University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

K-12 standards-based reform implementation: site-level shared roles of leadership: a case study

(USC Thesis Other)

K-12 standards-based reform implementation: site-level shared roles of leadership: a case study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

K-12 STANDARDS-BASED REFORM IMPLEMENTATION:
SITE-LEVEL SHARED ROLES OF LEADERSHIP
A CASE STUDY
by
Deborah L. Collins

____________________________________________________________________

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

May 2007

Copyright 2007 Deborah L. Collins
ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Nina Rogers,
who modeled perseverance, tenacity and care
and who continues to support my efforts, regardless of the risk.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to the committee members and faculty of the University of
Southern California Rossier School of Education, personal mentors, supportive
family/friends and hard-working educators in public education:
• Dr. Adrianna Kezar for her patience and skill in facilitating the cohort and for
holding high expectations for literary quality and integrity,
• Dr. Louise Taylor for inspiring this work as she models integrity, honor and
skill as a leader,
• Dr. Carol Wilson for her wisdom and straightforward approach,
• Dr. Maggie Chidester for her Trojan pride and support of me,
• Deb Rinder for technical and emotional support,
• Mikara Solomon for believing in children,
• Amber Young for her dedication and humility,
• Charlotte Schamadan for editing with care,
• Dr. Beverly Stunden for doing the work ahead of everyone else, and
• Phyllis Blatz for perseverance and hope.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………….ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………iii

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………vi

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY…………………………………..1
Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem.................................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................... 14
Research Questions ............................................................................................ 14
Significance of the Study ................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE……………………………..17
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 17
Who is "in charge" of Implementing Federal/State Standards-Based Reform?.... 17
The Rise and Fall of Leadership Models Contributing to Failed K-12 Reform
Attempts ............................................................................................................ 21
Social Psychological Theories of Human Interaction.......................................... 28
Teamwork.......................................................................................................... 35
Teachers as Leaders ........................................................................................... 45
Leadership as Shared Power............................................................................... 52
Conclusion......................................................................................................... 58

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY................................................................ 61
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 61
Sample and Population....................................................................................... 64
Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................ 67
Data Analysis Procedures................................................................................... 73
Trustworthiness/Validity.................................................................................... 74
Ethical Considerations, Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations ................. 78

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS .......................................... 80
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 80
History and Context ........................................................................................... 82
Description of School Culture ............................................................................ 88
Findings by Research Questions......................................................................... 93
Discussion.........................................................................................................119
Who is "in charge" of Implementing Federal/State Standards-Based Reform?...119
Hierarchical Leadership ....................................................................................122
v

Social Psychological Theories of Human Interaction.........................................124
Teamwork.........................................................................................................125
Teachers as Leaders ..........................................................................................129
Leadership as Shared Power..............................................................................131

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ..................................135
Summary of Data ..............................................................................................135
Practical Implications........................................................................................144
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................149

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….153

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL..........................................163
APPENDIX B: PERCEIVED TEAM INTEGRITY SCALE .................................165
APPENDIX C: DATA ANALYSIS CODES.........................................................166
APPENDIX D: DATA ANALYSIS TABLES .....................................................168
APPENDIX E: THEMES FOUND IN RESEARCH QUESTIONS.......................197

vi

ABSTRACT

This is a qualitative case study of an urban elementary school considered to
be highly successful, based on remarkable gains in student achievement as evidenced
by standardized test scores. This study explores the roles, responsibilities and tasks
of teachers and principals in a school setting as they create schoolwide
organizational change and implement standards-based reform. The study further
considers various types of leadership, including: hierarchical, distributive, shared
and a “new” shared leadership approach. Findings from the study indicate that the
teachers perceive the principal as sharing power in decision-making, while
maintaining a hierarchical approach when making some decisions. Further findings
reveal that a high level of trust and openness exists between staff members, and also
suggest that student achievement increases when teachers focus on the goal of
increased student achievement by utilizing a structured, scripted and focused
professional learning community approach to analyzing student data and then
modifying instruction accordingly. Study results also suggest that implementation of
standards-based reform efforts are effective when the principal as leader respects the
teachers as professionals; empowers them to be leaders; and possesses passion,
determination, respect and integrity as a person and professional. Future research
should be conducted relating to recruitment and hiring practices of educators,
considering attitudes and beliefs about educating the challenged youth of today.
Other further research could involve studying teamwork models in school settings.
1

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Background of the Problem
Many educators agree (e.g., Marzano & Kendall, 1997) that the impetus for
the modern standards movement was the publication of the landmark report, A
Nation at Risk, in 1983. The report concluded that the decline in educational
performance of students is, in large part, a result of the inadequacies of the
educational process itself. The educational process was then described using four
important components including: content, expectations, time and teaching (A Nation
at Risk, 1983a). Based on the assumption that every student can learn, the
recommendations of this report included: 1) strengthening the high school graduation
requirements; 2) adopting rigorous and measurable standards and higher expectations
for academic performance; 3) increasing the length and quality of time for learning;
4) improving the preparation of teachers; and, 5) requiring that educators and elected
officials be held accountable for providing the necessary leadership, along with
garnering the fiscal support necessary to implement reform efforts (A Nation at Risk,
1983b). The final word to Americans from this report was, “Americans have
succeeded before and so we shall again” (A Nation at Risk, 1983b, p. 8).
Educators across the nation attempted local school reform efforts in order to
respond to the public call for needed change. As the reform efforts were
implemented, researchers studied the affects of the improvements and observed that
“this cycle of reforms – like a pendulum swing – has continued to move from one
2

fad to another with little evidence of national progress” (Slavin, 1989, as cited in
Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2002, p. 1). The first wave of reform included
initiatives that increased bureaucratic controls over curriculum, instruction and
professional teacher autonomy. These top-down efforts created yet another wave of
reform in response to the potentially harmful effects on teacher morale by mandating
programs. The reform researchers noted this second wave as one that “advocates a
decrease in bureaucratic controls in education and the creation of working conditions
in schools that enhance the commitment and expertise of teachers” (Rowan, 1990, p.
1). Rowan (1990) further suggests that during this time, these “competing and often
contradictory reforms have combined top-down, centralized efforts to improve
schools and teaching with efforts at decentralization and school-based management,”
leading only to confusion and ultimately ineffective change (p. 1).
In September, 1989, another landmark event occurred at the bipartisan
national “Education Summit,” called by President George H. W. Bush and the
nation’s governors, including the then- Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton. The
participants in this summit agreed on six national education goals to be met by 2000,
including two specific goals for student achievement. The student achievement
goals include a demonstration of academic competency by students in grades 4, 8
and 12, as well as an increase of the high school graduation rate nationwide to 90%
(Marzano & Kendall, 1997). This caused a “flurry of activity from national subject
matter organizations to establish standards in their respective areas” (Marzano &
Kendall, 1997, p. 3). Several obstacles became prominent in the successful
3

movement toward national reform efforts including: a lack of federal support;
enthusiasm; resources; and yet another burden on the shoulders of those who
traditionally do not do well in schools, without the prescription for how to
successfully implement reform. The standards movement was viewed as a “thinly-
veiled attempt at a type of educational reform that had been tried a number of times”
(Marzano & Kendall, 1997, p. 4).
The problem of the need for complex educational changes demanded by the
standards-based reform initiatives, in addition to the “increasingly heterogeneous
student population largely composed of students whom schools have traditionally
failed,” (Borman et al., 2002, p. 1) further complicated the ability of local schools to
implement reform, in many cases leaving the teachers frustrated, paralyzed and
angry and certainly unable to respond. The federal support of addressing the issue of
low-achieving students was observed in the Title I funding available to a limited
population of students. The guidance of the use of Title I funds was broad; however,
the funds should be used “to improve academic performance of children at risk of
school failure, either targeting only the educationally neediest in the school or, in
some circumstances, using a schoolwide approach” (Gordon, 2002, p. 5). The use
of Title I funds in schools has been the source of many studies to determine the use
and/or impact on the achievement of failing students. One study conducted in 2000,
for example, examined the use of funds allocated through Goals 2000, and
summarized only the categories of reported use of funds, making no mention of the
impact on student achievement (Chambers, Lieberman, Parrish, Kaleba, Van
4

Campen & Stullich, 2000). The conclusion, stated in the summary of this report,
indicated that the funds were commonly used for activities “related to implementing
state or district content or performance standards,” which they found to be consistent
with the Goals 2000 programs (Chambers et al., 2000). At best, there remains
controversy about whether Title I funding actually is important and effective as it
relates to addressing the needs of disadvantaged children (Gordon, 2002). Once
again, the federal support of reform through Title I funding did not provide specific
direction for reform, nor did it require accountability for use of funds.
Therefore, as the national effort became too cumbersome, it appeared that
ultimately, states, schools and districts needed to design standards to meet the needs
of the individual communities. In California, the standards-based reform effort
emerged in 1997 and is considered to have four major goals: 1) high academic
standards for all students; 2) accountability for student outcomes; 3) the inclusion of
all students in reform initiatives; and, 4) flexibility for instructional change (Goertz,
2001). One of the significant state-funded reforms that occurred in the mid-1990s
was the K-3 grade Class Size Reduction program, based in part on the class size
reduction experiment conducted in Tennessee from 1985 to 1990 (Stecher &
Bohmstedt, 2000). California’s version of class size reduction differed in many
ways, including the minimum of 20 students in California versus a range of 13-17
students in Tennessee. In addition, according to the study conducted in 2000 by the
CSR Research Consortium, Tennessee’s program was a carefully controlled
experiment and produced large achievement gains for all students, but specifically
5

“gains for low-income and minority students were twice as large as those for other
students” (Stecher & Bohmstedt, 2000, p. 4). The summary of initial results of the
class size effort in California revealed some gains in student achievement; however,
the program had not reduced the gap in achievement between disadvantaged and
non-disadvantaged students. The report also concluded that it was difficult to
attribute any significant student achievement gains to class size reduction as
California’s schools were undergoing numerous other major reform efforts.
Therefore, no single effort could be identified as a contributor to effective reform
efforts.
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act was passed which set the standard, not
only for minimum levels of student achievement as measured on standardized and
local assessments, but also called for highly-qualified educators to teach them. This
legislation also imposed penalties on schools designated as failing by allowing their
students to take the Title I fund allocation elsewhere for receiving educational
opportunities (Gordon, 2002). This new level of accountability has produced an
outcry from teachers and administrators alike, disbelieving that the resources exist to
accomplish the high-stakes state and national student achievement goals. And yet,
these same overwhelmed educators are required to implement a standards-based
program designed to address the student achievement gap in the nation and in
California, as there are woefully high numbers of students who have not yet gained a
level of proficiency in attaining the required academic levels of achievement. A
severe limitation in the call for reform has been a primary focus on the “what” of
6

reform, rather than the identification of the development of a possible “how-to”
roadmap to use as a guide for implementation of standards-based reform.
Over the past 20 years, the call for standards-based reform has created more
and more bureaucratic policy, rather than roadmaps for success (Hatch, 2001).
Educators are searching for the “one best system” through experimentation with
charter schools and voucher programs, while promoting school-based management
and increasing incentives for improvements for student performance (Hill & Celio,
1998, as cited in Hatch, 2001). Fullan (1999) identifies the fragmentation and
overload in the excessive policies and bureaucracy that still exists both at the state
and local level, and recognizes that there are reform models that have been launched
outside the formal school system, including Success for All, the Coalition of
Essential Schools and High Schools that Work, along with programs like Reading
Recovery. Even though some of these reforms focused primarily on reading
programs, they called for a substantial change in the manner in which instruction was
delivered and are considered reform models by teachers and researchers alike. When
programs such as these are imposed on schools, even though research has shown
their effectiveness, they are perceived as placing additional demands and burdens on
the teaching and administrative staffs at local schools. Ultimately, the schools must
decide what reform effort meets their needs and how they will be able to implement
it. Thus, the school must possess the capacity for implementing change. Capacity
refers to the “potential of material, a product, person, or group, to fulfill a function if
it is used in a particular way” (Newman, King, & Young, 2000, as cited in Hatch,
7

2001, p. 410). Possibly, establishing the democratic process for implementation
alone may be a significant reform in itself and is worth more study (Weiss &
Cambone, 1994).
Improvements in instructional practices rely on the ability of the schools as
organizations to create conditions under which teachers can change beliefs, skills and
attitudes. The research on effective schools shows that school-level factors are key
components in building school capacity. Not only do these factors include vision
and leadership, but also restructured governance and organization, with a strong
school culture and teachers’ professional community (Bryk, Sebring, Kerbow,
Rollow & Easton, 1998; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Newman & Wehlage, 1995,
as cited in Hatch, 2001). Fullan (2000) suggests that “re-culturing” as a model of
governance and organization that is beyond “restructuring”. He believes that re-
culturing is different from restructuring as it “involves going from a situation of
limited attention to assessment and pedagogy to a situation in which teachers and
others routinely focus on these matters and make associated improvements” (p. 582).
The development of professional learning communities that involve training and
ongoing support can assist to build the capacity of a school team to conduct these
discussions. However, according to Hatch (2001), many schools have given up
reform efforts due to a lack of capacity to make changes and to coordinate initiatives.
The challenges of building capacity may be opaque and only discussed in parking
lots or behind the closed doors of the classroom. For example, even if the teachers
themselves have the capacity to develop new practices, they need administrators to
8

understand the reform effort and support them. Developing capacity for open
discussion, collaboration and decision-making is critical to begin this process. There
also may be other factors that make it difficult for teachers to implement new
instructional practices such as time, lack of resources and a turbulent environment
(Hatch, 2001). Painfully, Hatch (2001) concludes by stating that “[this] analysis
reinforces the view that the ‘system’ in education is just a metaphor that may not
capture the reality of the varied forces that are at work” (Cohen, 1995; Secada et al.,
2001, as cited in Hatch, 2001, p. 433).
Teachers are responsible for delivering the needed standards-based reform
effort in daily practice in their classrooms. If the teachers do not buy-in and believe
the changes will be effective in increasing student achievement, it is likely that they
will not change. Some teachers have begun to realize that teacher leadership is
necessary for instructional reform (Svec, Pourdavood & Cowan, 1999). School
leadership must be defined in order to address how to effectively include teachers in
the authentic process of decision-making and collaboration. Marzano and Kendall
(1997) state that the implementation of standards is a very technical process that
should not be taken lightly and that organizing schools around standards is not a
cookie cutter process – no one size fits all. Vinovskis (1996) added to the
complexity of implementation by pointing out that the ever-changing, short-lived
reforms fade because the proposed changes have not provided the significant and
lasting improvements in learning that were initially promised.
This study aims to consider social-psychological and teamwork theories that
9

have the wherewithal to support the long-lasting reform necessary to make
significant changes and explore the manner in which teams of teachers and principals
work together to effect change in a complex organization. The team leadership
approach described by Kogler-Hill (2004), as cited in Northouse (2004) for example,
is gaining popularity in leadership theory and research. The use of teams has led to
greater productivity, better decisions and problem solving and increased innovation
and productivity. These attributes can certainly be applied to the school
organizations and have been used in many schools.
The concept of teams working together relies on building and maintaining
trust among the participants. Bryk and Schneider (2003) conclude, “As a social
resource for school improvement, relational trust facilitates the development of
beliefs, values, organizational routines, and individual behaviors that instrumentally
affect students’ engagement and learning” (p. 115). Acknowledging the potential
levels of low morale and teacher frustration with the increased demands of
accountability, relational trust becomes not only critical, but a requirement for
teamwork to enable teachers to conquer the “factors most preventing change,
including: cynicism, disillusionment, and factionalism” (Stringer, 2002, p. 177).
Research on effective teams reveals that the effective team member adds value by
“addressing issues, building confidence and trust, demonstrating personal
leadership…in contrast, the dysfunctional team member erodes trust and makes it
harder to get at the issues, make decisions and move forward” (LaFasto & Larson,
2001). There is no distinction made on the trust issues between the leader and
10

participants in a team. All members are responsible to be open and honest
contributors, regardless of their position. The responsibilities of the principal
relating to overall leadership of the site are beyond the scope of this study; however,
the principal as a team member may have a distinct role that differs from the
teachers’ role. Those distinctions need further exploration in the context of a case
study approach to gathering data.
A case study conducted in Israel in 1987, (Friedman, 1997), used teams of
teachers to address the problem of reintegrating school dropouts in Jerusalem into
educational or vocational frameworks. The teachers were given time from their
teaching responsibilities to define their vision and insure that the students would
perceive the innovation as legitimate. The teachers described the process as
“substantive, stimulating, and void of personal animosity” (Friedman, 1997, p. 341).
However, this method of leadership experienced many conflicting difficulties among
staff members and they had to later embark upon a new “second generation” project.
There was division among the staff that affected the learning environment in a
negative way. This shows that there is more information needed to find out the
nuances of interpersonal relationships in organizations and to study the whole picture
as we have found that some teams of teachers work together effectively with teacher
leaders in the organization and some teams do not. It is unclear why this team did
not work, except for references to the “divisions” among staff members. These
“divisions” need more study and analysis.
11

This study will describe how shared leadership is occurring in the
implementation of standards-based reform, using a case study approach to examine
the practices of collaboration, decision-making and evidence of relational trust
among the team members, as well as the individual implementation of the agreed-
upon ways to implement reform. This deserves study as researchers still describe the
loose connections between shared decision-making and pedagogy. Griffin (1995)
studied the consequences of shared decision-making on classroom activity and
believes that the “original intent of shared decision-making to improve teaching can
become obscured when the organizational and procedural means for improvement
becomes the ends of decision-making process” (p. 5). Further, Griffin (1995)
explains the loose connections between shared decision-making and pedagogy
become disconnected when “the norms that define teachers’ professional
relationships and work with students buffer the effects of shared decision-making on
teachers’ day-to-day activities in their classrooms” (p.5).
The focus of this study, then, is twofold, examining not only the role of the
participants in this collaborative process, including the principals and teachers, but
also the role of the teacher as implementer of standards-based instruction to
determine the impact of teamwork, decision-making and accountability on student
achievement. In the words of the teachers, when discussing implementation of
reform, reported by the teachers through their own California Teachers Association
publication, “Administrators have to give teachers free rein to make this [thing]
work. Otherwise, it won’t” (Jehlen & Kopkowski, 2006, p. 26). This statement,
12

made by a teacher leader of a local union, may lend credence to the perception that
administrators are not perceived as being supportive. As previously stated, as
educators search for the “one best system” for implementing reform, many systems
have been developed that have not been successful (Hatch, 2001).
Boyd and Crowson (2002) argue that the organizational models in schools are
ambiguous and occasionally “anarchic” and will require a hybrid approach to the
development of an effective means of managing reform. Earlier attempts to manage
schools through a “loose coupling” theory, consistent with “decentralization, shared
governance, site-level improvement and ‘open systems’, opened the door to
uncertainty, complexity and even a playfulness in organizations” (p. 524). Loosely
coupled systems in school environments allow for freedom and independence in
isolated classrooms, where the schoolwide goals are not necessarily connected to
teaching and learning and frequently independent of serious evaluation by the
principal (Purkey & Smith, 1983). The ‘systemic reformers’ since 1990 have
ignored or heavily discounted the claims of loose coupling, believing instead that
organizational efficiency and effectiveness can and should be achieved through
rationalistic plans for curriculum standards, aligned with tests and tight
accountability. Murphy and Beck (1995), as cited in Borman, Hewes, Overman and
Brown (2002) found that during the 1990s, a general review of reform efforts
indicated that “site-based management reforms failed to affect student outcomes
positively in large part because the schools failed to develop coherent statements of
beliefs or models for guiding the work and decision-making of the school” (p. 5).
13

The call for tight structures, however, emerged and created an anarchic response by
teachers to standards-based reform effects in general.
Park, Henkin and Egley (2005) contend conversely, that “the success of
school reform depends, in part, on the effectiveness of teacher teams viewed as
fundamentally building locally-managed schools” (p. 462). Many understand that
“teachers play an increasingly important role in school leadership” (Hart, 1995, p.
16). The social organizations of schools are complex, but must be addressed as they
are vital to the very nature of schooling. However, schools have not been organized
to support problem solving based on cooperation and collaboration (Elmore, 2002).
School systems, instead, have encouraged isolation and “privatism,” which has
fragmented the school from being a focused organization, needing to work together
on the agreed-upon goals. Lashway (2003) describes distributed leadership as a
fundamental shift in organizational thinking that redefines leadership as a
responsibility of everyone in the school. Yet, there is still a lack of empirical
evidence that confirms the use of distributed leadership as an effective means of
leadership (Copland, 2003, as cited in Lashway, 2003). Therefore, a case study
which describes a teamwork approach that includes trust, collaboration, decision-
making and implementation of agreed-upon goals and practices within the real-life
context, is timely to inform practitioners seeking information about the effective use
of teams.

14

Purpose of the Study
The focus of this study is to describe the roles of teachers and principals as
team members using shared leadership in the implementation of standards-based
reform. The problem being investigated will address the reaction, buy-in and
response of the teachers to the “imposed” reform from the national, state and local
level. Fullan (1994), as cited in Schmoker (2002) states that systemic reform has not
added “one iota of clarity to the confusion faced by the majority of teachers” when
addressing ways to increase student achievement and schoolwide success (p. 2). The
problem may include teachers’ negative reactions to hierarchical forms of
administrative direction and expectations for change in curriculum, instruction and
assessment. These expectations place new and challenging roles on teachers who
have reacted negatively to top-down, hierarchical leadership models which not only
“conflict with customs within the teaching profession, they belie the professional
nature of the teaching enterprise” (Hart, 1995).
Research Questions
This qualitative research study aims to explore the roles, responsibilities and
tasks of the principals and teachers in a school setting, as they create schoolwide
organizational change and implement standards-based reform. The following
primary question will guide the research:
What are the leadership roles that principals and teachers have in a team
approach creating the organizational change through the implementation of K-12
15

standards-based reform? Additionally, the following sub-questions will be addressed
in guiding the research:
1. To what extent does the leadership style/skill of the principal
influence the inclusion of teachers in a shared leadership capacity,
including the teachers and principal perceptions of that role?
2. How does schoolwide relational trust among teachers and
administration impact the success of shared leadership in
collaboration and decision-making?
3. How do the teachers and administrators develop mutual agreement

and understanding and then make decisions about how standards-
based reform should be implemented and to insure consistent
implementation?
4. How are the issues of individual discretion and collective
accountability addressed when in conflict?
5. How does the existence and perception of the diversity of the team
(position, ethnicity, employment longevity or gender) affect the
process and outcome?
Significance of the Study
The results of this study are intended to provide contributions to theories of
leadership specifically relating to the development of the teachers’ leadership role in
successful implementation of standards-based reform. These contributions to
theories should be used to formulate further problem solving and interventions for
16

other schools beginning the process of standards-based reform efforts. Conley &
Muncey (1999) describe a phase of reform relating to teachers assuming leadership
roles in decision-making and implementation of new programs called “the teacher
professionalism movement” that gained attention as reformers realized that “even the
most highly-motivated teachers would fall short of their goals in school
organizations that did not respect their professional judgment” (Lieberman, Saxl, &
Miles, 1988, as cited in Conley & Muncey, 1999, p. 46). They further describe two
strands that relate to teacher professionalism, including the teachers as leaders and
team players. The first strand refers to specific duties in leadership involving district
and site-level committee work, as well as assisting other teachers. The second strand
that refers to the use of teams is viewed as a way to break down the isolation of the
individual classroom teacher and engage in collegial conversations about classroom
instruction and student learning (Conley & Muncey, 1999). If, in fact, “teachers
appear to be the ultimate arbiter of instructional reform,” according to Berman and
McLaughlin (1978), as cited in Rowan (1996), both the leadership and teamwork
aspects of the professionalism of teachers must be addressed, lending credence to a
professional model of organization, including teachers as leaders, rather than using a
top-down bureaucratic model (p. 197).

17

CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa “blames the elected school
board and an inefficient district bureaucracy for students’
poor test scores. Yet, the single most important in-school
factor that directly influences academic achievement is
neither the school board, nor a central office bureaucracy.
Rather, it is the expertise, leadership and knowledge of
children that a teacher brings to a classroom, as well as
the personal ties that evolve between students and teacher
over time.”
Larry Cuban, Los Angeles Times,
April 16, 2006

This chapter begins with an exploration of the aspects of the standards-based
reform efforts that have been tried and failed, reporting these efforts through the lens
of various leadership approaches. It begins with the history and context of the
national reform efforts and then provides a discussion of the various types of
leadership that have been attempted in these reform efforts. In an effort to explore
the theories of group processes, social psychological theories of human interaction
are noted. The remainder of the chapter includes discussions about teamwork,
teachers as leaders and leadership as a shared approach. The conclusion raises the
question about the context of the environment driving the effectiveness of the
leadership approach employed in a school environment.
Who is “in charge” of Implementing Federal/State
Standards-Based Reform?
One thing is imminently clear in the minds of K-12 educators in America: we
are failing our children in the public school system and “the educational foundations
18

of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens
our very future as a Nation and a people” (Eric Digest, 1999). This statement was
part of a manifesto signed by 37 educational reformers in 1998, quoting from A
Nation at Risk report published 15 years earlier! These same reformers blame those
in direct control over the educational system. They claim that “power over our
education system has been increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few who don’t
really want change...the [Excellence] Commission asked for a yard, and the
‘stakeholders’ gave an inch” (Eric Digest, 1999). They feared at the time of the
manifesto signing in 1998, that students may still be at risk in 2006 because every
child may not meet the targets set by the federal government and reported in Annual
Yearly Progress (AYP) data and the state government reported Academic
Performance Index (API) data (California Department of Education, 2006).
Educators understand that we have failed to produce a consistent, replicable
reform effort to increase academic achievement for all students as a K-12
educational team, and continue to fail, even though many have exerted a great deal
of enthusiasm and effort to respond to the call of reform. O’Connell (2006), in what
he may have hoped would be a landmark address regarding the state of California
education, called for all Californians to “go back to our garages like those early
Silicon Valley innovators of technology. It’s time to work together in our
communities to find ways of meeting all children where they are” (p. 1). According
to Enderlin-Lampe (2002), the first wave of reform efforts was comprised of policy
mandates and specific directives, along with an “adherence to the Industrial Age
19

model of management” which was “authoritarian, teacher centered, competitive,
stressed minimum standards, accountability and was single ‘pathed’ and linear”
(Sergiovanni, 1993, as cited in Enderlin-Lampe, 2002, p. 139). Many others have
espoused theories that effective change does not occur from external demands or top-
down directives (Darling-Hammond, 1990; Goodson, 2001; Hargreaves, 2002;
Cuban, 2004; Hoerr, 1996; Hatch, 2001; Fullan, 2003a; Danielson, 2006; and Ouchi,
2003). Even though, according to Kezar (2001), an underlying assumption of
evolutionary theories of change is that external circumstances, situational variables
and conditions of the environment cause the need for change, the external conditions
alone cannot force change without the buy-in and understanding of the agents of
change. Further, she claims that “change occurs because individuals see a need to
grow, learn and change their behavior” (Kezar, 2001, p. v.).
In the 1980’s and 1990’s external change mandates have become prominent
and have created a number of negative responses by educators. Goodson (2001)
discusses how external, internal and personal change needs to be harmoniously
organized in order to gain direction and force. He further describes how the embrace
of change “only happens with an inner change in people’s beliefs and plans”
(Sheehy, 1981, as cited in Goodson, 2001, p. 45). He concludes that when large-
scale reforms fail to incorporate teachers’ senses of passion and purpose, such
changes will actually face major problems of sustainability and generalizability”
(Goodson, 2001, p. 49). It is time in K-12 educational reform to embrace the
democratic principles involved with including the teachers authentically in the
20

process of understanding, analyzing and buying-in to the change imposed upon them
by external forces.
This review is framed by the acknowledgement that hierarchical leadership has
not been effective when applied specifically to standards-based reform efforts.
Single, heroic efforts deny the leader of rich input from the practitioners. Lucas,
Komives and McMahon (1998) suggest that “conventional approaches assumed that
if one person in an organization is very powerful, then someone else has less power.
Instead, different types of power exist concurrently among people in any kind of
relationship” (p. 8). They further describe how power “alongside” instead of power
“over” can describe a more collegial approach to leadership. This type of 21
st

century leadership shifts from individual-centered to collective-centered, in which
everyone takes responsibility for group processes and action (Sandmann &
Vandenberg, 1995). A review of biological, as well as social/psychological theories
will show that there are structures that exist to support the effective functions of
group processes. Successful teamwork application in both private and public sectors
will be reviewed to strengthen the argument for the inclusion of teams in the
educational decision-making process. The teachers as leaders will be described and
studied to determine how their inclusion in this process is critical to student success.
The “new” shared leadership, then, will be suggested as a blend of the best practices
of teamwork, in addition to the added feature of trust and integrity shared among all
team members, transcending both the biological need of honey bees to make
decisions for survival and the rather primitive social exchange theory that relies on
21

giving and getting rewards. The conclusion supports the discussion that all the
previous characteristics of group processes, in addition to authentic integrity, will
provide the needed impetus behind successful implementation of standards-
based reform.
The Rise and Fall of Leadership Models Contributing to Failed
K-12 Reform Attempts
Hierarchical leadership in the schools has been awakened in response to the
mandates for standards-based reform, with varied results. The inclusion of the use of
“standards, assessments and accountability” become the end in themselves and “do
not play their intended roles well” (David & Shields, 2001, p. ii). When the Pew
Foundation gave grants to urban school districts to implement standards-based
reform, they found that when districts made decisions and dictated the instructional
agenda, those mandates collided with traditions of school and teacher autonomy
(David & Shields, 2001). The conclusion of these findings recommends creating an
infrastructure to support teacher learning, building an accountability and assessment
system and finding the right balance between authority and discretion among and
between the teaching and administrative staff. Other misguided, although well-
intentioned reform efforts, have been noted in the literature. For example, Elmore
(2002) recounts a conversation with a teacher concerning his opinion about
implementing block scheduling as a “high school reform effort” (p. 1). His
perception about the increased time in periods during a school day was that “now we
can show the whole movie” (Elmore, 2002, p. 1). This provides anecdotal evidence
22

