations provided qualitative data
67
with the context of the CAPSELs and VAL-ED framework. Patton (2002) made
the point that observations provide verification for data collected through the
interviews. Documents also yielded additional data related to the principal’s
practice.
Documents were collected in order to strength the study’s triangulation and
enhance the understanding of the principal’s practices. Relevant documents, such
as the school plan, professional development agendas, faculty meeting agendas,
school leadership agendas and school bulletins provided additional insight into the
principal’s behavior. Patton (2002) makes it clear that when observations,
interviews and documentation are taken together, they can create a more complete
understanding of the context, relationships and behaviors for the study.
Data Analysis Procedures
The analytical strategy for the qualitative data was a holistic approach. This
approach attempted to yield an understanding of the impact that coaching had on
the principal and impact that the principal had on teacher practices. With the
framework guiding the study, separate parts of the experience were quantified and
critiqued. Patton (2002) outlined the logic of this approach: “(1) Key program
outcomes and processes can be represented by separate independent variables, (2)
these variables can be quantified, and (3) relationships among these variables are
best portrayed statistically” (p. 59). Data from interviews, observations and
68
documents were coded and analyzed according to the triangulation table to
determine where different types of data inform each question. Patton (2002)
described the case study process in three steps: assembling the raw case data;
constructing a case record; and writing a final case study narrative (p. 450). A
classification or coding scheme aligned with the VAL-ED and learning-centered
leadership was used when analyzing the transcripts of the interviews, observations
and documents. Qualitative data from interviews were analyzed for patterns using
the VAL-ED matrix.
Specific steps were taken in this case study to code and categorize the data.
A good case study, according to Merriam (1998) is “an intensive, holistic,
description and analysis of a single bound unit” (p. 193). Coding was done in
alignment with this study’s conceptual framework and the data sets were placed in
the appropriate categories, aligned with the VAL-ED and learning-centered
leadership framework. Categories were exhaustive, mutually exclusive,
sensitizing, and conceptually congruent. This was done to ensure that all relevant
data was accurately categorized, each unit into one category, which was clearly
identifiable, and organized according to the same level of abstraction. Creswell
(2003) describes the coding process as making sense of the data through
preparation and analysis. The following generic steps for coding guided the
process: 1) organize the data for analysis; 2) read all the data to get a general sense
of the overall meaning; 3) put the data into categories; 4) generate codes to describe
the categories; 5) describe the common patterns in narrative form, and 6) provide
69
an interpretation from the findings (Creswell, 2003, p. 191-195). Coding began in
October, 2008, after the first two interviews were completed. The data analysis
was done by triangulating the survey results, interview data, observation data and
documents.
Document analysis was conducted within the framework of the research
questions. It began with determining the accuracy and authenticity of the
documents (Merriam, 1998, p. 121). Synthesis of the common patterns among
multiple data points found in documents, interviews and observations supported the
qualitative analysis. Qualitative data from interviews, observations, and
documents, along with quantitative data derived from the surveys, provided a
variety of data points in order to answer the research questions with greater
confidence. This variety of data strengthened the validity of the case study (Patton,
2002, p. 248). Analyzing principal’s practices using multiple methods helped to
ensure a fair and accurate research design. Table 7 was the triangulation matrix
used to examine the data across the study.
70
Data Collection Instruments and Participants
Research Questions VAL-Ed
Surveys,
Pre/Post
(Principal)
VAL-Ed Surveys,
Pre/Post
(Teachers)
Interview
Pre/Post
(Principal)
Interview
Assistant Super-
intendent
Interview
(Teachers)
Interview
(Coach)
Observation Documents
How does working with
a CLASS leadership
coach influence the
leadership practices of
an urban school
principal?
Questions:
1-72
Questions:
1-72
Interview
Questions:
1-6
Interview
Questions:
3, 6,
Interview
Questions:
1-6
Interview
Questions 1-
6
Coaching
Agendas,
School Plan,
Faculty,
Leadership,
Meeting
Agendas and
minutes
In what ways do the
leadership practices of
principals influence the
professional practice of
teachers?
Core
Components,
& Key
Processes:
Questions: 2,
20, 27, 29, 33,
34, 36, 43, 55,
67.
Core Components,
& Key Processes:
Questions: 2, 20,
27, 29, 33, 34, 36,
43, 55, 67.
Interview
Questions
1, 2, 3, 4,
5,6.
Interview
Questions
4,
Interview
Questions:
1-6
Interview
Questions:
1-6
Field Notes Coaching
Agendas,
School Plan,
Faculty,
Leadership,
Meeting
Agendas and
minutes
What organizational
structures support the
implementation of the
coaching model?
Interview
Question:
Initial 9,
Post 7
Interview
Questions:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
Interview
Questions:
7
Coaching
Agendas,
School Plan,
Faculty,
Leadership,
Meeting
Agendas and
minutes
Table 7. Triangulation Matrix
71
Validity
Validity strategies were used to determine the trustworthiness (Lincoln and
Guba, 1985 as cited in Creswell, 2005) and accuracy of interpretations and
findings. The accuracy and credibility of the findings of this study were established
via the following validation strategies: data triangulation and peer debriefing.
Triangulation was the process of corroborating evidence from various individuals,
sources and methods. Data collected in this study came from a variety of
individuals (i.e. principals, supervisors, and teachers), sources and methods (i.e.
survey, interviews, observations, and review of artifacts). Peer debriefing was also
utilized by identifying a colleague who reviewed and asked questions about the
interpretations and findings. This was done to ensure clarity from someone other
than myself.
Though various limitations and delimitations of the study were addressed in
Chapter 1, it is important to recognize additional threats to validity. Some threats to
internal validity included:
1. Length of the Study: The principal in the study will have only completed four
months of a CLASS coaching relationship during the time period of the study.
The fact that the post-assessment of the VAL-ED survey will come relatively
soon after the pre-assessment (approximately four months) limits the degree
to which it can fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas assessed. In
addition, time for the fieldwork in this study is limited to four months.
70
72
2. Pre-test Treatment Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration of
the VAL-ED has inherent issues of validity, in that changes reflected in the
second administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of factors other
than the participants’ relationship with a CLASS coaching.
3. The “halo effect:” Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED
(ratings of self and colleagues), raters may have a tendency to assume specific
traits or behaviors based on a general impression. However, to mitigate
against this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-ED survey required that raters
identify the primary source of evidence for their rating on each item (i.e.,
personal observation, documents, etc.).
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations were addressed and carefully screened through the
University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board process. The
interviews were guided by an informed consent protocol along with an opening
statement that covered the purpose of the study, reciprocity and confidentiality.
Consideration for risk to participants is very important, because of the potentially
politically sensitive nature of the data. Standard procedures, such as not using real
names and maintaining confidentiality were in place. Confidentiality, pseudonyms
for participants and records have been adequately stored and will be destroyed after
three years. The dissertation chair and qualifying committee had significant
73
oversight of the study and ensured that the study design was conducted ethically
and with fidelity.
Summary
The design of this study was developed in collaboration with three other
doctorial candidates in a thematic group. This team was granted access to
principals receiving coaching. Together, the team designed a coherent approach to
ensure consistent implementation of the methodology. This consistency may aid
other researchers who are interested in replicating the study. It is important that
additional support for the viability of coaching as a means to increase principals’
effective practices be added to our educational policy and practices knowledge
base.
Effective principal leadership has the potential to improve teachers’
capacity to deliver high quality instruction that will result in improving student
achievement. To this end, leadership behaviors that align with research-based
practices, as outlined in the CPSELs, should prove to have an impact on student
outcomes. However, effective leadership practices in urban settings continue to
struggle, because preparation programs are insufficient in translating their skills
and knowledge into effective practices. Coaching has the potential to bridge that
gap and assist the principal in implementing research-based practices that will
improve student achievement.
74
CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to 1) present and analyze the data collected for
this study; and to 2) report on the findings for each research question presented in
the study. The primary data for this research study were collected through a pre
and post intervention administration of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in
Education (VAL-ED), classroom observations, review of school documents, and
interviews with the high school principal, the CLASS leadership coach, the district
Assistant Superintendent of Instruction, and eight faculty members. Data were
coded in accord with the six steps outlined by Creswell (2003). A variety of data
sources were used to strengthen the validity of the case study as suggested by
Patton (2002). The following three questions were investigated:
1. How does working with a CLASS leadership coach influence the leadership
practices of an urban school principal?
2. In what ways does leadership practice influence the professional practices of
teachers?
3. What organizational structures support the implementation of the coaching
model?
75
This mixed methods case study examined the impact that working with a
coach had on the leadership practices of a principal in his first year. Data from
multiple interviews and observations revealed how teachers were influenced by the
principal’s leadership practices. Additionally, qualitative data provided evidence of
organizational support structures designed to facilitate the implementation of the
coaching process in this case study.
This Chapter will proceed with a section on the context of the case study
followed by a summary report of the data collected for each research question.
This will be followed by an analysis of the data across the data sets highlighting
patterns and themes that emerged from the data. The data in the analysis section of
this chapter were organized according to each of the three research questions.
School Case Study
Description of the School Context
Sycamore High School was located near the foothills of the San Gabriel
Mountains in. Southern California. The school had an enrollment of 1,230 students
in 2008-2009. The school’s demographics included 10% African American, 69%
Hispanic, 5% Filipino, 4% Asian and 12% White. While 46% of the students
received free and reduced lunch (an indicator of poverty), 4% of the students were
English language Learners and 3% were in special education programs. The school
became a California Distinguished school in 2007 with an API of 698. The school’s
76
mission statement was to, “provide a caring and respectful environment for
students that ensures high student achievement in all subject areas.” The current
principal, Mr. Archer, was a first year principal who began his work at the school
just four months prior to the study. Mr. Logan, a CLASS leadership Coach, was
assigned to support Mr. Archer during his first year at the school.
Introduction to the Principal
Before Mr. Archer became the Principal of Sycamore High School, he was
a math teacher at the secondary level, who later served six years as an assistant
principal at the middle and high school levels. He was new to the district, but not
new to the area and the kinds of students the school served. Math and English were
the critical areas where he applied his instructional leadership in an attempt to
achieve the goals that were established in those areas. According to Mr. Archer,
student proficiency was lacking, especially in math. His first big task was to get
faculty on the same page with a solid vision, because there was no articulated
vision for the school before he arrived. Additionally, he worked collaboratively
with the teachers to change the school motto from, “We Can,” to “We Can Meet
Students’ Academic Needs.” He had had positive prior experience with the work
of a leadership coach. As an assistant principal, he had had the opportunity to sit in
on some of the coaching sessions designed to meet the needs of his former
principal. Mr. Archer worked closely with his CLASS Leadership Coach, Mr.
Logan.
77
Introduction to the Coach
Mr. Logan had had two years of experience coaching principals at the
secondary level. His training was based on his thirty years of experience as an
administrator, taking suggestions from superintendents, and reading books on
leadership coaching. Mr. Logan was very familiar with the CLASS-coaching
model. As a university professor for nineteen years in the educational
administrative training program, he had taught components of the CLASS model.
However, at the time of the interview, he was not formally certified as a CLASS
coach. He stated that he used the CLASS coaching techniques in his coaching
process. His primary goal as a coach was to improve the skills and knowledge of
the principal in order to improve student achievement. This was in alignment with
the fundamental purpose of the CLASS coaching program model.
Baseline School Data
Improving the achievement of all the students at the school, especially in the
areas of mathematics and language arts was a priority for Mr. Archer. Student
performance on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) was of
particular importance for the school, because it was a critical factor in meeting the
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) metric as determined by the No Child Left Behind
Act (2001). Two of the school goals as reported in the school plan were:
1. 92% or more of all 10
th
- 12
th
grade students taking the CAHSEE
mathematics exam will pass the exam during the 2008-2009 school year. 92%
78
or more of all 10
th
- 12
th
grade students taking the CAHSEE English exam
will pass the exam during the 2008-2009 school-year.
2. The percentage of students scoring proficient and/or advanced on the STAR
exams in May 2009 will increase by 10% in math.
Document analysis of the school plan and the school accountability report
card provided base line data for student achievement. The charts below describe
the results for longitudinal student performance on the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE). Improving these results was an area of focus for the faculty
identified in collaboration with the principal. Illustrated in Table 8 is the percentage
of students passing the CAHSEE by ethnicity over a five- year period.
Table 8. California High School Exit Exam, Percent Passing English-
Language Arts
Ethnicity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percentage
Change
African
American
76 77 65 66 81 +5
Hispanic 72 54 68 71 74 +2
Filipino 95 77 100 100 92 -3
White 90 80 84 90 94 +4
The performance results for students passing the English/Language Arts
section of the CAHSEE revealed that there had been little overall change in the
pass rate over the five year period.. During this period, closing the performance
gap has been a persistent challenge for the school. The performance gap in the
79
percent passing the CAHSEE between White and Hispanic students in 2008 was
exactly twenty percentage points on the English/Language Arts section of the
CAHSEE. A similar performance gap has also persisted in mathematics, as shown
in Table 9.
Table 9. California High School Exit Exam, Percent Passing Mathematics
Ethnicity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percentage
Passing
African
American
64 52 59 54 55 -9
Hispanic 74 55 66 63 76 +2
Filipino 87 82 80 95 92 +5
White 88 83 84 83 94 +6
The performance gap between the two lowest performing subgroups, Hispanics and
African Americans and Whites for example, in 2008 was seventeen and thirty-five
percentage points respectively for the Mathematics section of the CAHSEE.
Illustrated in Figure 2 there had been a decline of nine points for the African
American subgroup.. The school also targeted student performance on the
California Standards Test for mathematics in order to meet school-wide growth
targets. Illustrated in Figure 3, overall, the percent of students who performed at
the proficient or above levels on the California Standards Test for mathematics was
persistently below 50%.
The percentage of students scoring proficient on the California Standards
Test in Algebra was about half the state average. Scores on the CST had either
80
stayed relatively consistent or had dropped within the last three years. In the last
five years, school-wide performance on the California Standards Test in
mathematics had not realized significant gains. Working with a leadership coach
provided the principal with an important support mechanism that had the potential
to increase his capacity to improve student achievement.
Table 10. California Standards Test in Mathematics, Percent Proficient or
Above
School
Year
Gen.
Math
Algebra 1 Geometry Algebra 2 H.S.
Math
2003-
2004
16.6 7.1 13.3 16.0 18.0
2004-
2005
13.6 3.8 9.7 23.5 38.7
2005-
2006
N/A 6.0 6.0 18.0 47.0
2006-
2007
N/A 7.1 3.4 14.1 33.3
2007-
2008
N/A 8 9 6 27
The next section will provide a summary of the data collected to respond to
the three research questions designed for this study. Illustrated in Table 7, on page
70, were the sources for data collected in response to each of the three research
questions. A variety of data sources were gathered for each question.
81
Summary of the Data
This study utilized multiple sources of data collected from surveys,
interviews, observations and documents to respond to the three research questions.
