From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development [1 ed.] 9781623967857, 9781623967833

Citation preview

From Policy to Practice Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development

A volume in UCEA Leadership Series Series Editor Liz Hollingworth, N483 Lindquist Center

UCEA Leadership Series Liz Hollingworth, Series Editor At a Crossroads: The Educational Leadership Professoriate in the 21st Century (2011) by Donald G. Hackman and Martha M. McCarthy Snapshots of School Leadership in the 21st Century: Perils and Promises of Leading for Social Justice, School Improvement, and Democratic Community (2012) edited by Michele A. Acker-Hocevar, Julia Ballenger, A. William Place, and Gary Ivory Research in Learning and Teaching in Educational Leadership (2014) edited by Liz Hollingworth and Arnold Danzig From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development (2014) edited by Karen L. Sanzo

From Policy to Practice Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development

edited by

Karen L. Sanzo Old Dominion University

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

  A CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress    http://www.loc.gov ISBN: 978-1-62396-783-3 (Paperback) 978-1-62396-784-0 (Hardcover) 978-1-62396-785-7 (ebook)

Copyright © 2014 I nformation Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

Contents 1. Sustaining School Leadership Programs: Planning for Leadership Succession, Recruitment, Selection, and Innovative Curriculum Antonia Issa Lahera and Anthony H. Normore...................................... 1 2. Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools: Lasting Impact of One District’s Efforts to Transform School Leadership Tricia Browne-Ferrigno...................................................................... 23 3. Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development: Lessons From a Collaboration Between an Urban School District, a State Leadership Institute, and a University Leadership Program Arlie Woodrum, Allison M. Borden, David Bower, Sharon Olguin, and Linda Paul.................................... 47 4. Reflections on What Was Learned in the U.S. Department of Education Funded Learner-Centered Leadership (LCL) Project 2002–2006 Arnold Danzig and Gary Kiltz............................................................ 71 5. Sustaining Data-Informed Decision Making Walter L. Burt, Jianping Shen, Robert Leneway, and J. Mark Rainey.................................................101



v

vi  Contents

6. Efforts to Sustain Activities Developed Through Federal Funding: The Case of Project All Charol Shakeshaft, Kerry Robinson, Barbara Driver, and Jennifer Wilkerson.............................................121 7. Performance-Based Academic Coaching Teams (PACT): A System-Wide Support for Principals and Aspiring Principals Michele Skinner and Irma Harper.....................................................131 8. Thinking Like an Evaluator: A Paradigm for Preparing Practice-Ready and Change-Focused School Leaders Miriam L. Fultz and Stephen H. Davis..............................................145 9. Utilization of a Cohort Model in School Leadership Preparation Programs: Lessons Learned From a Usde Grant Jennifer K. Clayton............................................................................181 10. Preparing Principals and Leadership Teams to Implement Schoolwide Instructional Initiatives Paula Egelson, John Uhn, and Fran Cowart...................................... 199 11. The Experiences of Women in a U.S. Department of Education School Leadership Preparation Cohort Program Darra K. Belle and Karen L. Sanzo...................................................213 12. Certified Cognitive CoachingSM in a School Leadership Program R. Scott Blackshire, Barbara H. Gideon, Mark A. Gooden, and Dottie Hall..................................................... 237 13. Sustaining a Renewal Model for School Improvement Patricia Reeves, Louann Bierlein Palmer, Dennis McCrumb, and Jianping Shen............................................... 267 About the Authors................................................................................... 293

Chapter 1

Sustaining School Leadership Programs Planning for Leadership Succession, Recruitment, Selection, and Innovative Curriculum Antonia Issa Lahera and Anthony H. Normore

Abstract This chapter focuses on: (1) leadership succession as critical for the improvement of schools (2) “emerging principal leadership” framework used to help determine candidate selection, and (3) innovative curriculum model where students learn “more with less” and are prepared to lead any school. Recent inquiry (e.g., Hargreaves & Fink, 2004) maintains that succession is a process of interaction that forms relationships and patterns that shape and socialize a leader’s impact on the organization. Succession planning assures continuity of leadership and capitalizes on capacity and sustainability that succession brings to implement new programs in a culture of change (Issa Lahera & Normore, 2012). Leadership succession planning is a pivotal element for the improvement of schools by shaping and expanding

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 1–21 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

1

2    A. ISSA Lahera and A. H. Normore the professional orientation, knowledge, skills, and dispositions of those in leadership roles. Although we are at the early stages of succession planning we document our efforts to include an ongoing changing curriculum, supervision and instructional delivery, impact of a cohort model, and influence of adult learning field-based experiences on the community of professional practice. Both traditional school leadership preparation program (SLP), and nontraditional public charter school leadership academy (CASLA) are discussed.