that district and site-level administrators may change structures, and leave
instructional practices untouched. It is likely that schools as organizations are
currently not designed to respond to this kind of pressure for increased student
achievement through standards-based reform. Elmore (2002) further believes that
“schools are not organized to support problem solving based on cooperation and
collaboration…teachers practicing as individuals with individual styles -- is very
strong in schools” (p. 2).
As noted above, school systems may not be organized in a manner to
withstand the challenge of standards-based reform. Chubb and Moe (1990), as cited
in Marzano (2003), conducted a study of more than 400 high schools and found that
“among the reasons why direct external control may interfere with the development
of an effective school, perhaps the most important is the potentially debilitating
influence of external control over personnel” (p. 9). Although this external control
referred specifically to the district office administrators, the concept may also apply
to the internal school systems in a hierarchical environment. The tragic precursor to
the imposition of top-down management in our current reform environment may be
the response to a previously popular use of decentralization in the 1980s.
According to Ingersoll (1991), organizational theorists agree that school
systems have been engaged in decentralized systems that are neither rational, nor
purposeful. An example of this approach is what he describes the “loosely coupled
organizational” approach as “garbage cans” and “organized anarchies”. In his view,
this loosely coupled approach, defined as decentralization in the 1980s, has been
23

equated with disorganization, including unclear and ambiguous goal setting, low
levels of coordination of employee productivity and low levels of organizational
control, producing high levels of teacher autonomy and low levels of managerial
authority (p. 12). As he progresses through his argument against loose coupling, he
cites a weak claim that “there is some evidence to suggest that such [control]
mechanisms do exist” that are effective (p. 49). He suggested that control can exist
that, in essence, blends the loosely coupled approach with some form of order and
power of direction through making the control “invisible, natural and unobtrusive”
(p. 40). What? This may, in fact, be one of the causes for resistance among teachers
to the new management system of tight controls. It appears as if the pendulum has
swung, apparently rather unobtrusively, in the opposite direction.
Leaders in K-12 education continue to create new leadership models, believing
that combining the hierarchical approach with teacher participation may be the most
effective way to approach the imposition of standards upon the schools as they
observe academic choice in the classroom. Boyd and Crowson (2002) reconsidered
previous research conducted in 1981, including the study of a hybrid model of
organization that captures the “advantages of centralization and coordination
produced by hierarchy, while attempting to harness the advantages of more
decentralized organizational structures” (p. 521). Again, this study was conducted
as a result of pressures on public schools in the 1960s and 1970s, stemming from
student achievement problems relating to equity, equality, effectiveness and
efficiency (Boyd & Crowson, 2002). The current review laments the reality of a
24

similar situation occurring 20 years later with little refinement of an effective
organizational structure. And yet, they still support the notion of a combination of
“power-over” alongside “power-with” organizational management structure. Cuban
(1979), as cited in Boyd and Crowson (2002), described the dilemma well by stating
that “school systems and schools as organizations are rational and irrational,
bureaucratic and unbureaucratic, loosely structured and tightly structured, open to
change and closed to change, vulnerable and invulnerable. These dualities often
occur at the same time” (p. 525). The question of balancing the discretion and
opinion of the teacher and the hierarchical direction of leaders to intervene remains
unanswered and supports the conclusion that “efforts to conceptualize leadership in
schools over the past century have been going in circles” (Boyd & Crowson, 2002, p.
523). Others find that both the “commitment and control strategies can lead to
improved student outcomes, but that neither is consistently implemented in the
schools” (Rowan, 1990, p. 381).
And yet, the wisdom of the ages still seems to haunt us in our search for the
answers to how to effectively implement change and what is required of successful
leaders. Over 30 years ago, Marris (1975) states the problem of power and control in
this way: “when those who have the power to manipulate changes act as if they have
only to explain, and when their explanations are not at once accepted, shrug off
opposition as ignorance or prejudice, they express a profound contempt for the
meaning of lives other than their own” (p. 166). Many reform efforts may have
failed due to ineffective leadership. The studies are not extensive on failed reform
25

efforts by principals; however, we have learned that hierarchical, top-down, hero-
driven leadership is ineffective (Datnow, 2000; Blasé, 1990; Weiss & Cambone,
1994; Wolf, Borko, & Elliott, 2000; Heller & Firestone, 1995). These studies found
that power relations surrounding reform thwarted genuine buy-in, and, generally, that
hierarchical forms of leadership had a negative impact on teacher morale and
productivity, sometimes causing outright resistance. Fullan (1993) states that “you
can’t mandate what matters” and change requires skills, capacity, commitment,
motivation, beliefs and insights, and discretionary judgment on the spot (p. 23).
Leaders who are forced to comply with legal requirements often lose sight of need to
build effective teams in order to address this complex problem. The immediate
response is to comply and even though it may seem more efficient to relieve the
urgent pressure of imposed change, the long-term effects result in confusion and lack
of buy-in and, consequently, continued failure to create and sustain change. It has
been noted in current research that, “if ever there was a time when the leadership of
one single person was enough to produce powerful results in a school or district, that
time is past” (Nelson, Palumbo, Cudeiro, & Leight, 2005, p. 136).
In the 1990s, attempts were made to include “stakeholders” in the decision-
making process using many “participative models,” ameliorating the negative
reaction, primarily by teachers, to top-down management. Collaborative decision-
making, site-based decision-making, distributive leadership and utilizing teamwork
to make decisions are decision-making models that have been used in schools.
These models have similar characteristics and functions and may be used
26

interchangeably in the literature and in this study. Since these models have gained
much popularity since the 1990s, it is worth exploring why these models have not
been cited nor replicated for the purposes of implementing standards-based reform.
The function of collaborating or making decisions in groups, according to
LaFasto and Larson (2001), necessarily includes people with different perspectives
and views coming together, “putting aside their narrow self-interests, and discussing
issues openly and supportively in an attempt to solve a larger problem or achieve a
broader goal” (p. xvii). Is this a valued characteristic of the previously mentioned
models of decision making through teamwork? While many believe that this
reported transformation from individual work to teamwork is prevalent now due to
the increasing complexity of problems, as well as social evolution (LaFasto and
Larson, 2001), it may be that the teamwork designs have also had flaws. Indeed, the
issue of complexity of problems most appropriately applies to the K-12 educational
environment during the current standards-based reform movement.
Recommendations for standards-based approaches are based on the beliefs that
“everyone can learn, that everyone is born with an urge to learn which can be
nurtured and that a solid high school education is within the reach of virtually all” (A
Nation at Risk, 1983b, p. 1). The problem becomes more complex when considering
the diverse needs of students in public schools, including students who have special
educational needs; English as a second language; and racial, poverty and/or other
social issues. These potential deterrents to learning can cause educators to take
pause each day to ponder the solution to the problem of the assertions that highly
27

effective schools can “produce results that almost entirely overcome the effects of
student background” (Marzano, 2003). The claims, however, of increasing social
capacities of individuals and collectives to use collaborative strategies is worth
study. How do teams work effectively together: is it a social evolution of capacity,
or an environment carefully constructed and planned to provide the individual and
collective needs of the teams working together? This review will compare team
compositions and purposes to give the educational community hope of using teams
effectively in decision-making that directly and positively impacts instruction in the
classroom.
In order to address the question of specifically how teams work together, the
literature review in this study will first describe theories of group selection in
evolutionary biology, social/ psychological theories of human interaction, as well as
the dynamics of leadership roles in group interactions. These theories help to
illuminate the characteristics of social interactions relating to needs of the
participants, to provide the lens from which to take a closer look at the intricacies of
relationships and values that exist within a productive interaction. It is necessary to
study the nature of teamwork and consider effective models that include not only a
description of the roles of the members, but also delineate the critical functions of a
team. As teachers are the ultimate implementers of reform, their involvement in
discussions about instruction is critical to the impact on student achievement.
Therefore, teachers as leaders are reviewed to understand their role and potential
influence in the decision-making process. The final section of the review will
28

address a “new” kind of leadership, described as a shared power, including the
characteristics of trust, integrity, morality, humility, collaboration and accountability.
Social Psychological Theories of Human Interaction
In order to understand the complexities of how human teams work together
in group processes, consideration of how lower forms of animals display the ability
to make decisions for survival, in addition to the social/psychological human
exchanges that affect how groups function, this study will provide a framework for
analyzing the factors that affect the natural evolution of these functions. Group
selection theories posited by evolutionary biologists suggest that lower forms of
animals possess group decision-making skills that have provided them with the
ability to survive over time, using group interdependency. Group selection is
defined by Bower (1995) as “evolution of traits that boost the survival of some
groups relative to others in a population” (p. 328). According to Bower (1995),
studies suggest that the identification of “genomes that drive biological development
by harnessing collaborative chromosomes composed of once-independent genes”
and the observation of “consensus-building skills wielded by human groups – from
nomads to ocean navigators – facing complex crises and challenges” (p. 328) may
lend credence to the largely rejected group selection theory by evolutionary
biologists and behavioral scientists in earlier years. Instead, the research suggests
that genetic strangers may get along by a basic exchange-theory proposition that “if
you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” (p. 328).
29

The social roles of honeybees are cited frequently in an effort to support the
case for group selection (Bower, 1995; Wilson & Sober, 1994). Collective decision-
making plays a vital role in the daily life of honeybees, which are characterized as
“superorganisms” (Seeley, 1995, as cited in Bower, 1995). Honeybees as a group in
a hive make decisions on a minute-by-minute basis regarding which flower patches
to visit, disregarding miles of other choices, as well as allocating workers to maintain
hives or other vital concerns (Bower, 1995). “When the hive faces key judgments,
each bee offers a small contribution to a chain of responses that produces appropriate
divisions of labor or other outcomes” (Bower, 1995, p. 329). The reports suggest
that hive members resemble neurons in a brain, rather than independent agents; thus
demonstrating the group effort operating at a basic biological level.
Social sorting in group process studies conducted by Wilson and Dugatkin
(1994), as cited in Bowers, (1995) revealed a social early-warning system that
allowed cooperators to cluster together and leave out “selfish” people to fend for
themselves. Further, they found that humans have evolved an innate ability to
discern cheaters in social transactions. Wilson and Dugatkin (1994), as cited in
Bowers (1995) also reported in a review of over 400 psychological studies that
groups are much better at making decisions than individuals. He concludes that
human confrontation with crisis decisions have magnified the effects of group
selection and, in fact, provide the biological necessity for organized groups to work
together to address the complex issues of today. Smith (1987), as cited in Wilson
and Sober (1994) states that “higher units of the biological hierarchy can be
30

organisms, in exactly the same sense that individuals are organisms...group
organisms may be more vulnerable than individuals to subversion from within, but
this must not prevent us from recognizing group-level functional organization where
it exists” (p. 27).
The human social exchange theories seem to parallel the earlier biological
theories of group selection in their ability to survive. Certainly, in the new social
context in education of facing the crises of today, the group processes are called into
question in the area of leadership in the school setting. It is appropriate to use the
lens of the founding theories of human social exchange in order to compare, and, not
only understand the development of the group processes, but also attempt to
understand the continued human evolution in the group selection process as it applies
to unraveling the issues faced today. The social psychological theories of human
social exchange developed over forty years ago addressed the idea that dyadic
interaction, which is “when two people emit behavior in one another’s presence” is
likely to continue positively if individuals profit from this interaction (Thibaut &
Kelly, 1959, as cited in Shaw & Costanzo, 1970, p. 82). Homans (1961), as cited in
Shaw and Costanzo (1970) began his study of human interactions derived from the
study of animal behavior, extending his theory to apply uniquely to humans. In
order to differentiate the two, Homans (1961), as cited in Shaw and Costanzo (1970)
defined descriptive terms such as: activity, sentiment, and interaction. Sentiments
are characterized as signs of the attitudes and feelings a person takes toward another.
Clearly, these sentiments became critical in later studies as indicators of relationships
31

among group members working together in a social exchange activity. He theorizes
that in human interactions, “distributive justice” is a rule that operates in all areas of
social behavior. The distributive justice rule holds that “a [person] in an exchange
relation with another will expect the rewards of each [person] be proportional to his
costs” (Homans, 1961, as cited in Shaw & Costanzo, 1970, p. 79). When this desired
proportionality does not occur, distributive justice is violated and the human
interaction may fail to produce the desired results.
These theories of profit from the dyadic interchange may be applied to one in
authority and a subordinate in this relationship. Adams and Romney (1959), as cited
in Shaw and Costanzo (1970), viewed authority as “a bilateral phenomenon based
upon reciprocal reinforcement” (p. 103). Both the subordinate and “superordinate”
persons have the power to reinforce each other. Emerson (1976) analyzes Homans’
theory of social exchange, referring to the “value proposition”, which purports that
“the more valuable to a person the result of his action, the more likely he is to
perform the action” (p.340). Further, he states that “exchange theory” should not be
viewed simply as a theory. Exchange theories cited by psychologists and economists
narrowly define this social exchange as “reinforcement” and “exchange”
respectively. Instead, Emerson (1976) concludes that social exchange theory is a
frame of reference that moves valued resources through social processes and can
challenge the “vertical organization” by developing the conceptual tools needed
such as longitudinal exchange relations and network structures in order to address,
32

for example, “those topics that economics theory has trouble with: market
imperfections” (p.359).
Leadership theories developed in the 1970s, such as the Leader-Member
Exchange Theory (LMX), used the “dyadic relationship” as the focal point of the
leadership process as it relates to the interactions between “leaders and followers”
(Northouse, 2004, p. 147). Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991), as cited in Northouse
(2004) further developed the exchange theory to include high-level exchanges
between and among leaders and followers. This more sophisticated theory embraced
the concept of the development of a “high degree of mutual trust, respect, and
obligation toward each other” (Northouse, 2004, p. 152). Prior to the LMX theory
applications, researchers viewed leadership as an action that was “done” to
followers. The LMX theory challenged that assumption and viewed the leader-
follower relationship involving personalities and other personal characteristics
related to the process. In addition, the followers were given the opportunity to
expand their roles and responsibilities to enable them to work in cooperation, rather
than being directed to perform a task. Researchers found that this high quality of
leader-member exchange related to positive outcomes for organizations, such as
better job attitudes, greater participation, greater organizational commitment and
generally a positive working environment. Finally, the LMX theory postulates that
communication is critical in high-quality exchanges and that this communication is
characterized by mutual trust, respect and commitment (Northouse, 2004). The most
serious criticism of this theory is that only certain individuals can access this
33

relationship and gain entrance to the in-group, while others, who refuse to engage in
this “social exchange,” remain in the out-group and have no influence or stake in the
process.
Other leadership theories that involve the interdependency of the group
dynamics are assistive to understand the complexities specifically between the leader
and follower in a decision-making context. Contingency theory suggests that “a
leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context”
(Northouse, 2004, p. 109). The context described in this theory includes the “degree
of confidence, loyalty, and attraction that followers feel for their leaders”
(Northouse, 2004, p. 110). The Team Leadership model developed by Kogler-Hill
(2004), as cited in Northouse (2004) further defines teams as “organized groups
composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who
must coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals” (p. 203). At the
foundation of social-interaction theories, then, there are common issues of
interdependence and clear goals to accomplish. Even the honeybees have goals!
More recently, new leadership theories have emerged to address the new
societal context in which leadership occurs which can share the manner in which
school leadership teams, including administrators and teachers, can work together to
address not only change, but also the concomitant accountability issues to insure
consistency in implementation of reform. Kezar, Carducci and Contreras-McGavin
(In p), review new leadership concepts, including: ethics/spirituality,
collaboration/partnering, empowerment, social change and emotions as reflective of
34

the “post-industrial” context described by Rost (1991). Kezar et al., (In p), notes that
“collaboration, networks, and the importance of culture are all important concepts
within the new context of leadership” (p. 79). Rost (1991), as cited in Brungardt
(1998) reminds us that leadership is not what the leaders do; rather that “leadership is
what leaders and followers do together for the collective good” (p. 2). He further
describes the context as a “shared-powered environment.” These new models of
leadership accommodate the changing post-industrial paradigm of leadership,
according to Rost (1993), and train new leaders to use influence with “noncoersive
relationships.”
In order to apply the group process models of collaboration and teamwork to
the educational setting, it is important to consider the two societal forces shaping that
context. The first is driven by the need to find more effective ways to deal with
complex problems, such as educating a population of diverse students with varying
needs in a traditional educational setting. The second is made possible by increasing
social capacities of individuals and collective groups to use collaborative strategies
when addressing common problems (LaFasto & Larson, 2001). The following
represents a review of the existing models of teamwork, a description of teachers as
leaders in school settings, as well as the “new” models that include an emphasis on
relationships, trust, empowerment and shared power. The ensuing review of these
areas will reveal substantial support of using teams, including stakeholders, as an
effective impetus for change. However, the path to collaboration may not be as
clear. Togneri and Anderson (2003) found in their studies of instructional reform
35

that “collaboration and trust did not simply happen in [the] districts; rather, they
were the result of deliberate and involved processes” (p. 32). These are the
processes that are worth study for the creation of a “new” leadership.
Teamwork
There is substantial evidence that the desired outcomes of group decisions
are accomplished when teachers participate in decision-making, while working
collaboratively in teams with principals (Conley & Muncey, 1999; Park, Henkin &
Egley, 2005; Schmoker, 1999; Wassmer, Papazian & Conner, 2002; Hollins, 2006;
Fullan, 1993). The support for teacher collaboration and participation, however,
does not come without qualification. It is clear that collaboration and shared
leadership can lead to addressing the complex educational issues of today and this
model is an improvement over the teacher isolation and privatism that has existed in
the past (Fullan, 1993). Collaboration alone, however, can encourage uncritical
uniformity to a group, producing results that may be unfocused, mired in tradition
and absent of creative ideas. The freshest ideas, for example, may be generated
from those who represent a diversity that may not be welcomed. This concept of
misguided collaboration and participation is evidenced in a study conducted by
Griffin (1995), who held conversations with teachers regarding the influences of
shared decision-making on school and classroom activity. The findings revealed that
“little thought and no apparent attention [was given] to using the redesign and shared
decision-making initiatives to influence individual teachers’ classroom practices” (p.
43). He found that the identified issues focused on schoolwide issues of discipline,
36

rather than classroom instruction, which is the core of reform. It seems clear that the
team must be focused on improving student performance in order to fully implement
standards-based reform efforts. The report prepared by the California State Senate
Office of Research (Wassmer et al., 2002) concluded that the teaching staff was
more likely to work in teams in high-performing schools when they focused on
student achievement. The report also concluded that more research was needed to
determine what kinds of teamwork approaches worked toward supporting student
achievement.
The phenomenon of producing results by teamwork, through collaboration,
discussion and even vigorous dialogue and debate has been studied in private and
public sectors. Collins (2001), in his study of how great companies not only
triumphed over time, but sustained long-term performance touted the use of a
“council” to execute the Hedgehog Concept. The Hedgehog Concept is a “simple”
concept that flows from the intersection of three circles of questions, including:
“what you can be the best in the world at; what drives your economic engine; and
what are you deeply passionate about” (p. 95)? The council includes the leading
executive and 5 to 12 people, specifically designed to engage in dialogue to
determine improvement efforts. This process includes asking questions, performing
analysis, debate and making decisions. The council members are required to respect
the opinions of the other members, without exception. Each member also retains the
ability to argue and debate from the standpoint of understanding, rather than
maintaining an egoistic need to win a point or protect an interest. The council
37

members are chosen from a diverse pool and represent a range of perspectives and
interests on the issues. These highly-focused team efforts are conducted to include
“real people” in “real companies” who want to be part of the winning team. One of
the companies studied reported that because management had a good relationship
with its workers, they were willing to go to almost extreme lengths to build the
enterprise they had created together aligning worker interests with management
interests. Collins (2001) calls them “a bit fanatical, [but creating] great results
requires a nearly fanatical dedication to the consistency within the Hedgehog
Concept” (p. 139).
School-based participative decision-making has been the source of many
studies over the last 15 years. Smylie, Lazarus and Brownlee-Conyers (1996), using
a synthesis of many studies, found that when democratic, participative structures
involving classroom teachers were used and the focus was on curriculum and
instruction, that instruction was most likely to be affected. This information
encouraged their longitudinal study of the instructional outcomes of participative
decision-making. The study addressed three organizational variables, including
teacher autonomy, accountability and professional learning opportunities. These
variables were identified in organizational and social psychological theory as
mechanisms that may operate to link participative decision-making to instructional
outcomes (Smylie et al., 1996). The data indicated that teachers’ perception of
decreased autonomy and increased accountability was statistically significant, and
that there was a positive relationship between school-based decision-making and
38

instructional outcomes. However, they noted that several findings required further
examination since the relationships of organizational change mechanisms to
instructional improvement are generally weaker than the relationships of those
mechanisms to student outcomes. The interpretation of this finding was unclear and
led to speculation about how the teams worked together and how participative
decision-making may have a positive or negative relationship to student learning if
the process is contentious or divisive.
Distributive leadership is another familiar descriptor of teamwork in the
educational setting. Lashway (2003) describes how leadership should be distributed
in light of the complexity and heavy workload of the principal. This style of
inclusion renders the principal as the “architect” of organizational leadership and not
the “chief-doer”. This model has been touted as a means to remedy the negative
effects of teacher isolation and the process includes weaving together people,
materials, and organizational structures in a common cause, instead of delegating or
giving away job responsibilities (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). The
distributive leadership configuration further assumes that the school, rather than the
individual leader, is responsible to think about appropriate leadership activities.
Spillane et al., (2001) also describe this process as reducing the concept of hero-
innovators, increasing the capability to empower others and to apply a social
distribution of task enactment. In other words, staff members develop specialties
that reflect their skills, interests and aptitudes. The “architect” of the organization,
presumably the principal, harnesses and directs those skills so they complement each
39

other. This call for distributive leadership appears to be a response to the principal’s
rapidly expanding responsibilities, providing for the opportunity to share job
responsibilities with others. Lashway (2003) wonders “if everyone is a leader, what
keeps a school from fragmenting into conflicting and ungovernable camps” (p. 4)?
The hero-director is still responsible to manage and orchestrate the assigned tasks,
frequently among staff members, who also hold full-time assignments and have
limited time to complete all their tasks well.
Miller and Monge (1986) report that previous studies of the effectiveness of
participative decision-making are inconclusive and reveal much disagreement.
When the reviewers draw conclusions based on numerous empirical research studies,
they invariably state that “it depends” on certain environmental factors (Locke &
Schweiger, 1979; Lowin, 1968; Singer, 1974, as cited in Miller & Monge, 1986, p.
728). This conclusion is exhilarating as it opens the door to needed study on the
topic of why some groups are successful and others are not. The meta-analytic
review conducted by Miller and Monge (1986) looked at the effects of participation
on satisfaction and productivity. The conclusions support the notion that “it
depends”. For example, one of the findings indicates specific organizational factors
that “enhance or constrain the effect of participation” (p. 748). They found evidence
that the participative “climate” had more impact than on the focused participation in
goal setting.
Effective teamwork depends on many interwoven intricacies of personalities,
skills, knowledge, accountability, diversity and clear roles and responsibilities.
40

According to LaFasto and Larson (2001), there are six dimensions of team
leadership: 1) focus on the goal; 2) ensure a collaborative climate; 3) build
confidence; 4) demonstrate sufficient technical know-how; 5) set priorities; and 6)
manage performance. While these elements represent the basic structure of an
effective team, the manner in which the teams ensure collaborative climates and
build confidence will be examined in juxtaposition to the “new” leadership model,
including the ethical/spiritual and empowerment issues. If the team leader, for
example, is the key player in this setting, ultimately responsible for the outcomes of
the team effort, he/she needs to display and model the characteristics leading to
trusting relationships as a precursor to effective accomplishment of goals. Having
clearly-stated goals, then, is a critical element addressed by many researchers in the
private and public sector (LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Schmoker, 2002; McKeever,
2003; Fullan, 2000). Schmoker (1999) states that “goals give teamwork meaning,”
and emphatically believes that failure to establish goals leads to futile collaborative
efforts among school teams. “Far too many teams casually accept goals that are
neither demanding, precise, realistic, nor actually held in common…team alone
never makes a team” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, as cited in Schmoker, 1999, p.
23). In a later publication, Schmoker (2006) refines his focus on goals to state that
“a focus on learning, on assessment results, becomes the leverage for improvements
in teaching, which is only as good as its impact on learning” (p. 126). This frames
the accountability plan to place the burden of proof on the ultimate student outcome
of increased achievement and success.
41

Beyond setting the goals, an accountability plan must be in place to monitor
the implementation of those goals, focusing specifically on student acquisition of the
state standards and increased achievement. Nelson, Palumbo, Cudeiro and Leight
(2005) direct schools to identify and implement a schoolwide instructional focus that
includes a plan for “the principal and staff [to] hold each other mutually
accountable,” along with high expectations for student success, with no excuses
(p.19). Challenging goals and effective feedback are also part of the plan for school
improvement, according to Marzano (2003). He discusses the need for establishing
challenging goals for students and developing a monitoring system in order to give
feedback to those implementing the goals. In a team setting, the accountability
aspect of implementation of agreed-upon goals in some cases may require colleagues
to monitor each other. Virtually all monitoring systems of accountability are
uncomfortable to staff members in the educational setting. Wohlstetter (1997), as
cited in Cuban (2004) found that “although school performance has been the ultimate
outcome of most site-based management plans, [it] was difficult to measure…school
personnel had low comfort levels with issues of outcome measurement and
accountability” (p. 111). In fact, as participative, decision-making teams emerge in
organizations such as manufacturing firms, hospitals, corporations and universities,
the participants “want and expect some measure of control over their own destinies;”
however, they desire the input without the “concomitant accountability” (Harvey &
Drolet, 1994, p. 3). It appears as if an effective team must also be willing to be
engaged in establishment of norms that provide the safety of holding each other
42

accountable. A safe climate may be another element that provides the structure not
only to support each other, but also to facilitate task achievement.
Creating a collaborative climate has been cited as an important element
through which the accountability structure may exist. It has been noted that a
positive school climate encourages and supports team members in accomplishing the
goals of the organization. Clark and Estes (2002) describe how once organizational
goals are set, the work environment is critical to motivate high job performance.
Employees in all workplace organizations need sufficient motivation to perform at
their highest levels, without the fear of punishment. There are five elements noted
by Clark and Estes (2002) that contribute to the destruction of motivation in the work
environment, including: vague and constantly changing performance goals and
feedback; dishonesty, hypocrisy and unfairness; unnecessary rules and work barriers;
competition; and negative, critical, biased and prejudicial feedback (p. 89).
Conversely, the motivators are personal and team confidence; emotional climate; and
personal and team values for the performance goals. Team members also contribute
to positive team climate by keeping the “team goals” in focus, rather than a personal
agenda or attitude. This requires active listening and taking the risks to address
issues directly, even though they may seem uncomfortable.
Sometimes the diverse makeup of the group may cause discomfort among
individuals. In order for a professional collaboration to occur, the team members
need to embrace diverse opinions (Nelson, Palumbo, Cudeiro, & Leight, 2005). In
fact, diversity on teams may lead to a variety of consequences for the decision-
43

making process. Devine (1989), as cited in Jackson, May and Whitney (1995) found
that research suggests that members of diverse teams are more likely to have a
negative experience in decision-making than members of homogeneous teams.
Devine (1989), as cited in Jackson et al., (1995) also suggests that stereotypes about
other team members are more likely to be automatically activated in heterogeneous
teams, consciously suppressed, resulting in discomfort. Team members need to
remember that sometimes the most comfortable situation is not always the most
effective means of solving a problem or making a decision. According to Jehn,
Neale and Northcraft (1999), it is “the diversity that causes the biggest problems in
and has the greatest potential for enhancing both work performance and morale” (p.
749). If, for example, the racial makeup of the educators in a school setting is
predominantly white and the student population is predominantly minority, then
attitudes, beliefs and biases must be addressed in the context of collaborative efforts
within the team. Diversity on the team will assist in enhancing this understanding
and provide a model, not only of decision-making focused on the needs of all
students, but also assist adults in addressing potential personal biases. Teams of
varied strengths and perspectives, in fact, are more likely to produce more creative
and more effective solutions, if they can overcome subtle or overt bias, address
issues openly and work in harmony (Goleman, 1995). Diverse adult teams making
educational decisions are critical to the diverse social context of America and
especially to the students entering the system with a multitude of differences from
the previously “comfortable” white dominant culture. In fact, contemporary
44

sociological research has demonstrated that “consistent and predictable structural
variations in the interpersonal networks of people from different social classes and
status groups usually translate into differential access to highly valued institutional
resources, opportunities and privileges” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 5).
The complexity of effective teamwork, however, remains illusive to some
leaders. On one hand, the research suggests that democratic and collaborative
participative structures, involving primarily teachers, which focus primarily on
curriculum and instruction, are most likely to evoke change at the classroom level
(Smylie, Lazarus, & Brownlee-Conyers, 1996). However, the conclusion relating to
team effectiveness that “it depends,” still resonates among all studies because, in
fact, school-based governance has yet to show a direct causal link to improved
school quality and improved student achievement. Cuban (2004) is emphatic
concerning the inconclusive correlation between shared decision-making and
improved student performance. He cites research by Wohlstetter (1997) in Cuban
(2004), indicating that “although school performance has been the ultimate outcome
of site-based management plans, [we] found it difficult to measure” (p. 111). There
are countless variables involved in influencing student achievement in schools.
Although there is extensive research considering K-12 reform efforts, the focus of
this study is isolated to leadership and decision making, including the intentional
focus on student learning. A descriptive study of the behaviors of individuals
working together seems appropriate to determine how teams work, including their
trust levels and ethics in working honestly with others.
45