According to Patton (2002), “Multiple sources of information are sought and used
because no single source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective on the program” (p. 306). Additionally, “By using a combination of
observations, interviewing, and document analysis, the fieldworker is able to use
different data sources to validate and crosscheck findings” (Patton, 2002, p. 306).
Patton (2002) also pointed out that each type of data source has its strengths and
weaknesses, and he made the point that “Triangulation (the use of multiple data
sources) increases validity because the strengths of one approach can compensate
for the weaknesses of another approach” (p. 306). For each research question, a
review of the specific instruments used to collect data for that research question
will be presented first, and then followed by a summary of the data for each
instrument.
Research Question One
How does working with a CLASS leadership coach influence the leadership
practices of an urban school principal?
82
VAL-ED Survey Data
The data collected from the VAL-ED survey report identified the perceived
effectiveness of the principal’s leadership behaviors within six core components
and six key processes. As described in Chapter 3, the Core Components were: 1)
high standards for student learning, 2) rigorous curriculum, 3) quality instruction,
4) culture of learning and professional behavior, 5) connections to external
communities, and 6) systemic performance accountability. The Key Processes
were: 1) planning, 2) implementing, 3) supporting, 4) advocating, 5)
communicating, and 6) monitoring. The VAL-ED survey aligned with the
learning-centered leadership framework (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring & Porter, 2006).
Survey data were collected in the fall (2008) and again in the spring (2009).
The principal took both surveys. The response rate for the teacher surveys was
52% (N = 21 teachers out of a staff of forty) for the fall (2008) survey
administration, and 33% (N = 13 teachers) for the spring 2009 survey
administration. Fewer teachers completed the spring (2009) survey, even though
additional encouragement and incentives were provided. The data should be
interpreted with caution when fewer than 50% of the teachers have participated.
Illustrated in Figure 6 are the results from the fall (2008) survey
administrations. Data from the VAL-ED survey revealed the perceived
effectiveness of the principal’s leadership behaviors within the Learning-Centered
Leadership framework (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring & Porter, 2006) The principal’s
relative strengths and areas for development were based on the mean item scores
83
for the intersection of Core Components by Key Processes across the two
respondent groups (principal and teachers). The five point scale had the following
ratings: 1 = ineffective; 2 = minimally effective; 3 =satisfactorily effective; 4 =
highly effective; and 5 =outstandingly effective. Overall, across the Core
Components and Key Processes, the principal’s performance level was rated
proficient in all categories on the first VAL-ED report. Illustrated in Table 11, are
differences in mean item ratings for the teachers and principal for the Fall (2008)
VAL-ED survey.
Table 11. Core Components Results — Principal and Teacher Fall 2008
VAL-ED Survey
VAL-ED
Core component
Principal
Fall Survey
Teacher
Fall Survey
Difference
Total Effectiveness
4.49 3.91 .58
High Standards
4.08 3.81 .27
Rigorous
Curriculum
4.08 3.93 .15
Quality Instruction
4.75 4.00 .75
Culture of Learning
5.00 4.08 .92
Connection to
Community
4.67 3.86 .81
Performance
Accountability
4.33 3.79 .54
84
For the mean effectiveness ratings across the Core Components, Mr. Archer
consistently rated himself higher than the teachers. The difference between Mr.
Archer’s and the teachers’ effectiveness ratings varied with a high of .92 to a low
of .15. Where the difference was high, there existed a greater variation between
how the principal perceived his effectiveness than did the teachers. The difference
in mean effectiveness ratings for culture of learning was highest; however, it was
also the highest rating for the teachers of Mr. Archer. They rated the principal as
highly effective in the core component of culture of learning. The lowest rating
was in performance accountability with a mean of 3.79, which fell in the high end
of satisfactorily effective. Table 12 provided data for analyzing the key processes
and components as reported through the fall (2008) VAL-ED survey.
Table 12. Key Processes Results — Principal and Teacher Fall 2008
VAL-ED Survey
VAL-ED
Key Processes
Principal
Fall Survey
Teacher
Fall Survey
Difference
Total Effectiveness
4.49 3.91 .58
Planning
4.25 3.77 .48
Implementing
4.67 3.76 .91
Supporting
4.50 3.96 .54
Advocating
4.58 3.91 .67
Communicating
4.50 4.05 .45
Monitoring
4.42 3.78 .64
85
For the mean effectiveness ratings across the Key Processes, as with the Core
Components, Mr. Archer consistently rated himself higher than the teachers. The
highest rating was 4.05 for communicating and the lowest rating was for
implementing at 3.76. The largest difference between Mr. Archer ‘s average rating
and the teachers’ was .91 for implementing and the smallest difference was .45 for
communicating. Overall, for the fall (2008) VAL-ED survey results, the
principal’s leadership behavior was perceived to be proficient or distinguished in
all of the Core Components and Key Processes.
The results from the spring (2009) VAL-ED survey provided additional
data in the core components and key processes that demonstrated areas for
professional growth for the principal on key learning-centered leader behaviors.
The spring (2009) VAL-ED survey was completed about four months following the
fall survey administration. During this time, the principal had been working with
his leadership Coach. Illustrated in Table 13 are the ratings for the Core
Components for the fall (2009) VAL ED survey administration.
Table 13. Core Components Results — Principal and Teacher Spring 2009
VAL-ED Survey
VAL-ED
Core component
Principal
Spring Survey
Teacher
Spring Survey
Difference
Total Effectiveness 4.47 3.78 0.69
High Standards 4.92 3.97 1.05
Rigorous Curriculum 4.42 3.83 0.59
Quality Instruction 4.25 3.77 0.48
Culture of Learning 4.83 3.85 0.98
Connection to Community 4.08 3.62 0.46
Performance Accountability 4.33 3.55 0.78
86
A similar pattern presented itself in the spring as compared to the fall survey
(2009) ratings for the principal’s effectiveness ratings. The principal consistently
rated himself higher than the teachers. However, unlike the case with the fall
(2008) ratings, the spring results demonstrated a greater discrepancy between the
teacher mean effectiveness ratings on all six core components than the self-ratings
provided by the principal. The effectiveness rating of the core components for the
spring (2009) VAL-ED survey revealed that both the principal and the teachers
gave their highest rating of the principal’s effectiveness in the core component of
high standards. This was also the component with the largest difference of 1.05.
The teachers’ average rating was 3.97 which is very close to a “highly effective”
rating in this area. The lowest teacher rating for the principal was in performance
accountability, with 3.55, which fell within the effectiveness range of
“satisfactory.” Illustrated in Table 14 are the ratings for the Key Processes as
reported by the principal and the teachers on the spring (2009) VAL-ED survey.
Table 14. Key Processes Results — Principal and Teacher Spring (2009)
VAL-ED Survey
VAL-ED
Key Processes
Principal
Spring Survey
Teacher
Spring Survey
Difference
Total Effectiveness 4.47 3.78 0.70
Planning 4.33 3.75 0.58
Implementing 4.25 3.74 0.51
Supporting 4.50 3.70 0.80
Advocating 4.42 3.71 0.71
Communicating 4.67 3.90 0.77
Monitoring 4.67 3.90 0.77
87
Differences in the ratings between the principal and the teachers in the area of
Key Processes ranged from a high of .80 for supporting, to a low of .51 in
implementing. Both the principal and teachers rated his effectiveness the highest in
communicating and monitoring. The teachers gave the lowest rating in advocating,
with a 3.70, which falls in the satisfactorily effective range. Illustrated in Table 15
are the proficiency ratings for the spring (2009) VAL-ED survey.
The VAL-ED provided a proficiency rating for the core components and key
processes in each of the areas where they intersect. Proficiency is rated with a P for
“proficient” or “distinguished,” a B for “basic,” and BB for “below basic.” The
proficiency rating helps to determine areas where a principal might need
professional growth.
Table 15. VAL-ED Survey Principal Effectiveness Ratings for Spring 2009
Core Key Processes
Components Planning Implementing Supporting Advocating Communicating Monitoring
High Standards P P P P P P
Rigorous Curriculum B P P P P P
Quality Instruction P B P B P P
Culture of Learning P P P P P P
Connection to
Community
B P P P P P
Performance
Accountability
P P B P P P
Source: VAL-ED Principal Report (Spring, 2009)
Overall, the spring (2009) ratings for the principal’s leadership behavior
was proficient or distinguished in all of the core components and key processes,
except in five intersections, where the rating was determined to be at the “Basic”
performance level. According to the survey, “A leader at the basic level of
88
proficiency exhibits learning centered leadership behaviors at levels of
effectiveness that are likely to influence teachers positively and that result in
acceptable value-added to student achievement and social learning for some sub-
groups of students, but not all”. The principal was rated “Basic” in 1) planning for
a rigorous curriculum, 2) implementing quality instruction, 3) advocating quality
instruction, 4) planning connections to external communities, and 5) supporting
performance accountability. As a result, areas for improvement in the leader’s
practice were recommended. In the area of planning connections to external
communities, for example, the report indicated that one of the behaviors to improve
in this area was, “Plans activities to engage families in student learning.” For the
core component of implementing quality instruction, the report indicated that one
of the behaviors to improve in this area was to, “Implement procedures to protect
instructional time.” For another area rated Basic, “supporting performance
accountability,” the report indicated that one of the behaviors to improve in this
area was, “Provide procedures that hold students accountable for their learning.”
These suggestions provided the principal with guidance on the behaviors that might
lead to greater mastery of the learning-centered leadership dimensions.
Interview Data
Interviews were conducted in order to gather qualitative data for this mixed
methods study. The following section will report a summary of the data from the
fall (2008), principal interview followed by the results from the post interview,
89
given in the spring (2009). Interview data from the CLASS Leadership Coach and
the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction are also reported in this section.
Principal interview, Fall 2008
Interview questions were asked about his goals, expectations and prior
experience with school leadership. Mr. Archer became principal at the high school
in July and a coach was assigned to him as part of the district’s initiative to support
the new principal. He stated that he “was a middle school assistant principal for
three years,” and “a high school assistant principal” before accepting his first
principal assignment at this high school.
Mr. Archer had reviewed the school data over the summer and when asked
about his goals for the school year stated:
So one of them is the CAHSEE. 92% of our 10-12 grade students
who take the CAHSEE in math and language arts will pass the
exam. One hundred and ten of our seniors will be at the University
of California junior internship department. Our third goal is that
we will move 5% of our students scoring far below basic to basic.
Our fourth goal is that a percentage of our students that are
proficient, right under advanced will increase by 10% in
mathematics.
He was then asked to explain how he planned to influence teacher practice.
He shared that the school had begun to organize professional learning communities.
However, there was a need to provide more leadership. He said:
the professional learning communities to a certain extent is one of
the things I want to increase around here is how we function as
professional (learning) community and how teachers reflectively
look at their practices through their conversations and observations
of each other.
90
He added that the current structure was in place for professional learning
community activities to take place because:
Each department has a common prep period, so every week every
department sets aside a common prep period if it’s an early release
day that is earmarked for departments. They can use that as a prep
period so there are about three prep periods and one early release
day a month for prep. Some departments, like English department
are more frequent than that, they collaborate and call themselves
professional learning communities.
When asked about specific teacher instructional practices that he thought
might improve student learning, he indicated that he would continue working with
a consulting firm that was assigned to math and language arts. He said:
I’m continuing the work with TESS it was started with our math
dept so they are going through ongoing coaching this year. I’m
trying, as far as math goes, you know they had a whole year of
work with TESS and didn’t have much improvement as far as
STAR tests go. So I’m really paying attention to those two.
He added:
For many of the teachers not receiving specific training support
through TESS their support will be through myself or my assistant
principal who can prepare visits in classroom, dialoguing with
them about the instruction, making sure there are clear lesson
plans, clear learning objectives and common assessments with the
department and work on analyzing the data of common
assessments.
Principal interview, March 2009
Mr. Archer was interviewed again in the spring (2009), after he had
participated in a leadership coaching relationship for approximately four months.
Interview questions were based on the California Professional Standards for
91
Educational Leaders (CPSELS). Additionally, probing questions were asked in
order to get at the specifics of the principal’s practices.
When asked to describe what he does to promote the success of all students,
he explained that he developed with the faculty a list of core pedagogical practices
that he could expect teachers to utilize. He made the point that his responsibility
was to:
Ensure that (quality instruction) is what goes on in the classroom.
So (is) visibility, accountability, (and) keeping teachers
accountable to what we have collectively agreed upon as a staff for
good instructional strategies. One of the things we devise in staff
is called Duarte Way of Teaching which is a compilation of
different instructional strategies.
The principal noted that he and his assistant principals encourage teachers using
those strategies or give them ideas on how to enhance the lesson. He explained that
his CLASS Leadership Coach, Mr. Logan, had helped him develop the list of core
instructional strategies by stating:
He provided me with a program, sort of like the Best Way of
Teaching but it had sort of a rating scale to be able to check off
your teachers in the department. I have been trying to put it into a
teaching document like he has where there is a report card or a
feedback card.
Principal Archer was asked about how he ensured student success and he replied:
“I would say our professional learning communities are our main structure in every
department.” He continued with his description of the PLC structure and their
primary focus:
92
They are organized by department then within each department the
same subject teachers meet to work out their instructional pace and
guide and put their benchmarks together and analyze their data
together. And they come up with a plan for re-teaching key
standards that the students did not do well in.
Mr. Archer further explained how PLC’s would improve student outcomes, by
having teachers collaborate:
Especially in the re-teaching. In a school where you have a large
group of students that are not proficient when they are taking their
benchmarks they will be more manageable. Especially in Algebra
1 and Geometry. So the PLCs have to come to a consensus on
realistically how many of those standards they can address and re-
teach.
He also made the point that as a result of the professional learning community
activity: “The math department is devoted to re-teaching and re-testing. English as
well and I think we are also working on Social Studies.” When asked to describe
where his Coach, Mr. Logan might have influenced his leadership practice, he
stated:
I think in helping set up the process, because he’s had PLCs in his
two former schools. This school was organized into PLCs prior to
me coming here but it was a little bit more looser. He relayed
some feedback on how to help me tighten it back up.
Coach Interview Data
Mr. Logan was interviewed in spring (2009). When discussing his prior
experience, he said that he had been an administrator for about thirty years. He
also said that he had been coaching new principals for two years. When asked
about whether he used the CLASS coaching model, he stated:
93
Yes, I do, and some of it has been extrapolated from the books I
have cruised through. Also, I teach the tier one credential program
for would be administrators. I have been there for about nineteen
years.
In discussing strategies that the principal could use to ensure student success,
he stated that he had worked with the professional learning community groups in
his prior experience and described how the group could work collaboratively to
learn about what the data were revealing. He explained that:
As far as the analysis, set out all of our scores here and lets look at
where we are doing well, we have to identify larger and small
groups, why we are doing well, what’s making that successful? In
that flat line why are we not seeing growth? And identify those
processes and then when we have a dip line, what are some
theories and concepts we can do with that?