Many analysts have commented on the propensity of graduate programs in educational leadership to prepare managers, rather than leaders who are grounded in the “educational” aspects of schooling, and who have a deep understanding of, and appreciation for, the purposes of schooling and the values that inform purpose-defining activity coupled with selfknowledge, capacity, and sensitivity (Begley, 2006; Begley & Stefkovich, 2007). Research emphasizes that new performance expectations for schoolsite leaders in the United States (e.g., Browne-Ferrigno, 2007; Fullan, 2003; McCarthy, 1999; Murphy, 2006; Normore, 2007; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003), delineated in administrator standards established by the Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO, 1996) and individual states, “have modified the long-standing perception of a principal as a school manager to a perspective of learner-centered leaders who focus on high levels of learning for all students” (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007, p. 1). Subsequently, many university-based preparation programs have redesigned their delivery formats, aligned their curricula to new professional standards (e.g., ISLLC, ELCC), place more emphasis on real-time and meaningful content (Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks, 2009; May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003), and updated their performance assessments for graduate students (Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Orr & Orphanos, 2011). The purpose of this chapter is to share the development and implementation process of educational leadership programs at California State University Dominguez Hills. The program design is intended to enhance personnel efforts in a culture of continuous improvement. Seminal research (e.g., Carlson, 1961) and more recent inquiry (e.g., Hargreaves & Fink, 2004) maintain that succession is a process of interaction that forms relationships and patterns that shape a leader’s impact on the organization. Based on research by Normore (2007), succession planning assures continuity of leadership and capitalizes on capacity and sustainability that succession brings to implement new programs in a culture of change. This chapter highlights how urban school leadership programs housed at California State University Dominguez Hills plan for successful leadership succession. We will share the literature upon which we based our plan for leadership succession planning as a pivotal element the improvement of schools by shaping and expanding the professional orientation, knowl-

Sustaining School Leadership Programs   3

edge, skills, and dispositions of those in leadership roles. Although we are at the earlier stages of succession planning we will document our efforts to include an ongoing changing curriculum, supervision and instructional delivery, impact of a cohort model, and influence of adult learning fieldbased experiences on the community of professional practice. Known as the School Leadership Programs (SLP), both the traditional leadership preparation program and nontraditional public charter school leadership academy (CASLA) are housed at CSU Dominguez Hills in the Los Angeles region. The programs are made possible through U.S. Department of Education federally-funded grants, a partnership between the Educational Administration Program, the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles Unified School District, and various local districts throughout Los Angeles Unified School District. Program Context The programs are intended to develop, prepare, and retain authentic and effective aspiring and practicing urban school leaders to transform underperforming schools and improve student achievement. California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH) is a 4-year, urban-public institution located in the South Bay region of Los Angeles. The campus is one of the most ethnically diverse in the southern region of the state, reflecting the demographics of the surrounding communities. The vision of CSUDH College of Education (COE) is to maintain a model of collaborative urban educational excellence that is recognized for preparing teachers, administrators, counselors, and other specialists who work effectively with a variety of learners from diverse backgrounds. The core beliefs of the COE stem from a strong knowledge base that includes theories and research that promote and foster access, responsive pedagogy, reflection, purposeful growth, and meaningful collaboration within and among all stakeholders and communities as integral to learning and to transforming schools. The program serves various Local Districts (LD) within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)—all of which are contiguous and nearest in proximity to CSUDH. These LDs encompass some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods, including the East, South, South Central, and Harbor areas. For purposes of this chapter we include the traditional and public charter schools. There are 300,921 students in 282 Title 1 schools. The student ethnic majority in all districts is Hispanic with the second largest student ethnic group being African-American. English Learners comprise approximately 45% of the students. Based on a review of relevant literature on leadership development and preparation programs, this chapter is organized into the following sections:

4    A. ISSA Lahera and A. H. Normore

(1) criticisms of preparation programs, (2) leadership succession planning, (3) recruitment and selection, (4) socialization, (4) curriculum innovation, and (5) conclusions and implications. Review of Literature Criticisms of Educational Leadership Programs Thoughtful critique of leadership preparation programs into the late 1990s revealed that the lack of rigorous program standards in the United States was a serious problem that touched every aspect of educational administration (Levine, 2005; McCarthy, 1999). The critique was fueled by “devastating attacks on the state of preparation programs, critical analyses of practicing school administrators, and references to alternative visions of what programs should become” (Murphy, 2006, p. 11). In response to criticisms, the National Commission on the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation in 2001 engaged in a series of preparation program reform efforts (see Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Young & Peterson, 2002). This comprehensive reform project intended to develop a complex understanding of contemporary contextual factors impacting educational leadership and leadership preparation while attempting to determine what must occur within and outside the university to ensure effective educational leadership preparation and professional development (Murphy, 2006). Positive analyses of activities on specific pieces of the reform agenda in the United States and Canada have begun to receive much attention. For example, among the reform initiatives that have garnered positive attention are the use of cohort structures in preparation programs (Jean-Marie, et al., 2009; Barnett & Muth, 2003; Browne-Ferrigno, 2007; Clayton, Normore, Myran, Issa Lahera, & Sanzo, 2011; Donaldson & Scribner, 2003), problem-based instructional strategies (Barnett & Muth, 2003; Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2003), the use of contemporary technology in educational leadership (Preis, Grogan, Sherman, & Beatty, 2007), the authenticity of programs (Begley, 2003, 2004; Starratt, 2007). On the other hand, online graduate degrees are garnering more interest in recent years as well. Students seeking licensure or advanced degrees by way of a leadership preparation program often search for degrees of convenience—those that are not selective, delivered over a relatively short period of time, and have few academic requirements (Levine, 2005). Hybrid models of preparation are often visible on the alternative model landscape as competition for Institutes of Higher Learning and their departments of school administration (Orr, 2011; Orr & Orphanos, 2011; Preis et al., 2007).

Sustaining School Leadership Programs   5

In addition to developing leaders who can effectively communicate the role of educational technology, well-prepared school leaders must also understand the distinctive impact of increasing poverty and significant demographic change. Urban communities in the United States are facing serious and unique challenges to their well-being owing to new barriers to economic viability and human development (Orr, 2011; Orr & Orphanos, 2011). These data reveal a society populated increasingly by groups of citizens that historically have not fared well in the United States, especially marginalized populations including ethnic minorities, English language learners, special needs learners, and children who struggle with sexual orientation (Banks & McGee, 2004; Brooks, Havard, Tatum, & Patrick, 2010). Furthermore, the percentage of children affected by the ills of the world in which they live has increased—for example, unemployment, homelessness, illiteracy, crime, drug addiction, malnutrition, poor physical health, and lack of health care (Banks & McGee, 2004; Normore, 2007). A projection made by Banks and McGee (2004) indicates that “White” students will constitute approximately 50% of the student population of the nation’s schools by 2020 and that this demographic shift will occur at the same time that the teaching force becomes even more homogenous. Regardless of where students live, they will need to understand and work with people whose backgrounds are different from their own in order to make purposeful meaning from circumstances. Based on research by McCarthy and Kuh (1997), the increased emphasis on “enhancing the quality of instruction in most colleges and universities” (p. 245) suggests the need to facilitate program improvement. A renewed interest in teaching and leadership influence is embedded in the leadership preparation reform narrative (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007; Issa Lahera & Normore, 2012; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Murphy, 2006). A study by Orr and Orphanos (2011) on outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership preparation programs for principals indicate that faculty investments in preparation program and internship quality positively contributes to the leadership knowledge of graduates and their leadership practices and school improvement progress. Work by Cheney, Davis, Garrett, and Holleran (2010) highlights examples of such innovative principal-preparation programs in the United States. What sets apart these programs is that they are organized for the expressed purpose of preparing leaders to transform their leadership behaviors and practices, which, in turn, can dramatically improve student learning and close the achievement gap. Most are focused on urban schools and improving the achievement of underserved students (Cheney et al., 2010). There is greater stress on applied approaches, relevant and authentic materials in general, and on the additional use of problem- and case-