Teachers as Leaders
If effective leadership in schools involves teams working together to make
decisions specifically affecting student achievement, then teachers will need to be
valued members of this team. Should all teachers be involved in this process or just
representatives? Are there certain characteristics of teachers that qualify them to be
a part of this decision-making process? The study of teachers as leaders sheds light
on who these teachers might be and why they should be involved in decision-
making. For example, Swanson, Snell, Koency and Berns (2000) placed teachers at
the center of school reform efforts and conducted a study, combining qualitative case
study and action research that engaged teacher-leaders in studying their own
professional learning. The study failed to identify leadership qualities of teacher-
leaders, concluding that these teachers did not possess the depth of knowledge, nor
competencies necessary to implement school reform. Interestingly, defining teachers
as leaders is illusive and many conclude that the description is contextual (Keedy,
1999; Wasley, 1999; Smylie, 1995). So, maybe we conclude that as teacher-leaders
are defined -- “it depends.” And, if it depends, more study needs to be conducted to
determine the role of the teacher-leader in the context of implementation of
standards-based reform and the relationship with the principal.
There is clearly a formal and informal sense of a teacher-leader. Formally,
teacher-leaders are “teachers on special assignment,” department chairs or mentor
teachers, to name a few. Informally, teacher-leaders as defined by teachers
themselves include, “[teachers] who had the ability to share information and to
46

influence others in matters related to curriculum and instruction, and [who had] the
ability to go beyond the classroom to be current in research and to be teaching
advocates” (Wasley, 1999, p. 146). Further, teacher-leaders were described as those
teachers who had the ability to move ahead to build a better system, rather than just
maintaining the current one and that they pushed themselves beyond normal
expectations. The formal designations of teacher-leaders may transcend the
acceptable notion of grass-roots leadership in that they may be perceived as being
“anointed or appointed” by administration and lose credibility among the teachers in
the building.
For the purposes of this review, all future references to teacher leaders will
reflect necessarily the informal teacher-leader, unless otherwise specified. Teacher
Leaders Network (2002) published a seminal report describing teacher leadership
and lamented that “the system has not been organized to treat teachers as leaders” (p.
1). They identify “deep and powerful” forces within the system that work against
teacher leadership. Their definition of teacher leadership does not include the need
for “power”, but rather the respect of recognizing the professional community of
teachers as valid partners in decision making relating to virtually all aspects of the
school program, including curriculum, instruction, staff development and personnel
selection decisions. The piece cries out for the demolition of the vertical hierarchy,
allowing it to give way to horizontal information-sharing networks and collective
decision-making. It is possible, in fact, that, teachers, when given the opportunity to
be leaders, may reinvigorate schools and “counter the effects of conventional
47

institutional structures and bureaucratic management thinking” (Park, Henkin &
Egley, 2005, p. 462).
Teacher leadership may depend upon the structures of teamwork that support
and include them in the process. If there is confusion about goals, power structure
and even what types of decisions that should be made by participants such as
teachers, they may, understandably become frustrated with taking an active role in
participatory management (Enderlin-Lampe, 2002). The research conducted by
Denham and Michael (1981), as cited in Enderlin-Lampe (2002), indicates that
“teachers frequently believe they are not competent to have an integral part in shared
governance” (p. 141). Teachers attribute a more positive work environment and
attitudes to support administration, collegial faculty and a focus on students to
providing the foundation to support a collaborative work environment supportive of
shared decision-making. “The leader must embrace and promote the concept of
empowerment and teacher efficacy by providing the opportunity for teachers to
mutually determine the direction of the organization” (Enderlin-Lampe, 2002, p.
141). Unfortunately, the historical tradition of including teachers as intelligent,
contributing participants in the decision-making process has eluded many from the
beginning of the American school system. Dewey (1903) discusses democracy in
education and woefully attributes the failure of “present day” reform efforts to keep
up with the “contemporary social movement” to the “relatively undemocratic
organization of the school, as it affects the mind of both the teacher and pupil, and
the growth and extension of the democratic principle in life beyond the school doors”
48

(p. 193). The argument made by Dewey (1903) at the turn of the century is so
artistically and emotionally crafted, that the full idea must be cited precisely, using
his own words, as any element of paraphrasing would most likely offend his brilliant
thoughts, even in his grave:
What does democracy mean save that the individual is to have a
share in determining the conditions and the aims of his own
work; and that, upon the whole, through the free and mutual
harmonizing of different individuals, the work of the world is
better done than when planned, arranged, and directed by a
few, no matter how wise or of how good intent that few? How
can we justify our belief in the democratic principle elsewhere,
and then go back entirely upon it when we come to education?

Moreover, the argument proves too much. The more it is
asserted that the existing corps of teachers is unfit to have
voice in the settlement of important educational matters, and
their unfitness to exercise intellectual initiative and to assume
the responsibility for constructive work is emphasized, the
more their unfitness to attempt the much more difficult and
delicate task of guiding souls appears. If this body is so unfit,
how can it be trusted to carry out the recommendations or the
dictations of the wisest body of experts? If teachers are
incapable of the intellectual responsibility which goes with the
determination of the methods they are to use in teaching, how
can they employ methods when dictated by others, in other than
a mechanical, capricious, and clumsy manner (p. 197)?

This treatise could have been written today in the face of our current reform
mandates. The standards-based reform effort has been confused by “test-based
reform,” in some educators’ minds, according to Hargrove, Walker, Huber, Corrigan
and Moore (2004). This could be a result of the absence of communication among
and between teachers and principals regarding the specific change that needs to
occur to address the need to implement appropriate reform. Hargrove et al., (2004)
49

conclude that although national professional organizations have “masterfully”
crafted standards in an attempt to guide school reform efforts, there is a chasm
between intent and implementation. They claim this movement places a lot of
pressure on teachers to prove themselves based on the extent to which student test
scores increase. “It seems that the more the state continues to tell teachers how and
how not to teach, the worse schools become” (Hargrove et al., 2004, p. 569).
Hargrove et al., (2004) claim that teachers want autonomy to do what they know is
right, as the tests “conflict with authentic goals” (p.569). Teachers need to be treated
as professionals, who have contributions to make in guiding the reform efforts.
When teachers emerge to speak up on the issue of reform, sometimes there are
remaining tensions surrounding the institutional control of teaching, experienced by
teacher leaders, evidenced by “tensions between individual and collective forms of
autonomy, and tensions between the innovative spirit spawned by restructuring and
the move to ‘institutionalize’ that followed in its wake” (Little, 1995, p. 56). Little
(1995) acknowledges that current reform efforts are like prior reforms of this
century, challenging relative autonomy of teachers, concluding that, “As in prior
reforms, such challenges confront both the weight of tradition and the complex
micro-politics of the local school context” (p. 60). The contested ground of tension
needs to be transformed into a more common ground.
Notably, teachers as victims of imposed reforms become fatigued at the
constant reference to their “helplessness; feelings of entrapment; disempowerment;
and being given ‘realistic’ expectations of performance” (Hargrove et al., 2004, p.
50

569). They, instead, offer suggestions for training, empowerment and change to
those who may be “in charge.” These suggestions include: creating professional
communities; establishing positive school environments; providing opportunities for
increasing the quality of teacher professionalism; and “mobilizing the still largely
untapped attributes of teachers to strengthen student performance at ground level and
working toward real collaboration, a locally tailored kind of shared leadership, in the
daily life of school” (Teacher Leaders Network, 2002, p. 2).
There is no question among researchers that teachers as leaders are vital in the
role of leadership at the site level, as well as informed about the mandated
instructional programs, with the ability to provide direct and valued input into how
the programs will affect the day-to-day instruction in their classrooms (Danielson,
2006; Dewey, 1903; Enderlin-Lampe, 2002; Fullan, 2003a; Schmoker, 1999; Keedy,
1999). According to Hart (1995), however, although teachers exercise leadership in
their immediate classroom on a daily basis through influence over the beliefs, actions
and values of others, as well as exerting power over behavior by making decisions
and directing students to comply with rules and responsibilities, they still often lack
the formal authority for the leadership they often use informally. She further cites
the need for schools to apply the social exchange theory which potentially provides
teachers a profit of “professional benefits and growth, as well as financial benefits
such as: better instruction; improved curriculum; focused insight; honest and clear
communication with students; and enhanced interpersonal relationships” (p.17).
This “wholesome”, professional exchange could exist between a teacher-leader as a
51

strong mentor for another teacher. This kind of teacher empowerment is one
example of how teachers may begin to develop teacher efficacy in order to feel
equipped to participate in decision-making.
Teacher leadership, however, is different from principal leadership. One study
conducted by Crowther and Olsen (1997), as cited in Keedy (1999) found that
teacher leaders neither viewed themselves as “either charismatic, or as having
exceptional influence” (p. 797). They suggested a framework for teacher-leaders,
including five dimensions: 1) models trust and sincerity; 2) builds networks of
support; 3) nurtures a culture of success; 4) articulates clear views of a better world;
and 5) confronts structural barriers (Keedy, 1999, p. 797). Teacher-leaders report
that their success is related to having a goal, persisting toward that goal and
acknowledging small successes as they occur (Barth, 2001, p. 447). Teachers also
need to have opportunities conducive to collegial interaction and professional
growth. Keedy (1999) advocates for eliminating classroom teacher isolation,
yielding to teacher leader involvement in decisions, who are capable of revitalizing
schools for all student learners. The role of the principal becomes critical in this
emergent process as he/she must value teacher leadership as a condition to
transforming schools into democratic partnerships making decisions that affect
instruction to ultimately address the student achievement concerns raised by the state
and federal government.

52

Leadership as Shared Power
Influencing classroom instruction with accountability for decisions, using
leadership teams within the context of authentic discussions with teachers, may
require a “new” leadership paradigm. The school teams need a “genuine
collaborative culture,” rather than the reported “contrived collegiality” that exists in
some settings, merely to adhere to the mandates for collaboration (Little, 1995).
Effective teamwork may require an environment that includes the “psychological
atmosphere” in order to shape attitudes and guide behavior within the intellectual
and cultural climate of the organization (LaFasto & Larson, 2003). Within the
organizational environment, the role of the leader is key to the team’s ultimate
success. The team members studied in LaFasto and Larson (2003) report that
managers have the greatest influence on shaping the environment that supports
teamwork. “At its best, leadership is both ‘top down’ and ‘bottom-up;’ it is
‘shared’” (Lambert, 1998, as cited in Schmoker, 2006, p. 144). The notion of shared
authority does not mean that all teachers become principals. It may be that in
schools in which teachers perceive their principal as a strong instructional leader that
“the organizational division of labor is more differentiated among teachers and
stronger teachers are more influential” (Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991). This
leadership configuration may include a cadre of teachers in a leadership team who
work closely with the principal to discuss curricular issues and gain input from
others from their grade level and subject matter groups. These leaders must establish
clear operating principles that expect and trust the individuals in the other teams to
53

take action. The clearly stated operating principles include: giving the teams
authority to make decisions; responsibility to complete tasks; delegation to team
leaders; and individual empowerment. The teams, then, need to create the system to
hold each other accountable, while operating on a trusting foundation, alongside a
self-sacrificing, ethical leader, who is able to share leadership with others.
School principals can act as a barrier to realizing the full potential of
developing a democratic approach to shared leadership. Teachers see principals as
holding on to power, control and remaining at the center stage of not only school
reform, but also over school management and control (Barth, 2001). This may be
understandable in the wake of principal accountability for what teachers do in the
classroom relating to student achievement. The principal obviously wants assurance
that those he/she empowers have proven records of competency and will “most
likely support the principal’s agenda and/or who will not divert attention or energy
by pursuing their own” (Barth, 2001, p. 447). In fact, the personal security of the
principal seems to affect his/her ability to share leadership. “One study found that
the weaker the principal personally, the less he or she is likely to share leadership”
(Barth, 2001, p. 447). Principals engaged in school reform need to learn when to be
directive and when to step back, as well as to be able to “take risks associated with
losing some of their control” (Datnow & Castellano, 2001, p. 221). At times, a
principal may be unable to provide the necessary support of reform as the
involvement of teachers may challenge his/her own experience in leadership, training
or beliefs (Datnow & Castellano, 2001).
54

Consequently, the characteristics of the team leader (principal) are crucial in
the creation of a new leadership paradigm. “If you can’t model the norms and values
you expect others to adopt, it’s unlikely that any real improvement will take place”
(Elmore, 2002). All members of the team, especially the team leader, must give up
self-interest for the sake of the team and constituency served by the school. Kohn
(1990) argues that when people profit from exchanging their talents and resources
“on the face [seems] a nonideoligical assertion, easily confirmed by empirical
study,” though noncontroversial and unchallenged, is, in fact, the kind of cooperation
that leaves egoism intact (p. 240). He promotes a more altruistic approach to
teamwork, suggesting that at the outset, each team member, especially the leader,
needs to approach the process in order to share the rewards, as it were. Goleman
(1995) supports the idea that putting aside one’s self-centered focus and impulses has
social benefits and opens the way to “empathy, to real listening, to taking another
person’s perspective…this allows people to live together in mutual respect and
creating the possibility of productive public discourse. These are the basic arts of
democracy” (p. 285).
Trust is another key characteristic of effective teamwork (Fullan, 2003b;
Covey, 1989; LaFasto & Larson, 2001; Kohn, 1990; Meier, 2002; Barth, 2001;
Goldberg & Morrison, 2002). At the public school level there are so many levels of
bureaucracy, that individual attention and communication may become difficult.
Meier (2002) notes that “building schools on the basis of trusting those closest to the
action is the stuff of private education and cannot be imported to the public sphere on
55

a large scale” (p. 156). She also found when dealing directly with teachers, that trust
had a relationship to the question of “who is in charge?” In the setting she studied,
division of powers among staff, individual families and the governing board
engendered trust and interdependency among the group members and reportedly
functioned successfully.
Bryk and Schneider (2003) cite research studies that describe how social trust
within a school community not only improves the routine work of schools, but is also
central to successful implementation of future reform efforts. This social trust is
referred to as “relational trust” and defined as a relationship in which each party
“maintains an understanding of his or her role’s obligations and holds some
expectations about the obligations of the other parties” (p. 41). Further, relational
trust is organized around four distinct considerations: respect, personal regard,
competence in core role responsibilities and personal integrity (Bryk & Schneider,
2003, p. 42). This relational trust is achieved not by a one-day workshop or
sensitivity training, but rather the day-to-day social exchanges based on the four
pillars of respect, personal regard, competence and integrity (Bryk & Schneider,
2003).
While developing trust among participants in the decision-making process is
an essential cornerstone, it does not exist in a vacuum. It must be artistically
intertwined in the overall collaborative process, including intellectual and social
exchanges. Fink and Resnick (2001) train instructional leaders to develop skills not
only in developing trust, but also to stimulate motivation for continuous study and
56

improvement of teaching practices. They claim that “effective instructional leaders
must, [in other words], create intellectual capital and social capital within their
organizations” (Fink & Resnick, 2001, p. 601). These two elements are necessary in
order to accomplish the ultimate goal of positively influencing classroom instruction
through the effective performance of teachers teaching. Zech, Gause-Vega, Bray,
Secules and Goldman (2000) used a staff development model of content-based,
collaborative inquiry and found that teachers and facilitators successfully engaged in
“critical colleagueship”, based on a platform of trust “so that assumptions and
evidence can be held up to critical examination” (p. 214).
In order to engender trusting relationships, individuals may need to possess
certain moral/ethical attributes that support honesty and integrity. Transforming
American schools, according to Gauld (1995), involves communicating moral
convictions to kids, including the belief that not only do they have an “important
purpose on earth, with the unique potential to fulfill it, but also that their true worth
is measured, not only by their social status, intellect, or talents, but by the strength of
their character” (p. 168). Hyde School, founded in 1965, by Mr. Gauld, held
character in as high esteem as academic performance and include courage, integrity,
concern, curiosity and leadership as the character traits they value and model. Even
though character can be defined or described differently by most, an apt description
of character is suggested by Craig Cunningham, the director of curriculum at the
Hyde Foundation. Cunningham (1994) suggests that character is one of those
“slippery words that can mean whatever one wants” and believes that good character
57

can simply mean those “personal qualities which serve to actualize a person’s unique
potential” (p. 223). This definition, then, supports the notion that good character
may depend on the local social interactions. In a school setting, another context to
consider is the way in which “good” character operates successfully to build
cooperation, collaboration, open communication and trust. Other examples of
building collaborative structures using character as a foundation are found in the
study of three elementary schools that have “beaten the odds” with the successful
implementation of reform. Strahan (2003) found that one of the elementary schools
began their reform efforts with training and support for character education. The
teachers reported at the end of the study that they had not only formed trusting
relationships with their students, but also reported, along with the administrators, that
“they coordinated efforts to improve achievement” and they were open to sharing
new ideas in order to “strengthen their professional community” (p. 141).
The “new” leadership may be an outgrowth of the emerging belief that
“educational administration must find its rationale in the educative process of
schooling and that with a postindustrial reformation of education, a
reconceptualization of school administration is in order” (Murphy & Shipman, 1999,
p. 215). This reconceptualization involves a new science of administration that will
focus on values. According to Murphy and Shipman (1999), the leaders of tomorrow
will be “moral educators” who will “nurture the development of learning,
professional, and caring communities based on the values of reflective inquiry and
democratic participation” (p. 216). A moral leader may use what Lee (1997) refers
58

to as “principle-centered power”. This “power” is based on “respect and honor that
go beyond some deal or exchange. It is not easily created. But it can outlast your
lifetime. The power principle is stated simply: honor is power” (p.101). At the very
base of “new” leadership is finally, honor.
Once the foundation of social exchange is established, based on trust,
structures may be developed to assist teams in development of a focus. LaFasto and
Larson (2001) delineate six dimensions of team leadership referred to earlier in the
teamwork section. Those characteristics of an effective team include the following:
1) focus on the goal; 2) ensure a collaborative climate; 3) build confidence; 4)
demonstrate sufficient technical know-how; 5) set priorities; and 6) manage
performance. Those indicators, along with a principled principal, may provide the
formula for successful school implementation of standards-based reform. As Cuban
(1992) stated, the reform efforts to date, including “scattered and uncoordinated
initiatives, have yet to deal with inhospitable workplace conditions in public
schools” (p. 10). These “inhospitable workplaces” may exist due to the lack of
moral leadership by an unprincipled principal. More research is needed to explore
not only the teamwork constructs, but also the character and honor displayed by the
leader of the team.
Conclusion
Effective implementation of school reform may depend on the context of the
environment. Goldberg and Morrison (2002) conclude that leaders must take
account of at least three contexts for educational change and accountability,
59

including: “the ‘inside story’ of the school and specifically the collaboration and
trust that exists in the professional practices; the community and professional
organizations that interact with the school; and finally, the local, state and federal
government mandates and measure of performance (p. 80). Although the two latter
contexts cannot be controlled internally, they affect the internal structure and must be
addressed. Additionally, once again, the collaboration and trust factors are noted as
contextual factors. This climate cannot be ignored as change is implemented; and
may prove to remain the one significant illusive factor impeding the needed progress.
In the end, top-down hierarchical leadership models not only “conflict with
customs within the teaching profession, they belie the professional nature of the
teaching enterprise, the need for more professional applications of knowledge and
skill in the educational context, and the reality of leadership as an interactive, rather
than a unidirectional process” (Hart, 1995, p. 25). Even the concept of distributed
leadership does not fully address the need for teamwork and collaboration as it does
not address the element of giving up power. Sergiovanni (2005) rather radically
refers to the concept of “liberating leadership” which views leadership as “a group
activity linked to a practice rather than just an individual activity linked to a person”
and that this point of view helps “match the expertise we have in a school with the
problems and situations we face” (p. 45). This, of course, refers to including
teachers in the process of decision-making as equal partners in the endeavor.
According to Barth (2001), the “concept of shared leadership in schools goes to the
heart of principal/teacher relationships” (p. 449). The relationships of teachers and
60

principals may have “more impact on the quality and character of the school – and
on the accomplishment of youngsters – than any other factor” (Barth, 2004, p. 105).
Principals and teachers working together to implement reform needs more study to
assist in replication in other schools.
Shared leadership, however, may be a reform in itself and is summarized best
by using references to several studies, including Murphy (1999b), as cited in Datnow
and Castellano (2001), noting that teaching and administration must be connected so
that “organizational forms and administrative structures take form around the most
productive work on the core technology of schooling” (p. 9). It appears, in fact, that
connecting teaching and administration requires “substantial change in working
relationships between teachers and administrators, as well as between the
institutional structures and cultures that hold them in place” (Datnow & Castellano,
2001, p. 220). They conclude that more research is needed on studying the
principals and teacher leaders engaged in reform, and the power relations between
teachers and administrators (Datnow & Castellano, 2001). This study aims to
address precisely these issues and will utilize data-collecting tools to describe the
roles of teachers and principals working in teams to implement school reform in the
context of a K-8 school program.

61

CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter will address the research design of this study, as well as the
methodology that was used. The study will describe how shared leadership operates
while implementing reform efforts and include an examination of the practices of
collaboration, decision-making and evidence of relational trust among the team
members. It is also critical to observe the actual implementation of the agreed-upon
ways to implement reform in the classroom. Since the reform has imposed top-
down mandates for principals and teachers alike, the response of the educators is a
crucial link to successful implementation. As this study addresses the societal
problem of investigating the reaction, buy-in and response by teachers to these
imposed federal and state mandates to implement reform, it is logical to consider
applied research.
Describing the roles of principals and teachers as team partners in the
educational reform movement is appropriate for the use of qualitative methods of
inquiry. One of the assumptions underlying qualitative research is that “reality is
holistic, multidimensional, and ever-changing; it is not a single, fixed, objective
phenomenon waiting to be discovered, observed, and measured as in quantitative
research” (Merriam, 1998, p. 202). Further, qualitative methods allow for “great
depth with careful attention to detail, context and nuance” (Patton, 2002, p. 227). It
also provides for the opportunity for interpretation of reality directly through
observation and interview. This type of inquiry is vital in order to observe team
62

participants in the decision-making process, as well as to describe variations in
leadership characteristics that may emerge throughout the study. In interpretive
research, “education is considered to be a process and school is a lived experience”
(Merriam, 1998, p. 4). This further supports the use of qualitative research for this
study, as description of the decision-making process alone provides a wealth of
information relating to teacher attitudes about reform and the actions of the reluctant
versus the enthusiastic reformers. These nuances may not be illuminated in a
quantitative study, using a larger number of people with narrow ranges of
experience.
According to Patton (2002), the power of qualitative data was illustrated in the
example of a school system in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where an accountability
system was implemented, where feedback was requested from the teachers for the
purposes of assessing the program. The standardized questionnaire revealed that the
teachers felt the accountability system was largely ineffective (Patton, 2002, p. 17).
This response alone gave neither the administrators, nor the board of education, any
information about the reasons for the ineffectiveness. The questionnaire did,
however, contain two open-ended questions at the end of the survey. Teachers were
given the opportunity to make comments or recommendations for the use of this
accountability system. The comments reflected the atmosphere created by this
imposed accountability system and informed the administrators of the fear and
intimidation felt by the teachers. This information was vital in terms of deciding
next steps about solving the problem of the imposed accountability system. In the
63

end, the superintendent resigned and the new leader used this data to begin
discussions with the teachers about how to address their feelings and then move on
to developing a needed accountability system in a collaborative fashion.
Examining the processes used by educators in the natural setting is important
in gathering data for study. Creswell (2003) suggests that conducting qualitative
research in the natural setting enables the researcher to “develop a level of detail
about the individual or place and to be highly involved in actual experiences of the
participants” (p. 181). In order to interpret the processes involved in the social
interactions of the educators engaged in decision-making, the researcher must be
able to be situated in a “specific sociopolitical and historical moment” (Creswell,
2003, p. 182). Since qualitative research is fundamentally interpretative, and this
study involves the interactions of human beings in a functional, organizational
setting, the data was gathered to support the broad, panoramic view, rather than the
micro-analysis (Creswell, 2003).
The specific strategy of inquiry that used was the case study method.
According to Yin (1994), as cited in Merriam (1998), a case study is “empirical
inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,
especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly
evident” (p. 27). A case-study methodology was used to describe a bounded context,
as in a school setting, with a specific group of teachers and principals working
together to implement change. The units of analysis in this case study included
small, informal groups of teachers, the leadership team and site administrators in one
64

school setting. These units of analysis were predetermined by a purposeful sampling
process, using criterion sampling, including the following criteria: 1) K-8 school that
has specifically and deliberately implemented standards-based reform beginning no
earlier than 1997; 2) the reform effort needed to have been implemented at least five
years ago and has shown evidence of meeting the goal of increased student
achievement; 3) teachers needed to have had a significant role in participating in the
decision-making aspect of this implementation; 4) the principal and majority of the
teachers needed to have been employed at that school during the decision-making
and implementation phase; 5) the principal needs to acknowledge the importance of
shared leadership as a vital aspect of site decision-making; and 6) racial, gender
diversity among the staff members, as well as their range of experiences in
education.
Sample and Population
The sample size was small, investigating one school family, instead of several
schools who have implemented reform. Elmore (1995) states that empirical studies
of structural change that only focus on the relationship between structure and student
outcomes may not be as useful as a more in-depth study of teaching practices.
Instead, “researchers should probe underneath the structures to discover, both
conceptually and empirically, what changes in teaching practices and student
learning are actually entailed in them” (Elmore, 1995, p. 26). An information-rich
case study might include, for example, a varied teaching staff that has adopted a
reform, analyzed its application to classroom instructional strategies and
65

implemented it according to the individual teacher’s own unique style. The teachers
in the sample possess varying years of experience; ethnic and gender diversity;
varied skill levels; and some generational issues. Hargreaves and Goodson (2006)
found that “teaching and change in schools are driven by a generational center of
gravity, a dominant demographic of teachers who are of a particular age and career
stage” (p. 23). These factors will influence the extent to which teaching practices
will change and involve particular nuances that can best be described by case study
method. In reality, the generational factors were not as prominent as assumed. The
current teaching staff, in this study, with two exceptions, holds longevity of less than
seven years at Bunche School, and most were new teachers when hired. Even
though there is limited variety of age, there are no veteran teachers, with over eleven
years of experience, employed at the school at present.
The study was conducted at Ralph Bunche Elementary School, located in
Carson, California. It is a K-5 elementary school, in the Compton Unified School
District. The number of students enrolled is approximately 420 and there are 24
certificated staff members. The 2006 Academic Performance Index (API) of the
school is 868, compared to an API base score of 506 in 2000. This shows growth of
362 points in six years. The student ethnicity of the school is: African American–
45.4%; Asian American/Pacific Islander-.2%; Latino/Hispanic–52.3%;
White/European American/Other–0%; and Multiple or other–2.1%.
The teaching staff has been stable through the last five years of reform,
represented by a limited range of teaching experience. There are two brand new
66

teachers this year and the rest of the teachers have four to ten years of teaching
experience. The ethnic make-up of the certificated staff is: African American–
29.2%; Asian American/Pacific Islander–20.8%; Latino/Hispanic–16.7%; and
White/European American/Other–33.3%. The current teaching staff has chosen to
remain in a school that has agreed to use teamwork in the approach to analyzing
student data, including sharing that data disaggregated by classroom teachers. There
are two teachers who remain employed at Bunche since the reform began in 2000.
The ethnic make-up of the certificated staff in 2000 was predominantly African
American. Since attrition is high in Compton Unified School District, this change in
staffing is not wholly uncommon. There were teachers, however, who left
specifically due to the reform efforts taking place in the school. Those teachers who
have remained agree and feel safe sharing the achievement of the students in their
classes. This provides rich information for teachers to use in analyzing and
comparing student achievement to the state standards. Their reform efforts focus on
using the standards to drive instruction, along with using teamwork to make
decisions about instruction.
This case supports the criteria indicated earlier in this chapter; specifically, the
school has: implemented standards-based reform; shown evidence of increased
student achievement; utilizes teachers as leaders in team decision making; has a
stable staff over the last 5-years; acknowledges the importance of shared decision-
making; and has diversity represented on the staff. The rich, qualitative study
reveals date concerning the interpersonal interactions among and between staff
67

members not only during the group processes, but during the informal exchanges as
well, through researcher observation
The interim principal, Ms. Amber Young, reports she believes the success of
the program can be attributed to the efforts of the entire teaching staff as a team,
working together to improve teaching and learning at Ralph Bunche School. The
teachers meet regularly to discuss all aspects of the school program. Access was
gained to conduct this study through my contact with the interim principal, Amber
Young. She was very supportive about the research being conducted concerning
teamwork and made herself and the staff available to the researcher. The principal’s
message in the School Accountability Report indicates that the school continues to
strive for excellence as they set the goals for all students to score at a proficient or
advanced level in all areas of the California Standards Test (CST). Currently, the
CST scores at Bunche School are, in almost all cases, well above the scores of all the
other schools in Compton. They are also above the state scores in many areas. They
pride themselves in teacher commitment, parent and community accountability,
accurate and relevant assessment of all students, and a standards-based curriculum to
guide the students in reaching their academic and life-long goals. A testament to
their recent success is reflected in the attainment of the Title I Academic
Achievement Award and the California Distinguished School Award.
Data Collection Procedures
Data for this study was collected through a semi-structured interview process.
Merriam (1998) describes this interview as “halfway between the ends of the
68