He added that it is important for this PLC practice to be frequent and thoughtful:
I think you should do that throughout the year, maybe four times a
year, not just the one time in September and then it’s all forgotten.
But I think you’ve got that consistency, at fault. This is why we
did well; this is why we were flat lining. Let’s underscore what
we are doing well and lets maintain that and lets focus on two
things that we can maintain. On the flat line let’s pick out two
collectively and work on seeing if we can get any growth out of it.
On the dip line let’s pick out another two and lets work on these
two and see if we can get any type of reactions as in any type of
direction in alliance with that. You’ve got to do it ideally four
times a year with that, it coincides with the grading period which
is automatically added up, its all our tests going back to the state
and lets do an analysis on that, you can do that in October when
you get all the results back in October on all your state’s standard
scores.
94
Assistant Superintendent of Instruction Interview Data
Mr. Arroyo’s interview was conducted in spring (2009). As the district’s
assistant superintendent for instruction, he shared the background for having
chosen the leadership coach for Principal Logan. He described the support
structure that was in place to help ensure the success of the coaching program. Mr.
Arroyo was asked to describe the ways in which the principal had had an influence
on teachers’ practices. He replied:
By his expectations of specific teaching techniques. He does what
he calls a “Best Way of Teaching” and he has a list of (the
instructional strategies). He uses that when he goes into rooms.
He uses that as his checklist as a way to interact with his teacher.
So at least they have a conversation about what they think the
quality of that is.
When asked about what areas he saw the Coach as having had an influence on the
principal’s practice, he shared:
At Sycamore High, a lot of logistics, a lot of statistics, a lot of the
managerial pieces, we see a lot of things in place there. I know the
person that works with him, I know how detailed he is. I see a lot
of writing from the principal of the high school, which is a direct
influence of his Coach.
Document Analysis
Data were collected from school documents and a variety of school sources
such as coaching agenda, professional development agendas, principal’s
presentations, leadership team agendas, school plan, SARC reports, principal parent
meeting agendas, and weekly bulletins. This yielded information that supported the
95
principal’s practices in specific learning-centered leadership dimensions of
instructional program and communities of learning.
In the dimension of instructional program, a learning-centered leader
demonstrates a deep involvement and knowledge of instruction (Murphy, Elliot,
Goldring, Porter, 2006). The principal in this case study developed a school-wide
understanding of quality instruction. The coaching agendas provided evidence for
the topics that the principal and coach addressed during their sessions. On every
agenda, staff development was an item for discussion, which supported the claims
made by the principal that the coach was involved in providing guidance for the
instructional program and professional learning community activities. Three
leadership team agendas show that the principal worked with them on the
development of the “Best Way of Teaching.” The actual document for the “Best
Way of Teaching” listed the teaching strategies that were developed with the
faculty. Professional development agendas show how the principal worked with
the staff to create the “Best Way of Teaching.” These documents provide evidence
for the coach’s influence on the principal’s leadership in the development of an
agreement among faculty on the core technology for instruction.
The principal developed the communities of learning at the high school with
the help of the Coach and the leadership team. Leadership team agendas showed
that the principal addressed the professional learning communities’ activities with
the department chairs. Professional development agendas and presentation slides
revealed how the principal implemented professional learning communities to
96
analyze data in small groups, and directed teachers to work within their department
PLCs. These documents provided support for the principal’s involvement in
professional development that included professional learning communities’
activities.
Data Analysis
Research Question 1: How does working with a CLASS leadership coach
influence the leadership practices of an urban school
principal?
These data were analyzed through the lens of the learning-centered
leadership framework (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring and Porter, 2006) and the CLASS
Blended Coaching Strategies (Bloom, Castagna, Moir &Warren, 2005). The key
components of the learning centered leadership framework are outlined within
Table 16.
Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and Porter (2006) described the behaviors of a
school leader acting within the dimension of Instructional Program as having a
solid knowledge of instruction and being closely involved in working with teachers
on improving instruction (p. 11). They describe principal’s behaviors within the
dimension of Communities of Learning as those that develop the knowledge and
skills of their teacher through professional development and communities of
professional practice directed at student success (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and
97
Porter, 2006, p.16). This analysis will reveal how the principal’s practice was
influenced by his CLASS leadership coach in these two areas.
Table 16. The Dimensions of Learning-Centered Leadership
Vision for Learning Instructional
Program
Curricular
Program
Assessment
Program
Developing vision Knowledge and
involvement
Knowledge and
involvement
Knowledge and
involvement
Articulating vision Hiring and
allocating staff
Expectations,
standards
Assessment
procedures
Implementing vision Supporting staff Opportunity to learn Monitoring
instruction and
curriculum
Stewarding vision Instructional time Curriculum alignment Communication and
use of data
Communities of
Learning
Resource
Acquisition and
Use
Organizational Culture
Social Advocacy
Professional
development
Acquiring resources Production emphasis Stakeholder
engagement
Communities of
professional practice
Allocating resources Accountability Diversity
Community-anchored
schools
Using resources Learning environment Environmental
context
Personalized
environment
Ethics
Continuous
improvement
Source: Murphy, Elliot, Goldring & Porter, 2006, p. 7.
CLASS Coaching
In addition to the learning-centered leadership framework, the data collected
in response to research question one was analyzed through the lens of the CLASS
coaching model. This framework will be used to understand how working with a
CLASS coach influenced the learning-centered leadership behaviors that the
98
principal put into practice. To shape the principal’s practice, Mr. Logan used both
critical components of the CLASS coaching model: Facilitation and Instructional
methods (CLASS Professional Development for Coaches of Site Administrators,
2006, p. 5). This model of Blended Coaching Strategies “is the foundation of an
effective coaching practice” (Bloom, Castagna, Moir and Warren, 2005, p. 8). The
two strategies are engaged, “as appropriate to the context and needs of the coachee
(so that the) coach may play a facilitative role, guiding the coachee to learning
through the use of feedback and reflective questions (and then at) other times, the
coach might play an instructional role and provide expert information, advice, and
resources” (Bloom, Castagna, Moir and Warren, 2005, p. 8). The CLASS
Professional Development for Coaches of Site Administrators, 2006, manual
described how the leadership coach operates within the two coaching strategies,
stating that, “The facilitative coach leads the coachee through conversation that
allow the coachee to clarify his own thinking, observations, and possibilities” (p.
43) Furthermore, the “Instructional coaching draws upon a variety of traditional
teaching strategies (modeling, direct instruction, providing resources), and is
typically embedded in facilitative conversations” (p. 45). There is evidence to
suggest that the blended coaching strategies were effective in supporting the
principal’s practices.
Mr. Logan used the CLASS coaching model to facilitate the principal’s
thinking. During the interview, Mr. Archer reported that he typically brought
issues “ to him and saying I’m thinking about doing this,” and the coach facilitated
99
the problem solution process. The coach also helped guide the principal’s thinking
with regards to working with his staff. He said, “I think he has helped me with
being able to step back and allow the teachers to be empowered.” Empowering
teachers can help the principal become more effective with the faculty. According
to the CLASS Professional Development for Coaches of Site Administrators, 2006,
manual, the coach’s “focus is on using facilitative methods to support the coachee
in developing his/her own capacity to build expertise through self-actualized
reflective practice” (p .43). The coach also guided the principal’s thinking in how
he collaborated with the faculty. The principal stated that now, “The strategy is to
excite them and to step back and let them run the show, which I didn’t used to do
and my (coach) has helped me do that.” Additionally, Mr. Archer reported that the
coach gave him feedback and helped to guide the development of important
activities such as professional learning communities. The principal stated that his
coach helped “set up the (PLC) process (and he) relayed some feedback on how to
help me tighten it.” The coach also helped the principal to think about the use of the
staff survey. Mr. Archer stated, “I did run the survey by him,” and he eventually
used the results to improve the work of his administrative staff with regards to
discipline. Mr. Archer also said that his coach supported his practices by being
there to listen and dialogue with him in ways that enabled him to reflect on his
practice. When Mr. Archer needed feedback on something he was thinking about,
he could ask his coach if he had,“done something like this before in the past, (and)
what reactions he has gotten from staff, and his supervisors.” Additionally, the
100
principal stated that “Anytime I feel like I’m not going in the right direction I run it
by him.” The principal was open to allowing the coach to clarify his thinking and
he was able to ask the coach questions such as “what do you anticipate down the
road, how do you feel about it?” The principal described many incidents in which
the coach guided his thinking and provided feedback as necessary within the
context of his leadership practice.
Coach Logan also engaged the coaching instructional strategy. He provided
expertise from his prior experience that yielded skills and knowledge about
implementing programs and working with the faculty. The CLASS Professional
Development for Coaches of Site Administrators, 2006, manual states, “The coach
possesses experience, expertise, and craft wisdom in a particular area of the
professional practice of the coachee.” (p. 45). Mr. Archer stated that if he had an
idea, he would work with Mr. Logan prior to moving forward with it. Often the
Coach would have said, “Oh yea I’ve done that or I’ve seen somebody else do that
and it worked out really well as long as you do this or this.” The principal shared
that the coach’s support was primarily focused on, “instructional things or
managerial things.” Mr. Logan provided instructional resources and strategies for
the principal. For example, “The Best Way of Teaching” strategy was a resource
that the Coach suggested which the principal, in collaboration with his staff,
implemented. The evidence suggests that Mr. Logan utilized blended coaching
strategies, in alignment with the CLASS coaching model, that were both facilitative
and instructive in shaping the principal’s practice.
101
There is some evidence that through the use of both instructional and
facilitative strategies, the coach influenced the principal’s practice in ways that had
the potential to positively influence teacher practice. Coach Logan regularly shared
his expertise and resources and he facilitated the principal’s reflective practice
around both instructional and managerial issues. Evidence from the data collected
revealed that through his use of CLASS coaching strategies, Coach Logan
influenced and helped to shape the principal’s practice on two learning-centered
leadership dimensions: Instructional Program and Communities of Learning.
Quality Instruction Theme: Instructional Program
There was some evidence to support the finding that the CLASS Leadership
Coach influenced the principal’s practice within the learning-centered leadership
dimension of quality instruction. Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter (2006), cited
a number of studies that support learning-centered leaders as “knowledgeable about
and deeply involved in the instructional program of the school and are heavily
invested in instruction, spending considerable time on the teaching function” (p.11).
The VAL-ED data helped describe the results of the CLASS Coach’s influence on
the principal’s practice.
The VAL-ED data showed that the principal’s leadership was
“distinguished” in the area of “quality instruction.” The VAL-ED definition of
“quality instruction,” was those leadership behaviors that ensure “There are
effective instructional practices that maximize student academic and social
102
learning” (Porter, Goldring, Murphy, Elliot, Cravens, 2006, p. 4). This is linked
with the learning-centered leadership dimension, instructional program, which
Murphy, Elliot, Goldring and Porter (2006) define as those leadership practices that
engage the principal in “the core technology of teaching and learning” (p. 11). The
teachers ranked the principal’s practices as Distinguished, which could have been
the results of the coaching, because the coach was involved in working with the
principal in key areas such as instruction and staff development.
Documents and interviews provide evidence that showed how Mr. Archer
and Mr. Logan worked together to ensure that there was effective staff
development focused upon improving the instructional program. Every coaching
agenda had staff development as an item to be discussed and on three of the staff
development agendas the “Best Way of Teaching” was addressed. One strategy the
coach suggested to promote consistent high quality instruction was to develop the
concept of the “Best Way of Teaching” during professional development. The
principal stated that the coach “provided me with a program, sort of like the Best
Way of Teaching.” The “Best Way of Teaching” established the core teaching and
learning practices for the school directed at increasing student success.
The principal developed the “Best Way of Teaching” with the faculty at the
beginning of the year, in order to improve the instructional program by focusing
teachers on the instructional strategies that would help address the specific learning
needs of students who were underperforming. Murphy, Elliot, Goldring and Porter
(2006) state that effective learning-centered leaders, “work with teachers to
103
accentuate the use of instructional strategies that maximize student engagement at
high levels of success. He stated in his post interview, “we have collectively agreed
upon....good instructional strategies (and) one of the things we devised....is called
(Best) Way of Teaching, which is a compilation of different instructional
strategies.” On the list are Silent Sustained Reading (SSR), journal writing,
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE), Cornell Notes and
the Total Education System Support (TESS) model of direct instruction. Meeting
the vocabulary needs of students was one professional development topic as well.
Document analysis revealed that the “Best Way of Teaching” was first discussed
within the Leadership Team and then developed during three additional staff
development meetings. There is some evidence that the quality of leadership that
the principal provided in the area of the instructional program lead some teachers to
rate the principal’s behavior as “Proficient” in this area for implementing,
supporting, communicating, and monitoring quality instruction. According to the
survey, “A proficient leader exhibits learning-centered leadership behaviors at
levels of effectiveness that are likely to influence teachers positively and result in
acceptable value added to student achievement and social learning for all students”
VAL ED Survey Report, 2009).
Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior Theme: Communities of learning
Among the six core components under the learning centered leadership
framework (cite Murphy), “Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior” was an
104
area where the principal demonstrated key leadership behaviors. The practice of
promoting “communities of learning” is a critical concept within this core
component. This was a learning-centered leadership practice that was evident in
this case through the principal’s development of the professional learning
community structure. Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter (2006), hold that
“Learning-centered leaders...are vigorous promoters of professional development,
they nurture the growth of communities of professional practice, and they shape
school organizations to adhere to the principles of community” (p.16). This
learning-centered leadership dimension behaviors are linked with “culture of
learning” practices revealed in the VAL-ED data. The VAL-ED data showed that
the principal’s leadership was “distinguished” in the area of “culture of learning.”
The Learner Centered Leadership’s (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring & Porter, 2006)
definition of “culture of learning” are those leadership behaviors that ensure “There
are integrated communities of professional practice in the service of student
academic and social learning” (Porter, Goldring, Murphy, Elliot, Cravens, 2006, p.
4). Professional learning communities helped teachers collaborate on how to best
improve teaching and learning in order to meet students’ academic needs.
Mr. Archer explained that the school had begun some of the work necessary
to implement PLCs, but that there were critical components that needed developing
like collaboratively analyzing the data and adjusting practices as a result. The
principal stated that his coach helped him improve the PLC process for the teachers
105
and that Mr. Logan had “relayed some feedback on how to help me tighten it
(PLCs) back up”. Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and Porter (2006) state that learning-
centered leaders promote communities of professional practice that sustain a culture
of collaboration (p.18). One way this was done, was to ensure that analyzing data
within the group setting became a common practice for the teachers. The Coach
stated that it was important for the faculty to look at the data together in groups, in
order to “underscore what we are doing well and .... focus on two things that we
can maintain” or improve. Documents show that the principal provided vital
support and added value to the PLC culture at the school by establishing data
analysis and discussion of best practices as a way to become a community of
learners.