6    A. ISSA Lahera and A. H. Normore

based materials specifically (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2003; Issa Lahera & Normore, 2012; Preis et al., 2007). Coursework on ethics and values dimensions are more commonly featured in newly designed educational leadership programs with focus on critical analysis and reflective inquiry (Normore, 2007; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011). Closely connected with the values dimension is an expanded concern for issues of social justice including cultural influences, diversity, race, gender, access, and an equity agenda that shapes schooling (Jean-Marie, et al., 2009; Murphy, 2006). According to Brooks et al. (2010), many colleges of education are demanding that authentic, meaningful connections to practice are established and nurtured with real-time partnerships. Stronger field-based elements in preparation programs and more robust linkages/partnerships among university faculty and district- and school-based administrators have garnered more attention than ever (Brooks et al., 2010; Issa Lahera & Normore, 2012; Whitaker & Barnett, 1999) including the legitimization of practice-based advisory groups to help inform preparation program design and content. As programs undergo development and implementation, governance structures and review teams will continuously monitor and assess their progress and modify them to incorporate changes that will strengthen programs and enhance their capacity to address the professional practices of leaders of learning. As noted by Murphy (2006), although there is concern about the quantity of empirical research projects in the field it is worth noting that these numbers are increasing. Still, researchers assert that apart from some empirical research on the cohort model, very little empirical work has been done on delivery (Barnett & Muth, 2003; Donaldson & Scribner, 2003; Preis et al., 2007). There is some scholarly literature about content and delivery issues, but clearly, this is a seriously underinvestigated sphere of leadership preparation (Murphy, 2006; Jean-Marie et al., 2009). Riehl, Larson, Short, and Reitzug (2000) concluded in the report of American Educational Research Association’s Division a Task Force on Research and Inquiry in Educational Administration that “in contrast with the growing body of teacher research, there is little evidence of similar growth within educational administration” (p. 399). Firestone and Riehl (2006) later added that research on educational leadership may have had such limited impact because so little of it has actually been done. Given the need for redesigned programs in educational leadership in U.S. schools, we contend that leadership development programs must inspire personal leadership development and leadership success in others. To this end, a profoundly personal exploration of a leadership approach to program development ought to be fully aligned with, and driven by, deeply held values—where curriculum, instructional delivery, and a reallife, case-study approach to learning prompts aspiring leaders to explore the qualities of leaders as well as the deeply personal core of their own

Sustaining School Leadership Programs   7

leadership. In addition to examining life experiences and identifying the essence of leadership succession and planning in guided exercises and case studies, programs must provide opportunities to create personal leadership development plans for those in educational leadership development programs. Leadership Succession Planning Based on research by Manprin (2002), the preparation to replace one leader with another is one of the most difficult challenges associations face in this era of organizational management. Few events in the life of an association are as critical, visible, or stressful as when the leader leaves. How such an exit is managed reveals the character and effectiveness of that leader and association. (para. 1)

Leadership transition is an “integral process that begins long before the outgoing leader departs, and it presents a remarkable opportunity to move forward with a new understanding of the complexities, challenges, and changes the organization must address” (para. 2). Carlson (1961) asserted that succession often disrupts lines of authority and communication, disturbs power and decision-making systems, and generally upsets the organization’s normal activities. In contrast, disruption can have a positive impact on a school such that performance is substantially enhanced. As this process develops and unfolds in school settings, an administrator undergoes a group membership boundary passage resulting in varying degrees of acceptance and legitimacy by the school’s faculty (Hargreaves & Fink, 2004; Normore, 2004). Succession planning can help school districts in several ways: (a) by engaging senior management in a disciplined review of leadership talent, (b) guiding development activities of administrative teams, (c) bringing selection systems, rewards systems and leadership development into alignment with the process of leadership renewal, (d) assuring continuity of leadership, (e) avoiding transition problems, and (f) preventing premature promotion of principals through professional development (Hargreaves & Fink, 2004). During succession a successor who possesses knowledge about social influencing processes and skill in applying that knowledge can have a substantial impact on the outcomes of his or her own succession practices and experiences (Barnett & Muth, 2003; Johnson, 2001). Various researchers (e.g., Hargreaves, Moore, Fink, Brayman, & White, 2003) maintain that district leaders can assess their current practices by allocating funds to design flexible preparation processes that support leaders undergoing succession