continuum” between open-ended and structured interviews (p.74). These interviews
were guided by a list of questions or issues to be explored, and “neither the exact
wording, nor the order of the questions is determined ahead of time” (p. 74). This
format allowed the researcher to respond to an emerging or new view on the topic
being explored. The interview questions were adapted from the “Collaborative
Team Leader” instrument (Appendix A), found in (LaFasto & Larson, 2001, p. 151).
The written survey questions were adapted from the “Perceived Leader Integrity
Scale” (Appendix B), found in (Northouse, 2004, p. 324). Both formats include
questions relating to the ethics of the team leader and the extent to which the teams
focus on the goals; ensure a collaborative climate; build confidence; demonstrate
sufficient technical know-how; set priorities; and manage performance. The two
instruments were specifically chosen to address both issues of trust and integrity of
the team leaders, as well as the purposeful efforts of the group described by LaFasto
and Larson (2001). The follow-up questions allowed the interviewer to explore how
the leader actually shares power, which may be best described through narrative
description. It was the original intent of the researcher to use the interview process
alone to address the questions listed on the two instruments noted above. However,
through the data collection process, the researcher determined that it may be
necessary to validate the absence of comments concerning trust by requesting
information through an anonymous written survey.
The data collected in this study included: 1) documents relating to the school
plan; 2) aggregate student test score data; 3) observations of decision-making
69

procedures in leadership team and grade level meetings; 4) observations of
classroom instruction; 5) historical data; and 6) interviews with teachers and site
administration relating to shared leadership and implementation of decisions made
regarding instructional practices in the classroom. The school plan and test data
helped to authenticate the verbal agreements and the extent to which the student
achievement goals are met. All interviews and observations provided rich
information and nuances that support the evidence of why what is working may
depend on certain variables. Triangulation, therefore, was used to strengthen the
data by gathering multiple sources (Merriam, 1998).
The first visit to Ralph Bunche Elementary School occurred on July 17, 2006,
during the summer school program. The purpose of the visit was for the researcher
to meet the current interim principal; explain the study to her and to develop a
schedule for the data collection in the fall. In the first few minutes of the visit, the
researcher knew this school was unique as the students were observed following
obviously routine procedures for entering the campus in an orderly fashion and
generally following school rules. The interim principal also greeted students by
name and engaged in conversations with them, revealing knowledge about their
personal lives. This principal was also present on the campus until the students were
safely in their classrooms.
When the structure of the study was described, it became apparent that the
researcher would encounter a challenge in scheduling the classroom teacher
interviews due to a philosophical opposition to removing teachers from the
70

classroom during instructional time. Therefore, a schedule had to be developed for
teachers to sign up before and after school. It was suggested at that time, that
teachers stay on campus well into the evening and that the researcher would not have
difficulty finding time to meet with the teachers for their individual interviews.
The schedule for visitations was established, including ten more site visits.
These visits included: informal and formal interviews with staff; observations of all
18 regular classrooms during instruction; observations of two afternoon grade-level
meetings; two all-staff meetings; playground observations; and inclusion in a Bunche
leadership team presentation to another elementary school staff in Compton Unified
School District. During the on-site visits, the researcher noted adults on campus
observing Bunche programs that were not only from other schools in the district, but
also from school districts all over California. It is clear that the student success of
this school has been noted and already generated high interest in replication to other
public schools.
The researcher attended the first staff meeting of the new school year, where
the staff was celebrating together the continued improvement in the Academic
Performance Index (API) student test score results. At this time, the teachers were
also viewing the California Standards Test (CST) scores in English language arts and
mathematics, disaggregated by classroom teacher; grade level; student ethnicity; and
student language levels. This public display of test score results by classroom
teacher is also available on the bulletin board in the front office of the school.
During this meeting, the researcher described the study to the teachers, informing
71

them of the voluntary nature of participation. It was also the goal of the researcher to
assist the staff in viewing this as a positive way to “tell their story” of success so
others can learn. It was hoped that the teachers would be interested in “sharing the
news”, even though they appeared to be plagued by onlookers, who were almost
sucking the little life they had left in them. The researcher was very sensitive to this
phenomenon and took care with any appearance of unwanted intrusion into any
environment, whether it was the classroom or a grade-level meeting.
The interviews were scheduled throughout October and November at
convenient times for teachers, woven throughout the classroom observations and
grade-level meeting visits. Out of 24 certificated staff members, 12 were
interviewed, including two principals; one resource teacher (assistant to the
principal); and nine classroom teachers. The classroom teachers were represented by
all ethnicities existing in the certificated staff members at Bunche, including:
Caucasian; African American; Latino; and Asian. The intended span of longevity
does not exist as all but two of the existing certificated staff members have taught at
Bunche for fewer then seven years. However, the researcher was able to obtain an
interview from one of the retired teachers who had worked at Bunche for 30 years
and experienced life before and during the reform efforts. This proved to be an
extremely enlightening interview as it was the only recollection of times past at
Bunche.
The researcher was able to observe all K-5 grade-level meetings, as well as
cross grade-level meetings. The cross grade-level meetings are designed to give
72

opportunities to teachers. All grade-level meetings have a structured agenda to
follow, focusing on analyzing “Friday Skills Tests” student data and addressing ways
to remedy any deficiencies. It is unmistakably clear that the purpose of all teacher
collaboration is to reflect on student achievement – period.
At the last staff meeting, the researcher decided to develop a survey to address
the questions relating to trust and safety, originally designed to be included in the
interviews. The self-selection aspect of the nine teacher interviews could have
represented a homogenous point of view about trust. Therefore, the researcher
needed more information about trust from other teachers. The confidential survey
was passed out at a staff meeting and teachers were asked to voluntarily complete it.
There were 12 surveys returned with varying degrees of responses concerning trust
not gleaned from the interviews, indicating the probability that different teachers
returned these surveys than were previously interviewed.
As the school site draws more attention of its success, there are more
distractions that occur that take time away from their own focus on instruction. As
the researcher completed the data collection, the staff was in the process of setting
parameters around school visitations. It was fortunate to complete this study before
the staff became fatigued with outside inquiries. They were already beginning the
discussion of how to limit visitors to campus in order to ensure that one of the
schoolwide agreements of protection of time was not being violated. Finally, the
researcher attended a Compton Board of Education meeting to observe the
communication and decision-making of the governing board.
73

Data Analysis Procedures
The data analysis process began with a detailed description of the aspects of
the case study and the events occurring during the data collection process, which
took place over a five-month period of time, from July to November, 2006. The
interviews were conducted throughout the fall semester as staff members were
available, and documents were obtained in the summer from the principal.
Classroom observations and team member checks occurred in the fall. The method
described by Creswell (1998) includes “highlighting the major players, the sites and
the activities” (p. 154). During this time, the researcher conducted follow-up
interviews with selected staff members. The researcher then organized the data for
analysis, including transcribing interviews and sorting the data into observations,
interviews and historical data. After the researcher obtained a general sense of the
information, the coding process began as described by Creswell (1998), including,
“organizing the materials into ‘chunks’, which involves “taking text data or pictures,
segmenting sentences or images into categories, and labeling those categories with a
term” (p. 192). The codes were identified and tables created to organize the data by
codes (Appendices C and D). The information was then described, using themes to
answer the research questions (Appendix E). The final step was to write an
interpretation of the data, “couched in the individual understanding that the inquirer
brings to the study from her of his own culture, history, and experiences” (Creswell,
1998, p. 195).

74

Trustworthiness/Validity
Qualitative research has been the focus of criticism in the scientific ranks for
establishing validity and reliability of data as compared to their counterparts in
experimental design and survey research (Creswell, 1998). The qualitative research
approach has drawn this criticism for its failure to “adhere to canons of reliability
and validity” (LeCompte and Goetz, 1982, as cited in Creswell, 1998, p. 197).
Verification is defined by Creswell (1998) as “a process that occurs through data
collection, analysis, and report writing of a study and standards as criteria imposed
by the researcher and others after a study is completed” (p. 194). Verification, then,
is distinguishable “validity” in that it is a distinct approach and a “legitimate mode of
inquiry in its own right” (Creswell, 1998, p. 201). Case study approach to data
collection “works” in the scientific world based on the “observer’s critical presence
in the context of occurrence of phenomena, observation, hypothesis-testing (by
confrontation and disconfirmation), triangulation of participants’ perceptions,
interpretations and so on” (Kemmis, 1983, as cited in Merriam, 1998, p. 200). The
following verification processes were employed in establishing trustworthiness and
“validity” of data in this case study: 1) triangulation (using multiple investigators,
sources of data methods; 2) prolonged engagement and persistent observation; – over
a period of four months; 3) clarifying researcher bias; and 4) rich, thick description
(Creswell, 1998; & Merriam, 1998).
According to Creswell (2003), triangulation of data examines evidence from
multiple sources and uses it to “build a coherent justification for themes” (p. 196).
75

During this case study, the researcher conducted formal and informal interviews with
certificated staff members; attended numerous staff meetings, grade-level and cross
grade-level meetings; conducted observations in all classrooms; attended a
leadership team presentation to another school in Compton; and attended a school
board meeting. In addition to the intended methods of collecting data, the researcher
determined that after the interviews, more information was needed about the aspect
of trust and openness among and between staff members. Therefore, a written,
anonymous survey was given to staff members in order to rule out potential
reluctance to be honest with the researcher about trust.
Another process used in the verification of data was through prolonged
engagement and persistent observation. Creswell (1998) suggests that this procedure
includes “building trust with participants, learning the culture and checking for
misinformation that stems from distortions introduced by the researcher” (Ely,
Anzul, Friedman, Garner & Steinmetz, 1991; Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen,
1993; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988, as cited in
Creswell, 1998, p. 201). The researcher spent observation days conducting informal
discussions with parents, certificated and classified staff, students and others on
campus to establish a comfortable relationship with the school family. They became
familiar with the researcher’s presence on campus as a part of the community rather
than an outsider with a clipboard in hand. Due to the researcher’s experience
specifically in the field of elementary education, it provided credibility to discussions
and feedback about the positive aspects of the program. The staff generously
76

acknowledged the 29 years of experience of the researcher on many occasions and
felt the great appreciation of the hard work that was observed. The researcher
observed every detail about the school day, including how the students arrived to
school in an orderly fashion and gathered on the playground before school began
each day to hear encouragement from their principal. In addition, the researcher
spent time driving around the Compton area to establish a first-hand experience of
the context of the economically-deprived environment. The researcher possessed a
heightened awareness of potential bias imposed by years of experience and
continually checked assumptions with participants throughout the data collection
process.
Clarifying researcher bias was another verification procedure in this case
study. In addition to checking assumptions with participants in the study, the
researcher also constructed data tables based on the interviews and reviewed the
exact words spoken by the interviewees to insure that a general “sense” of the
information was the basis for drawing conclusions. Former researcher bias, then,
actually was transformed into an asset to the study as the researcher became a
participant in the process, without being either a judge or a therapist. Patton (1990),
as cited in Merriam (1998) suggests that during an interview, the researcher is
“neither a judge nor a therapist nor ‘a cold slab of granite – unresponsive to the
human issues, including great suffering and pain that may unfold during an
interview’” (p. 214). The researcher’s stance during data collection reflected an
empathetic and supportive approach to both informal and formal interactions, since
77

there were comments regarding how hard the work was at Bunche School, requiring
working many long hours beyond the school day. It was also during these long days
that the researcher was able to access the staff members on an informal level.
Finally, rich, thick description was used as a verification procedure as it
assists the reader in making decisions about potential transferability of the findings
(Creswell, 2003). The detailed description found in this study, including the history
and context of the environment, allows educators in similar environments to
determine the extent to which any of the methods used in implementation of
standards-based reform could be transferred to that school. This procedure adds to
the external validity as a “working hypothesis” for transferability. Working
hypotheses are proposed by Cronbach (1975), as cited in Merriam (1998) as a
replacement to the notion of generalization. Generalizability can become
problematic in a qualitative study as local conditions can affect the ability to apply
the results to another environment. Instead, the working hypothesis approach “not
only take[s] account of local conditions, [but also offers] the educator some guidance
in making choices – the results of which can be monitored and evaluated in order to
make better future decisions” (Merriam, 1998, p. 209). This provides a perspective
rather than truth and “empirical assessment of local decision makers’ theories of
action rather than generalization and verification of universal theories, and context-
bound extrapolations rather than generalizations (Patton, 1990, as cited in Merriam,
1998, p. 209). Therefore, the rich, thick description found in this case study should
78

provide enough information to others to apply some or all of the results to their
environment.
Ethical Considerations, Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations
The researcher has worked in the K-12 public school setting as a teacher,
principal and as senior management in the district office for almost 30 years and has,
over time, developed opinions and biases about collaboration and decision-making.
During this time, the researcher has worked in school-based, decision-making teams,
both as a teacher and principal, and has experienced the benefits and limitations of
teamwork approaches. As a district office administrator, the researcher has also
observed the effects of teamwork in decision-making at the site level and has
developed opinions about how centralization can be necessary at times, especially in
light of the imposition of high-stakes accountability in the most recent past.
Therefore, there are admitted researcher biases, which should be ameliorated with a
commitment to an open-minded, objective approach to studying this phenomenon in
a setting far removed from personal experiences. One possible limitation of this
study is that the principal of Bunche School, Mikara Solomon, is on a maternity
leave of absence for the 2006-2007 school year. The interim principal has been in
the leadership position of program advisor during this reform effort. Mrs. Solomon
was available for interview and provided rich detail about the entire reform effort;
however, she is not currently on site each day. She is, however, working for
Compton Unified School District as a coach for two principals, including the interim
principal at Bunche, and is on campus one day each week. The staff members still
79

consider Mrs. Solomon to be the “real” principal. Since it is not possible to know
how the context of the environment would have been different had Mrs. Solomon
still been there, it appeared that no significant changes had occurred since Mrs.
Solomon left the direct supervision of the campus one year earlier.
One of the delimitations of the study is the choice of the research site. This
site was purposefully chosen based on information concerning not only the
implementation of standards-based reform, but also the apparent success of this
reform based on the evidence of increased student achievement over a period of six
years. Another delimitation of the study is the development of interview questions
that were specifically designed to answer the research questions.
There are assumptions, however, that have guided the research questions and
the study, including: 1) implementation of standards-based reform is a reform in
itself; 2) most teachers and principals have received little formal training in
teamwork and collaboration; 3) the management of a school organization is complex,
wrought with ambiguity; and 4) the context of a school organization, defined as the
set of conditions under which we operate, prevent schools from easily replicating
systems. Identifying these assumptions is a means to create transparency, rather than
to generate hopelessness about the outcomes. It is, in fact, the passion and hope of
the researcher, to uncover patterns of a school system that can be replicated within
the context of a new environment for the purpose of improving all schools.

80

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
Introduction
Over the past 20 years, the call for standards-based reform has created more
and more bureaucratic policy rather than roadmaps for success (Hatch, 2001).
Educators are searching for the “one best system” through experimentation through
various innovative programs, curricula and collaborative structures in order to
increase student achievement (Hill & Celio, 1998, as cited in Hatch, 2001). This
study will describe how shared leadership is occurring in the implementation of
standards-based reform, using a case study approach to examine the practices of
collaboration, decision-making and evidence of relational trust among the team
members, as well as the individual implementation of the agreed-upon ways to
implement reform.
The focus of the presentation of the findings is to describe the roles,
responsibilities and tasks of the principals and teachers in a school setting, as they
create schoolwide organizational change and implement standards-based reform.
The following primary question will guide the research findings:
What are the leadership roles that principals and teachers have in a team
approach creating the organizational change through the implementation of K-12
standards-based reform? Additionally, the following sub-questions will be addressed
in guiding the research:
81

1. To what extent does the leadership style/skill of the principal
influence the inclusion of teachers in a shared leadership capacity,
including the teachers and principal perceptions of that role?
2. How does schoolwide relational trust among teachers and
administration impact the success of shared leadership in
collaboration and decision making?
3. How do the teachers and administrators develop mutual

agreement/understanding and make decisions about how standards-
based reform should be implemented and to insure consistent
implementation?
4. How are the issues of individual discretion and collective
accountability addressed when in conflict?
5. How does the existence and perception of the diversity of the team
(position, ethnicity, employment longevity or gender) affect the
process and outcome?
Miller and Monge (1986) report that previous studies of the effectiveness
specifically of participative decision-making and shared leadership are inconclusive
and reveal much disagreement. The conclusions of the reviewers, based on
numerous empirical studies, indicate that the success of such collaboration depends
on many circumstances in the context of the environment (Locke & Schweiger,
1979; Lowin, 1968; Singer, 1974, as cited in Miller & Monge, 1986). It is important
to understand the history and context of this particular elementary school in
82

Compton Unified School District in order to fully appreciate the successful
implementation of standards-based reform in this case study, as well as consider the
ability to replicate this program in other public elementary schools.
History and Context
The history of Compton Unified School District is dramatic and quite unique
in the context of public schools in America. The history and context information that
will be reviewed in this section includes not only the conditions surrounding the
school district itself, but also a description of the elementary school that was studied.
It is critical to this study to understand the uniqueness of this public school
environment specifically as it relates not only to the implications for policymakers
and educators, but also to visualize the possible underpinning of the passion and
drive of the school team members as they successfully implemented standards-based
reform. This section will provide the framework for interpreting the findings
specifically as they relate to the roles of the principal(s) and teacher leaders at this
school as they attempted to function in a large school district that had experienced
tumultuous times.
In July 1993, Compton Unified School District became the nation’s first school
district to be declared both academically and financially bankrupt. At that time, “the
state loaned Compton Unified $20 million and appointed a state administrator”
(California Department of Education, 2003, p. 1). That administrator was given the
sole responsibility for returning the district to financial and academic solvency.
Clearly, the reputation of the school district had not only been tarnished by the state
83

financial takeover, but the day-to-day experiences of the teachers provide evidence
that there were also inadequate systems in place. One Bunche teacher commented
that upon his return to teach at the district in the early 2000s, “surprisingly, Compton
didn’t lose any of my paperwork” (Teacher, personal communication, October 9,
2006)! In addition, the district had the lowest achievement scores of any school
system in California. The borrowed $20 million was fully paid back by June 2001
and local control was returned to Compton in June 2003. In the year 2000, one
school had an API score of 381; 21 schools had API scores within the 400 range; and
the 17 remaining schools had API scores within the 500 range. Ralph Bunche
Elementary School had an API score of 506 in 2000. The state goal for all schools is
to reach an API score of 800 or above. Ralph Bunche Elementary School reached
and exceeded that goal in 2005, achieving an API score of 838, and was the first and
only school in the district to meet that goal. By 2006, Ralph Bunche Elementary
continued its growth and achieved an API score of 868. One other school in
Compton exceeded 800 in the year 2006, which happened to be an elementary school
(California Department of Education).
In May, 2006, Ralph Bunche Elementary School received the California
Distinguished School Award, after meeting the rigorous eligibility criteria for
application. “The chosen schools represent approximately 5% of public schools
from 190 districts in 40 counties. Bunche Elementary, led by Principal Mikara
Solomon, is the first school in the Compton Unified School District to receive this
84

honor in the 21-year history of the California School Recognition Program”
(Compton Press Release, 2006).
Mikara Solomon became principal of Ralph Bunche Elementary School in the
fall of 2000. She brought not only a vision of “no excuses” philosophy for student
success, but also the leadership necessary to restructure the governance and
organization of the school, incorporating a strong school culture and teachers’
professional community (Bryk, Sebring, Kerbow, Rollow & Easton, 1998;
McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Newman & Wehlage, 1995, as cited in Hatch, 2001).
The restructuring at Bunche Elementary is more consistent with the model Fullan
(2000) suggested as “re-culturing”, which “involves going from a situation of limited
attention to assessment and pedagogy to a situation in which teachers and others
routinely focus on these matters and make associated improvements” (p. 582). This
decision-making process, which is deliberate and monitored by the entire school
team, was observed at Bunche in all aspects of the school environment. The
principal claims that “I was simply part of the amazing development of our school. I
truly believe God was/is working through me and all of the amazing teachers,
students, parents and classified staff at our school” (M. Solomon, personal
communication, October 16, 2006). As success breeds success, the student test
scores continue to increase, bringing praise and recognition not only to this
elementary school, but also the beleaguered Compton Unified School District. One
new teacher said, “I have to keep thinking, OK, this school does really well and I
can’t screw up. I have to keep focused and have to follow the standards; I have to
85

meet these goals that are set out for me. I just feel like I have to keep going”
(Teacher, personal communication, October 10, 2006).
Within the first two years of Mikara’s appointment as principal, 85% of the
teachers left Ralph Bunche Elementary School. The previous teaching staff was
represented by a single ethnic group of African American teachers, with varying
ranges of teaching experience. At the time of the data collection in fall, 2006, there
were two teachers who had remained teaching at the campus, representing the
highest number of years of service among all of the teachers at the school. The
diversity of the existing staff includes representation from four different ethnic
groups. The interrelationships of the staff as they relate to ethnic diversity were
never mentioned in interviews, nor were there either positive or negative
observations made relating to issues of ethnic dynamics. Everyone seems to possess
the same level of skill and passion, regardless of their ethnic background. A special
written survey was voluntarily administered to staff members with the inclusion of
one question relating to diversity. The results can be found later in the section of
research findings.
This new, diverse team was recruited and selected by the newly formed
leadership team in 2001, together using a rigorous selection process, including the
traditional model of interviewing, as well as extensive discussions about the unique
environment at Bunche and an explanation of the expectations for teachers who work
there. The team set the standards high for the whole team and several members
noted that the candidates, first and foremost, had to have a “love for children.” All
86

teachers know the high expectations of extended and regular grade-level meetings, as
well as to provide intervention outside the school day. “All new teachers must turn
in 8-step lesson plans for every lesson every week. The lesson plans are read and
commented on by the principal – every week” (Teacher, personal communication,
October 10, 2006). In addition to these requirements, it becomes a common
expectation for teachers to be at work regularly. “Absences are not encouraged at
this school. When teachers aren’t here; kids don’t learn and the days are wasted”
(Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006).
Within one year, due to an increased number of student suspensions and
intolerance of aggressive and violent behaviors, Bunche became a safer campus.
Within three years, the test scores increased and the Compton Unified School
District office afforded the team at Bunche maximum autonomy in their decision
making about curriculum, programs and structure. Even though there were minor
protests initially from parents and the local teachers association, the team at Bunche
forged on, continuing develop a program of reform that is consistent with the
definition of “standards-based reform”. The story will be revealed through the
following rich description of the entire school team’s reform efforts through the eyes
of the certificated staff members and through validation observations conducted at
the site by this researcher.
Due to the remarkable success of the program at Bunche Elementary School,
the leadership team has been asked to make presentations to other schools in the
district, as well as other school leaders. The presentation reveals the procedures in
87

place at Bunche that are felt by the leadership team to be the reasons for their student
success. They title their presentations: “Closing the Economic Divide through
Educational Empowerment”. The team makes the presentation, not just the
principal! They display their ownership in the program and reflect visible pride in
their accomplishments – for the students. The successful increases in student
achievement through standardized tests are tied directly to accountability systems in
place for students, teachers, parents and staff.
During a presentation to another school in the district, for example, as the
Bunche leadership team began to present “their story” to other teachers in the district
with an introduction of the principal to the group, she immediately responds, “it’s not
about me; we want everybody to feel the same way about [teaching and learning]”.
She continued to describe her teachers as being “tenacious about parent contact”,
believing that parents/guardians are an integral part of the education process – no
excuses. They emphasized, too, that consistent expectations for all students from all
staff members is critical, accomplished through the focused professional
collaboration occurring during the regular weekly meetings.
The presentation appeared to fall on deaf ears, evidenced by discouraging
questions raised from the teachers and blatant excuses made for their students failure
to achieve in the same way as Bunche. This leads to the question about the potential
missing piece of passion, belief and drive among a group of educators in order to
replicate the program. This is not surprising, however, based on the conditions in the
rest of the district and the extent to which Mikara is connected with the district
88

leadership. In its current state, even though the district is out of state receivership,
the board of education, superintendent and district office staff members do not
appear to be communicating professionally, systematically or even cordially. At a
recent Board of Education meeting attended by the researcher in Compton, the board
was publicly criticized by the classified and teacher association presidents, as well as
one of the personnel commissioners. During the board meeting, several board
members ridiculed the superintendent and how he handled matters relating to
facilities. The overall meeting did nothing to generate confidence among the
observing public in the board’s ability to make sound, rational decisions about
painting the schools, let alone, student achievement. The majority of the meeting
was spent on construction, which, in all fairness, represents the recent high-level
public criticism about management of bond funds for remodeling and construction at
the district office and the sites. In general, there is evidence of mismanagement of
funds, which led them into state receivership in the first place. It isn’t surprising that
a school in this environment must develop its own plan for success, as a master plan
for the district is apparent at the formal level of decision-making at the board of
education level.
Description of School Culture
It is obvious that the work at Ralph Bunche School is not for the feint of heart.
It seems to be common for police activity to be occurring close to the school campus,
which students and staff take in stride. They understand that violence is prevalent in
this area and affect their students and community daily. And yet, teachers
89

consistently arrive early and stay late in order to prepare for the instruction and
programs of the students. They are very narrowly focused on the academic and
social/emotional achievement of their students, and are consistently direct with
students about their achievement, holding them responsible for their own actions,
regardless of their age or circumstances. At first glance, the certificated staff
members appear to be overly preoccupied with test scores of students and focus all
discussion on how to increase student scores. However, one of the teachers who had
been at Bunche for two years stated that:
Our goals [originally] were numbers based; we worked a lot on percentages
at the beginning, as far as setting CST ELA percentage at 70% and 90% for
math. Whenever we talked about achievement, we were crunching numbers.
We became more holistic about what achievement meant, because in
November/December [at the beginning of the school year], we realized that
we were creating sort of good test takers, but not good readers – and those
kinds of challenges. We then broadened the scope of what achievement
meant. But basically, at the end of the day, we knew pretty much that we
needed 56 out of 75 kids to be proficient on their tests – that was the
expectation (Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006).