The principal believed that the success of students and teachers was
grounded in the effectiveness of the PLC. When asked what he does to ensure
student success, he stated, “I would say our professional learning communities are
our main structure in every department.” He ensured that there was structured time
allowing teachers to be engaged in PLCs. He stated that “every week every
department sets aside a common preparation period ... some departments, like the
English department, are more frequent than that, they collaborate and call
themselves professional learning communities.” One of the things the principal
changed this year, “was to increase....how (the faculty) function as professional
education communities and how teachers reflectively look at their practices through
their conversations and observations of each other.” Now the PLCs meet after each
106
benchmark “and analyze their data together.” They then, “come up with a plan for
re-teaching key standards that the students did not do well in” stated the principal.
The principal stated, “the PLCs had to come to a consensus on realistically how
many of those standards they can address and re-teach.” Documents show that
PLC topics were frequently on the agendas for the Leadership Team agendas and
staff development agendas. Group processing of the student performance data
occurred at least three times during this study. There is some evidence that some
faculty rated the principal the highest for the core component of “culture of
learning and professional behavior” placing him in the proficient category on this
dimension. The evidence demonstrates that with the support of the Coach’s
expertise, the principal was able to develop and implement the PLC culture in order
to have an impact on teacher practice.
The VAL-ED survey revealed that teachers rated the effectiveness of the
principal “highly effective”, with an average score of 4.08. Additionally, in the
area of quality instruction, the principal was rated “highly effective” with a score of
4.00. The principal was ranked Distinguished in the area of quality instruction and
culture of learning on the fall (2008) survey, which placed the principal in the
highly effective range. Through triangulation of the data collected to respond to
this research question, two emergent patterns of leadership behavior within the
learning-centered leadership framework emerged. Under the Core Component
“Culture of Learning,” the concept of “communities of learning” emerged, while
107
under the Core Component “Quality Instruction” the concept of “instructional
program” emerged.
Summary of Key Findings: Research Question One
The key findings for research question one were:
1. The coach’s use of the CLASS model had an impact on the principal’s
leadership practices on the Instructional Program and Communities of
Learning leadership dimensions.
2. There was an impact on the principal’ practices in the dimension of
“Instructional Program” as evidenced by the development of the “Best Way
of Teaching” and high ratings on the VAL-ED in the area of Quality
Instruction.
3. There was an impact on the principal’s practices on the Communities of
Learning leadership dimension of as evidenced by the collaborative PLC data
analysis and sharing of best practices. This is supported by the high rating on
the VAL-ED and the interviews in the area of Culture of Learning and
Professional Behavior.
Through the lens of the learning-centered leadership framework (Murphy,
Elliot, Goldring & Porter, 2006) and the CLASS Blended Coaching model (Bloom,
Castagna, Moir &Warren, 2005), the data from multiple, documents and the VAL-
ED was analyzed. The evidence demonstrated that the coach influenced the
principal by providing expertise, resources, and reflective practice that supported
the principal’s leadership practices. Evidence from the qualitative data analysis
108
revealed that the principal was influenced by the coach in two learning-centered
leadership dimensions of Instructional Program and Communities of Learning.
There is some evidence to support the conclusion drawn by the Assistant
Superintendent that, “one of the most powerful things that the Coaches come in
with (is that) they provide collaborative models/protocols that can be used” with
staff. This was the case when the Coach provided the construct for the “Best Way
of Teaching” and the new principal was responsible for designing and
implementing it in collaboration with his faculty. There is some evidence that the
faculty were well lead because the principal was well prepared to add value to the
development of the PLCs. They seem pleased with how he incorporated the use of
data to guide PLC discussions and analysis of outcomes. The Coach had had prior
experience with PLCs and working with faculty in implementing them. The
principal also lead the faculty to establish a set of core instructional strategies he
could expect the faculty to draw from. This was also an idea that his Coach had
influenced. As a result of the influence of his Coach, the principal planned and
implemented programs in ways that teacher perception of these behaviors rated his
effectiveness in the fall (2008) a 4.08, which is “very high.”
Research Question Two
In what ways does leadership practice influence the professional practice of
teachers?
109
Summary of the Data
VAL-ED Survey Results
Teachers rated the principal’s leadership behaviors on the VAL-ED in the
fall (2008) and spring (2009). The data previously reported in research question one
showed that over time (approximately four months) the principal continued to rank
as “Distinguished” across the majority of the Core Components and Key Processes.
The principal was rated proficient in all of the Key Process within the Core
Component of Culture of Learning. For the Core Component of Quality
Instruction, the principal was rated proficient in four of the six Key Process. . The
quantitative data provides some evidence for the effectiveness of the principal’s
learning-centered leadership behavior in key areas where he sought to influence
teacher practices.
Teacher interview data, February 2009
Teacher interviews provided information to support the influence the
principal had on teacher practice. The interviews took place after the principal had
worked with the coach for six months. Data were collected from eight teachers.
Each teacher represented the school across one or more subject areas and grade
levels. Pseudonyms for all the participants were used, and included their subject
and grade levels in order to show the context in which they represented the school.
Table 17 described the subject and grades taught at the high school.
110
Table 17. Pseudonyms for Teacher Participants
Name Subject Grades
Mr. Acton Geometry and Algebra II 9, 10, 11, 12
Mrs. Bailey English Language Arts 9
Mrs. Prima French Teacher 9, 10 11, 12
Mrs. Gale Physics Teacher 11, 12
Mr. Knape AP US History 11
Mrs. Jasper Special Education 9, 10 11, 12
Mrs. Pardie English Language
Learners
9, 10 11, 12
Mr. Herber Algebra and Geometry 9, 10 11
During the interview, teachers were asked about how their teaching
practices had changed as a result of the principal’s leadership.
Mr. Acton reported:
It has been made clear to all of the staff that instruction is the
priority and that teachers need to do all that they can with respect
to best teaching practices and about what they know from research
based things to get students engaged in learning.
He added that he believed the principal had made it clear that:
Teachers should not be quick to make excuses for their students’
lack of engagement or lack of success. But rather that teachers
need to do all that they can with respect to best teaching practices
111
and about what they know from research based things to get
students engaged in learning and going forward.
When asked to give specifics about whether the principal’s leadership had
influenced his instructional choices, he responded:
Yes, I’m using visual aids more and more and with color. On many
lessons I will supply some basic notes for the students. I’m
working on Special Ed and ESL right now. That’s a frontier that
I’m just scratching the surface of.
He also explained that he was now more focused on:
The issue of guided practice, I’m sharpening my skills in that area.
I’m trying to make the length of my lecture time more concise so
I’m not lecturing for long seconds of time. I do a lot more checking
for understanding then I ever did before in my previous teaching
context.
Mrs. Bailey reported:
We have TESS training this year which the math department has
had for the past two years and the English department spent a
whole day with a TESS trainer and he has come in to all of our
classes on two occasions to watch us teach and have a debriefing
afterwards so all of us have been taught about all the different
suggestions that he has given us.
She continued with: “We are an AVID school and each teacher is trained to teach
kids how to take Cornell notes.”
Mr. Knape reported: “I have been using SSR (Silent Sustained Reading)
and more journal writing.” He also added that his instruction changed as a result of
the principal’s focus on quality instruction for all students.
He continually gives us his best practices as far as different levels
of thinking and higher thinking skills, we are also encouraged to
teach kids, there a lot of different strategies that other teachers use
112
like kids taking over to teach part of a lesson or having kids work
in cooperative groups. Reciprocal teaching.
He also added that to specifically address the English Learners, he explained:
I have to break down the vocabulary. One of the examples I gave
was, can you draw a picture of the word, can you give me
synonyms and adjectives, can you use it in a sentence?
Mrs. Pardie reported:
In daily lessons what we are doing this year is incorporated the
TESS model and direct instruction quite a bit. The new brain based
research shows a very compact teaching day. So you have your
warm up activity, then you teach for twenty minutes then you do
your guided practice then you have your independent practice.
Then you also go back and set aside times for students that didn’t
get it. It’s one of those things that the math teachers, the English
teachers, they are all incorporating this new brain based research in
learning into their classrooms and into their lessons. Of course EL
strategies are used, they are not new but they are something that
we keep in the forefront of our minds to make sure that we are
meeting the needs of every student. And that is just good for
students, not just for EL students but the strategy is overall just
good for kids.
She also explained that this year was different because:
I see the strategy of the very focused use of direct instruction. It’s a
new way of looking at it. A very focused use of direct instruction
as well as utilizing your assessment data within that classroom;
that short amount of time you have in that period to re-teach if
necessary; pretty much just how the needs of the students can be
met. And you are ensuring that those students who may not
necessarily pass through that concept are in fact mastering that
concept by the end of the week. We are excited to be working with
TESS because they bring a lot of really cool ideas.
Mrs. Gale reported: “I am doing etymology in my classes for the
vocabulary, so they have to break down the word and find the meaning of it.”
113
When asked about how she thought this strategy helped English Learners, she
replied:
It does because, for example, they know that hydro means water,
so if they listen to the word “electricity,” then they know
“electricity” from “water.” They don’t have to know the meaning
of hydro and electricity.
Mrs. Prima reported:
For the struggling students and the EL students a lot of it goes
hand in hand. All the students need visual teaching. They all need
guidance through the practices and concept. That is what we do in
the class; we use a lot of visuals and try to relate to the real world.
I’m not just teaching but I’m actually working with the students so
that I know exactly where they are confused and how to help them
out.
Mrs. Jasper reported:
I do things like discussing the reading of articles and how the
reading is going to impact the students in many different ways. I
think that changes how we work in the classroom.
When asked about the new strategies that she had incorporated into her daily
lessons, she explained:
We do a lot of differentiated instruction. Concept development,
Socratic seminar, critical thinking skills, vocabulary strategies,
non-verbal representation. We don’t just focus on words that they
are going to read. We take it beyond their reading level, practice,
modeling and it is pretty intense.
When teachers were asked about the support for student success and
professional development, they reported a consistent use of professional learning
community activities.
114
Mrs. Bailey reported:
We are working together as an English department and as same
grade teachers. We have PLC meetings every week, which stand
for Professional Learning Communities. So we are constantly
sharing ideas and lesson plans and reviewing literature that goes
with a particular standard. And giving each other ideas and
suggestions.
When asked about the opportunities for professional growth, she shared:
Every other Thursday is dedicated to staff meetings. So all of the
math teachers are talking together. Also we have a common
conference period, that helps out. Every staff development day
gets us together as an entire school and we discuss different things
at that point. We visited Ventura high school and we looked at
their teacher practice and their overall practice and what they do
for student success.
When asked about how that has changed her instruction, she explained:
We are getting ready for the Exit Exam, which is in March so this
week in our meeting we talked about different ways for reviewing
and we have a Princeton review book that we teachers have
purchased and we use the practices tests that we have the kids take.
From that we are able to correlate which standards they were
especially strong on or which ones they need to review on. So I
can look back on the teachers’ literature book on certain lessons
that correspond with that standard, I will be able to hit those more
strongly before the Exit Exam.
She also stated:
I have been talking to other teachers on how to work with EL kids.
I hope some people have incorporated some things. There were
certain ... methodologies that I was able to use.
Mr. Acton reported:
With faculty meetings at the end of each Thursday or whenever we
have faculty meetings, I feel like there are many times when
practices, instructional practices tend to come up in the
115
discussions, a lot of times, and are helpful to reflect on, within
those contexts.
He explained that during the professional learning community:
There is a considerable amount of time just looking at data, with
respect to test data and how to interpret it. And within departments
how can we use that test data to get implications for the way that
we can redirect our teaching, or refocus our teaching.
When asked about what he had gained from these PLC activities, he shared:
Yes. We go over the assessment data as a group and we discussed
different areas where the students are lagging and we discussed the
cause that might be responsible for it. That tells me that our
teaching, that there are certain concepts that have to be brought
back because of the lack of it.
Mrs. Pardie reported:
In terms of the professional development, we look at strategies and
ways that help meet student’s needs...There are a lot of different
strategies and a lot of different techniques to try to meet the needs
of individual students.
When asked about what she had learned from the professional learning community
activities, he stated: “Vocabulary, and CAHSEE prep, looking at how it is related
to the other tests.”
Mr. Knape reported: “Professional development based on a poll from staff
and leadership. It’s not something that is random, it is actually the teachers saying
what they need.” When asked to describe how the principal has influenced his
practice this year,
Well, he has allowed faculty to present our professional
developments that really, really stayed, and really grow the
leadership within our school. And help teachers realize that he
knows where they are and providing the means for faculty to give
116
input as to what they feel they need professional development on;
what areas are relevant to them. He really has increased the
involvement with which the staff development applies to the staff.
When asked about how these collaborative professional development activities
have changed his practices this year, he said:
By setting an example; you do what you see. But also in
conversation, in discussions, in leading the opportunities for
collaboration, all those things provide, I guess, when you’re
climbing up a cliff it’s really great to have things to hold on to. All
these opportunities we have for collaboration and for leadership
are for P.D. and for all these different things, are those little
handles, those little knobs you can hold on to, to push you up to the
next level.
Classroom Observations
Observations of six classrooms took place on the campus through the course
of one day in the spring of 2009. These classroom observations were conducted in
math, science, English, history, foreign language and special education for about
thirty minutes each. Classroom data were collected in categories based on the
learning-centered leadership framework. Under the category for “Instructional
Strategies,” were listed many of the same strategies reflecting the school’s “Best
Way of Teaching.” The strategies observed were: cooperative groups, Direct
Instruction, Cornell Notes, think-pair-share, white-board check for understanding,
graphic organizers, SDAIE methods for vocabulary, journal reflections, advanced
organizers, Socratic seminars, and re-teaching. The most prevalent strategy
observed was the use of vocabulary in five of six classrooms. The second most
117
common strategy observed was the use of Cornell notes in four of the six classes
observed. Observations provided evidence for the implementation of key strategies
related to the instructional program and practices that were gained from the
communities of practice activities. Documents also provided additional
information.
Document Analysis
Documents were collected from a variety of school sources: professional
development agendas, principal’s presentations and leadership team agendas. These
documents provided support for analyzing the principal’s practices which occurred
within the areas that had the potential for influencing teachers’ practices. The
primary document analyzed for this study was the “Best Way of Teaching” that
provided faculty with a list of instructional strategies that they could draw from and
that the principal expected to see in the class. The leadership agendas and
professional development agendas made it clear that the principal collaborated with
the faculty on the creation of the “Best Way of Teaching.” These documents also
confirm that there was planning and implementation of professional learning
community activities, such as data analysis and discussion of best practices.
Planning was done through the school leadership team and their agendas have PLC
regularly noted. The professional development presentation slides and agendas
support the implementation of professional learning communities at the school site.
118
Analysis of the Data
The lens used for analyzing the data to respond to research question 2 was
the learning-centered leadership framework (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, & Porter,
2006). Through triangulation of the quantitative and qualitative data, two patterns
of behavior within the learning-centered leadership framework emerged:
instructional program and communities of learning. This analysis revealed how the
principal’s effective learning-centered leadership behaviors influenced teachers’
practices on these two dimensions. Teachers articulated the changes they made in
their practices as a direct result of the influence of the principal’s leadership and
expectations for their culture of professional practice.