Walking onto campus and watching the interactions between the students, staff
and parents contrasts sharply to the common criticism and resistance from teachers
that the art of teaching and relationships is lost when focusing on test scores. Most
of the certificated staff members referenced parent communication as key to
addressing the needs of the whole child. There are daily phone calls made from
classrooms, when necessary, holding the student accountable to fulfill his/her own
expectations in the classroom. One teacher noted that, “I have my rules and my
consequences – phone calls might happen during the school day” (Teacher, personal
90

communication, November 1, 2006). This type of communication with parents helps
the staff know the families and understand the other factors involved in his/her life.
They also communicate with them regularly and formally through Daily Behavior
Sheets, indicating the cooperation level of the student and the extent to which he/she
is meeting the goals set by the school of mastering the California State Standards at
the appropriate grade level.
The 400 students begin each day on the playground, lined up, waiting for
different students from various grade levels to lead them in morning songs, cheers
and mantras, promising to “be good; be focused and behave.” They pledge to the
flag; sing a spirit song; and receive an encouraging message from their principal –
every day. The students at Bunche do not play on the playground before school
starts like most other elementary schools. They line up at the ‘guarded’ gate at the
front of the school and wait for the principal to give the word to come onto the
grounds to eat breakfast or to wait in line to walk in an orderly fashion to the
playground. Once there, they line up by classes, awaiting the morning exercises.
Once in classrooms, there is no time wasted. Special events during a school
week might double-up lessons on another day. Halloween activities were occurring
during data collection and one teacher explained that special events or other
necessary distractions to instruction are no excuse for completing the plan for the
week. They stay on course and insure that the students remain on a pace to obtain
adequate instruction according to the pacing guides used to develop lesson plans.
Homework is also checked daily, and if not returned, the student receives a phone
91

call home or is sent to the office. Homework at Bunche is expected to be completed
and all teachers monitor the student completion. The teachers also tout that assigned
homework is also read, with feedback provided to students. The teachers and
administrators agree that modeling this behavior is critical for accountability
purposes, as they would expect any of their adult work to be read and commented on
by the appropriate person. Also, the Daily Behavior Sheet must be signed by a
parent/guardian or a phone call is placed from the classroom by the student and
teacher, while the others are doing academic warm-up activities. This procedure is
consistent in most of the classrooms at Bunche. There are only one or two
exceptions to certain agreed-upon procedures in the classroom; but it seems there is a
preponderance of compliance with the Bunche procedures that have discussed in
leadership team, taken to grade-level teams and returned to leadership if there are
questions about decisions. These compliance issues can be observed in the
classroom instruction, grade level meetings and team meetings. It is evident through
the classroom observations of the agreed-upon procedures listed above that the
teachers are practicing what they agree upon in schoolwide and/or department
meetings.
Every Friday morning, all students take a “Friday Skills Test” developed by
the grade-level teachers, based on the pacing guides for grade-level standards and
agreed-upon assessments for the week. This might be the singlemost significant
factor affecting student achievement and the most consistently applied procedure.
There is no question about whether or not the Friday Skills Tests are administered as
92

the results are turned into the office on Monday of each week and published to the
whole school by Wednesday. A teacher was asked in an interview if tests score are
the bottom line at Bunche and the teacher responded, “It seems so. People pay
attention to test scores. It doesn’t bother me. It would bother me if the assessments
were poor and teachers were locked into Open Court assessments, for example”
(Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006). The teachers design their own
tests and are able to construct the assessments based on what is taught, based on the
standards. They also have autonomy in how they deliver instruction.
In many school environments, the term “compliance” is offensive.
Compliance implies that one person, such as the principal at a school site, is
requiring certain tasks of the teachers. Teachers feel that their academic freedom is
obliterated by performing similarly to your teaching partner, let alone the whole
school team. At Bunche, the teachers are so focused on student learning, they barely
notice a loss in freedom; they simply do not have time to think about that. And yet,
there is an air of comfort, familiarity, friendliness and general easy spirit. The
intensity of the workload is not apparent in the faces of the staff members, although
the expectations are extremely high. Overall, the culture seems to be focused on the
goals, work with each other to decide upon how to meet the goals and hold each
other accountable for doing so. As noted by Lambert (1998), as cited in Schmoker
(2006), “At its best leadership is both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up;’ it is ‘shared’” (p.
144). These leadership roles vary and the division of labor is differentiated among
the principal, leadership team and teachers at large. Sharing leadership does not
93

mean that all teachers will take on the role of the principal; the principal must retain
a leadership role and style that can be distinguished from the leadership role of the
teacher. As the findings unfold, it may appear that a hierarchical style of leadership
triggered the reform efforts; however, the culture transformed itself into a “power-
with” organizational management structure, rather than either a “power-over” or
combination of the two.
Findings by Research Questions
1. Leadership style of the principal and perceptions of that role
The leadership style of the principal is perceived as being hierarchical when
necessary, but utilizes shared power when making decisions about curriculum,
instruction and schoolwide structures. One of the teachers noted that Mikara “would
put the idea out – this is how I see things happening and pretty much everything is
discussed with the leadership team first. Then she just gets buy-in from the
leadership team and then the leadership team buys-in the rest of the team” (Teacher,
personal communication, October 10, 2006). Many teachers made reference to
the fact that Mikara holds high expectations for teachers and students. When the
principal has high expectations for teachers and students, there is an underlying
assumption that this leader has the power-over to take action if someone is not living
up to those expectations. This kind of action is hierarchical; it’s top-down and
accepted by the teachers for the principal to have this role. “It is very reassuring to
feel like you are not the only one who is, you know, looking at data in this way and
working with your kids at this level. I think that makes a huge difference in
94

motivation” (Teacher, personal communication, October 10, 2006). In other words,
teachers know that the principal has work to do that is not necessarily collaborative,
such as holding teachers accountable to accomplishing the goals. For example, if a
teacher’s test scores are low on the Friday’s Skills Test, Mikara will call them in and
find out what is preventing the students from achieving at the expected level.
“[Mikara] Solomon would hold teachers accountable with respect because she
believed kids could learn and they would be successful if they learned the standards
and tested well” (Teacher, personal communication, November 22, 2006). This is
another example of “power-over” leadership which is necessary to ultimately insure
consistent adherence to support of the school goals.
It is very clear from the principal’s perception that her intent was always to
discuss ideas with the leadership team and other teachers, respecting them as
professionals who could carry out the agree-upon goals of increasing student
achievement. In her own words, she states that when she came, “she never required
[the veteran teachers] to change what they were doing. The bottom line is the
results” (M. Solomon, personal communication, October 16, 2006). Mikara expects
results and knows that if a teacher is there for the right reasons, they will do what
they need to do to provide the necessary instruction to the students in Compton. She
also believes that teachers do not come to Compton by mistake; they have a reason
for working in Compton, knowing the needs of the population.
Teachers perceive the leader as strong and consistent, holding high
expectations for all teachers to reach the goal of increased student achievement,
95

displaying the “power-over” style, while using a “power-with” style by empowering
each to decide how to accomplish the goals together as grade level teams, When she
first arrived, Mikara was viewed as the one who “revolutionized what she expected
and then recruited people who had the same frame of mind” (Teacher, personal
communication, October 19, 2006). She came in specifically to shake things up and
brought with her some non-negotiables. This was also hierarchical and top-down at
first, but through discussions and collaboration, the staff embraced the ideas and
began to work on refining them for friendly use as team members. In addition, the
teachers consistently reported in their interviews that the principal has the same high
expectations for all staff members and not only holds individuals accountable to
meet the goals of the school, but is also seen as supportive to the teachers as they
learn and grow. She is very visible in the classroom on a regular basis, observing the
extent to which students are engaged in learning and how standards are being
addressed. One new teacher indicated that the principal gives feedback and comfort
to one in the process of learning the “trade” of teaching (Teacher, personal
communication, October 9, 2006). Mikara stated that as she asked the new teachers
to complete 8-step lesson plans for all of their lessons, every day, she also reads
every single one and gives feedback. She says that “it killed everybody that I read
all of them and had comments on all of them;” which encouraged them to consider
the value of this assignment (M. Solomon, personal communication, October 16,
2006). The respect for and empowerment of teachers is realized in the manner in
which individual discretion in instructional strategies is encouraged, as long as
96

students are achieving and reaching the levels of “proficient” and “advanced” on
their test score results. If students do not achieve, a hierarchical style (power-over)
may be used to address potential teacher performance deficiencies.
The teachers also have a sense that the principal “watches their backs” and
fights for them at the district level when unnecessary bureaucracy is imposed upon
the site. They have a sense of “power-with” the principal when she is protecting
them against the bureaucracy. When Mikara confronts the district office directives,
the teachers feel the “power-with” her as she is battling a force outside the school.
This is evidenced in the ability of the teachers to follow the reading series Open
Court as appropriate to support the standards they are addressing. Mikara and the
leadership team brainstormed together about the use of the Open Court reading series
and decided that the lessons in the teacher’s editions are not “8-step lesson plans;
they are objectives and activities, but not lessons! [We] discovered that the beauty of
teaching is being taken out of your actual instruction and so in that sense, [teachers]
are machines,” instead of the artists that they truly are in the classroom (M. Solomon,
personal communication, October 16, 2006). So, Mikara does not require that the
teachers follow Open Court lessons as directed by the district and the teachers
appreciate this autonomy.
The principal perceives her role as a leader of the team, sharing responsibility
of educating children with all staff members, respecting the contribution of each to
the successful attainment of the goal and supporting them with consistent feedback.
She states that there is a supportive environment and that feedback is not personal.
97

That is very difficult and rare for professionals not to take potentially critical
feedback personally. She says that “I think I am finding that it is rare [not] to take
things personally. I have taken a lot of hits and I just keep going” (M. Solomon,
personal communication, October 16, 2006). That is her model for teachers
receiving feedback. Teachers are accountable to producing students who are
learners, evidenced by the extent to which they obtain the “advanced” or “proficient”
level. If their students are not achieving, they will be held accountable by the
principal, but also by each other on the teacher teams. The teacher and leadership
teams provide yet another vehicle of accountability for each other, beyond the
principal’s level.
The leadership team, comprised of the principal and representative teachers
from every grade level, is an integral part of decision-making for the school. The
principal meets with leadership team on a monthly basis, introduces ideas, elicits
buy-in from staff when the leadership team discusses issues with teachers in grade-
level meetings and then implementation of decisions occurs. The principal is viewed
as a very strong leader and teachers feelings about her may vary, but in the words of
one teacher, “everyone may have different opinions about her as a person, but most
would agree that she has had a huge impact on the school and brought it from down
low” (Teacher, personal communication, October 10, 2006). She utilizes the talents
and skills of her leadership team to communicate with other teachers in order to
bring about change. No one reports that the principal utilizes hierarchical methods
98

of requiring staff to follow certain rules and adhere to a certain regime. Instead, the
principal will say, “there are no mandates, so there are no union issues”
(M. Solomon, personal communication, October 16, 2006).
The leadership appears to be shared among the principal and the leadership
team. The leadership team representatives are responsible to lead their grade-level
meetings and represent ideas and decisions made with the principal. “I don’t really
get a sense of chain of command, I guess; which is good and bad. We just sort of
work out our own problems in the grade-level teams” (Teacher, personal
communication, October 9, 2006). This structure reinforces the notion that
hierarchical leadership is not perceived among the teachers. If anything, they would
say that instructional decisions are made at grade-level meetings and the bureaucratic
decisions are made by the principal. All the teachers consistently report that the
bureaucracy is kept far away from the classroom and that the teachers are protected
from the district administration and the board of education dysfunctions. The
principal has frequently challenged the Compton Superintendent of Schools
regarding time-consuming requirements for the school that did not seem to her as
being meaningful to students nor supporting the school goals of increased student
achievement. In most cases, her argument has prevailed and Bunche Elementary is
able to function rather autonomously from the rest of the district, based on their
remarkable test scores. One teacher notes, “I am sure you know that the lower [the
test scores are] at the school, the more the bureaucracy crushed you and so she
[principal] managed to get us enough breathing room…and since what we are doing
99

works, we don’t have to be on page 6 of Open Court or have lockstep positive action
[lessons] going on at 8:35 am every week” (Teacher, personal communication,
October 9, 2006).
The perceived leadership skills of the principal seem to rely on setting high
expectations, having consistency in creating and supporting systems and structures,
and most importantly, supporting teachers. This is accomplished by a combination of
“power-over” and “power-with” style of leadership. The teachers view the principal
as holding them accountable in ways to support them. They know that if test scores
are unacceptable, top-down decisions will be made about teacher assignments and a
professional growth plan, including support and training from either the principal or
resource teacher. The school documents reveal that in several cases in the last few
years, if a particular teacher’s test scores were low, the next year, he/she may have a
different grade-level assignment. There is no choice or collaboration about that
decision. It is simply unacceptable for students not to make adequate academic
progress.
When the principal first came to Bunche, she claims she did not target
teachers to say, “you stay or you go”; instead she stated that the student test scores
were totally unacceptable. “There were some, sort of, non-negotiables I came in
with because there is no way [a teacher] could feel good about [his/her] job with this
type of return [low student test scores]” (M. Solomon, personal communication,
October 16, 2006). She also modeled the work ethic she expected from teachers and
stated that “I’ll never ask anybody to do something that I’m not willing to do” (M.
100

Solomon, personal communication, October 16, 2006). However, the pressure of
setting the bar high for students was too much for some teachers, feeling that it
wasn’t the right fit, and they requested transfers. As teachers left, new teachers were
brought in, exhibiting not only the belief that all students could learn, but also the
work ethic of unrelenting passion for student learning.
Viewed separately, the high expectations of the principal may appear
hierarchical and oppressive; however, all the teachers report that teachers are
supported in the classrooms when needed and that it is not viewed as criticism when
suggestions are made. “School administration treats us fairly. They walk into our
classrooms at least two times per week and give us feedback” (Teacher, personal
communication, October 9, 2006). All teachers are monitored, with the
administrators going into all classrooms on an equitable basis. Five out of nine
classroom teachers commented on the consistency of classroom visitations by the
principal(s). “I get visited all the time” (Teacher, personal communication, October
9, 2006). Another teacher mentioned how [he/she] got feedback during observations
and therefore knew [he/she] was doing a good job. This kind of monitoring and
feedback implies a hierarchical approval that is different from a peer approval. Since
the principal is still responsible for completing teacher evaluations, there is still a
“power-over” responsibility that is not necessarily collaborative. A decision about
teacher performance is still the responsibility of the principal and not the teacher
leaders.
In addition to classroom visits, all new teachers are required to develop 8-part
101

lesson plans for every lesson taught, turned into the principal in the week prior to
implementation. These plans are consistently read and teachers are given specific
feedback. “The resource teacher and principal read our lesson plans and give us
feedback” (Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006). That consistency of
support is provided not only by the principal, but also the interim principal and
resource teacher. Since Mikara is currently on a partial leave of absence and at
Bunche once per week, the staff is being lead by an interim principal who was the
previous resource teacher. Mikara still works for the district, mentoring two
principals, including the interim principal at Bunche and the teaching staff.
The consistency has not waned, however. One of the teachers said that, ”no
one thought we could sustain the achievement when the interim principal took over;
but the other principal said it would hold and it did” (Teacher, personal
communication, October 9, 2006). Another teacher recognizes that the systems in
place help sustain the momentum, “we are just kind of going along with the great
structure that was created before we got here and modifying it to our classroom
needs” (Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006).
The reform that began in 2000 is being sustained by the existing team, whether
or not the original principal is there every day. “Really I have to say that [reform]
began with an authoritarian principal [approach] in the first three years to get us to a
middling point of developing the systems that are in place now” (Teacher, personal
communication, October 9, 2006). The strong leader modeled passion and belief and
102

then created the systems to carry out the plans. The leadership team and grade-level
teams do the rest.
2. Relational trust
Teachers feel that the principal(s) protect them from bureaucracy; and are
consistent and predictable in leadership, eliciting confidence and trust. There seems
to be a general consensus among the teachers that the local administration “watches
the teachers’ backs” and are very supportive. They have confidence in consistency
among and between the principal, interim principal and resource teachers in support
and communication. The teachers can count on expectations being held the same for
all with the bar remaining high for all relating to the focus on the goal of increased
student achievement. One teacher said,
For me, I guess I gained trust from the beginning when you know
they [school administrators] just provided support unconditionally.
Our two principals do an amazing job of facilitating what is going
on…and seem to handle everything by themselves so we don’t have
to get burdened by distractions. Almost every teacher will say we
completely trust those two principals and that is such a team builder
(Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006).

Many teachers described the school environment as open and safe. When
one teacher was asked if there was trust at the school, she responded that she felt
very comfortable and that she this year she was struggling with some difficult
students. She stated that she could “talk to the administration and that they would
not think of her in a different light” (Teacher, personal communication, October 10,
2006).
103

Teachers perceive that there is support rather than blame, including open
communication and conflict resolution opportunities for all issues. One teacher
commented during an interview that in a staff of 24 certificated staff members, “it
was impossible to be perfect” (Teacher, personal communication, October 10, 2006).
Many teachers lamented how “hard” the work was, but ultimately agreed that as a
teacher the most fulfilling aspect of the work is student success. The public display
of test scores undoubtedly imposes a competitive stress level among and between the
teachers. However, knowing this information will be shared is just a fact of life at
Bunche and seems to drive teachers to work harder and find ways to improve. In one
grade level meeting, the researcher observed an interchange between several teachers
where two of the new teachers in the group had the lowest test scores at that grade
level on the first Friday Skills Test of the year.
The other team members were not the least bit critical; rather they were very
supportive and proceeded to provide suggestions about how they were able teach the
concepts differently. They spent several hours in the afternoon working through
assisting each other. There are rare instances, however, where openness was not
observed in cross grade-level meetings where teachers were discussing the test
scores of the grade levels below and above them. In an attempt to determine if the
rare case was more prevalent, the researcher decided to administer an anonymous
written integrity scale. The researcher wondered if some of the teachers were
reluctant not only to address the issues that obviously existed in the meeting, but also
to discuss them with a stranger at a later time. Therefore, more information was
104

needed to understand the apparent limited conversation. Also, since there were 12
teachers who were not interviewed and there was a self-selection process, there
might have been other information about trust to learn, beyond the interviews.
The results of this survey are as follows, with 12 certificated staff members
responding. Since these were returned anonymously, these results are not
necessarily representative of the same 12 certificated staff members who were
interviewed. In fact, it is assumed by the answers that some of these responses are
not, in fact, from the teachers who were interviewed.
On the integrity scale below, the trend certainly indicates a high level of trust
with a few outlying ratings of mistrust. For example, in question #6 when asked it
team members blame others for mistakes, two responses indicated either “very
much” or “exactly”. So, two teachers feel like they have been blamed for mistakes.
During cross grade-level meetings, for example, the teachers are expected to openly
discuss with a lower grade level how they taught certain skills that seem to be weak
in the higher grade level. The researcher heard this discussion happen in one
meeting and the lower grade teachers basically said they had taught the skills and
didn’t know why they were having trouble in the following year. Yet, in another
cross grade level meeting, the researcher observed the lower grade teachers analyze
their methods of instruction for that skill and were willing to explore how they could
broaden the instruction to include greater retention and application to the next grade
level.

105

Perceived Team Integrity Scale
Key: 1=Not at all 2=Somewhat 3=Very much 4=Exactly
Responses by Rating

Overall, trust seems to be more prevalent among the grade level groups as
they have more time with each other, know each other better and have the time to
address the difficult questions. When asked about what occurs if there is conflict or
disagreement among the team members, most teachers looked blankly at the
researcher – almost as if there were no opportunities for conflict. One new teacher
said that “we are open to each other and confront when necessary…we help each
other when life happens and do extra work, if needed” (Teacher, personal
1 2 3 4
1. Team members use my mistakes
to attack me personally.
11 1 0 0
2. Team members always get even.

10 2 0 0
3. Certain team members get
special favors as “pets”.
*One answer was “not sure”.
7 1 1 2
4. Team members do not discuss
difficult issues.
8 2 2 0
5. Team members would falsify
student test records
10 1 1 0
6. Team members blame others for
mistakes.
8 2 1 1
7. Team members deliberately lie
to each other to save face.
9 2 0 1
8. Team members of certain ethnic
groups are more respected.
10 0 2 0
9. Team members have high
ethical standards.
0 3 3 6
10. Team members demonstrate a
high level of trust.
1 2 3 6
106

communication, November 1, 2006). Most teachers referred to the safety and
closeness of the grade level teams and how the problems are addressed at that level.
When the whole group is together, the grade levels are able to assist each other as
they understand how everyone has a responsibility together to produce the same
results, and that their independence is vital to the ultimate success of the school.
The leadership team, made up of grade-level representatives, is empowered
to gather input from grade-level teams to make decisions and implement plans. This
team exhibits the presence of expectations; consistent structures for communication
and collaboration; and support by the administration for teacher assistance with
students, curriculum and teaching practices. The trust among the group seems to
based on predictability and consistency. There is a safety and openness in having a
clear goal, with clear expectations for all, that is not personal. The group talks about
assisting others with techniques and suggestions, rather than focus on an inability to
perform based on lack of skills or another personal issue. These personal issues are
simply not mentioned; it’s all about student success and finding the key to success.
It is assumed that since a teacher made it through the rigorous process of selection,
he/she has the skills to implement the plan. So, it may be less about team-building
activities and programs designed to build a team, but more about the assurance that
each day, people can predict not only the expectations, but the way each staff
member, parent and student will be treated and supported. The grade-level team
meetings and decision making about daily instruction become central to meeting the
goals of the school.
107

3. Mutual agreement/understanding and decision-making and commitment to
consistent implementation
The school leadership team, made up of grade-level representatives, the principal
and resource teacher, makes decisions and discusses those decisions with staff for
consideration and implementation. The leadership team, even though not viewed as
a link in the chain of command, is perceived as the hub of decision-making. There is
no evidence, for example, that teachers cannot directly access the principal when
decisions are being made. A chain of command would imply a pecking order of
team leaders as officials in the hierarchy of school organization. Instead, most
teachers believe that Mikara brings in ideas to the team to discuss with the leadership
team as an efficient representative, collaborative model. Since the school goal and
focus is student achievement, most issues discussed in leadership team addresses
solutions issues relating to student achievement. There was no evidence that the
teachers on the leadership team held any “power-over” authority above the teaching
staff. Since most everyone already agrees that there is always more work to do to
assist the student population in Compton, they embrace new ideas to try. The
discussion of trying new ideas or refining instructional strategies in order to continue
to grow, improve and reach all students occurs in the grade-level meetings. Teachers
report a high level of safety and trust in grade-level meetings. A new teacher to the
school commented that, “I feel very safe in grade-level meetings – like I feel
comfortable sharing with my grade-level team; but when I go to the faculty meeting,
I would be nervous” (Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006). Another
108

new teacher said that “our…team has such a great relationship with each other, there
is nothing to be held back; if we are concerned with something, we will ask for help”
(Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006). These new teachers
interviewed had been at this school for five weeks by the time of this interview.
Other, more seasoned teachers spoke of the schoolwide openness and trust that exists
on campus. “…it’s one thing to have a mentor or whatever, but just to have the
whole staff of people you can go to…I think we’re just open to things. I don’t claim
to know everything” (Teacher, personal communication, October 10, 2006).
Through collaboration and shared leadership decision-making, the following
practices have become an integral part of the culture of Bunche Elementary School
and provide the direction for procedures that are consistently followed by all staff
members, students and other adults on campus:
1. Apply consistent classroom discipline
2. Utilize rigorous, selective teacher selection process
3. Train teachers on site
4. Test student weekly on state standards
5. Conduct regular grade-level and cross grade-level analysis and planning
meetings.
6. Motivate students with specific rewards.
7. Infuse goals and dreams
8. Develop parent support

109

9. Continue to seek out new ideas
10. Tweak and maintain.
The last agreement provides the opportunity to adjust these standardized
procedures as necessary. This list is not static and provides direction as long as it is
working. When the student test scores continue to rise, it feeds the momentum of
this group and if affirms the decisions that have been made. There is no evidence
that they become fatigued with this standardization; instead they experience
exhilaration when the students achieve according to their stated goals. Inherent
within the communication process, then, is the ability to “tweak” this list of practices
whenever necessary. Once the framework has been decided and agreed upon, it is an
expectation that all follow the procedures. If the procedures are not producing the
necessary results, the grade-level teams will raise the issue in one of the weekly
meetings and take it to leadership team at the earliest convenience. All practices and
procedures are designed to meet the ultimate goal of the school – which is to increase
student achievement so that they score “proficient” or “advanced” on their
standardized test scores. Even if any one teacher may adjust the practices to meet
his/her individual style, as long as the student test results meet the goal, derivation is
tolerated, and in fact, usually shared.
Implementation of agreed-upon practices, then, is insured through the
requirement of meeting the goal of increased student achievement. There is mutual
agreement/understanding among all staff members that there is one school goal and
the agreed-upon practices listed above. That school goal is that “all students will
110

become proficient or advanced”, which is clearly the goal that the principal brought
in to the school. This goal is consistent with the No Child Left Behind goal for all
students in the year 2014. This goal drives the commitment to consistent
implementation of teaching and assessing the standards at the same time. “I don’t
know exactly what the other teachers do every day, but we are covering the same
material” (Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006). Each Monday, the
test scores from the previous Friday Skills Test are published schoolwide. The tests
administered to all students in all grade levels from kindergarten to fifth grade are
based on the standards that are taught during that week. Consistent implementation
and remaining true to the agreed-upon standards to be taught each week will be
reflected in the scores of the students, which will be made public on Monday. A
teacher could choose not to care about the comparison data and how it feels to have
lower test scores than others in the school or at the same grade level. As one teacher
notes, “everybody knows what everyone is doing by the [test] results of the kids.”
When the researcher responded to this comment by stating that “data don’t lie,” the
teacher lamented grimly, “sadly, not” (Teacher, personal communication, October 9,
2006). The teachers who work at Bunche do pay attention to the scores and are
driven to follow the weekly plan, wasting little, if any, time. One teacher states the
decision-making goal very clearly, “…bottom line – if the students are getting it, it’s
great; if not, get rid of it” (Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006). This
goal seems so simple; almost as simple as the unwritten classroom management
technique that is agreed upon and understood by all teachers – do not speak until the
111

students are all listening to you. The new unwritten goal is: do not teach the same
way twice if the students did not learn it!
Teachers meet regularly with specific schoolwide goals remaining the focus of
all discussion. The weekly grade-level meetings are structured, focused and data-
driven as reported by all teachers interviewed and can be verified by observing the
meetings as well as referencing the agendas and minutes of the meetings.
“Everybody has a role in the meeting; timekeeper, facilitator and note taker”
(Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006). “We have an agenda for our
grade level meetings and we just stick to it. [During that time], we just try to figure
out what the best ways for us to get the kids to learn what standards we need to
teach” (Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006).
The agendas of the Wednesday meetings include the following items
consistently each week:
1. Check in – share something positive
2. Plan for Next Week – Develop lessons for next week
3. Friday Skills Test Analysis – Share practices of successful attainment
4. Friday Skills Test Review – How to communicate to students/parents
5. Friday Skills Test – Create the next skills test
6. AYP Report – Analyze the schoolwide report for trends
7. Other issues/concerns – Allocation of two minutes
It is important to note that the plan for the following week is not dependent on
the extent to which the students mastered the skills from the previous week. Since
112

the teachers need to remain on schedule with the pacing guide of skills to be taught
in a school year, it is incumbent upon the teachers to find time in their day to catch
up the students if they lag behind. This tends to be a common frustration in other
school environments and an excuse given by other teachers for students’ inability to
meet standards. At Bunche, there are no excuses; the teachers find the time for
intervention and remediation, which is not mandated, but understood. They are
individually and collectively drive to continue to increase student achievement and
show the world, but more importantly, the city of Compton, that these kids can
achieve. This pride generates a high level of passion for the work, which is
exemplified in the long voluntary hours spent as well as the intervention groups
taught after school for hourly pay that all teachers “sign up for”, in order to provide
as much individual and necessary support for all students who have fallen below the
“proficient or advanced” status. Even though this is not considered to be personal,
teachers take it personally when they students aren’t achieving and self-monitor
themselves for improvement plans. One teacher noted that:
I would never allow those scores to be low and be shunned for my
own pride because I think that in order to do something like this --that
is so score driven and so public -- you have to be personally involved.
I take personal offense when their scores are low because I didn’t
teach them well. I [take it] that it is my job and those are my scores;
it’s not just the kids’ scores (Teacher, personal communication,
October 10, 2006).

In addition to personal monitoring and grade-level discussions and
accountability, once per month, the teachers meet with cross-grade levels. During
this time, they use a structured agenda that includes using student data to make
113

decisions and plan for the week. The teachers at each grade level share strengths and
weaknesses of student mastery of standards and discuss ways to assist each other in
the schoolwide effort. “It’s not just about [my grade level] I work beyond my grade
level, with teachers in higher and lower grade levels. It’s like everyone else is
looking after you” (Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006). This
setting has the potential for tension between the teachers as it is common for teachers
at one grade level to blame the grade level before them for failing to provide
opportunities for students to master standards necessary for the next grade. This
phenomenon was observed during the data collection process at Bunche. The
administration not only has a system in place to address potential conflict such as
this, but already had a plan in place to address the issue.
With a clear and consistent focus on the school goals, the decision-making and
implementation of agreed-upon practices and procedures remains student centered
and focus solely on achievement. The way in which the instruction is delivered is
still subject to teacher discretion. Teachers are empowered to use creativity in their
use of instructional methods and to a large extent, choice of instructional materials,
as long as it produces the desired results.
4. Individual discretion and collective accountability when in conflict
Individual discretion is valued and supported in utilizing strategies in
classroom instruction as long as the goals of the school are met. The principal stated
that when she arrived at Bunche School, she never forced any teacher to change the
way he/she taught. “I didn’t ask them to change; I just set the expectations for
114

student achievement and expected students to learn how to read” (M. Solomon,
personal communication, October 16, 2006). The teachers understand that consistent
expectations are held for everyone by the principal and by each other. It is the focus
of achievement of students, rather than on a criticism of individual creativity and
uniqueness.
Collective accountability is based on the schoolwide goals of increased student
achievement and is one of the most prominent features of the system in place at
Bunche School. The Friday Skills Test scores are published to the entire staff each
week, listing the average scores of each class by individual teacher. The teachers are
accountable to each other and to the principal. Individual discretion occurs in the
manner in which classroom instruction is delivered. It only conflicts with
accountability when the individual choices of the teacher in utilizing unique
instructional strategies do not produce the results of student mastery of the skill. One
teacher emphatically states that, “First and foremost, I see the goals as guiding
students to achieve and be successful academically. That’s the overall driving force
behind everything” (Teacher, personal communication, October 10, 2006).
These expectations are articulated through the following accountability system:
a. Analysis of Spring CST test score results by all certificated staff in August,
prior to the beginning of the new school year. Analysis includes the
examination of schoolwide, grade level and individual student strengths
and weaknesses.
115

b. Strategic development of instructional practices that will address specific
weakness from the previous year’s data.
c. Strategic planning across all stakeholders to ensure weaknesses are not
repeated.
d. Focused collaboration during weekly grade-level meetings to analyze
Friday’s Skills Tests results, creating the next test, planning for the
following week, specifically addressing the isolated weaknesses.
Standards-based assessments inform and drive instruction. Teachers also
discuss discipline issues, share student work and spend time to personally
build the team spirit. Agendas are pre-set and followed by all teams of
teachers.
e. Friday Skills Test results are turned in to the principal by 8:00 am Monday
morning – no exceptions. These results are published by classroom teacher
and students are rewarded for achieving over 80% by having their names
published in the parent bulletin and those with over 90% eat lunch with the
principal.
f. Student/Parent Accountability – Every student, every day, receives a Daily
Behavior Sheet (DBS) including the following components: behavior;
mission statement; classroom rules; uniform compliance; homework;
tardiness; and a place for narrative comments. These are expected to be
returned each day.
116

g. College Bound Culture is emphasized informally and formally throughout
the school day using the following vehicles of communication: morning
exercises; goal wall; college alumni visits; classroom doors adorned with
college banners; college day; and college visits.
The teachers keep each other held up to accountability through teamwork and
support. One teacher noted that:
Last year, we had a unique confluence of events where all
three of us were in our third year of teaching and teaching a [new
grade level] for the first time. It was good that we weren’t first year
teachers and had some skills and did some things well, but weren’t so
rigid and locked into anything. We were very supportive of each
other trying new things and in general, were all detail-minded and
saw more of sort of the big picture, and [conducted] creative
emotional talk about how we could to lessons better. We had sort of a
homey, mom, family kind of group and had all three needs met by
each other. It was a good mix of personalities, work ethics and
attitudes. Therefore, we had a very natural process in our
collaboration; which is probably quite obviously rare (Teacher,
personal communication, October 9, 2006).

When student achievement is kept as the central focus of collective
accountability, the assumed infringement on individual discretion narrows and is
almost non-existent at Bunche. It remains personal, but still allows an individual
teacher to create his/her own manner of delivery that is consistent with his/her skills
and unique talents. Another teacher noted that, “I would never allow those scores to
be low and be shunned for my own pride. I think that in order to do something like
this, it is so score driven and so public, you have to be personally involved in it. I
personally take pride in these scores; they are not just the students’ scores, they are
my scores” (Teacher, personal communication, October 10, 2006). Another teacher
117

said there ultimately is a satisfaction in making a difference in student’s lives,
specifically, “I told my friends that for the first time I am really truly happy and I
don’t mind the long hours because it’s what I want to do and I feel like I am making
a difference…everyone is helping me grow and I have my individual goal to my
best. All the teachers are working very hard here and that helps me” (Teacher,
personal communication, October 9, 2006).
Collective accountability at Bunche School begins and ends on the public
display of student achievement scores. The teachers who are still employed at this
school understand that phenomenon and thrive with it because they believe it works
to accomplish the ultimate goal of increased student achievement, which is the
product of successful implementation of standards-based reform. One new teacher
relayed the first experience with a general staff meeting in the summer when all the
test scores were being shared by charts and graphs listed by classroom teacher from
the previous year’s test results. The teacher’s account is as follows: “..but, like in
the meeting in the summer, they went over the test results class by class. I was there
for that. Everything is flat on the table; it was just like, oh crap, this is what I am in
for. But, you know, people stay here, even though it seems like it would be a lot of
stress” (Teacher, personal communication, October 9, 2006).
No conflict exists as long as goals are reached. When asked, the teachers
generally report that there is no conflict between and among the grade-level teams.
Several teams of teachers report that when new grade level teams are formed,
sometimes new norms must be set in the team while they are learning how to work
118

with each other. However, when in conflict with other teachers in a grade level with
new members, one teacher commented that what keeps him/her focused when in
conflict “is my knowledge of these kids. I would be ashamed if we let the behind the
scenes teacher bureaucratic stuff [distract] us from focusing on results for the
students. We try to keep the kids at that center” (Teacher, personal communication,
October 9, 2006).
5. Perception of diversity of the team
Neither ethnic nor gender diversity seem to have any impact on process and
outcome. The ethnicity of the certificated staff has become more diverse in the last
seven years, compared to the single ethnic group employed in the year 2000. Since
the systems and practices were not in place at that time, it is not possible to either
make any comparisons nor to draw any conclusions concerning the effectiveness of
the diversity on the impact on decision-making. There was no evidence, nor any
comments relative to gender or ethnic diversity in any discussions or interviews.
The differences seem to be a non-issue at this school. This may either be due to the
non-existence of diversity issues, or the researcher wasn’t able to detect issues based
on the manner in which the study was conducted.
Longevity issues affect the process when new ideas clash with old. The only
evidence of differences noted in the impact of the diversity of the team and its impact
on decision making was evident in two grade levels with respect to longevity issues.
This impact did not seem to have a significant negative impact on the process, but
119

clearly warrants further investigation, addressing the nuances of this impact over a
period of time, or relating to specific topics.
Discussion
This section is organized by the areas of leadership and teamwork researched
and found in the literature review in Chapter 2. The discussion begins with a general
analysis of the standards-based reform effort and how this case study defied the odds
for increasing student achievement in their unique reform effort. The discussion
concerning hierarchical leadership follows as it becomes an integral part of the
conclusion relating to the “new” leadership observed. All other areas in this section
relate to group processes and teamwork as a necessary antidote to the use of
hierarchical leadership alone. These data, analyzed in relation to the research, reveal
a “new” leadership style, based on trust, honesty and sharing power with the team.
Who is “in charge” of Implementing Federal/State Standards-Based Reform?
Hatch (2001) laments that the call for standards-based reform has created
more and more bureaucratic policy than roadmaps for success. At Bunche
Elementary, the bureaucracy has been kept at bay, while the principals and staff have
created the roadmap for success and have systems in place to continue to improve
and sustain change over time, regardless of the potential change in leadership and/or
teaching staff. The standards-based reform efforts that emerged in California in
1997 embrace four major goals: 1) high academic standards for all students; 2)
accountability for student outcomes; 3) the inclusion of all students in reform
initiatives; and 4) flexibility for instructional change (Goertz, 2001). The school-
120

based initiatives at Bunche Elementary School meet and exceed all of these goals.
At the foundational level, the staff has professed and kept high academic standards
for all students and accountability for the outcomes of student achievement. All
students have been included in the reform initiatives as evidenced by a large majority
of students reaching “proficient” or “advanced” levels. The school practices and
procedures allow for flexibility for instructional change as long as the previous goals
are met. The success of full implementation of standards-based reform is measured
by student outcomes as indicated by local and standardized tests. This case study
completed at Ralph Bunche Elementary School reveals that through teamwork and
shared-leadership, the staff has successfully implemented standards-based reform in
response to the nationwide call for change. They have produced this result on their
own, with neither support nor barriers from the district-level bureaucracy.
Further, the research on effective schools shows that school-level factors are
key components in building school capacity for change. These factors include vision
and leadership with restructured governance and organization, with a strong school
culture and teachers’ professional community (Bryk, Sebring, Kerbow, Rollow &
Easton, 1998; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Newman & Wehlage, 1995, as cited in
Hatch, 2001). The new principal at Bunche Elementary School, who began reform
efforts in 2000, brought vision and leadership to this school to enable the team to
build a strong school culture, recognizing and benefiting from the teachers’
professional community. The new principal brought, most notably, a respect for
teachers and the profession. This respect can be most prominently inferred by the
121

willingness of the staff to embrace the leadership style of the principal.
Development of the professional learning community cannot be taken for
granted under anything less than a deliberate approach to respectful support of the
principal. Developing the capacity for change involves creating the conditions under
which teachers can change beliefs, skills and attitudes. Changes such as these cannot
be mandated and require a leader that treats teachers professionally and respectfully.
It is this professionally-treated teacher community that ultimately implemented
standards-based reform and created a culture of success for a small population of
students at Bunche in Compton Unified School District. The certificated staff
members, including the teachers, principal and resource teacher at Bunche have
accomplished the “re-culturing” as suggested by Fullan (2000) as a model of
governance that is beyond “restructuring” as it “involves going from a situation of
limited attention to assessment and pedagogy to a situation in which teachers and
other routinely focus on these matters and make associated improvements” (p. 582).
The regularly-scheduled teacher meetings exemplify this successful governance
model as they analyze student achievement is analyzed and make decisions to
modify instruction.
Non-hierarchical governance models have been described as ambiguous and
occasionally “anarchic” and will require a hybrid approach to the development of an
effective means of managing reform (Boyd & Crowson, 2002). They further suggest
that there needs to be a balance between authority and discretion, without really
describing specifically how job responsibilities are distinguished. The governance
122

structure at Bunche may represent a “new” shared-leadership approach that has not
previously been found in the literature. This shared leadership maintains a sharing of
responsibility for student achievement as a focus, while maintaining and protecting
the job responsibilities of the principal as the instructional leader and the teachers as
the deliverers of instruction, in a safe and trustworthy environment. It is the
unwavering and undeniable integrity of the principal that distinguishes this shared-
leadership approach as “new”. In addition, this case study will provide evidence
that supports how buy-in from teachers can be accomplished through a team
approach, including trust, collaboration, decision-making and implementation of
agreed-upon goals and practices.
Hierarchical Leadership
Hierarchical, top-down, hero-driven leadership has been found to be
ineffective as it relates to reform efforts in the public school setting (Datnow, 2000;
Blasé, 1990; Weiss & Cambone, 1994; Wolf, Borko & Elliott, 2000; Heller &
Firestone, 1995). These studies found that power relations surrounding reform
thwarted genuine buy-in and, generally, that hierarchical forms of leadership had a
negative impact on teacher morale and productivity, sometimes causing outright
resistance. Fullan (1993) states that “you can’t mandate what matters” and change
requires skills, commitment, motivation, beliefs and insights, and discretionary
judgment on the spot” (p. 23). Nothing seems to be mandated by the principal at
Bunche School. The principal claims and the teachers agree that that are not
“required” to do anything. These teachers, instead, have made a commitment to the
123

students of Bunche; believe the students can learn; and are given the opportunity to
make discretionary judgment about their own teaching practices on a regular basis.
They are motivated, to a large degree, by the level of student outcomes, knowing that
the success of the school and individual teaching practices is judged almost solely on
the basis of student learning. This creates an internal motivation to find ways to
reach all students, every day, wasting little time in doing so. The teachers know the
expectations as they are hired into the school and agree, to a large extent, to the high
expectations of the teachers and the rigor of the work. Through the interviews,
classroom and meeting observations, there was no evidence of top-down leadership,
where anyone thought that the principal was imposing directives on them. Neither
was their evidence of a hybrid approach that combined authority with discretion,
based on the traditional view of hierarchical leadership. Top-down, hierarchical
leadership is resisted by teachers when it erodes the foundation of trust and
approachability. Top-down decisions, made in the context of an organization that
requires accountability to state and federal governments, for example, may be
necessary for the good of the entire organization. The findings of this case study
may suggest that hierarchical decisions may be made by an unspoken consent. This
consent is evidenced by the absence of resistance or anarchy. Instead, the teachers
may believe that certain decisions must be made by the authority of principal alone,
who guides the culture, holds teachers officially accountable and provides the
authoritarian buffer and liaison support with the district office and does so with the
utmost of skill and integrity, so that it is hardly perceptible as hierarchical.
124

Social Psychological Theories of Human Interaction
The theories of group process begin at one of the lowest forms of animals in
the kingdom – the honeybee. The social roles of honeybees are relevant to the
decision-making process in the school place as they make decisions as a group on a
minute-by-minute basis regarding which flower patches to visit and allocating
workers to maintain hives or other vital concerns (Bower, 1995). “When the hive
faces key judgments, each bee offers a small contribution to a chain of responses that
produces appropriate divisions of labor or other outcomes” (Bower, 1995, p. 329).
There is no evidence that the queen bee makes a decision and the others follow. The
social structure at Bunche supports the group decision-making at the very basic level
of making decisions together.
The more sophisticated human leadership theories addressing social
interactions indicate communication is critical in high-level social exchanges and
that it is characterized by mutual trust, respect and commitment (Northouse, 2004).
New leadership theories that value the shared concept of decision-making remind us
that leadership is not what the leaders are doing, but what the “leaders and followers
are doing together for the collective good” (Rost, 1991, as cited in Brungardt, 1998).
This collaboration and teamwork are necessary in education in order to deal with the
complex problems such as educating a population of diverse students with varying
needs in a traditional school setting. The certificated staff members at Bunche
Elementary School certainly work in a traditional school setting, without many
benefits of any specific support and/or resources that would enhance their program
125

from the community. They have the tools that have been given to most public
education entities. In fact, due to the continued dysfunction of the school board and
district office administrators in the area of clear communication, mutual trust and
clear direction, Bunche actually operates at a deficit. In fact, this team of staff
members at Bunche School has defied the odds in developing a collaborative effort
of shared leadership and decision making that produces significant results and
supports the theories of social interaction and decision-making that supports and
maintains the common good.
Teamwork
The function of collaborating or making decisions in groups, according to
LaFasto and Larson (2001), necessarily includes people with different perspectives
and views coming together, “putting aside their narrow self-interests, and discussing
issues openly and supportively in an attempt to solve a larger problem or achieve a
broader goal” (p. xvii). Above all, at Bunche Elementary School, the evidence
suggests that the product of collaboration during all levels of decision-making in
groups, is specifically and deliberately focused on achieving the broader goal of
student achievement, while not becoming distracted by personal interests or feelings.
The teamwork at Bunche School is driven by very specific goals. Schmoker
(1999) states that “goals give teamwork meaning” and emphatically believes that
failure to establish goals leads to futile collaborative efforts. “Far too many teams
casually accept goals that are neither demanding, precise, realistic, nor actually held
in common…team alone never makes a team” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, as cited
126

in Schmoker, 1999, p. 23). This pronouncement about ineffective teams does not
describe the teamwork effort at Bunche. The team not only accepts the goals, they
passionately attack them with a work ethic that surpasses most.
As concluded by LaFasto and Larson (2001), there are six dimensions of
team leadership. The following describes specifically how the culture of teamwork
at Bunche Elementary School consistently practices these dimensions:
1. Focus on the goal – One thing is very clear at Bunche; there is a goal of
every child reaching the “proficient” of “advanced” level of understanding
the state standards required at his/her level.
2. Ensure a collaborative climate – The staff meets regularly every Wednesday
with a prescribed agenda and a clear focus on outcomes. They continue to
meet informally during the week as there are always more issues to address
together. Based on observations of groups of teachers and the principal
meeting together, it is apparent that a collaborative climate exists at Bunche.
3. Build Confidence – The staff reports that they receive support not only from
the principal, but also each other as they attempt to analyze the diverse needs
of the students and how to adjust instruction to meet their needs. Each
interaction of assistance and the concomitant result of increased student
achievement helps in building confidence both individually and collectively
4. Demonstrate sufficient technical know-how – New teachers are required to
write 8-step lesson plans for as long as they need to in order to develop the
technical skills necessary to perform effectively as a teacher. Mikara states
127

that if the teachers have the passion and love for kids, she can teach them
anything about instruction (M. Solomon, personal communication, October
16, 2006).
5. Set priorities – The priorities are clearly set in the school. The instructional
time is protected from distractions from the district level and from other
outside interference. Phone calls and classroom visits are minimized and
teachers are not released from their classrooms for meetings. They are also
encouraged to be there every day. The priority is instruction and both staff
and students are expected to be at school, teaching and learning respectively.
6. Manage performance – This is an area where the job responsibility of the
principal is different than the teacher. The principal is visible in classrooms
each day and gives feedback. If there is a problem with students not
producing the results of increased academic achievement and the routine
assistance is not assisting the teacher, the principal will step in and meet with
the teacher to hold him/her accountable to maintain the focus on meeting the
goal. This task must be performed by the principal, who is not otherwise
spending her days in a classroom teaching.
In addition to the functions of the teamwork, sometimes the diversity of the
teams may cause discomfort among individuals. Devine (1989), as cited in Jackson
et al., (1995) found that research suggests that members of diverse teams are more
likely to have a negative experience in decision-making than members of
homogeneous teams. There was no evidence to support this conclusion at Bunche
128

School. In fact, the diversity issue seemed to be almost noticeably absent from any
discussion. It may be that they have deliberately addressed the diversity issues on
the team and are now benefiting from the richness of different points of view. The
development of teamwork relating to diversity was not specifically explored as the
dynamics of the team changed over a period of seven years and no one made
reference to either positive or negatives aspects of these differences. An additional
layer of interest in diversity affecting decisions resides in the difference of ethnic
makeup of the teachers versus the student population. Since there are currently
Caucasians and Asians that comprise more than half of the teaching staff and the
student population is half African American and half Latino, it would be interesting
to study attitudes and beliefs about students from other backgrounds and cultures
relating to student achievement and ability. For the purposes of this study, however,
there seem to be no significant influences surrounding diversity at all.
And still, the effectiveness of a team depends on many complex variables and
factors and the interwoven intricacies of personalities, skills, knowledge,
accountability, diversity and clear roles and responsibilities. There are certainly
clear roles and responsibilities, a well-developed and monitored accountability
system and an assurance of skills and knowledge of the team members after careful
screening by the leadership team. The personalities and diversity aspects just simply
fall into place as the other overriding variables stand firm and unwavering. Even
though, for example, when grade-level teams change from year-to-year, adjusting the
diversity of the team, the team members persevere and develop a level of
129

homeostasis that allows them to continue to collaborate and meet the goals. The
teams at Bunche continue to work on their collaborative efforts effectively as they
remain focused on student achievement. Really, nothing else seems to matter as
much as that.
Teachers as Leaders
For the purpose of this study, teacher leadership is defined as “the respect of
recognizing the professional community of teachers as valid partners in decision-
making relating to virtually all aspects of the school program, including curriculum,
instruction, staff development and personnel selection decisions (Teacher Leaders
Network, 2002). If teacher leadership depends on the structures of teamwork that
support and include them in the process, then at Bunche School, the structures allow
for a maximum level of decision-making and input into the entire school system. It
has already been noted in the presentation of findings that the leadership team at
Bunche is involved in hiring teachers and curricular decisions. The grade level
teams make instructional decisions on a daily and weekly basis. Staff development
generates out of the needs of the staff when confronting the issues at hand. Clearly,
the teachers are included in all aspects of decision-making and take an active role in
not only implementing the plan, but also “tweaking” it when necessary.
Leadership displayed by teachers is different than leadership displayed by
principals; they clearly have two different jobs. A study by Crowther and Olsen
(1997), as cited in Keedy (1999) found that teacher leaders neither viewed
themselves as “either charismatic, or as having exceptional influence” (p. 797).
130

They suggested, however, that teacher leaders have five dimensions – all of which
exist at Bunche School: 1) models trust and sincerity; 2) builds networks of support;
3) nurtures a culture of success; 4) articulates clear views of a better world; and 5)
confronts structural barriers (Keedy, 1999, p. 797). The teachers interviewed in this
study all displayed the characteristics listed above. Since these teachers were self-
selected as ones willing to be interviewed, it is possible that these 12 displayed the
most prominent characteristics of teacher leaders. During the classroom and teacher
meeting observations, the researcher observed many of these dimensions existing in
most of the staff members. It is safe to say that a majority of the staff at Bunche
School show evidence of teacher leader dimensions listed above. This majority
seems to form the cadre of leaders that provide the impetus for direction, standing
beside the principal and now interim principal. It may be this majority force that
allows the continuance of consistency of program while Mikara is on leave of
absence and there is an interim principal in place who was previously a resource
teacher, as well as the capable and consistent leadership of the interim principal.
Teacher leadership, then, is not about who holds the power, but rather that
the principal, in this case, the leader, embraces and promotes the “concept of
empowerment and teacher efficacy by providing the opportunity for teachers to
mutually determine the direction of the organization” (Enderlin-Lamp, 2002, p. 141).
There is no evidence that this school is lead by a “power-holding” individual who
manages staff by direction. Mikara says that “what I really have is this passion and
desire, you know…it was from my parents and grandparents….it was inside me.
131

You can’t take that out of me; it’s like taking the air out of me” (M. Solomon,
personal communication, October 16, 2006). So, the principal (leader) focuses on
results of student achievement and does not appear to have to time or inclination to
wield power. She just wants results and that means ‘her’ students are showing
growth each year and obtaining the level of achievement expected of all children in
the United States of America. Compton kids can achieve and no one can convince
this principal of anything different than that.
The teachers are also able to perform as leaders at Bunche through the
recommendations of The Teacher Network (2002). The suggestions for training and
empowerment of those in charge include: creating professional communities;
establishing positive school environments; providing opportunities for increasing the
quality of teacher professionalism; and “mobilizing the still largely untapped
attributes of teachers to strengthen student performance at ground level and working
toward real collaboration, a locally tailored kind of shared leadership, in the daily life
of school” (p. 2).
Leadership as Shared Power
Bunche School definitely has a locally tailored kind of shared leadership that
is absolutely unique not only to Compton, but also public schools in general. The
“new” leadership exemplified at this school embodies an unmistakable passion,
respect and honor displayed by the principal that has not only engaged the teachers
as leaders in a shared-powered environment, but also created an environment that
affects the beliefs and attitudes of the teachers in a momentum that appears
132

exhausting. This researcher has never experienced an environment quite so
invigorating as this one. There are many new leadership concepts have been studied
and described by researchers. Rost (1993) describes the new leaders as those who
use influence with “noncoersive relationships”. Further, Rost (1993) envisions the
leadership context of an organization to exhibit a “shared-powered environment”
which accommodates the changing post-industrial paradigm of leadership. School
principals can often act as a barrier to realizing the full potential of developing a
democratic approach to shared leadership. Teachers see principals as holding on to
power, control and remaining at the center stage of not only school reform, but also
over school management and control (Barth, 2001). In fact, the personal security of
the principal seems to affect his/her ability to share leadership. “One study found
that the weaker the principal personally, the less he or she is likely to share
leadership” (Barth, 2001, p. 447).
Further, in new leadership models, principals need to model the norms and
values expected of others (Elmore, 2002). There is a preponderance of evidence in
this case study that Mikara Solomon is a strong leader who has a high level of
personal security, values and conviction. She speaks of giving up power and
frequently in conversations will immediately shift the accolades to the staff, students
and parents. Her presence on campus is welcomed and embraced. Teachers respect
Mikara and request feedback from her on their performance. They also have a
confidence that decisions will always be made in the best interest of students. Such
133

decisions commonly include the leadership team with input from the staff and can
hardly be argued when the end result supports the goal of student learning.
The relational trust of the principal as leader and the staff in general is well
articulated and acknowledged. Trust among participants in an organization does not
exist in a vacuum. It must be artistically intertwined in the overall collaborative
process, including intellectual and social exchanges. Fink and Resnick (2001) claim
that “effective instructional leaders must, [in other words], create intellectual capital
and social capital within their organizations” in order to positively influence
classroom instruction (p. 601).
The difference may lie in the level of passion of the principal for creating a
college-bound culture of students in Compton. This passion, blended with the
utmost respect for the professional learning community of teachers, along with an
unmistakable honor, instilled by her grandparents, may be the key ingredients in the
distinction of the “new” leadership. She tenderly and forcefully creates this
environment by standing up for her values in the face of the bureaucratic challenges
and cares for her school family with compassion, concern and an unmistakable and
unrelenting work ethic that never tires. She models this work ethic for others and
they rally for the cause. No one is coerced into staying late or working over the
weekend. They just do it; because the students need for them to do so. They all
agree the work is hard; but it becomes worth it when the student achievement via test
scores “just went crazy”. Success breeds success; they believe it and it happens –
134

whatever it takes. The teachers, then, display the same passion for the work and
continue the momentum in a collaborative, respectful and collaborative manner.
At the very base of “new” leadership is finally, honor. A moral leader may
use what Lee (1997) refers to as “principle-centered power”. This “power” is based
on “respect and honor that go beyond some deal or exchange. It is not easily created,
but it can outlast your lifetime. The power principle is stated simply: honor is
power” (p. 101).
If the basis of this “new” leadership is honor, it appears to be present at
Bunche School. Honor is translated into the ability of the principal of the school to
give selfless respect and empowerment to the teaching staff, enabling them to break
out of their isolation and become a part of the team of teacher leaders. The notion of
a hybrid approach is rejected by this researcher as previously defined as a
combination of authority and participative management. This “new” leadership does
not include traditional aspect of authority at a school. The role of the principal as
authoritarian is realized only when necessary to protect the teachers from
bureaucratic oppression or from other professional issues at the building level.
Once the professional community is established, the system needs the
structures in place for goals and accountability. This case study describes a new
leadership that depends on the unique environment in Compton, in a unique school
with a unique team of teachers and principal(s). There are elements that can be
replicated in this “new” leadership, as long as there are not overriding bureaucratic
barriers preventing successful implementation.
135

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary of Data
Effective implementation of school reform may depend on the context of the
environment. Goldberg and Morrison (2002) conclude that leaders must take
account of at least three contexts for educational change and accountability,
including “the ‘inside story’ of the school and specifically the collaboration and trust
that exists in the professional practices; the community and professional
organizations that interact with the school; and finally, the local, state and federal
government mandates and measures of performance (p. 80). Ralph Bunche
Elementary School has a context which was ripe for change and Compton Unified
School District officials found the right educator to lead the reform and empower the
teachers to lead. There was a preponderance of evidence to support the existence of
collaboration and trust in the professional practices at Bunche. The local, state and
federal mandates and measures for student success are noted, respected and
ultimately are used for the measurement of success at Bunche. Within the local
control and decision-making process, the community at Bunche School recognizes
the limitations of the community and succeeds in spite of that.
The researcher concludes that the leadership roles of principal(s) and teachers
represent a “new” shared team leadership approach, creating organizational change
through the implementation of standards-based reform through an accountability
structure which empowers each individual with the responsibility of accomplishing
the goals of the school, including most importantly, increased student achievement.
136

The distinction of “new” shared-leadership lies in the non-traditional definition of
hierarchical. As hierarchical leadership has been traditionally practiced, the
authority still feels imposed by the leader. The researcher will suggest that in this
environment at Bunche School, the hierarchical approaches used by the principal are
hardly noticed as top-down decisions and require a great deal of trust by the staff to
accept and, actually, expect. It may be uncommon for an entire staff to trust the
leaders in an organization. At Bunche School, one teacher said “…almost every
teacher will say they trust both principals” (Teacher, personal communication,
October 9, 2006). That kind of trust is developed by a very consistent, honorable
leader. That trust, along with the passion that drives these teachers each day to work
in some cases, twelve-hour days, is unique and must be recognized as a “new”
approach to leadership, including the teachers as leaders.
The standards-based reform implemented at Bunche Elementary School has,
simply put, accomplished the goal it intended to reach. The student achievement
scores as expressed in the statewide Academic Performance Index (API) have
exceeded the state recommended level of 800 by 68 points. In the context of
rankings not only of similar schools in California, but also the other schools in
Compton Unified School District, Bunche scores are unique to the economic
environment. Based on the case study investigation of the roles of principals and
teachers as leaders working as a team in this implementation process, there appears
to be a cause and effect relationship between the systems designed to increase
student achievement and the outcome of successful reform.
137

The following conclusions were drawn based on a triangulated case study,
specifically designed to answer five research questions:
1. To what extent does the leadership style/skill of the principal influence the
inclusion of teachers in a shared leadership capacity, including the teachers and
principal(s) perceptions of that role?
The style of the principal can be described as accountability-based, focused
and passionate. She possesses the skill to hold high expectations for staff, while
providing positive acknowledgement and feedback for achieving the goals of the
school. The principal maintains a visibility on the campus and in classrooms for the
purposes of following progress of individual students, as well as providing support
when needed. This visibility is slightly different from the commonly perceived
approach of principal visitations in other school settings. Some of the teachers noted
that in other school environments, with different principals, the purpose of the
classroom visits seemed critical and sometimes interfered with the teacher’s
approach to instruction. This principal’s style is to support and give suggestions to
staff members, not to take a hierarchical approach to standardizing instruction that
she views as an art form. Her style also includes ultimately the accountability of all
teachers to teach the standards for their grade levels and show evidence of student
learning through Friday Skills Tests and statewide assessments. Failure to show
progress over time necessitates individual meetings with the principal to make a plan
for that teacher.
138

The teachers report that even though the principal shares power in the aspect of
decision-making related to curriculum, instruction and school practices, the principal
is hierarchical when she is required to perform the duties of a principal such as
dealing with all matters at the district office and other managerial responsibilities
traditionally needed within the current structure of the K-12 organizational
environment. As stated previously, these areas involve such duties as teacher
accountability and evaluation, as well as other district office administrative
responsibilities.
Many teachers perceive the leader as strong and consistent, holding high
expectations for all teachers to reach the goals of increased student achievement.
The expectations held by the principal are applied to all certificated staff members
and include only one requirement. The one requirement of all teachers is that they
administer a Friday Skills Test to all students, with test items designed to assess the
agreed-upon standards taught that week. These test results are published schoolwide
and impose accountability beyond the school principal to attain the “proficient” or
“advanced” level of achievement on each test. The regular weekly meetings held to
analyze this student test data in order to make decisions about instruction are led by
teachers. The expected results are that each classroom teacher makes adjustments as
necessary to insure success for all students. Failing to do so creates a schoolwide
awareness of this discrepancy, which immediately results in support and assistance
by the grade-level and cross-grade level teachers, the resource teacher and the
principal.
139

The principal perceives her role as a leader of a team, sharing responsibility
with all staff members. She relates a story about how she struggled with the use of
the state-approved textbook for reading published by Open Court. This reading
series has garnered a lot of attention in reform efforts and been touted for
contributing to increased student achievement (Carter, 2000). She held a meeting
with the leadership team, long into the night, brainstorming about reading instruction
that she felt still was missing significant pieces. They concluded together that the
textbook, in fact, did not have all the pieces necessary for instruction and decided not
to use the textbook as intended. This was not a hierarchical decision made by the
principal, but by the team who carried out the communication necessary to bring the
other teachers along. The skill of the principal was found in her ability to convince
the district office curriculum department officials that the teachers at Bunche School
would not be following the state and district-adopted text. This skill and style
provide the evidence to support why teachers feel that she “has their backs”. They
made a decision and the principal had to justify it to the district office administrators.
This must be carried out by the administrator, not the teachers, and they know and
accept that.
The skill/style of the principal, then, can be summarized by her ability to
remain focused on the goal of student achievement; remain supportive and respectful
of the teachers; maintain high accountability for all, while navigating the
bureaucracy of the school district to protect instruction in the classroom. The
140

unmistakable tenacity and passion of this principal provides the ultimate drive for
her to continue her unrelenting attack on the enemy of student academic failure.
2. How does schoolwide relational trust among teachers and administration
impact the success of shared leadership in collaboration and decision-
making?
The teachers report that the principal(s) gained their trust and confidence by
protecting them from bureaucracy, as exemplified by the Open Court decision, and
are consistent and predictable in their leadership. The principal confronts the district
office about meaningless directives that are considered bureaucratic and not only
disconnected from, but also counterproductive to student achievement. The
phenomenal increase in student test scores has gained this principal and school
access to autonomy. There is a prevailing perception by teachers that there is
support rather than blame from colleagues, as well as the principal, which elicits trust
among and between the teachers and the principal(s). This perceived support
includes open communication about all issues that arise, with a consistent approach
to problem solving that takes the person out of the equation, with the focus beginning
and ending on the problem alone. Trust is bolstered among the staff when the
principal says that “nothing is personal” and tends to elicit discussions about her
leadership that relate to “what” she does, rather than “who” she is.
3. How do the teachers and administrators develop mutual
agreement/understanding and make decisions about how standards-based
reform should be implemented and to insure consistent implementation?
141