Instructional Program Theme
The effective learning-centered leader is one who has an “affinity for the
core technology of teaching and learning (and who is) knowledgeable about and
deeply involved in the instructional program” (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring & Porter,
2006, p. 11). Mr. Archer influenced teacher practices by creating with them a core
body of instructional strategies that they could use to ensure high quality
instruction. Data from teacher interviews, observations, documents and the VAL-
ED demonstrate the principal’s impact on teacher practices.
Mr. Archer explained that the development of the “Best Way of Teaching,”
was done with the faculty, so that teachers were “accountable to what we have
collectively agreed upon as a staff for good instructional strategies.” He notes that
119
he and his assistant principals, “encourage teachers using those strategies or give
them ideas on how to enhance the lesson.” Some of the strategies within the “Best
Way of Teaching” are SSR, journal writing, SDAIE, Cornell notes and the TESS
model of direct instruction. Mr. Knape said, “I have been using SSR (Silent
Sustained Reading) and more journal writing.” Mrs. Prima described how her
instructional practice had changed, because she used, " a lot of visuals and try to
relate to the real world.” Additionally, Mrs. Pardie uses SDAIE strategies that
were not new, but now, “something that we keep in the forefront of our minds to
make sure that we are meeting the needs of every student.” Vocabulary strategies
were part of the professional development done within the PLC. Mr. Knape also
shared that to improve his students’ vocabulary, he had them “draw a picture of the
word” and then ask students to find synonyms and adjectives, and they had to use
the word in a sentence.” Mrs. Jasper added that she increased the use of
“vocabulary strategies, non-verbal representation into lessons.” Mr. Acton in
response to how her practice had changed stated, “Yes, I’m using visual aids more
and more and with color (and) on many lessons I will supply some basic notes for
the students.” Observation data verified that five of six teachers had evidence of
vocabulary strategies in place for students; four of the six classrooms had evidence
of students using Cornell Notes. Teachers could improve their instructional
program by drawing from the “Best Way of Teaching” strategies that they agreed
were effective.
120
Other strategies that were part of the Best Way of Teaching, stem from the
Total Education System Support (TESS) model of direct instruction. This was as a
program designed to improve the pedagogy in math and English lesson design.
Mrs. Pardie explained, “You have your warm up activity, then you teach for twenty
minutes then you do your guided practice then you have your independent
practice.” This approach was new for the two departments. One English teacher
explained that they were “incorporating this new brain based research in learning
into their classrooms and into their lessons (which are based on) a very focused use
of direct instruction.” It was new because teachers needed to be sure students were
mastering the material and “re-teach if necessary.” TESS provided coaches who
observed teachers and gave feedback based on their instructional model. Murphy,
Elliot, Goldring, and Porter (2006), state that learning-centered leaders may help
provide coaches and that they ensure that teachers, “have both direct and indirect,
formal and informal, guidance as they work” (p. 17). The principal’s learning-
centered leadership in the instructional program dimension helped to ensure the
faculty implemented solid instructional strategies.
Culture of Learning and Professional Practice: Communities of learning
Learning-centered leaders according to Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and Porter
(2006) are “vigorous promoters of professional development, they nurture the
growth of communities of professional practice” (p. 16). The principal was
instrumental in developing the professional learning community practices and
121
professional development among the faculty and that influenced teacher practices.
Teacher interviews, principal interview, observations, documents and the VAL-ED
provide data that supports the impact the principal’s leadership made through the
professional learning community activities on teacher practices.
Mr. Archer ensured that teachers were engaged in developing as a
community of learners through the professional learning community activities. Mr.
Archer explained that professional learning community activities brought teachers
together to collaborate and “put their benchmarks together and analyze their data
together.” Teachers reported that the principal had established a consistent time to
meet for their PLCs and that the collaboration had been helpful in influencing their
practice. Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and Porter (2006) state that the learning-
centered leader ensures “the continual expansion of one’s knowledge and skills
focused on helping students succeed is the norm at their school” (p. 16). Mrs.
Bailey said, “We have PLC meetings every week... we are constantly sharing ideas
and lesson plans and reviewing literature that goes with a particular standard and
giving each other ideas and suggestions.” One outcome of these discussions was
the identification of standards the students “need to review on... I will be able to hit
those more strongly before the exit exam.” Mr. Acton shared, “With faculty
meetings at the end of each Thursday... I feel like there are many times when
practices, instructional practices tend to come up in the discussions, a lot of times,
and are helpful to reflect on.” Mrs. Pardie reported, that during the PLC’s “we look
at strategies and ways that help meet student’s needs.”
122
PLC meeting provided opportunities for teachers to share their best
practices and collaborate with their colleagues. This practice was supported by
Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and Porter (2006), who summarized research done by
Berman (1984), Little (1982) and Newmann (1997), stating that effective learning-
centered leaders, “actively promote the formation of a learning organization...and
the growth of communities of professional practice” (p.18).
Looking at student performance data became a fundamental aspect for the
school’s culture of professional practice. Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and Porter,
(2006) state that the effective learning-centered leader, “they ensure that
development opportunities and experiences flow from data on student achievement
(with a) focus on student learning. Mr. Archer stated that in their PLC, “they come
up with a plan for re-teaching key standards that the students did not do well in.”
Mr. Acton shared that during PLC meetings, “There is a considerable amount of
time just looking at data, with respect to test data and how to interpret it (and)
within departments how can we use that test data to get implications for the way
that we can redirect our teaching, or refocus our teaching.” Mr. Acton explained
that, “We go over the assessment data as a group and we discussed different areas
where the students are lagging and we discussed the cause that might be
responsible for it.” Research conducted by Venezky and Winfeld (1979) was
summarized by Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and Porter (2006), making the point that
effective learning-centered leaders, “promote the exchange of professional dialogue
about strengthening instruction” (p. 17). Documents from the Leadership Team
123
agendas confirm that Mr. Archer ensured that PLC meetings as part of the school’s
professional practice.
Mr. Archer valued the professional learning community culture and
reinforced it by ensuring that staff collaborated on their professional development.
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Walstrom, K. (2004) noted an
effective leader establishes organizational structures that nurture collaboration like
those in professional learning communities. Mr. Knape reported that Mr. Archer
gathered input from the faculty about what they felt they needed for professional
development. He states that Mr. Archer, “really has increased the involvement
with the staff development.” Strong collaboration was important for teachers and
Mr. Knape stated “I guess, when you’re climbing up a cliff it’s really great to have
things to hold on to (and) these opportunities we have for collaboration and for
leadership for P.D. and for all these different things are those little handles, those
little knobs you can hold on to, to push you up to the next level.” Teachers were
beginning to find communities of learning helpful for improving their practice.
The results of the VAL ED survey rated the principal as Distinguished in
the effectiveness of his learning-centered leadership behaviors. The VAL-ED
Principal Report defined a Distinguished leader as one who, “exhibits learning-
centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are virtually certain to
influence teachers positively” (p. 3). There was some evidence that the principal
effectively applied his leadership in the dimensions of the instructional program
and communities of learning. These areas positively influenced teacher practice.
124
Summary of Key Findings: Research Question Two
The key finding for research question two were:
1. The principal’s learning-centered leadership had some impact on teacher
practices as evidenced by teacher interviews, classroom observations, and
documents supporting the development and implementation of the “Best Way
of Teaching.”
2. The principal’s learning-centered leadership had some impact on teacher
practices as evidenced by teacher interviews, classroom observations and
documents supporting the implementation of professional learning
communities where teachers engaged in professional dialogue to analyze data,
share best practices, and work collaboratively to promote their professional
development.
There was some evidence that the principal’s behaviors impacted teachers’
practices through his focus on enacting effective leadership practices on two
learning-centered leadership dimensions: instructional program and community of
learning. The VAL-ED provided a foundation for validating the level of
effectiveness reported by the teachers. Teachers reported through the VAL-ED
survey results that the principal’s practices were Distinguished in the Core
Components of quality instruction and culture of learning, which meant that they
had the potential to influence teacher practices. This was evidenced through the
principal’s collaboration with the faculty and the leadership team in the
125
development of the “Best Way of Teaching.” This ensured that the teachers had an
understanding of the core instructional strategies to use for their lessons.
Classroom observations validated these core practices and there is some evidence
that teachers were implementing more of these high quality instructional practices.
Teachers’ actions within these two dimensions are evident and supported through
interview data and classroom observations. Professional learning community
activities were an integral part of the school’s professional culture and the
principal’s effective leadership practices ensured that collaboration was meaningful
and valuable. Teacher interviews provided examples for how PLC activities had
influenced teacher practices along the lines of data analysis, reteaching, reviewing,
test preparation and vocabulary development. The evidence suggested that teacher
practices were impacted by the principals’ effective learning-centered leadership.
Given the short time span and the low participation rate on the VAL ED survey
data, at the present time, the degree to which the principal influenced teacher
practice is inconclusive at this time.
Research Question Three
What organizational structures support the implementation of the coaching model?
126
Summary of the Data
Interview Data
Data collected to respond to research question three included interviews
conducted with the principal, the CLASS coach, the assistant superintendent of
instruction, and document analysis.
Principal interview, Fall 2008
During the interview, Mr. Archer was asked about his expectations for
coaching. He reported:
Well you know, my expectations come from a previous experience
I have had with coaching, actually two schools ago when I was
coaching at the middle school, the principal I was working with
had the coach teaching a special class or something, it was very
beneficial for me because he would often, when he met with the
coach, he would allow me to come in and be involved or let me
participate in the session.
Mr. Archer continued further and explained that he expected to be able:
To bounce ideas off of someone who has been a principal who has
experienced the good days and the bad days. So my expectations
with Mr. Logan have been just that, somebody that I can
confidentially run ideas by, ask if he’s done something like this
before in the past, what reactions he has gotten from staff, and his
supervisors.
Mr. Archer shared that the coach helped with specific needs:
I usually run all of our professional development agendas through
him, sample power points, sample handouts, you know getting
some feedback from that. He has helped me with the transition
between districts because I have come from having ten years in
one district where I know everyone there to a district now that is
very small and I barely know any of the people there. So if I get a
reaction from somebody in the new district and don’t know how to
127
interpret it he is usually able to give me some good advice on that;
how I should bring up the topic with that individual or to just roll
with the punches.
Principal interview, Spring 2009
Mr. Archer was asked how the coach might have supported his practices, he
reported:
Anytime I feel like I’m not going in the right direction I run it by
him. I ask what do you anticipate down the road, how do you feel
about it? If he says, “Oh yea I’ve done that or I’ve seen somebody
else do that and it worked out really well as long as you do this or
this. That could be instructional things or managerial things.
Mr. Archer added that there were some challenging personnel issues that the coach
helped him to address. He said that: “For some of them I’ll bounce them off him.
He’ll give me some suggestions and ways to word things in a positive light.”
When asked about the organizational structures that supported the implementation
of the coaching model, he reported:
We meet for one hour and it’s just right. I’ll come up with a list of
things I want to talk about. He asks about the things we talked
about last time, about the feedback. The two week span is perfect
because usually I’ll bring stuff to him and say I’m thinking about
doing this and by the next time it comes around I’ve already done a
few things. I think if it was once a month it’d be harder and you’d
lose track of things.
Coach interview, Spring 2009
Mr. Logan provided additional information about how he provided
resources to meet the principal’s immediate needs. He stated:
128
Some principals I’ve worked with, depending on their needs, and
what I’ll try to do is give them a copy that breaks it down. For
example when Mr. Archer left for Christmas break he was trying to
have a more accountability process or package with the evaluation
by the athletic director, principal of the head coaches as opposed to
groups. So I (gave) what I call a coaching assessment model.
He added:
I find out what my (principal’s) needs are then as I’m doing my
coaching and I try to provide them with some brief sources, I’m
not saying that this is what you should do but might be some things
you want to consider. It will bridge the gap if you have some
(thing) right now.
When asked about a successful coaching structure he said that it was
important to meet with the candidate/principal every two weeks.
Assistant Superintendent, Spring 2009
Mr. Arroyo was asked about the reasons the district had for investing in the
coaching program. He reported:
Just providing support for our new principal basically. Looking at
the experience of the coach and how to enhance our principal’s
ability to be successful their first year and that they had someone to
talk to besides one of us.
When asked about the process the district used to select a coach, he
explained that the main criteria was for a good fit between what they identified
were the principal’s needs and which coach might best provide assistance. He
stated that they selected a coach based on their experience and:
Knowing what people we thought would be a good fit. Actually it
was more base knowledge of the superintendent and others that
knew and saw what the principals were needing, and we also
talked to principals to see what they were needing.
129
Mr. Arroyo was asked to share what the expected outcomes were for the
coaching program. He replied:
their jobs that it was very helpful, beneficial. And also when they
get feedback from their staff they’re successful. We do surveys
with our staff and they have positive input that they as a principal
can dictate to their coaching experience. Also I’d like them to be
happier being a principal when they leave then when they came in.
The program was monitored in order to ensure that progress was being made
toward the outcomes. Mr. Arroyo stated:
I gather qualitative data about progress they’re making about
decisions they’re making. I base a lot of it on the success of their
school. If their students have made basic growth targets, if they
have methods as we go through, I expect them to create solutions
to problems that come up.
Mr. Arroyo provided information about how he supported the coaching program.
Mostly checking in with me. They do a check in with us. Of
course the confidentiality law is maintained. Then again I set up
times during the year just to meet with the coaches and also the
principals see how it’s going and what it looks like.
He added further:
I can check in on it, follow up with them, make it important but
pretty much how they’re working together. Monitoring the
progress but making sure it’s successful is more at the front than
what’s happening now.
When asked about his expectations regarding the relationship between the
coach and the principal, he stated: “Confidentiality is number one (and) also that
they have a relationship where they can talk.” He added that the coach provides
immediate support to principals: “That’s probably one of the most powerful things
130
that the coaches come in with; they provide collaborative models/protocols that can
be used inside.”
The interview data pointed to the kinds of organizational structures that
should be in place to support a successful coaching program (Bloom, Castagna, &
Warren, 2003; Strong, Barrett & Bloom, 200; Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Hansford
and Ehrich, 2006). The school district and the coach shared responsibility for
ensuring that these components materialize. In his interview, the principal reported
examples of how the coach met specific, immediate needs and examples of tools
the coach provided that were useful to him. The coach and the superintendent
provided examples in their interviews of the organizational structures they applied.
Documents that supported the coach’s organizational structures came primarily
from the coaching agendas.
Document Analysis
Data from the coaching agendas and professional development agendas
supported the coach’s capacity to meet the principal’s immediate needs. One of the
primary needs of the principal was for quality staff development. The coaching
agendas all had professional development as a topic to be discussed between the
coach and the principal. Professional development agendas were focused on the
business of teaching and learning. These documents showed that the coach was
focused on meeting important needs of the principal for improving the instructional
program.