From the beginning of the standards-based reform implementation at Ralph
Bunche School, initiated by the new principal, the leadership team has been
empowered to make decisions and implement and/or modify plans relating to
classroom instructional programs and practices, as long as they meet the schoolwide
goals of increased student achievement. This leadership team is more likely to
develop mutual understanding as they are trusted with decision- making. As they
have been involved in the selection of new teachers, the group formulates standards
upon which to operate. This philosophical agreement lends credence to not only
trust, but similar values that apply specifically to daily practices.
Consistent implementation of decisions is not prescribed by the leadership
team members reporting back to the grade level teachers. Rather, through the system
of a regular weekly meeting schedule with a focused agenda on student assessment
and modification of instruction to accommodate the discrepancies, if any, in test
score data. The teachers know what the expectations are relating to the
responsibility for teaching the agreed-upon standards for the week and take
responsibility for bringing all students to the level of “proficient” or “advanced”.
Consistent implementation is implied in the extent to which the test scores reflect
meeting the goal of student learning. If students aren’t achieving according to stated
goals, the teams revisit the data and revise the plan. The goal of increased student
achievement is always kept at the center of decision-making.
4. How are the issues of individual discretion and collective accountability
addressed when in conflict?
142

Individual discretion as it relates to instructional strategies used in the
classroom by a teacher does not conflict with collective accountability unless those
strategies do not produce the intended results of increased student achievement.
Teachers are valued and supported in utilizing strategies in classroom instruction as
long as the goals are met. Instructional strategies are not prescribed, nor do they
come under the scrutiny of collective accountability unless students are not learning
what is being taught.
It is clear that collective accountability is based on schoolwide goals of student
achievement determined by Friday Skills Test and statewide testing. No conflict
exists as long as goals are met. As long as students are learning the standards,
teachers may employ any instructional strategies they choose and those will be
supported by the principal and by other colleagues. In fact, whatever teaching
strategies seem to be working will be coveted by others and shared in the grade-level
and cross grade-level meetings.
5. How does the existence and perceptions of the diversity of the team (position,
ethnicity, employment longevity or gender) affect the process and outcome?
There was no evidence in the data collection procedures that points to gender
or ethnic influences on specific decision-making processes or outcomes. Since the
diversity has significantly changed over the last seven years, it is not possible to
draw conclusions about the difference between the impact of a homogeneous group
of teachers on decision making and the current diverse group. The system has
changed dramatically and there is no way to know how the previous staff would have
143

responded as a group to this system that evolved over a period of several years. The
first two years of reform at this school looked a lot different than today as it took
time to create the structure now in place. The staff seems to operate as a team with
no specific awareness or recognition of the diversity of the team. It is possible that
the issues may have been addressed over the last seven years either formally or
informally. It is not known by this researcher in this study how the adult diversity
issues are addressed. Again, diversity issues among staff members are a source for
further study, not only relating to adult-to-adult, but also adults-to-students.
However, since longevity issues may affect the process when old ideas clash
with the new, it could be concluded that the previous homogeneous team may not
have responded in the same manner as the new team due to issues relating to old
ideas that seemed inconsistent with new ones. The researcher did interview one
retired teacher from Bunche who stayed until last school year. She reported that she
believed some teachers from the past did not agree with the new system and chose to
leave. However, some stayed and were able to embrace new ideas. For the purposes
of this case study, the aspect of longevity could not be thoroughly explored due to
the inaccessibility of the participants.
The data collected from Bunche Elementary School support the research on the
effectiveness of shared leadership when it is based on focused goals with an
accountability system in place, as well as having a principal leader with
unmistakable integrity and humility in the ability to share power and
acknowledgement. The new information is that this shared leadership approach with
144

focused goals and accountability can be effective in an economically-deprived
environment that most programs have failed to reach in the past and may need to be
considered to be a reform in itself.
Practical Implications
Case study research is conducted in one environment and is highly localized.
Patton (2002) suggests that findings from a study, whether it is experimental or
naturalistic in design, can be generalized according to five principles. One of these
principles applies to this particular case study in a public school setting in California.
The “principle of proximal similarity” implies that “we generalize most confidently
to applications where treatments, settings, populations, outcomes, and times are most
similar to those in the original research…” (p. 581). The K-12 public school setting
in America by design is a system that is predominantly concerned with the education
of children defined now by standards imposed by the federal and state governments.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 essentially standardized not only the content
standards to be taught, determined by individual states, but also imposed a standard
level of academic achievement for all students in all programs. This standardization
of content standards and levels of achievement implies a similar setting in an
academic environment; population of all children who have a chronological age of
from 4 to 18 years; and similar outcome of attaining standards at similar levels of
assessment. The public school setting, then, meets the criteria for generalization of
this case study to those environments. All K-12 schools have students within that
age range and must teach the content standards dictated by the state and they must be
145

“proficient” or “advanced” according to the criteria determined by the state. All
elementary schools, then, can use aspects of this study for transferability as
appropriate.
The reform, however, must begin with the skills, attitudes and beliefs of the
certificated staff members. As Collins (2001) found most conclusively, the
executives in successful companies who ignited transformations first “got the right
people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to
drive it” (p. 41). This phenomenon occurred at Bunche School, but not entirely by
deliberate effort. Many teachers left the campus either by natural attrition or because
they had other alternatives within the large school district for transfer. Essentially,
after two years, 85% of the staff was different and hired by the new team. This is the
most difficult hurdle in the replication of this reform effort to other school
environments. The principal believes that “it’s the belief factor – people can come in
here and look at the structures and systems all they want; but it isn’t that. It’s belief
and passion of the individuals who work here”. The reality is that in some
environments, as previously noted, longevity may impact the ability to effect change.
However, the other aspect of change that is a reality was also noted by
Collins (2001) in his description of the flywheel concept. He suggests that the
successful companies he studied didn’t really pinpoint a defining moment in their
transformation. Instead, there was a deliberate effort to create the team, determine
the basic values of the team relating to: 1.) what your team can be best in the world
at; 2.) what drives your [economic] engine; and 3.) what you are passionate about
146

(p.96). Success in these companies began with the team, agreeing on basic concepts
and values and then planning a strategy for transformation. He further describes how
transformation is like turning a giant flywheel and you push and push and you don’t
stop pushing. Transforming from good to great “comes about by a cumulative
process – step by step, action by action, decision-by-decision, turn-by-turn of the
flywheel – that adds up to sustained and spectacular results” (p. 164).
The work at Bunche Elementary mirrors the success described in the business
organizations described by Collins (2001), and can be replicated in the public school
system. In a school system, “teachers appear to be the ultimate arbiter of
instructional reform” (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978, as cited in Rowan, 1996, p.
197) The professional model of organization, including teachers as leaders,
empowering them to write their own student assessments, analyze data and assist
each other with suggestions for improvement and refinement in instruction, is a
structure that can be used in other school settings. The system is research-based,
using student assessment, professional learning communities and curriculum based
on the California state standards. It has produced significant results in student
achievement over the years, and sustained it for a least one year after the founding
principal took a leave of absence. Teachers must be given the structure, support,
feedback and tools needed to function in this professional model of organization and
work as a team with the principal.
It begins with a passionate leader who does not accept “no” when it comes
down to what she believes is best for students. The fighting exists when the
147

bureaucracy inhibits the freedom of the local educators to perform in the best interest
of children learning in the school. It is curious to consider, for example, how the
bureaucrats at the district office become so detached from the reality of the school
place, that they actually inhibit the ability of site educators to make decision about
learning. Some staff said that in joining together in creating a common goal to reach
that will beat the opposition, the enemy, in fact, is not the district office; “they are
just a pain”. Instead, they state the enemy is the sum total of the life in the city
streets, including the effects of poverty, gang violence and lack of education. This is
the passion displayed by the teachers at Bunche Elementary School. This
environment certainly does not represent the common setting of a school district;
however, there are challenges for students in any environment in the world today.
This school succeeded in spite of a dysfunctional school board and district.
The local board of education still holds the main responsibility for developing
policy that governs schools. In this particular city, the school board’s public sessions
to this day reflect a lack of communication among and between the board members,
as well as a public display of lack of confidence in the leadership. In a school board
meeting early in January, 2007, the board questioned the superintendent’s handling
of a change order for facilities and held more discussions about facilities than
curriculum and instruction. In addition to that, the president of the local classified
employee association addressed the board angrily accusing the superintendent of
confusing communication to employees and the teachers’ association president
addressed the board pleading for all to work together to solve the problems of the
148

district. One of the personnel commissioners also addressed the board angrily
accusing them of ineffective leadership and guidance. The manner in which the
board business was conducted had the appearance of a circus side show rather than a
business meeting.
The context of this environment, being a high poverty area, with high
incidences of not only domestic violence, but also gang violence, however should
not dissuade others from utilizing the systems and structures so carefully developed,
monitored and refined in this school setting. The variable that can be isolated, is the
teamwork effort of the certificated staff members, empowered as teacher leaders,
with a focus on the goal of increasing student achievement to the level of
“proficient” or “advanced”. Any school environment can design a system that
regularly assesses students, meets to analyze the data and modify instruction to
address the individual needs of the students. This seems so simple, but has been
almost impossible to be consistently implemented in the public schools in America.
Perhaps, in the end, the teacher is the one who really makes the difference and
whatever reform efforts are employed must always consider how the teachers are
treated by administration in the professional community. Perhaps, the attempts at
respecting teachers have been disingenuous, rife with mixed-messages and
platitudes. Perhaps, there are very few leaders that have the kind of honor, passion
and skill that would genuinely and effectively address all the needed areas of reform.
Get the right people on the bus…beginning with the principal, without whom,
149

teachers will undoubtedly remain in their classrooms, isolated from an otherwise
truly professional environment.
Recommendations for Future Research
There are high expectations for student achievement in America. The No
Child Left behind Act of 2002 left no room for excuses for educators today. All
students will achieve at the “advanced” level, exhibited on standardized test scores,
regardless of their poverty level, parent education level, learning disability or ability
to speak English. This mandate is very discouraging to educators and sometimes
paralyzes them in their ability to believe that there is any system in place to meet this
goal. The work at Bunche School clearly reflects an accountability system for
students, staff and parents that produces the intended results of remarkable increased
student achievement and defies the odds.
More study of other schools that have experienced a high level of academic
success needs to occur in order to isolate other variables that may significantly
influence student achievement. This study is consistent with the research concerning
frequent assessment of students and modification of instruction; however, many
schools have attempted this approach with inconsistent results. Studying how teams
work in these school environments might illuminate reasons for failure.
The belief that all students can learn, regardless of readiness for the required
grade-level standards to be mastered, is not shared among all educators. The No
Excuses philosophy has been effective in some school settings, but it appears that the
successful schools beating the odds are few across the country (Carter, 2000). The
150

principal at Bunche School said as she approached the challenge of deplorable
achievement levels that,
…what I already had was this passion and love and desire, you know,
that I got from my parents and my grandparents; that was inside me.
You can’t take that out of me; not matter what you said [about
Compton students’ ability to achieve]. It’s like taking the air out of
me. When I hire teachers, the only thing I care about is if they love
kids. I can teach them how to teach, but if they don’t love kids, I
don’t want them here and that’s the same sentiment I feel. The
[student] population I am concerned about have enough barriers
against them. So, instead of giving them the excuses of why not to
make it, let’s show them how to make it and then have the debate. I
think it’s a wonderful intellectual debate to have; but just the fact that
you think it’s not ok to have it, shows you don’t understand the battle
we have with our children (M. Solomon, personal communication,
October 16, 2006).

Having the systems in place does not guarantee the same results in all
environments. Teachers bring attitudes, beliefs and feelings with them to school
every day. More research needs to be conducted around the determiners of passion
and belief among educators that students can learn. The Bunche story is inspirational
because this student population has defied the odds against them in a remarkable
way. The story is being told in the media and Southern California school officials
are spreading the word. Since this case study research only describes one school
setting in a somewhat unique school district environment, more research can be
conducted in schools that implement assessment structures and systems in order to
determine the relationship that exists between the level of drive, belief and passion of
the teachers and student achievement.
151

Another area of research that should be explored is the hiring practices of
educators as it relates to attitudes and beliefs about student learning, going beyond
the minimal qualifications of subject matter competency now required by No Child
Left Behind. Is there a passion about student achievement that can be identified in
the hiring process? The recruitment, selection and appointment of the school
principal is also an area worthy of study. In the recruitment process, for example,
what are the factors that attract candidates to certain school districts? It is likely that
candidates applying for positions in school districts with a student population that
has a high poverty level may have a different motivation than a candidate applying
for a position in an affluent area. Beyond proximity to home, a teacher candidate in
Southern California has many choices of school districts in which to work, many
times within 25 miles of home. Within that potential radius, there may be a
significant socio-economic divide between, for example, San Marino (high
economic) and El Monte (low economic), California. Studying the choice of work
environments might be reflective of certain beliefs and attitudes of teachers and
principals and may speak to levels of passion involved in working with children in
the public school system.
Since there were no significant ethnic and gender issues found in this study
affecting problem solving and decision making, it may be unique to this school.
However, the issue of longevity may be another area for further study since
replication of assessment systems and structures in schools may be affected by the
high numbers of veteran teachers who may hold belief systems that may prevent the
152

successful results of increased student achievement. It was found in this study that in
limited instances, longevity slightly impacted decision making and outcomes. Since
there were very few teachers in this study with enough experience to consider the
longevity impact significant, it would seem worth further study in environments
where the majority of teachers had longevity in one school setting.
Continued research in the area of implementation of standards-based reform
in general will need to continue as the public schools in America strive to reach to
No Child Left Behind goal of all students becoming “proficient” or “advanced” by
the year 2014. This is the national goal that has sanctions attached if schools fail to
reach that goal. Schools will continue to need to employ research-based methods
that have proven effective in other environments. Then, based on the local context,
attempts to implement the reform efforts will be most closely related to that
environment and hopefully be effective.
The policy implications of these findings seem elusive. Further study
exploring the efficiency of establishing a policy to monitor trust seems like an
oxymoron. Mandating trust and respect, utilizing legal authority for enforcement,
might bring challenges. The public school system structure as an organization might
be another area to consider for further study. It might be found that, as in the case at
Bunche School, district-level bureaucracy at time hinders, rather than helps.
Alternatives within the public school setting may be explored more heartily to
relieve the crushing bureaucracy that affects students, staff and families each day.

153

REFERENCES
Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 443-449.

Barth, R. S. (2004). Learning by heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Blase, J. J. (1990). Some negative effects of principals' control-oriented and
protective political behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4).

Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2002). Comprehensive
School Reform and Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis (Office of
Educational Research and Improvement No. R-117-D40005). Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bower, B. (1995). Return of the group: People may have evolved to further
collective as well as individual interests. Science News, 148(21), 328-330.

Boyd, W. L., & Crowson, R. L. (2002). The quest for a new hierarchy in education:
from loose coupling, back to tight? Journal of Educational Administration,
40(6), 521-533.

Brungardt, C. L. (1998). The new face of leadership: implications for higher
education. Leadership Studies, 1-5.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: a core resource for school
reform. Educational Leadership, 40-44.

California Department of Education. (n.d.). Academic Performance Index Data.
Retrieved March 30, 2006, from www.cde.ca.gov

California Department of Education (2003, June). State Schools Chief O’Connell
announces state is returning full local control to Compton Unified School
District, 1-2. Retrieved January 1, 2007, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr03/yr03re130.asp

Carter, S. C. (2000). No excuses: lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty
schools. Washington DC: The Heritage Foundation.

Chambers, J., Lieberman, J., Parrish, T., Kaleba, D., Van Campen, J., & Stullich, S.
(2000). Study of education resources and federal funding: final report
(ED445178). Jessup, MD: ED Publishers.

154

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research in results: a guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA.: CEP Press.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Compton Press Release. (2006, May). Governor applauds Bunche Elementary
School, a 2006 California Distinguished School. Retrieved from
www.compton.K12.ca.us, on August, 2006.

Conley, S., & Muncey, D. E. (1999). Teachers talk about teaming and leadership in
their work. Theory in Practice, 38(1), 46-55.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Simon
& Schuster.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.

Cuban, L. (1992). Managing dilemmas while building professional communities.
Educational Researcher, 21(1), 4-11.

Cuban, L. (2004). A solution that lost its problem: centralized policymaking and
classroom gains. In N. Epstein (Ed.), Who's in charge here? The tangled web
of school governance and policy, (pp. 104-130). Washington, D.C.:
Education Commission of the States.

Cunningham, C. A. (1994). Unique potential: a metaphor for John Dewey's later
conception of the self. Educational Theory, 44(2), 211-224.

Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice.
Alexandria, VA.: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: "The power of the
bottom over the top". Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3),
339-347.

Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357-374.

155

Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. E. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform:
leadership in success for all schools. Educational Administration Quarterly,
37(2), 219-249.

David, J. L., & Shields, P. M. (2001, August). When theory hits reality: standards-
based reform in urban districts. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts.
Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. The Elementary School Teacher, 4(4),
193-204.

Elmore, R. F. (2002, January/February). The limits of "change". Harvard Education
Letter, 1-4.

Elmore, R. F. (1995). Structural reform and educational practice. Educational
Researcher, 24(9), 23-26.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-
362.

Enderlin-Lampe, S. (2002). Empowerment: teacher perceptions, aspirations and
efficacy. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(3), 139+.

Eric Digest (1999). A Nation still 'at risk'. ERIC Information Analysis Products, ED
422 455, 1-7.

Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82(8), 598-606.

Friedman, V. J. (1997). Making schools safe for uncertainty: teams, teaching and
school reform. Teachers College Record, 99, 335-378.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol,
PA.: The Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6),
20-23.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: the sequel. London: Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8),
581-584.

Fullan, M. (2003a). Change forces with a vengeance. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

156

Fullan, M. (2003b). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Gauld, J. W. (1995). Character first. Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing.

Gil, F., Rico, R., Alcover, C. M., & Barrasa, A. (2005). Change-oriented leadership,
satisfaction and performance in work groups: effects of team climate and
group potency. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 312-328.
Goertz, M. E. (2001). Redefining government roles in an era of standards-based
reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 62-66.

Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2002). Co-Nect: purpose, accountability, and
school leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons
from comprehensive school reforms (pp. 57-81). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Goleman, Daniel (1995). Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ.
New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Goodson, I. F. (2001). Social histories of educational change. Journal of Educational
Change, 2, 45-63.

Gordon, N. (2002). Do federal grants boost school spending? Evidence from Title I .
San Diego, CA: Department of Economics, University of California, San
Diego.

Griffin, G. A. (1995). Influences of shared decision making on school and classroom
activity: conversations with five teachers. The Elementary School Journal,
96(1), 29-45.

Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainability of educational change: the role of social
geographies. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 189-214.

Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The
sustainability and nonsustainability of the three decades of secondary school
change and continuity. Education Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41.

Hargrove, T., Walker, B. L., Huber, R. A., Corrigan, S. Z., & Moore, C. (2004). No
teacher left behind: supporting teachers as they implement standards-based
reform in a test-based education environment. Education, 124(3), 567-573.

Hart, A. W. (1995). Reconceiving school leadership: emergent views. The
Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 9-28.
157

Harvey, T. R., & Drolet, B. (1994). Building teams, building people: expanding the
fifth resource. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company.

Hatch, T. (2001). Incoherence in the system: three perspectives on the
implementation of multiple initiatives in one district. American Journal of
Education, 109, 407-437.

Heller, M. F., & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who's in charge here? Sources of
leadership for change in eight schools. The Elementary School Journal,
96(1), 65-86.

Hoerr, T. R. (1996). Collegiality: a new way to define instructional leadership. Phi
Delta Kappan, 77(5), 380+.

Hollins, E. R. (2006). Transforming practice in urban schools. Educational
Leadership, 63(6), 48-52.

Ingersoll, R. (1991). Loosely coupled organizations revisited. Annual Meeting of the
American Sociological Association, 1991, April 3-7, 1-53.

Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of
diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas and Associates
(Ed.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204-
251). San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

Jehlen, A., & Kopkowski, C. (2006, February). Is smaller better? NEA Today, 24-
31.

Jehn, K. A., Neale, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1999). Why differences make a
difference: a field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in
workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741-760.

Keedy, J. L. (1999). Examining teacher instructional leadership within the small
group dynamics of collegial groups. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(7),
785-799.

Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the
21st century: recent research and conceptualizations. San Francisco, CA.:
Jossey-Bass.

Kezar, A., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (In press). Rethinking the "L"
word in higher education: the revolution of research on leadership.

158

Kohn, A. (1990). The brighter side of human nature: altruism and empathy in
everyday life. United States of America: BasicBooks.

LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2001). When teams work best: 6,000 team members and
leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lashway, L. (2003). Distributed leadership. Research Roundup, 19(4), 1-7.

Lee, B. (1997). The power principle: influence with honor (1st ed.). New York, NY:
Fireside.

Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). Sociology of education. The effect
of the social organization of schools on teachers' efficacy and satisfaction,
64, 190-208.

Little, J. W. (1995). Contested ground: the basis of teacher leadership in two
restructuring schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 47-63.

Lucas, N., Komives, S. R., & McMahon, T. R. (1998). A new way of understanding
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Marris, P. (1975). Loss and change. New York, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (1997). The fall and rise of standards-based
education. A National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) in
Brief..

McKeever, B. (2003). Nine lessons of successful school leadership teams. San
Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction and productivity: a
meta-analytic review. The Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 727-753.

159

Murphy, J., & Shipman, N. (1999). The interstate school leaders licensure
consortium: a standards-based approach to strengthening school leadership.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(3), 205-224.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983a, April). In A Nation at
Risk, Findings, 1-4. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/findings.html

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983b, April). In A Nation at
Risk, Recommendations, 1-8. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/recomm.html
Nelson, J., Palumbo, J., Cudeiro, A., & Leight, J. (2005). The power of focus:
lessons learned in district and school improvement. United States of
America: Jeff Nelson, Joe Palumbo, Amalia Cudeiro, and Jan Leight.

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA.:
Sage Publications.

O'Connell, J. (2006, February 7). State of California Education Address. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Press Conference. Sacramento, CA..

Ouchi, W. G. (2003). Making schools work: a revolutionary plan to get your
children the education they need. New York, NY.: Simon & Schuster.

Park, S., Henkin, A. B. & Egley, R. (2005). Teacher team commitment, teamwork
and trust: exploring associations. Journal of Educational Administration,
43(5), 462-479.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, S. S. (1983). Effective schools: a review. Elementary school
journal, 83(4), 426-452.

Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership development in the new millennium. The Journal of
Leadership Studies, 91-110.

Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: alternative strategies for the
organizational design of schools. Review of Research in Education, 16, 353-
389.

Rowan, B. (1996). Standards as incentives for instructional reform. In S. H.
Furhman & J. A. O’Day (Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
160

Sandmann, L. R., & Vandenberg, L. (1995). A framework for 21st century
leadership. Journal of extension, 33(6).

Sandmann, L. R., & Vandenberg, L. (December 1995). A framework for 21st
century leadership. Journal of extension, 33(6), .

Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: the key to continuous school improvement.
Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Schmoker, M. (2002). Up and away. Journal of staff development, 23(2), 1-8.
Schmoker, M. (Ed.). (2006). Results now: how we can achieve unprecented
improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Shaw, M. E., & Costanzo, P. R. (1970). Theories of social psychology. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Sizer, T. R. (2004). The red pencil. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Smylie, M. A. (1995). New perspectives on teacher leadership. The Elementary
School Journal, 96(1), 3-7.

Smylie, M. A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes
of school-based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 18(3), 181-198.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school
leadership practice: a distributed property. Educational Researcher, 30(3),
23-28.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-
40.

Stecher, B. M., & Bohmstedt, G. W. (2000). Class size reduction in California:
summary of 1998-1999 findings (ED 444240). Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Education.

161

Strahan, D. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional culture in three
elementary schools that have beaten the odds. The Elementary School
Journal, 104(2), 127-146.

Stringer, R. (2002). Leadership and organizational climate. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Svec, L. V., Pourdavood, R. G., & Cowan, L. M. (1999, April). Challenges of
instructional leadership for reforming school. Paper presented at the meeting
of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Swanson, J., Snell, J., Koency, G., & Berns, B. (2000, April). The role of teacher
leaders in scaling up standards-based reform. Paper presented at the meeting
of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
New Orleans, CA.

Teacher Leaders Network. (2002). In What is teacher leadership? Retrieved
January 29, 2006, from Institute for Educational Leadership Web Site:
http://teacherleaders.org/Resources/TLdefinition.html

Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts
can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. . The Learning
First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Vinovskis, M. A. (1996). An analysis of the concept and uses of systemic
educational reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 53-85.

Wasley, P. A. (1999). Major issues. In (Ed.), Teachers who lead: The rhetoric of
reform and the realities of practice (pp. 145-154). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Wassmer, R. W., Papazian, R., & Conner, K. (2002, November). Lessons from
California public schools where performance exceeds predictions.
Sacramento, CA.: Senate Office of Research.

Weiss, C. H., & Cambone, J. (1994). Principals, shared decision making, and school
reform. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), 28 7-301.

Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). Re-introducing group selection to the human
behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(4), 585-654.

162

Wolf, S. A., Borko, H., & Elliott, R. L. (2000). "That dog won't hunt!": exemplary
school change efforts within the Kentucky reform. American Educational
Research Journal, 37(2), 349-393.

Zech, L. K., Gause-Vega, C. L., Bray, M. H., Secules, T., & Goldman, S. R. (2000).
Content-based collaborative inquiry: a professional development model for
sustaining educational reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 207-217.

163

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

The Collaborative Team Leaders
A. Focus on the Goal
1. How does the team define the goals of the school?
2. How does the team reinforce the goals in new and exciting ways?
3. How does the team assist each other in aligning their roles with the goals?
4. How does the team maintain the focus on the goals in light of other
distractions in school?
B. Ensure a Collaborative Climate
5. How does the team insure a safe climate for team members to openly discuss
issues?
6. What does the team do when there are obviously uncomfortable issues to
discuss?
7. What does the team do when a team member is being non-collaborative?
8. How does the team manage when someone has control needs?
9. How are organizational systems/structures and processes prevented from
interfering with the achievement of the team goals?
10. What do team members do with individual egos?
C. Build Confidence
11. How does the team ensure that the team achieves results?
12. Describe how team members feel they are being treated fairly?
164

13. How does the team empower each other with the responsibility of
implementing agreed upon strategies?
D. Demonstrates Sufficient Technical Know-How
14. How do you know if all the team members understand and apply the agreed
upon strategies to use in the classes?
15. Describe how the team analyzes complex issues related to the goals?
16. Describe how your school team is viewed as credible at the district level?
E. Set Priorities
17. How does the team remain focused on priorities?
18. How does the principal agree that the team agrees on the goals and
priorities?
19. How does the team ensure that the priorities are not diluted with other
issues?
F. Manage Performance
20. How are teaching performance standards clear to teachers?
21. What happens when there is poor performance of teachers?
22. How does the team know when they are performing well?

165

APPENDIX B: PERCEIVED TEAM INTEGRITY SCALE

Key: 1=Not at all 2=Somewhat 3=Very much 4=Exactly

1. Team members use my mistakes to attack me personally. 1 2 3 4

2. Team members always get even. 1 2 3 4

3. Certain team members get special favors as “pets”. 1 2 3 4

4. Team members do not discuss difficult issues. 1 2 3 4

5. Team members would falsify student test records. 1 2 3 4

6. Team members blame others for mistakes. 1 2 3 4

7. Team members deliberately lie to each other to save face. 1 2 3 4

8. Team members of certain ethnic groups are more respected. 1 2 3 4

9. Team members have high ethical standards. 1 2 3 4

10. Team members demonstrate a high level of trust. 1 2 3 4

166

APPENDIX C: DATA ANALYSIS CODES

Context of environment
Student achievement in district
Student achievement in school
Stability of staff members
Student expectations

Teacher leadership style
Representative leadership team
Group empowerment for decision making
Collective confidence
Individual empowerment

Principal leadership style
Hierarchical
Power
Expectations
Consistency

Collaboration
Focused
One purpose
Selfless

Communication
Frequency
Collegial
Congenial
Teamwork
Parent Connection

Relational Trust
Openness in communication
Conflict resolution
Empowerment/Sharing Power

Decision making
Focus
Purpose
Alignment with direction/goals

167

Implementation of team decisions
Classroom instruction
Student test results

Individual discretion
Autonomy in instruction
Choice
Conformity
Commitment

Collective accountability
Preplanned meeting agendas
Public test results by teacher
Feedback on student test results
Competition

Diversity issues on team
Longevity
Ethnicity
Representation of African American/Latino Adults with student
population

168

APPENDIX D: DATA ANALYSIS TABLES

Name Gender Ethnicity Longevity Context of
Environment
Teacher
Leadership
Style
Teacher 1 Male White 5 yrs (2 at
Bunche)
People pay
attention p.
9
Teacher 2 Female White 1 yr Room had cob
webs, spiders,
little sppt for
basic needs at
first p 4
Tchrs just
go extra
mile and
spend
money p 5
if kids need
it, we just
get it p 5
Teacher 3 Female Asian 1 yr Air cond.
Doesn’t work
with no dist sppt
to fix p 1
Compton has
lack of sppt; lack
of par. Involve p
2; stud are held
acct for behavior
consistently p 10
Rsrce tch
sppt p 3;
everybody
works hard
– no
slackers p
11
Teacher 4 Female Afr.
Amer.
6 yrs Students out of
control and
couldn’t read p
2; tchrs left
school when it
became more
acct p 7 new
tchrs were hired
p 7; new tchrs
understood prog.
P 7
Ldrshp tm
decided on
DBS p 2;
ldrshp tm
looks at
data first p
3; ldrshp
team puts it
out there
after disc
with prin p
7; ldrshp tm
hires p 7
Teacher 5 Female White 4 yrs (2 at
Bunche)
As a new tchr,
knew expct p 1;

169

initation as new
tchr p 1;
everything done
is in goal format
p 4; it’s
frightening,
feeling of
responsibility for
the school rep p
11; all tchrs
invest beyond
test scores with
competition,
everyone is an
over achiever
here p 12; in this
environment,
prin needs to be
right there and
they are p 12
feeling of
responsibility for
the school rep p
11; all tchrs
invest beyond
test scores with
competition,
everyone is an
over achiever
here p 12; in this
environment,
prin needs to be
right there and
they are p 12
Teacher 6 Female White 3 yrs Everybody
expcted to do the
same p 1; some
people do not
buy in p 2; lot of
pressure schlwde
p 2 it’s awful
when scores are
low – awful p 6;
Prin gets
buy in from
ldrshp tm
and it’s a
go p 1; rsrc
tch support
p 3; there
are more
ways to be
170

very competitive
envir, but no one
is perfect p 9; no
excuses p 9
involved
than ldrshp
team p 4
Teacher 7 Female White 3 ½ yr (1
½ at
Bunche)
Everyone works
very hard p 2;
the students are
very needy and
some are just
hungry p 13; it’s
horrible when
test scores are
low p 13; no
excuses for low
achievement p
14

Teacher 8 Male Latino 4 yrs New tchr hired
by ldrshp team
with much rigor
p 1; struggling
stud are tutored
by all tchrs p 3;
kids want to
come to tutoring
p 3; schoolwide
commit to max
instruct time –
make up for
Halloween
parade p 3
Ldrshp
team
decided on
hire p 1
Teacher 9 Female Afr.
Amer.
30 yrs Tchrs left with
new prin on
board p 1; they
didn’t have high
work ethic p 1;
it’s all about kids
p 2; no time to
waste p 2; lot of
pressure;
everyone works
so hard p 3;
students had to
learn how to take

171

tests p 3; you
gotta love kids p
4
Teacher 10
(Resource
tcher)
Female Latina 6 yrs Many were
surprised at
Bunche success
p 2; Teach for
America tchrs
already have a
diff mindset p 2;
hiring practices
make a big diff p
3 new
tchrs came in
and were helpful
and spptve of
each other p 4;
peer pressure
started
happening p 4
schoolwide attn
paid to use of
instr time p 5;
Kind expect to
learn to read or
don’t go to first
grade p 8
Ldrshp
team hires
tchrs who
love kids p
6
Interim
Principal
Female White 6 yrs Mission
statement is our
goal p 1; no
school in
Compton had
appropriate level
of stud
achievement p 2;
currently few
people not on
board p 3;
working on that
as admin p 3; as
new tchrs
starting coming
in, the culture
Ldrshp tm
involved in
hiring p 3
172

changed and
became more
friendly p 4; the
whole school
community is a
family with the
common enemy
being the streets
of Compton p
11; everything
we do is focused
on kids p 9; no
excuses p 11;
we are motivated
because others
say it can’t
happen in
Compton – we
know better p 12
Principal Female Afr.
Amer.
7 yrs In 2000,
behavior out of
control; students
weren’t reading;
low test scores.
first two years
high turnover of
tchrs, but
Compton always
has high
turnover, not that
uncommon;
battled DO
regularly for
autonomy; got it
when test scores
rose; I didn’t
believe we
couldn’t do it p
7; had a passion
to change things;
had to keep the
DO away;
wanted to be a
Suggested
Fri skills
test to
Ldrshp
team;they
bought in
and sold it
in grade
level
meetings p
8; tchrs got
on board in
the first
place due to
support of
behavior
prob p 11;
tchs got
what they
needed
from the
prin, so
they could
decide how
173

functional family
in a
dysfunctional
one p 8; as long
as things didn’t
make sense, I
questioned them
p 9; I only
follow rules
when it’s right
for kids p 11; it’s
not about
working harder,
it’s about getting
results p 12; stud
behave expect
from prin and all
adults p 13;
being consistent
with kids and
following
through p 14;
also giving kids
affirmations p
14; must provide
struct at school p
15; gotta get the
right team
together p 20;
it’s really the
prin that can
make or break a
school p 21; I
think tchrs
should be paid
neck and neck
with prin p 22;
you gotta believe
that all kids can
learn p 22; we
have shown the
world we can do
it – so can they
to teach to
meet the
goals p 11;
ldrshp team
decided to
modify
Open Court
use p 12;
ldrshp team
hires tchrs
who love
kids p 15; I
need more
people here
to help me
make
decisions p
20
174

p 23; our tchrs
can really teach
p 25; if I have
ten kids who go
to college, it will
be worth it for
my career p 30;
General
Obs
Stud. Follow
rules prin.
Visibility; stud.
Informed about
progress; high
crime area; lock
downs common;
very homey;
familiar; after
school tutoring
taking place in
every classroom

Ldrshp
team meets
reg; takes
story on the
road;
everyone is
a part of
story
Doc
Reviews
Low test scores
in late 90’s, risen
to a high level by
2006; highest
test scores in
district; district
in state
receiv.;high level
of bureau;
broken by
Bunche; beat the
odds; noticed in
LAtimes for
achieve; princ
Ldrshp/direct
noted
Marque rds: all
Bunche bears wil
score prof/adv
on CST and are
college bound;
Mission
Statement in

175

place; notes to
teachers giving
feedback;
comments on
lesson plans;
Friday skills
tests folder
exists;

ClassrmMtg
Obs
clsrm proc
evid./understood;
testing
emphasized;
high stud
engage. Strict
Enforc rules; all
classrooms
displayed
consistent
expectations for
behavior; no
excuses in
classrooms for
lack of attention;
consistency
evident in 98%
of classrooms.

176

Name Gender Ethnicity Longevity Principal
Leadership
Style
Collaboration
Teacher 1 Male White 5 yrs (2 at
Bunche)
High expect.
Pg. 1 no
oppressive
chain of
command p 4
prin keeps
bureac away p
5 author at
first p 6
feedback on
lesson plans
new tchrs p8
prin in clsrom
p 8 people
pay attn p 9
Systems must
be working
with inter prin
now in charge
pg 6
Teacher 2 Female White 1 yr Prin comes in
classroom
with fdbk p 5
get feedbk on
lesson plans p
7 absences
not
encourages p
8; both prin
come to class
p 8
I stay because
everybody is
so great to
work with as a
team p 6
priorities of
team are to
figure out what
the kids need
to lrn p 7
Teacher 3 Female Asian 1 yr Structure in
place by prin
p 4; both prin
facil the
teams and
keep away
DO p 6; they
take care of
everything p
7; get visited
all the time p
7; friendly
Work closely
with cross grd
lvl teams p 2;
everybody has
a role in mtgs
keeping each
on task p 4;
there is a
network
among tchs
and prin p 6
177

sppt p 8; exp
that stud will
grow p 9;
praise and
suppt for asst
p 9; reads all
lesson plans p
9
Teacher 4 Female Afr. Amer. 6 yrs Mikara didn’t
just say this is
it; she put out
the idea to the
ldrshp tm p 6;
it’s not
hierarch – you
better do it or
else – it is
suppt p 11;
prins protect
tchrs and inst
time from DO
p 13; tchrs not
taken out of
class p 14
Teams just go
back and forth
about what to
do for kids p 9;
raise
issues/concerns
and review
with prin p 12;
tchrs share
everthing and
desire
collective
success p 14;
other tchrs sppt
each other tech
tchr p 14;
everybody is
so open p 15;
can’t imagine
being
somewhere
where they
don’t work
together with
trust p 15; if
you don’t have
a team, nothing
comes together
p 16
Teacher 5 Female White 4 yrs (2 at
Bunche)
Major fdbck
from prin on
lesson plans –
good model
for stud p 7;
everybody is
All stud
succeed with
no excuses
drives collab p
2; sppt from
other grade lvl
178

held to the
same standard
which is
reassuring p
11
tchr p 6;
higher grade
lvl comm.
Need and tch
adj p 11
Teacher 6 Female White 3 yrs First yr
noticed strong
team with
strong ldr p
1; people
agree that prin
made huge
impact on
schl p 1; acct
to prin if test
scores are low
p 3; ; sppt
from prin
fdbck
modeling for
tchr to kids p
7; ldrs hold
everyone acct
p 8; Mikara
revolutionized
expct and
then recruited
new people p
9; protects us
from DO p 9;
she is like a
brick wall for
the DO p 9
Longevity
affects
collaboration,
the longer tchs
are there, the
more
engrained their
ideas are p 3
Teacher 7 Female White 3 ½ yr (1
½ at
Bunche)
Prin reads
lesson plans
and makes
freq visits p 2;
prin as ally –
support when
needed,
everyone can
access help p
6; more prin
Collaborate
about
everything all
the time –
recess, lunch;
adj is easy
because not a
surprise at the
end p 3; need
more cross
179

sppt p 13;
prin gives
comfort fdbck
p 16;
grade level
work p 14
Teacher 8 Male Latino 4 yrs prin is not
robot p 6; prin
has our back
p 6; get good
fdbck p 7;
prin comes in
to observe p 7
Grade level
teams are
stronger than
cross grd lvl
spend more
time together p
1; we sppt each
other; team
oriented p 1; I
collaborate
with upper
grade tchrs
about stud
behavior p 8
Teacher 9 Female Afr. Amer. 30 yrs Prin came in
with high
expect and
new phil p 1;
gave rewards
to tchrs for
not being
absent p 1;
prin believed
that all kids
can learn p 2;
Mikara is no
nonsense, no
excuses p 4
Everybody has
to be involved
p 5
Teacher 10
(Resource
tcher)
Female Latina 6 yrs Mikara had
our backs p 2;
Mikara had
support from
DO and her
reput. P 9; lot
of paperwork
from district
that I just do
without
asking tchrs
Through
collaboration,
tchrs can
isolate areas of
strengths and
weaknesses
and discuss
how to help
them p 8
180

to do – no DO
fdbck –
reduces
credibility p
10; the enemy
is not the DO,
they are just a
paid p 10
Interim
Principal
Female White 6 yrs For Mikara it
was this is the
goal – here
are some
ideas, heard
input, then go
p 1; Mikara
had our backs
p 2; let’s just
focus p 5;
peer pressure
wasn’t the
goal, but acct
forced it p 5;
Mikara sent
tchrs to poor
schools and
wealthy
schools and
said why not?
P 5. Let’s
find out what
everybody
does p 5;
easier to tch
someone how
to look at data
than to love
kids p 7; keep
the
bureaucracy
away from
tchrs p 10
Teachers take
test scores so
personally and
are driven to
collaborate p 4
Principal Female Afr. Amer. 7 yrs Came in with
non-
The stud have
enough
181

negotiables;
how can you
feel good
about your
job p 1; set
the expect
high; knew I
had to model
hard work;
didn’t ask
anyone to do
something I
wouldn’t do p
2; had to be
an instr. Ldr
and spend
time in clsrom
p 5; instituted
Friday skills
tests and
struct time to
analyze them;
anything that
interferes
with stud
lrnig is
unaccept p 9;
tchrs were
blown away
when I took
time and gave
fdbck on all
lesson plans,
clsrm obs and
agendas p 13
(See trust);
must be
tough, but
loving and
caring p 15; I
am here to
help all of
you – you all
barriers, tchrs
must be willing
to give them
no excuses and
being willing
to have the
debate p19
182

have it inside
of you – I’ll
help it out p
16; visited
other schools
for model
programs p
18; nothing is
mandated so
there are no
union issues p
19; it’s not
about me p
24; I don’t
take things
personally p
26; need to
support those
strugg tchrs
regularly p
26; my
friendship
with tchrs is
second to my
obligation to
kids p 27; the
interm prin is
doing an
incred job
while I am
out p 29; the
more children
are educated
and
empowered,
the more
change can
truly happen p
31; it’s social,
like a civil
rights
movement p
31; I just
183

make time for
instruction,
period p 31; I
don’t
recognize that
what
motivates me
is passion, but
it is p 32
General
Obs
Consistent
expectations;
don’t read;
don’t
advance;
don’t do
homework;
call home;
don’t test
high;
everyone acct.
to princ.
All grade lvls
and cross lvls
meetings
observed with
consistency re
analyzing
student test
scores,
following
agenda, taking
notes for acct.

184

Name Gender Ethnicity Longevity Communication Relational
Trust
Teacher 1 Male White 5 yrs (2 at
Bunche)
Some
cronyism p
7 not treated
equally, but
fairly p 7
Teacher 2 Female White 1 yr Meet in the
summer p 3 meet
weekly p 3
Pretty
friendly with
each other;
esp grade
lev p 2 we
want to be
there p 2
feel safe in
grade lev. P
3
commraderi
p 3 no
discomfort
in whole
school
meetings p 4
Teacher 3 Female Asian 1 yr Goals of school
drive comm.. p
2; meet every
Wed and
randomly every
day p 3; comm.
And fdbck from
prin reg – make
adj along the
way p 8; pers.
Commun in add
to prof; create
friendships p 9;
devel team p 9;
everyone helps
me grow p 10
lucky to have
them p 10
we have
great
relationship
in grd level
p 5 trust
comes from
uncond
suppt p 5 no
uncomfor
sit. Almost
every tch
will say two
prin are
trusted p 6
185

Teacher 4 Female Afr. Amer. 6 yrs Look at data in
the summer p 3;
grade level mtgs
cross grd lvl p 5
regularly meet p
5
Trust is very
high among
grd level
teams p 15;
whole staff
full of
people to go
to p 15
Teacher 5 Female White 4 yrs (2 at
Bunche)
General school
goal of stud
achievement for
focus of
tchr/prin comm.
P 2; meet in
summer to plan
p 2; meet every
week to analyze
p 3; informal
disc constantly p
3 high level of
comm. With
parents p 4;
comm. On a
daily basis with
team part p 5;
very struct.
Wkly mtgs p 6
Very open
environment
p 13
Teacher 6 Female White 3 yrs School goals are
academically
driven p 2; the
strongest teams
talk constantly p
4; new teams
need to spend
more time
getting on the
same page –
when chnges
occur, changes
dynamics p 4;
commun with
stud about their
scores p 6
I feel very
comfort and
safe here,
can talk to
anyone
including
prin if prob
if struggling,
ask for help
without fea
p 8
186

Teacher 7 Female White 3 ½ yr (1
½ at
Bunche)
Use agendas and
standards to
drive comm.
With pacing
guide p 2; stay
focused on kids,
strengths and
weak p 8; comm.
With parents
about stud lvl p
12
Open to
each other
and confront
when
necessary p
4; help each
other when
life happens
– preg, etc p
5; difficulty
with one
grade lvl
accepting
resp for
skills def p
9; safe to get
fdbck from
prin p 16
Teacher 8 Male Latino 4 yrs Every week
mtgs with struct
agenda p 2; meet
more freq as
needed p 2; I am
avail all the time
p 2; regular
parent comm. Is
key p 5; parent
comm. About
behavior and
where kids are
acad with phone
calls p 8
Open to
criticism and
very prof p
1; our teams
speaks about
everything
prof and
keep it in
house p 4
Teacher 9 Female Afr. Amer. 30 yrs Teams of tchrs
began to meet
regularly with
struct agenda; p
1; parent comm.
Is key p 2;
focused on the
goal for kids to
achieve and go
to college p 4
Build
relationships
with parents
and students
p 3
Teacher 10 Female Latina 6 yrs Goals start with
187

(Resource
tcher)
Mikara and
teams devel own
goals p 1; comm.
To parents is
critical p 1; tchrs
are driven to
speak to each
other to improve
student
achievement p 4
Interim
Principal
Female White 6 yrs Goal is stud will
be prof or adv,
go to college and
close the
economic divide
p 1;

Principal Female Afr. Amer. 7 yrs Comm. To stud
parents and staff
regarding
behavior expect
p 14; stud must
know what expt
are both
behavior and aca
p 16; comm. To
parents every
week about stud
attain of skills p
25;
Respected
veteran tchrs
for
knowledge,
but knew
systems had
to change;
did not
dictate;
suggested
and most
followed or
left p 3; I
was willing
to go on the
line for them
with parents
and DO p
10; I have
their backs;
developed
trust by
consistency
of feedback
and support
p 13

188

General
Obs
High levels of
communication
noted informally
and formally;
General under-
stated respect;
observable in
informal
interactions; no
observed
conflicts;observed
problem solving
when test scores
came in low; very
supportive team
members when
someone was
down
Doc
Reviews
Consistent use
of DBS with all
students and
parents
indicating
behavior and
academic
progress

189

Name Gender Ethnicity Longevity Decision Making Implementation
of Team
Decisions
Teacher
1
Male White 5 yrs (2 at
Bunche)
Broadened the
scope of stud.
Expect p. 2 ldrshp
team hires new
teachers p 8
Implemen.
Based on test
results p 5, 7
Teacher
2
Female White 1 yr Write skills tests
together p 2 if stud
are not getting it,
get rid of it p 3
Don’t know
what others do;
but cover same
mat. p 5 must
cover standards
for test p 6
Teacher
3
Female Asian 1 yr
Teacher
4
Female Af.
Amer.
6 yrs Driving force
behind everything
is student success
p 1; started by
focusing on data p
1; Decided on
consistency with
stud. Behave p 3
decide on
strengths/weakness
p 5; agree on what
lower grd lvl needs
to do p 5; old ideas
got overshadowed
with new ones in
decisions p 8; stay
focused on what
you want to
happen p 10;
whatever takes p
10; make a plan
and do it p 11;
whole school
decided on Fri
skills tests p 12;

190

Teacher
5
Female White 4 yrs (2 at
Bunche)
What are “we”
going to do
together to make it
right for kids p 12
Grade level
mtgs make
agreements p 5
Teacher
6
Female White 3 yrs Schools decides on
curr according to
stand sppt, not DO
driven p 10

Teacher
7
Female White 3 ½ yrs (1
½ at
Bunche)
Decided to
compensate at
grade lvl when did
not receive sppt
from prev grade
lvl p 10
Always talk
about improving
tching and
implementing
changes p 8
Teacher
8
Male Latino 4 yrs If scores aren’t
there, then
implemt isn’t
happening p 5
Teacher
9
Female Afr.
Amer.
30 yrs
Teacher
10
Female Latina 6 yrs
Interim
Principal
Female White 6 yrs Adopted curr
based on standards
rather than text p 4

Principal Female Afr.
Amer.
7 yrs
General
Obs
See accountability See
accountability
cross grade level
mtgs K/1; 2/3;
4/5;
All but K/1
dealt directly
with issues of
Classrm
Obs
K impl. Diff.
b/t classes. 1
st

grd also diff.;
yet scores
remain consis.
High (one
exception –
moved to K
191

Name Gender Ethnicity Longevity Individual
Discretion
Collective
Accountability
Teacher
1
Male White 5 yrs (2 at
Bunche)
School discretion
as test scores
remain high p 5
Set goals as
team pg. 2 team
members feel
ashamed kids
don’t achieve p
5 everyone
knows all results
p7 Data don’t lie
Fri skills test p 8
Teacher
2
Female White 1 yr Sharing all test
data p 1 agenda
for tchr meetings
p 1 Fri. skills
test p 1 –
ashamed to
screw up p 2
have to hold up
school reput p 2
Frid skills test p
6 high exp for
each other p 7
tchs are not abs
– wastes time
for kids and puts
burden on team
p 7
Teacher
3
Female Asian 1 yr Truly happy
because I am
making a diff p 10

High commit p1:
highly focused p
1; other team
tchs provide
struct for 1wr
grd lvl p 3; new
tchs meet with
prin and resrch
tch every Fri. p
7; stud come in
ready from pre
grade p 10
Teacher
4
Female Af.
Amer.
6 yrs Become personally
obsessed with data
Recognition that
students
192

p 4; relieved when
heard my stud did
well p 4; tchrs
used to close their
doors; no more –
collective
decisions for kids
p 8
couldn’t read p
1; had to just put
the data out
there – how do
you know what
to do if you
don’t put it out
there? P 6;
commit to the
cause tchrs stay
late p 9; driven
by goals and
commit to each
other for kids p
9; my scores end
up on the
overhead in
front of
everybody else p
10; acct to prin
and each other p
11; Fri skills
tests p 11
Teacher
5
Female White 4 yrs (2 at
Bunche)
Grade levels
decide how to pres
stud results – some
discret p 5; daily
discret in tchg p 6;
more curr freedom
than tied to
textbooks p 9 but
we are acct to
stand still p 9 I
have more
freedom but more
acct p 9
Very detailed
about what is
taught, tested
and accounted
for p 7; acct
makes us more
productive p 8;
data don’t lie p
8; public acct. p
8; Fri skills test
p 8; team
pressure, not just
one person;
everybody’s
doing it p 10;;
all results are
also shared with
everybody p 10
Teacher
6
Female White 3 yrs Must keep scores
high for fear of
Public display of
data helps for
193

being shunned p 5;
I take personal
offense when
scores are low p 5
reflection of my
teaching p 5
showing
progress and
knowing what
we are doing p
2; Fri skills test
p 5; parties for
recognition of
high scores to
maintain acct
through
motivation p 7
Teacher
7
Female White 3 ½ yrs (1
½ at
Bunche)
Friday skills test
p 12;
inconsistencies
in how Friday
skills tests are
admin – need for
more discussion
p 15; held acct
by all, but helps
me be
productive p 16
in order to
sustain growth p
16
Teacher
8
Male Latino 4 yrs Give sugg and
people will tweak
p 6; it’s all about
instruction p 6
The proof is in
the pudding p 4;
numbers don’t
lie p 6; we are
all in it together
p 6
Teacher
9
Female Afr.
Amer.
30 yrs Give aca freedom
as long as test
scores are up p 3
Friday skills test
p 2; low scores,
meet with prin p
2
Teacher
10
Female Latina 6 yrs Motivated before I
got here p 2
Shared acct p 1;
analyzing scores
can become
tiresome, so we
continue to find
ways to have
more friendly
data p 7
194

Interim
Principal
Female White 6 yrs Came here to
make a diff p 2; I
feel lucky to be
here with so many
dedicated
educators p 12
Friday skills test
p 4; high acct
with friendly
collab
atmosphere p 6
based on support
and agreement p
6; tchrs are not
absent because it
puts pressure on
the team if no
sub p 8
Principal Female Afr.
Amer.
7 yrs Tchrs who come to
Compton are
unique in
themselves p 10;
tchrs can do what
they want as long
as they get results
p 12; the beauty
and art of tching is
taken out with curr
such as Open
Court p 12
I ask them to be
accountable for
student
achievement
results; they
impose their
own acct p 10; I
ask them to be
ind acct when
scores are low;
we have high lvl
of acct with Fri
skills test p 25;
it’s not just at
the end of the
year, it’s every
week p 25; they
hold each other
acct p 25; the
people on the
team have the
acct mindset, I
don’t make them
be acct to each
other p 26
General
Obs

4
th
/5
th
grade
maximum
discretion in
delivery as
departmentalized.
Primary grades
5
th
grade level
mtg. followed
agenda; agreed
on plan for wk;
1
st
grade
followed
195

tend to follow
similar patterns of
instr.
agenda; agreed
and focused; K
tchs did not
follow agenda;
2
nd
grade right
on target –
honest direct;
know kids;
grappling with
how to admin.
Test. 3
rd
grade
dug deeper
Classrm
Obs

See general obs.
High use of vocab;
diff ways to tch;
infuse in curr; sep.
out – yet clear
focus on vocab
and consistent
focus on what is
tested
5
th
grade indiv
When stud.
Needs; 1
st
grade
Delivers diff. K
employs old
methods; 2
nd

grade similar
deliv.
Doc
Reviews

Friday skills
test; 5
th
, 1
st
, 2
nd
,
4
th
, K, are
consis.; 3
rd
has
two new tchrs
low; grade level
mtg agendas are
structured,
consistent;
turned; filled out
turned in

196

Name Gender Ethnicity Longevity Diversity
Issues on
Team
Teacher 1 Male White 5 yrs (2 at
Bunche)
New group of
tchrs working
through new
issues – diff
strengths p 2
it’s natural
when it works
pg 3
Teacher 2 Female White 1 yr Diff. person
diff people;
just talk it
through p 4
Teacher 3 Female Asian 1 yr Work with
diff. skill lvls
of others p 2;
age div doesn’t
mttr p 5
Teacher 4 Female Af. Amer. 6 yrs
Teacher 5 Female White 4 yrs (2 at
Bunche)

Teacher 6 Female White 3 yrs

Teacher 7 Female White 3 ½ yrs (1 ½ at
Bunche)
Each has her
own strengths,
personalities
and we
capitalize on
that
Teacher 8 Male Latino 4 yrs
Teacher 9 Female Afr. Amer. 30 yrs
Teacher 10 Female Latina 6 yrs
Interim
Principal
Female White 6 yrs
Principal Female Afr. Amer. 7 yrs

197

APPENDIX E: THEMES FOUND IN RESEARCH QUESTIONS
What are the leadership roles that principals and teachers have in a team approach
creating the organizational change through the implementation of K-12 standards-
based reform?
A. To what extent does the leadership style/skill of the principal influence the
inclusion of teachers in a shared leadership capacity, including the teachers
and principal perceptions of that role?
1. The principal is perceived as being hierarchical when necessary,
but utilizes shared power when making decisions about
curriculum, instruction and schoolwide structures.
2. Teachers perceive the leader as strong and consistent, holding
high expectations for all teachers to reach the goal of increased
student achievement, while empowering each to decide how to
accomplish the goals together as grade level teams.
3. The principal perceives her role as a leader of the team, sharing
responsibility of educating children with all staff members,
respecting the contribution of each to the successful attainment of
the goal and supporting them with consistent feedback.
B. How does schoolwide relational trust among teachers and administration
impact the success of shared leadership in collaboration and decision
making?
198

1. Teachers feel that the principal(s) protect them from bureaucracy;
and are consistent and predictable in leadership, eliciting confidence
and trust.
2. Teachers perceive that there is support rather than blame, including
open communication and conflict resolution opportunities for all
issues.
3. Leadership team, made up of grade level representatives, is
empowered to gather input from grade level teams to make decisions
and implement plans.
C. How do the teachers and administrators develop mutual
agreement/understanding and make decisions about how standards-based
reform should be implemented and to insure consistent
implementation?

1. Teachers meet regularly with specific schoolwide goals to keep in
focus.
2. Leadership team makes decisions and brings those to staff for
consideration.
3. Implementation is insured through the requirement of meeting the
goal of increased student achievement.
D. How are the issues of individual discretion and collective accountability
addressed when in conflict?
199

1. Individual discretion is valued and supported in utilizing
strategies in classroom instruction as long as the goals of the
school are met.
2. Collective accountability is based on the schoolwide goals of
increased student achievement.
3. No conflict exists as long as goals are reached.
E. How does the existence and perception of the diversity of the team
(position, ethnicity, employment longevity or gender) affect the process and
outcome?
1. Ethnic diversity seems to have no impact on process and
outcome.
2. Longevity issues affect the process when new ideas clash with
old.
3. Gender issues seem to have no impact on process and outcome.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This is a qualitative case study of an urban elementary school considered to be highly successful, based on remarkable gains in student achievement as evidenced by standardized test scores. This study explores the roles, responsibilities and tasks of teachers and principals in a school setting as they create schoolwide organizational change and implement standards-based reform. The study further considers various types of leadership, including: hierarchical, distributive, shared and a "new" shared leadership approach. Findings from the study indicate that the teachers perceive the principal as sharing power in decision-making, while maintaining a hierarchical approach when making some decisions. Further findings reveal that a high level of trust and openness exists between staff members, and also suggest that student achievement increases when teachers focus on the goal of increased student achievement by utilizing a structured, scripted and focused professional learning community approach to analyzing student data and then modifying instruction accordingly. Study results also suggest that implementation of standards-based reform efforts are effective when the principal as leader respects the teachers as professionals

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

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

Reframing school reform with effective tactics: institutionalizing culturally responsive pedagogy in alignment with policy-based accountability to ensure the achievement of African aAmerican stud...

PDF

High school math reform and the role of policy, practice and instructional leadership on math achievement: a case study of White Oak Tree High School

PDF

Distributed leadership practices in schools: effect on the development of teacher leadership - a case study

PDF

Standards based report card: teachers' perception on the development, transition, and implementation

PDF

Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions

PDF

A story of achievement in areas where others fail: a case study of secondary school reform in mathematics at Pacific North High School

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

PDF

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

A study of shared leadership in a California community college

PDF

Secondary school reform and improved math achievement: a case study of site efforts at Mission Valley High School

PDF

A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools

PDF

Implementing standards-based grading in the era of common standards: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies

PDF

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

PDF

A case study in reform: implementation strategies of one urban superintendent

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective

PDF

The effects of culturally responsive standards based instruction on African American student achievement

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: a case study of an urban school

PDF

Oregon education policy implementation: a case study of the achievement compacts information dissemination of the Oregon Education Investment Board

Asset Metadata

Creator Collins, Deborah L. (author)

Core Title K-12 standards-based reform implementation: site-level shared roles of leadership: a case study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/05/2007

Defense Date 03/27/2007

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

Tag educational reform,K-12 standards,OAI-PMH Harvest,shared leadership

Language English

Advisor Kezar, Adrianna (committee chair), Taylor, Louise (committee member), Wilson, Carol (committee member)

Creator Email dlcollin@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m348

Unique identifier UC1228885

Identifier etd-Collins-20070405 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-327021 (legacy record id),usctheses-m348 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Collins-20070405.pdf

Dmrecord 327021

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Collins, Deborah L.

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