131
Analysis of the Data
The analytical frameworks used for the analysis of the data collected for
research questions three were drawn from the research on effective coaching
programs conducted by Hansford and Ehrich, (2006), Neufeld and Roper (2003),
and the CLASS model developed by Bloom, Castagna, and Warren (2003). The
context for the coaching program included support from the district leadership and
the CLASS coach. The district’s leadership coaching program had several key
organizational structures in place to ensure the maximum impact of the coaching.
According to Neufeld & Roper (2003), “The context must be right for
coaching to work and district leaders should ...provide clear, explicit, and
continuing support for the coaching program” (p.11). The Assistant Superintendent
stated that the purpose of the coaching program was “to enhance our principal’s
ability to be successful their first year.” Establishing the expectations for the
coaching program at the beginning and determining if there was a connection and a
working relationship between the coach and the principal were important
components to the success of the program. Monitoring the success of the coaching
program in this case was the assistant superintendent’s responsibility. He
completed this task throughout the year by continually checking on the progress of
the program. The Assistant Superintendent reported that he, “set up times during
the year just to meet with the coach and also the principals (to) see how it’s going.”
Overall, the district leadership was dedicated to “providing support for our new
132
principal,” according the Assistant Superintendent. The success of the coaching
program was likely due in part to the organizational support given by the district
leadership and the coach. Support was also provided through the district by
ensuring that there was a good match between the coach and principal
An effective match for coaching was primarily determined by finding a
coach with the kind of expertise that would support the principal’s needs at that
school. Hopkins-Thompson (2000) notes that a successful program must consider
its own criteria for matching and Hopkins and Ehrich (2006) note the importance of
matching expertise with the principal’s needs. The value of a good match was
supported by the Assistant Superintendent stated that they made the match by
“looking at the experience of the coach,” which would “enhance our principal’s
ability to be successful their first year.” The superintendent and other district
leadership identified what the new principal would need, in order to be successful
at the school and then they sought to find a coach that they thought would be a
good fit. The coach in this case had had thirty years of administrative experience
and was a match with the principal for helping meet his needs, because he came
with specific expertise in areas that the principal would be actively engaged in
implementing professional learning communities. The principal reported that,
“Coach was helping set up the process because he’s had PLCs in his two former
schools.” The success of the principal’s coaching experience was due in part to a
good match with his coach’s expertise, and the appropriate structures were in place
to support the coaching. The coaching program in this case study realized three
133
key components of district support, clear expectations and good matching, as well
as four other components that were within the organizational purview of the coach.
There are four organizational components that the CLASS coach was
responsible for ensuring. According to Bloom, Castagna, Warren (2003), Strong,
Barrett and Bloom, (2002) and Hansford and Ehrich (2006), coaches should do the
following to provide structure for a successful program: 1) Coaching sessions
should be organized so that there is a consistent and uninterrupted time to meet; 2)
The coach should structure the session around addressing specific needs of the
principal; 3) The coach should provide useful tools for the principal; and 4) The
coach must protect the confidentiality of the coaching sessions.
There were specific and regular meeting times dedicated to the coaching
sessions. Successful coaching programs had a consistent time set aside for the
coaching session (Hopkins-Thompson, 2000). The principal and the coach met for
one hour, every two weeks. The interview with the principal and the coaching
agenda documents provided evidence of regular meetings. The coach stated that he
would “meet with the candidate/principal every two weeks.” The principal verified
that meets were every two weeks and that, “The two week span is perfect.” This
practice was consistent with the CLASS coaching model as suggested in the
CLASS Professional Development training manual (p. 5.5).
The principal set the agenda for the coaching sessions in order to meet his
immediate needs. According to Strong, Barrett and Bloom, (2002), CLASS
coaching was based on meeting the needs of the principal.The principal stated, “I’ll
134
usually come up with the events and say hey we’re going to do this and this next
week and what do you think?” Specific and important topics were addressed, such
as professional development, personnel issues, and school logistics. The evidence
was also supported through the documents, as well as interviews. The principal
added, “I usually run all of our professional development agendas through him,
sample power points, sample handouts, you know getting some feedback from
that.” One important need that was met, was how to handle difficult personnel
issues. The coach helped with raising expectations of counselors to hold students
accountable for their rigorous course load, and how to deal with a teacher who had
excessive absences. The principal said, that his coach gave him “some suggestions
and ways to word things in a positive light” when handling personnel issues. The
coaching agendas demonstrate that the principal’s immediate needs were the focus
for their meetings.
The coach gave the principal some helpful tools to use with his school.
Bloom, Castagna, Moir and Warren (2005) contend that the coach must be able to
“provide expert information, advice, and resources” (p. 8). The coach stated, that
he gave logistical support by providing information, usually in a handout based on
whatever issue was at hand. He stated, “What I’ll try to do is give them a copy (or
document) that breaks it down.” One of the tools was an evaluation form for
athletic directors that he called a, “coaching assessment model.” Another tool was
a classroom observation tool for measuring quality instruction. The coach stated
that his job, as he saw it, was to find out what the “needs are (and) then as I’m
135
doing my coaching,...I try and to provide them with some brief resources.” The
coach was organized around meeting the principal’s needs and provided valuable
resources for the principal.
Confidentiality between the principal and the coach is critical if the
coaching experience is going to be a success (Bloom, Castagna &Warren, 2003).
The principal stated that for him one of the greatest values of being coached was to
have “somebody that I can confidentially run ideas by.” This is an ethical structure
that must be supported by the district as well. The Assistant Superintendent stated
that, “the confidentiality law is maintained,” especially when he was monitoring the
progress of the coaching program. He stated that, “Confidentiality is number one,
also that they have a relationship where they can talk.” Having a confidante can be
important for the growth and development of a principal’s process and skills.
Summary of Key Findings: Research Question Three
The key findings for research question three, based on evidence from the
interviews conducted with the principal (spring and fall), the coach, the Assistant
Superintendent as well as documents, were that several organizational structures
supported the coaching experience in this case study. These structures were: 1)
District support; 2) a good match; 3) clear expectations; 4) dedicated time for
coaching sessions; 5) meeting principal’s needs; 6) providing useful tools; and 7)
confidentiality was protected. Each of these organizational supports were enacted
through the district leadership and the coach. Multiple evidence sources showed
136
that the organizational integrity of the program was sustained and the coaching
program proved useful for the principal.
Summary
This chapter articulated the findings of the study within the framework of
the learning-centered leadership behaviors that have an impact on teacher practice
and the role of an effective coaching program that provides support for enacting
those leadership behaviors. Through mixed methodology and triangulation of both
the quantitative and qualitative data, the analysis in this chapter provide some
evidence on how coaching this principal may have lead to ensuring that his
effectiveness was high. There was some evidence provided by the results from the
VAL-ED through the pre and post administrations of the survey and the qualitative
data collected for this study. Document analysis and observations provided
additional support for these findings. There were data to support that the coach
influenced the principal’s practice within the context of two learning-centered
leadership dimensions: instructional program and communities of learning. There
was some evidence that the principal’s enactment of effective learning-centered
leadership behaviors on two dimensions: instructional program and communities of
learning had an influence on teachers’ practices. Teachers reported specific
examples of how their practice had changed as a result of the attention to quality
instruction and participation in professional learning community activities. Many
137
of the instructional practices that became the core pedagogy outlined in “The Best
Way of Teaching,” were observed in the classroom. The degree to which the
principal’s practice influenced teacher practice is inconclusive at this time due to
the short duration of this study and the low survey participation rate.
Finally, the level of influence of the coaching program on principal practice
was supported through support provided by seven key organizational structures
cited in the literature as important in effective coaching programs. The findings
within this case study were consistent with the literature for establishing a coaching
program that ensured the effective practices of a learning-centered leader.
138
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
“The changes we are seeking are deeper than we first thought.”
- Michael Fullan
Introduction
This chapter will review the problem of practice, purpose of the study,
research questions and the methodology utilized in this research. Additionally, it
will summarize the findings and discuss their theoretical implications. Finally, it
will present implications for policy, practice, and future research.
Problem Statement
The challenges facing educational leaders in urban schools where persistent
poverty, violence, language barriers and low achievement exist, have been beyond
the capacity of most people to effectively mitigate (Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis,
K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstron, K., 2004). The principal’s job has become
increasingly more demanding and complex. The nation-wide educational goal of
ensuring that all students are proficient by the year 2014 is both inspiring and
daunting for leaders who work with students in the urban setting with a history of
low performance.
139
Urban school leaders, especially new principals, need to be supported
within the context of their day to day challenges, if they are to effectively support
teachers and improve the learning outcomes for their students. The typical
administrative preparation program is not sufficient for producing principals who
demonstrate mastery of their professional standards (Darling-Hammond, LaPoint,
Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007). This is particularly true for those who lead in
urban schools (Cambron-McCabe and Cunningham, 2004). Coaching and
mentoring have the potential to fill the gap in principal’s skills and knowledge and
effectively increase their leadership capacity with some speed.
The Coaching Leaders to Attain Student Success (CLASS, UC Santa Cruz)
program has an advantage over mentoring programs, because it is a model that
allows the principal to learn quickly on the job. Grant (2001), made the point that
coaching facilitates learning and that it has the advantage of utilizing the coaches
expertise to improve learning. Improving the skills and knowledge of educational
leaders was important because strong principals are needed for the kinds of
challenges they must address within the urban educational context.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to investigate how working with a
CLASS leadership coach impacted an urban high school principal’s practices. The
primary focus for their work together was within the context of the California
140
Professional Standards for Educational Leadership (CPSELS). Standard #2 of the
CPSELs states that, “A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes
the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture
and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional
growth.” This standard reflects the learning-centered leadership dimensions of
instructional program and communities of learning. There is some evidence that
the principal in this study realized significant mastery. He earned an overall rating
of Distinguished, which is defined in the Principal’s Report as a principal who,
“exhibits learning-centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are
virtually certain to influence teachers positively and result in strong value-added to
student achievement and social learning” (VAL-ED Principal Report, p. 3). As
defined by the VAL-ED, his practices were rated Distinguished overall, which
meant that his practices could influence teacher practices and impact student
achievement. This was further supported by data from teacher interviews,
documentation, and classroom observations. Becoming a masterful learning-
centered leader is the next step in the evolution of educational leadership.
Methodology
This purposeful mixed methods case study drew qualitative data from the
pre and post VAL-ED survey and qualitative data was developed from interviews,
observations and documents. The principal was interviewed in the Fall, and again
141
in the Spring. The coach, the Assistant Superintendent, and eight teachers
representing all of the core subject areas and grade levels were interviewed.
Classroom observations provided data that determined the kind of practices that
were evident and linked to the principal’s influence. Documents were analyzed for
supporting evidence triangulated with the other data sources. These data sources
were coded and analyzed for patterns that emerged to determine the specific
findings for each research question. In the following section, the findings for each
research question are presented.
Research Questions
This case study addressed three research questions designed to identify the
characteristics of an effective coaching program, the impact that coaching had on
school leadership, and the impact that the school leadership had on teacher
practices.
Research Question One for the study was: How does working with a CLASS
leadership coach influence the leadership practices of an urban school
principal?
The results from the data analysis revealed that the coach had an impact on
the principal’s practice in two distinct learning-centered leadership dimensions:
instructional program and communities of learning. There were specific areas of
performance where the principal sought the coach’s guidance and support.
142
Through regular opportunities to interact in direct observation of the principal’s
practice, the CLASS coach provided support through reflective feedback,
instructional guidance, and resources. This support enabled the principal to work
in collaboration with his staff to develop the school’s “Best Way of Teaching” and
influenced their professional learning community practices. Addressing the
identified needs of the principal in the context of his work is an effective practice
supported by the literature (Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom,
2004). The principal reported that he consulted with his CLASS coach on important
issues and that he provided feedback that “helped me on how to think of (them)
differently.” Additionally, the principal stated that the coach “was able to help me
articulate” important issues when working with the faculty. This feedback and
support from the coach was in alignment with the literature. Peterson (2004)
contends that effective coaching should be job embedded and provide reflection,
analysis and feedback in order to enhance the principal’s effectiveness. The data
analysis in Chapter 4, provided some evidence showing that the coach helped to
ensure that the principal was effective.
Results from the VAL-ED survey reveal that the principal was rated the
highest performance level of “Distinguished” on the core components of “quality
instruction” and “culture of learning.” His practice in these two areas was verified
through teacher interviews and documentation. Such high ratings for a new
principal were not surprising, given that these areas were directly supported by the
coaching. Thatch (2002) found that leadership effectiveness increased by 60% as a
143
result of one-to-one coaching. The effectiveness of his work with the CLASS
coach was also reflected in the successful leadership of the principal.
Post interview data from the principal supported the notion that he was
satisfied with the coaching program, because he stated that he would recommend
coaching to other principals. This response was congruent with the literature that
supported the notion of principals consistently rating their coaching experience as
helpful and value added to their preparation (Davis, Hammond, LaPoint, &
Meyerson, 2007). Strong, Barrette, & Bloom (2002) stated that results from their
case study of thirty-one new principals who participated in coaching, showed that
their “responses were overwhelmingly positive” (p. 23). Principals are likely to
have experienced high satisfaction, because coaching was a positive influence on
their practices.
Research Question Two: In what ways does leadership practice influence the
professional practice of teachers?
Research question number two yielded positive examples of the principal’s
practice from teachers who related the impact the principal had through his
leadership on their practices. The body of evidence supporting the conclusions for
this research question came from the VAL-ED data, teacher interviews,
observations and documents. The teachers responded positively, 65% of the time,
when asked to describe how the principal had influenced their practice. Two main
themes emerged from the data that pointed out that the principal’s influence was
144
greatest within the learning-centered leadership dimensions of “instructional
program” and “culture of learning”.
The literature on instructional leadership supports the idea that teachers’
practices can be influenced when the leader is focused on the business of teaching
and learning (Coldren & Spillane, 2007). The principal provided the leadership for
the development of the Best Way of Teaching which identified the quality
instructional practices that he expected to see in the classroom. Teachers reported
in their interviews that they used these strategies and additional evidence was
supplied to support this finding by the classroom observations. According to
Marzano (2005), the following behaviors have a strong correlation to student
achievement: knowledge of instruction, .20; monitoring, .25; focus, .24; and
involvement in instruction, .20. These practices are part of an instructional leader’s
skill base and have the potential to impact student achievement.
The principal’s practice of building better functioning professional learning
communities was aligned with the learning-centered leadership dimension of
communities of learning. The influence this practice could have on teacher
practices was supported by the literature (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, Porter, 2006).
When asked directly about the impact on their practice, six out of eight teachers, or
75% of them, gave examples of how having participated in the work of the
professional learning community influenced their practice. Primarily the math and
English teachers reported that they analyzed data together, discussed reteaching
145
strategies and shared best practices with each other as a result of support structures
the principal had put into place to enable their practice.
Effective leadership creates a community of learning. DuFour (2002)
pointed out that his school improved when he became a learning-centered principal
who ensured that his teachers focused on learning within the culture of their
professional learning community. Marzano (2005) demonstrated that there was .25
correlation with achievement when there was an effective school culture where
cooperation and community existed among staff. Schools with a cooperative
culture among faculty experienced greater student achievement (Lee and Smith,
1996). There was some evidence that the impact of the principal’s leadership on
teachers’ practices through implementation of the professional learning community
model has the real potential to increase student achievement.
Research Question Three: What organizational structures support the
implementation of the coaching model?
Research question three sought to ascertain the key components that
provided the structure for the coaching program. Evidence from the interviews
with the Assistant Superintendent, the coach, and the principal provided data for
the analysis in this study. Two findings emerged from the data that showed there
were key external structures that supported the implementation of the coaching
model from the district office and an several key internal support structures utilized
by the coach that supported the coaching process.
146
The district provided support through the efforts of the Assistant
Superintendent of Instruction who ensured that there was a good match between the
coach and the principal, that there were clear expectations and that progress was
monitored on a regular basis. This support structure aligned with the literature on
successful coaching programs (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Furthermore, Hansford
and Ehrich (2006) concluded in their study that one of the most frequently cited
negative factors in a mentoring program was a mismatch between the mentor and
the mentee. Therefore, it was important for the district to mitigate this by ensuring
that the expertise of the coach matched the needs of the principal. In this case, the
coach provided expertise in the learning-centered leadership dimensions of
instructional program and community of learning.
The coach provided structure for the process by ensuring that there was a
regular time to meet, the principal’s needs were addressed, useful resources were
provided and confidentiality was protected. Evidence from the interviews and
documents revealed the importance of this support structure and the research
literature supported its value (Neufeld &Roper, 2003; and Strong, Bennett, &
Bloom, 2002). Effective support structures for the coaching program are important
if principals are going to realize the benefit expert coaches can have on building
their leadership capacity.
147
Discussion of Findings and Theoretical Implications
The findings from the study provided some evidence, that although new to
the position, working with a CLASS coach influenced the leadership practices of
the principal. Based upon data analysis through the learning-centered leadership
framework (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring and Porter, 2006) there was also some
evidence that the principal’s skills and knowledge on the dimensions of
instructional program and communities of learning had an impact on the practices
of the teachers. Murphy, Elliot, Goldring and Porter (2006) articulated the specific
behaviors of a learning-centered leader and built their framework on the significant
research done on other leadership constructs such as instructional and
transformational leadership, distributive leadership and professional learning
communities, as well as social justice leadership. Effective principal behaviors
established by these constructs were the foundation for the primary instrument used
for this study, the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED).
VAL-ED survey data provided some evidence that the principal’s learning centered
leadership practices were related to his work with the CLASS coach, by virtue of
his proficiency ratings in the core components of quality instruction and culture of
learning. Building critical leadership skills and knowledge through a coach’s
transfer of their expertise supported this principal in his capacity to influence
teacher practices and potentially realize greater student achievement.
148
Suggestions for Future Research
Few would argue that more research in the field of education is needed if
outcomes for student are going to continue to improve. The body of evidence
demonstrating the relationships between leadership behaviors and teacher practices
continues to evolve. Additionally, understanding the impact teacher practices have
on student achievement is also relatively new. Three areas for future research are
suggested:
1. Experimental studies to determine the causal link between leadership
coaching and improved student outcomes.
2. Experimental studies to determine the correlation between student
achievement and the leadership behaviors identified in the learner centered
leadership framework (Murphy, Elliot, Goldring and Porter, 2006)).
3. Long term study of the impact of CLASS coaching on transforming
principal’s leadership behaviors to demonstrate that the behavior is sustained
over time.
The goal of educational support programs is to improve student outcomes.
This study traced the influence the coach had on the principal’s practices,
specifically with the implementation of professional learning communities and the
instructional program. The next step was to trace the principal’s leadership
behavior and articulate the impact on teachers’ practices. A step, not taken in this
study, would be to determine the relationship between teachers’ specific practices
149
and improved student outcomes. As administrative programs and district
leadership begin to add the support structure of coaching in order to improve the
capacity of their principals, more research should be done to link the coaching
process to student outcomes.
An important research base to develop would be to continue to unpack the
skills required for successful leadership practices (Leithwood, 2004). By
determining the correlation between the core components and key processes and
the influence they have on achievement, a more potent case might be made that
could better influence principal’s practices Marzano (2005) made the case for the
correlation that specific leadership behaviors have on student achievement. For
example, Marzano (2005) reported that there is a .25 correlation between student
achievement and a principal acting on fulfilling his responsibility as a Change
Agent. This kind of correlation is important information for principals. Additional
quantitative support for the specific leadership behaviors measured by the VAL-Ed,
connected with qualitative data such as interviews from teachers, would support the
viability of the assessment to promote the improvement of leadership practices.
Principals who receive feedback from the assessment might be more apt to make
adjustments, if they understood the impact on achievement that the adjustments
might realize. In contrast to Marzano’s (2005) findings, Murphy and his colleagues
(2007) contend that the correlation between leadership practice (enacting the core
components and key processes) with student achievement is indirect. This area
needs to be more fully studied.
150
Long term studies of CLASS coaching are needed to build an evidence base
for demonstrating the change in principal behavior over time. The blended
coaching model, that is the foundation for CLASS coaching, has the capacity to
transform the principal’s thinking and therefore improving their practices. This
transformative property is an important quality to study, because when leadership
practices improve, teachers are more likely to improve their practices. When a
district invests in a coach, they would like to have the confidence that their
principal’s growth will be sustained over time. More research must be done if the
long term viability of coaching is to be well understood.
Implications for Policy and Practices for Educators
As the pressure grows for school leadership to continually increase the
number of students who realize academic proficiency, so that all students have
become proficient by 2014, the more strategic, resourceful, and dedicated we must
be in order to close the achievement gaps in our “loosely coupled” educational
system. Elmore (2000) makes the point that it is time for schools to be accountable
for what students are expected to know and be able to do. In the opinion of this
researcher, it is also time for principals and other school leaders to be accountable
for the quality of their professional practices. The purpose of leadership is to get
results, but it is virtually impossible for urban principals to make great gains in
student achievement, without the existence of a significant support structure.
151
Policy makers demand higher accountability for increasing student
performance, and some districts are investing in supporting their school leadership
with coaching. They recognize the need to cultivate excellence in their principals
and this is especially true of new principals. Bloom, Castagna, and Warren (2003)
report that one-to-one, on-site coaching can help meet the needs of new principals.
Additional support is warranted within administrative preparation programs that
could benefit from having a coaching component (Peterson, 2002). Adequately
providing coaching as a support structure requires resources to be directed at this
intervention (Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr. M. T., &
Cohen, C., 2007). Leithwood (2004) notes that the political climate of the state is a
factor in how superintendents manage resources. Superintendents will ultimately
be the ones to make the pitch for allocating funds for coaching. They could be
better served if the research on coaching was supported by more quantifiable
evidence. The evidence base helps school boards to make informed decisions on
which direction to dedicate limited resources.
Limitations
The study was limited by the scope of the case study and the constraints of
time and resources. Fieldwork was completed in four months, which limited the
time within which a change in practice could be measured in a pre-post assessment
such as the VAL-ED. Additionally, There were factors that could have influenced
152
the results of the VAL-ED that were not related to coaching. It was important to
recognize the impact external threats to validity have on the VAL-ED as an
instrument to measure principal’s effectiveness. The VAL-ED attempted to
mitigate the “halo effect” by requiring rates to identify their evidence sources;
however, at the beginning of the school year, when there was not much to
reference, it was possible for the principal to get a high rating due to the lack of
legitimate evidence from which to draw.
Conclusions
Although the research on coaching principals is in its infancy, this study
demonstrated that coaching provided the kind of support to an urban principal that
can help ensure they implement research-based practices in order to improve
student outcomes. Implementing research-based staff development strategies such
as professional learning communities and research-based instructional strategies
such as SDAIE and differentiated instruction can be done more successfully when
the principal is supported by a coach who has experience in leading such initiatives.
CLASS coaching helps to transform the principal’s awareness and cognition
around implementation of reform initiatives. If reform and the constant
improvement of our educational system are going to become a reality, then policy
makers must seriously consider how they invest in their school leaders’ capacity to
handle the dynamics of the change process. The evolution of education depends on
153
supporting everyone who has the responsibility of ensuring that no child is left
behind.
154
REFERENCES
Archer, J. (2006). Mentoring for new principals gains policy attention. Edweek,
September12, 2006, Retrieved May 2008 from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/contributors/jeff.archer.html
Bloom, G., Castagna, C., & Warren B. (2003, May). More than mentors: Principal
coaching. Leadership, 32(5), 20-23.
Bloom, G., Castagna, C., Moir, E., Warren, B. (2005). Blended coaching: skills
and strategies to support principal development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional
management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly.
18(3), 34-64.
Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The
Future of Children, 7, 55-71.
Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: weaving a
transformative framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration
Quarterly. 40; 77.
California Department of Education (2008). English-Language Arts percent at or
above proficient. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.html.
California Department of Education (2008), Mathematics percent at or above
proficient. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
html.
Cambron-McCabe, N. and Cunningham, L. (2002). Commission for the
Advancement of Educational Leadership: Opportunity for Transformation.
Educational Administration Quarterly 38(2), 289-299.
Cambron-McCabe, N., & McCarthy M. M. (2005). Educating school leaders for
social justice. Educational Policy, 19(1), 201-222.
Capper, C.A., Theoharis, G., Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for
preparing leaders for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration,
44(3), 209-224.
155
Coldren, A. F., & Spillane J. P. (2007). Making connections to teaching practice:
the role of boundary practices in instructional leadership. Educational
Policy, 21, 369.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publisher Inc.
Costa, J., L. & McLymont, E., F., (1998). Cognitive coaching the vehicle for
professional development and teacher collaboration. Paper presented at
Annual Meeting of the AERA. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortalcustom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.
Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8
th
habit – from effectiveness to greatness. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Council of Chief State School Officers (2008). Interstate school leaders licensure
consortium standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Retrieved: May
11, 2008 from www.ccsso. org/pdfs/isllcstd.pdf.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr. M. T., & Cohen, C.
(2007). Preparing schoollLeaders for a changing world: lessons from
exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Darling-Hammond, L., and Friedlaender, D. (2007). High schools for equity:
policy supports for student learning in communities of color. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. School
Redesign Network, Data Quest (2008). District Achievement Data.
Retrieved July 18, 2008, from
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AcntRpt2007.
DuFour, R. (2002). The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership,
59(8).
DuFour, R., DuFour, R. and Eaker, R. (2002). Getting started reculturing schools
to become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: a
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree.
156
Educational Research Service (2000). The principal, keystone of a high-achieving
school: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need. Washington, DC:
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement.
Washington, DC:Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/ results/res1102elmore.html.
Elmore, R. (2003, November). A plea for strong practice. Educational
Leadership, 62(3), 6-10. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from:
http://www.oaesa.org/k-8/Library/APLEAFORSTRONG PRACTICE.doc.
Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Grant, A. (2001). Towards a psychology of coaching. School of Psychology-
University of Sydney. Sydney, Australia.
Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Cravens, X., (2007). Assessing
learning-centered leadership: connections to research, professional
standards, and current practices. Vanderbilt University: Tenn,
Griffiths, K. (2005). Personal coaching: A model for effective learning. Journal of
Learning Design, 1(2), 55-65.
Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial
to instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational
Administration, 30(3), 35.
Hallinger, P. (2007). Research on the practice of instructional and transformational
leadership: Retrospect and prospect. ACER Research Conference 2007.
Hallinger, P., Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school
effectiveness: a review of empirical research, 1980-1995, Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32, 1, 5-44.
Hansford, B., and Ehrich, L. (2005). The principalship: How significant is
mentoring? Journal of Educational Administration. 44;1.
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 11-24.
157
Harris, A. & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass.
Management in Education. 22, 31-34. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from
http://mie.sagepub.com
Hess, F., Kelly, A. (2007). Learning to lead: what gets taught in principal
preparation programs. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244-272.
Houle, J. C. (2006). Principals under pressure to improve schools and they are
prepared? Professional Development for Urban Principals in
Underperforming Schools. Education & Urban Society. 38(2), 142-159.
Kose, B. W. (2007). Principal leadership for social justice: uncovering the content
of teacher professional development. Journal of School Leadership. 17(3),
276-312.
Lambert, L. (1998, April). How to build leadership capacity. Educational
Leadership. 55,17-19.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its
effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students.
American Journal of Education, 104(2), 103-147.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (2001). Restructuring high school for equity and
excellence: what works. Teachers College: Columbia University.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129.
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning (Learning from the Leadership
Project Executive Summary). New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. L. (1998). Mapping the conceptual terrain of
leadership: a critical Point of departure for cross-cultural studies. Peabody
Journal of Education, Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 31-50.
Leskiw, S., and Singh, P. (2007). Leadership development: Learning from best
practices. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 28(5), 444-
464.
Lopez, G. R. (2003). The (racial neutral) politics of education: A critical race
theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39 (1), 68-94.
158
Loveless, T. (2001). How are American students doing? The 2001 Brown Center
Report on American Education, 1(2). Washington, D. C.: The Brookings
Institution.
Marks H. M., Printy S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: an
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly,39(3), 370-397.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that
works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education: revised and expanded from case study research in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Moir, E. (2003). Launching the next generation of teachers through quality
induction. Santa Cruz, CA: NCTAF State Partners’ Symposium.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S.N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006, August). Learning-
centered leadership: a conceptual framework. New York: The Wallace
Foundation.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S.N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006, October). Leadership
for learning: A researched-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. New
York: The Wallace Foundation.
Murphy, J., Elliot, S., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. (n. d.). Leaders for productive
schools. Vanderbilt University: Wallace Foundation.
Murphy, J., (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: new
blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 176.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (2005). Retrieved March 03, 2009,
from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_grade12_2005/s0202.asp.
Neufeld, B. & Roper, D. (2003, June). Coaching: a strategy for developing
instructional capacity promises and practicalities. The Aspen Institute
Program on Education. Prepared for The Annenberg Institute for School
Reform.
159
New Teacher Center at the University of California Santa Cruz (2006). Coaching
leaders to attain student success: professional development for coaches of
site administrators, 3
rd
ed. The Regents of the University of California.
Newmann, F., J. B. King, and P. Youngs, (2000). Professional development that
addresses school capacity: lessons from urban elementary schools.
American Journal of Education, 108(4), 259–299.
Olivero, G., Bane, K. D., & Kopelman, R. E. (1997). Executive coaching as a
transfer of training tool: Effects on productivity in a public agency. Public
Personnel Management, 26(4), 461-469.
Patton, M.Q., (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peterson, K. (2002). The professional development of principals: innovations and
opportunities. Educational Administration Quarterly. 38(2), 213-232.
Peter Youngs and M. Bruce King (2002). Principal leadership for professional
development to build school capacity. Educational Administration
Quarterly 38; 643.
Porter, A. C., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2007, March).
Assessing learning-centered leadership: connections to research,
professional standards, and current practices. Prepared for the Wallace
Foundation Grant on Leadership Assessment, Vanderbilt University.
Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Goldring, E., and Elliot, S. N. (2008, Spring).
Vanderbilt assessment for leadership in education: assessing learning-
centered leadership. (A power point presentation) University of
Pennsylvania.
Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M.S., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., & May, H.
(2008, March). Building a psychometrically sound assessment of school
leadership: The VAL-ED as a case study. A paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York,
NY.
Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Goldring, E., and Elliot, S. N. (2008, Spring).
Vanderbilt Assessment for Leadership in Education: Assessing Learning-
Centered Leadership. (A power point presentation) University of
Pennsylvania.
160
Schmoker, M, (2000). Standards versus sentimentality: Reckoning--successfully--
with the most promising movement in education. National Association of
Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 84(620), 49.
Spillance J. P. & Diamond J. B. (2007). Distributed leadership in practice. critical
issues in educational leadership. San Francisco: CA. Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Spiro, J., Mattis, Mary C., & Mitgang, Lee D., (2007). Getting principal mentoring
right: lessons from the field. Wallace Foundation, NY: New York.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Havard Educational
Review, 67(1).
Strong, M., Barrett, A., & Bloom, G., (2002). Supporting the new principal: case
studies of intensive principal induction. Paper presented at American
Educational Research Association. April 2002, New Orleans: LA.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: toward
theory of social justice leadership. Educational administration Quarterly,
43; 221
Thach, E., C. (2002). The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on
leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
23(4), 205-214.
Tichy, N. (1997). The leadership engine. New York. NY: HarperCollins Publisher
Inc.
Weingartner, C. J. (2001). Albuqueroque principals have ESP. Principal. 80(4),
40-42.
WestEd (2004). California professional standards for educational leaders. Retrieved
March 9, 2008, from http://www.wested.org/cs/li/view/rs/867.
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E. (2005). Similar students, different results: why
do some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary
schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: design and methods (1st ed.). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publishing.
161
APPENDIX A
Principal Post Interview Protocol
(January 2009)
CPSEL #1/ISLLC #1 & VAL-ED – High Standards for Student Learning
1. What do you do to promote the success of all students?
• What is the schools’ vision and how is it communicated?
• In what ways have you communicate high expectations?
• How have you ensured continuous school improvement?
CPSEL #2/ISLLC #2 & VAL-ED Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction,
Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior
2. How have you promoted a school culture that facilitates growth for students
and faculty?
• How do have you supported high quality, rigorous instruction?
• What teaching strategies have you seen your staff incorporate into
daily lessons?
• How are learning opportunities for teachers supported?
CPSEL #3/ISLLC #3 – VAL-ED Culture
3. What are the organizational structures at your site promote a safe and
efficient learning environment?
• How are concerns in this area brought to your attention?
• How have you created a collaborative school culture that fosters the
belief that all children can learn?
162
CPSEL #4/ISLLC #4/6 & VAL-ED Connections to the External Community
4. In what ways did you foster collaboration with diverse families and the
community to promote student success?
• How are families encouraged to be partners in their child’s education?
• How has feedback from the community been incorporated into your
practice?
CPSEL #5/ISLLC #5 & VAL-ED Culture
5. How do you promote a school culture that respects diversity?
• How is professional behavior of the faculty communicated?
• How is the school culture monitored?
• How has the students’ voice been used to shape the school’s culture?
CPSEL #5/ISLLC #5 & VAL-ED Performance Accountability
6. What organizational structures have you incorporated that ensure student
success?
• How is data used?
• What programs are in place to support students that are not meeting
identified state standards?
7. What organizational structures support the implementation of the coaching
model?
8. Would you recommend coaching to other principals and why?
163
APPENDIX B
CLASS Coach Interview Protocol
(January 2009)
CPSEL #1/ISLLC #1 & VAL-ED – High Standards for Student Learning
1. What has the principal done to promote the success of all students?
• How has the principal communicated is the schools’ vision and how
is it communicated?
• In what ways has the principal communicated high expectations?
• How has the principal expressed a vision for continuous school
improvement?
CPSEL #2/ISLLC #2 & VAL-ED Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction,
Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior
2. How has the principal promoted a school culture that facilitates growth for
students and faculty?
• How has the principal supported high quality, rigorous instruction?
• What teaching strategies have you seen the staff incorporate into
daily lessons as a result of the principal’s practice?
• How are learning opportunities for teachers supported?
CPSEL #3/ISLLC #3 – VAL-ED Culture
3. What are the organizational structures has the principal created to promote a
safe and efficient learning environment?
• How has the principal created a collaborative school culture that fosters
the belief that all children can learn?
164
CPSEL #4/ISLLC #4/6 & VAL-ED Connections to the External Community
4. In what ways has the principal fostered collaboration with diverse families
and the community to promote student success?
• How has the principal encouraged families to be partners in their child’s
education?
• How does the principal use feedback from the community been
incorporated into his/her practice?
CPSEL #5/ISLLC #5 & VAL-ED Culture
5. How does the principal promote a school culture that respects diversity?
• How has the principal worked to build consensus?
• How does the principal demonstrate professional behavior and
communicate it to the faculty?
• How does the principal monitor the school culture?
• How has the students’ voice been used to shape the school’s culture?
CPSEL #5/ISLLC #5 & VAL-ED Performance Accountability
6. What organizational structures have the principal incorporated that ensure
student success?
• How does the principal use data?
• What programs are in place to support students that are not meeting
identified state standards?
7. What structures support the implementation of the coaching model
165
APPENDIX C
Teacher Interview Protocol
(January 2009)
CPSEL #1/ISLLC #1 & VAL-ED – High Standards for Student Learning
1. What has the principal done to promote the success of all students?
• How has the principal communicated the school’s vision?
• How has it influenced your practice?
• How does your principal provide feedback with regard to meeting
school goals?
CPSEL #2/ISLLC #2 & VAL-ED Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction,
Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior
2. How has your principal encouraged growth for students? How has your
principal encouraged professional growth for faculty?
• How has it influenced your practice?
• How have you been supported in providing high quality, rigorous
instruction?
• What new teaching strategies have you incorporated into daily
lessons?
• What kinds of learning opportunities have you been provided with?
CPSEL #3/ISLLC #3 – VAL-ED Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior
3. What are the organizational structures that your principal has in place that
promote a safe and efficient learning environment?
166
• How has it influenced your practice?
• How do you bring concerns in this area to your school leader?
• Do you feel you are included in high stakes decision-making and in
what ways?
CPSEL #4/ISLLC #4 & VAL-ED Connections to the External Community
4. In what ways are families and the community incorporated into the
decision-making to ensure student success?
• How has it influenced your practice?
• How are families encouraged to be partners in their child’s education?
CPSEL #5/ISLLC #5 & VAL-ED Culture
5. Does the school culture respect diversity?
• How has it influenced your practice?
• In what ways?
• How does your leader resolve conflicts surrounding diversity?
• How is diversity celebrated at your school?
CPSEL #6/ISLLC #6 & VAL-ED Connections to External Communities
6. How you ensure student success within the larger cultural context?
• How is the value of education promoted as the opportunity for social
mobility
• How has it influenced your practice?
167
APPENDIX D
Initial Principal Interview
(October, 2008)
1. How many years have you been in administration?
2. How long have you been in the district and at this site?
3. Please describe the schools’ mission and vision?
4. How do you plan to influence teacher practice?
5. In what ways do teachers collaborate with each other?
6. What are the school’s goals for student learning this year?
7. How did you determine those goals?
8. How do you plan to measure the goals?
9. What are your expectations for the coaching experience?
168
APPENDIX E
Assistant Superintendent Interview
(January 2009)
CPSEL #1/ISLLC #1 & VAL-ED – High Standards for Student Learning
7. What has the principal done to promote the success of all students?
• How has the principal communicated is the schools’ vision and how
is it communicated?
• In what ways has the principal communicated high expectations?
• How has the principal expressed a vision for continuous school
improvement?
CPSEL #2/ISLLC #2 & VAL-ED Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction,
Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior
8. How has the principal promoted a school culture that facilitates growth for
students and faculty?
• How has the principal supported high quality, rigorous instruction?
• What teaching strategies have you seen the staff incorporate into
daily lessons as a result of the principal’s practice?
• How are learning opportunities for teachers supported?
CPSEL #3/ISLLC #3 – VAL-ED Culture
9. What are the organizational structures has the principal created to promote a
safe and efficient learning environment?
• How has the principal created a collaborative school culture that fosters
the belief that all children can learn?
169
CPSEL #4/ISLLC #4/6 & VAL-ED Connections to the External Community
10. In what ways has the principal fostered collaboration with diverse families
and the community to promote student success?
• How has the principal encouraged families to be partners in their child’s
education?
• How does the principal use feedback from the community been
incorporated into his/her practice?
CPSEL #5/ISLLC #5 & VAL-ED Culture
11. How does the principal promote a school culture that respects diversity?
• How has the principal worked to build consensus?
• How does the principal demonstrate professional behavior and
communicate it to the faculty?
• How does the principal monitor the school culture?
• How has the students’ voice been used to shape the school’s culture?
CPSEL #5/ISLLC #5 & VAL-ED Performance Accountability
12. What organizational structures have the principal incorporated that ensure
student success?
• How does the principal use data?
• What programs are in place to support students that are not meeting
identified state standards?
13. What structures support the implementation of the coaching model.
170
APPENDIX F
VAL-ED Reliability/Internal Correlations
Table 18. Internal Consistency for VAL-ED Pilot
(Scales and Total, Nine School Pilot, Spring 2007)
Cronbach’s α Form A Form B
High standards for student
learning
0.95 0.97
Quality Instruction 0.94 0.95
Rigorous curriculum 0.95 0.97
Culture of learning 0.93 0.96
Connections to external
community
0.95 0.97
Performance
accountability
0.95 0.97
Planning 0.92 0.95
Implementing 0.94 0.95
Supporting 0.93 0.96
Advocating 0.94 0.96
Communicating 0.94 0.97
Monitoring 0.93 0.96
TOTAL 0.99 0.99
Source: Potter, Polikoff, Goldring, Murphy, Elliot, & May, 2008.
Validity for the VAL-Ed was well established in Building a
Psychometrically Sound Assessment of School Leadership, by Porter, Polikoff,
Goldring, Murphy, Elliot, May (2008). Items were carefully crafted and then
adjusted after they conducted a sorting study, with cognitive interviews (‘think
171
aloud” and response choice interpretation) along with two pilot programs. First,
the program was piloted with 9 schools, adjustments were made and then 11
schools piloted the instrument in order to increase the content validity of the
assessment. Porter, Polikoff, Goldring, Murphy, Elliot, & May (2008) report that
validity was supported in 4 important ways: 1) “Results from the confirmatory
factor analyses reveal that both the core components and the key processes models
fit the data very well, having goodness of fit indices between .96 and .99” (p. 23);
2) “A second piece of validity evidence was obtained by examining the
relationship of teacher ratings and principal ratings” (p. 24); A scatter plot
suggested some correlation, but at a moderate .47 (p. 24); 3) Intercorrelations
between key process and key components ranged from .73 to .90 (p. 24); and 4)
Face validity was good for the survey in that “all respondent groups understood the
vast majority of items and agreed that the items focused on important leadership
behaviors” (p. 25). The high intercorrelations along with the other factors
described suggested, “that the instrument is measuring a strong underlying
construct, principal leadership” (Potter, Polikoff, Goldring, Murphy, Elliot, & May,
2008, p. 25). The reliability and validity of the VAL-Ed were well tested and
therefore confidence was high that this instrument can consistently measured the
behaviors this study was seeking to empirically measure. Porter, Polikoff,
Goldring, Murphy, Elliot, & May (2008) reported the following intercorrelations
for core components and key process of the VAL-Ed more specifically in Table 19.
172
Table 19. Correlations for VAL-ED Core Components and Key Processes
Correlations among Core Components, All Schools, 9-school Pilot, Spring 2007
High
standards
Instruction Curriculum Culture Connections Performance
Accountability
High standards 1.00
Instruction 0.91 1.00
Curriculum 0.84 0.90 1.00
Culture 0.81 0.84 0.85 1.00
Connections 0.73 0.78 0.82 0.82 1.00
Performance
Accountability
0.79 0.83 0.84 0.79 0.83 2.00
TOTAL 0.91 0.95 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.92
Correlations among Key Processes, All Schools, 9-school Pilot, Spring 2007
Planning Implementing Supporting Advocating Communicating Monitoring
Planning 1.00
Implementing 0.93 1.00
Supporting 0.91 0.92 1.00
Advocating 0.91 0.93 0.90 1.00
Communicating 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00
Monitoring 0.91 0.91 0.89 0.92 0.94 1.00
TOTAL 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.96
Source: Potter, Polikoff, Goldring, Murphy, Elliot, & May, 2008.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 challenged educational leadership across the nation to ensure that every student either met or exceeded standards by the year 2014. The call to realize world class standards was inspiring on one hand and daunting on the other, especially for urban school leaders who were under prepared for the challenges they faced on a day to day basis. Increasing the capacity of everyone in the system, including the principal, was a top priority. One way some districts increased their principal’s capacity was through coaching.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices
PDF
Building capacity for leadership in urban schools
PDF
Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative
PDF
A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century
PDF
Promising practices: building the next generation of effective school principals
PDF
Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context
PDF
Building leadership capacity: Practices for preparing the next generation of Catholic school principals
PDF
Building leadership capacity to support principal succession
PDF
The successful leadership strategies of new principals in turnaround middle school settings: the first 90 days
PDF
A case for change: building leadership capacity in urban high schools
PDF
Leadership capacity building: promising practices in principal preparation
PDF
The first 90 days of the principalship: significance of the transition period
PDF
Defined autonomy: how superintendents work with principals to create the defined autonomy at schools necessary for improved student achievement
PDF
In the implementation of standards-based reform: what is the leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth?
PDF
A case study to determine what perceived factors, including student engagement, contribute to academic achievement in a high performing urban high school
PDF
The first 90 days of the new middle school principal in a turnaround school: in-depth case study of the transition period (first 90 days)
PDF
The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
The successful leadership strategies of new principals in turnaround middle school settings: the first 90 days
PDF
Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school
PDF
The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
Asset Metadata
Creator
Fox, John J.
(author)
Core Title
Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
11/25/2009
Defense Date
05/06/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
coaching principals,educational leadership support,improving principal leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,VAL-ED
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Reed, Margaret (
committee chair
), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (
committee member
), Hocevar, Dennis (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jfox@laalliance.org,johnjfox@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2770
Unique identifier
UC1210668
Identifier
etd-Fox-3155 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-280704 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2770 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Fox-3155.pdf
Dmrecord
280704
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Fox, John J.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
coaching principals
educational leadership support
improving principal leadership
VAL-ED