8    A. ISSA Lahera and A. H. Normore

and lead to outcomes that advance district policies and goals including: (a) training and support specifically designed to assist leaders in a new assignment, (b) recognizing that they face challenges common to major transitions, (c) acknowledging that a unique mix between the leader and the school will give rise to the outcomes of the succession, and (d) preparing the leaders for the impact the school will have on them as well as the sustainable impact they hope to have on the school (Hargreaves & Fink, 2004). Districts can capitalize on the expectations for change and sustainability that succession brings to implement new programs and work toward the improvement of schools by shaping and expanding the professional orientation, knowledge, and skills of those in leadership roles (Fullan, 1997; Hargreaves & Fink, 2004). To avoid potential succession problems school districts can implement well-planned strategies during the stages of recruitment and selection, and provide effective socialization experiences for enhanced development. Recruitment and Selection Effective recruitment and selection of school administrators continue to be some of the more challenging human resource tasks in educational organizations. This challenge is due, in part, to the inexact science of attracting, screening, and identifying candidates to fit the complex leadership needs of schools today (Young & Castetter, 2003). In 1992, a special report from the National Association of Secondary School Principals called for “all stakeholders to unite in a rational attack on the common problems associated with the recruitment, identification, selection, preparation, and development of school administrators” (BrowneFerrigno, 2003, p. 469). Since that call major efforts have resulted in the development of a knowledge and skill base for the preparation of potential school administrators for the role (Johnson, 2001; Rebore, 2001; Young & Castetter, 2003). In the past, attracting teachers into the ranks of school administrators was relatively easy because educators saw administration as a normal part of career advancement and usually occurred in midcareer (Fullan, 1997). Teachers no longer see administration as a way to improve their salaries, prestige, or respect among other colleagues (Pounder & Merrill, 2001). Many highly qualified, competent, and talented teachers dismiss careers in administration because they do not want to sit in an office all day, hassle teachers, discipline students, work with unhappy parents, or push papers, all activities frequently associated with the stereotypical role of the school administrator (Rebore, 2001; Renihan, 1999). Often individuals do not consider the fact that alternative images of school leadership are possible. Until some of those alternatives become better

Sustaining School Leadership Programs   9

accepted and understood, there may always be a problem of individuals prescreening and self-selecting (Normore, 2004). Recruitment practices must be extensive and aggressive and focus on placing and keeping an effective and satisfied administrator (Young & Castetter, 2003). Common methods of recruiting administrators range from internal searches, referrals, and contacting employment agencies, to advertising vacancies with college and university placement services (Young & Castetter, 2003). Most school districts have two pools of candidates from which to recruit; internal and external (Pounder & Merrill, 2001; Rebore, 2001). Factors that affect recruitment and selection practices range from job complexity and size of school district to fringe benefits. Increases or decreases in student population and poor remuneration as it relates to responsibilities and the expectations of the job also impact recruitment and selection. The selection process requires a choice of best candidates to fill the administrative positions (Pounder & Merrill, 2001; Renihan, 1999). Selection procedures and interviews are usually structured around information relating to the work history of the candidates, their education and training, motivation, and maturity (Rebore, 2001). Some of the selection procedures include resumes, prescreening interviews often done by telephone, employee testing, reference checks, and consulting services (Rebore, 2001). Socialization Socialization involves the processes by which administrators learn the skills, knowledge, and dispositions required to perform their role in an effective manner (Bennis; 1985). Bennis (1985) asserts that socialization involves a complex set of human relationships within an organization that includes all the people in it and their relationships to each other and to the outside world. The preparation of school administrators involves both professional and organizational socialization (Hart, 1993). Professional socialization involves acquiring knowledge, skills, and behaviors through which values and norms of the profession are internalized and a professional identity is established (Daresh, 2000). Begley and Cambell-Evan (1992) assert that professional socialization generally begins in the preappointment phase of a school leader’s education career and continues into early postappointment growth and ongoing development. It requires dialogue, collaboration, and mentoring by an experienced professional to serve as a guide (Daresh, 2000). Preappointment professional socialization includes mandatory and voluntary courses for certification; first-hand experience of leadership and management tasks; modeling and social learning by observing both good and bad leadership; and deliberate mentoring by some existing school leaders who see importance in their role in

10    A. ISSA Lahera and A. H. Normore

preparing future leaders (Barnett & Muth, 2003). Formal preparation is important for developing the technical knowledge and skills that administrators require to be successful (Normore, 2004). Devoting more time, energy and resources to programs that focus on meaningful content in a form consistent with good principles of adult education is one promising suggestion for improving socialization experiences (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). On-the-job leadership activities are viewed as the most helpful of all socialization activities (Normore, 2002). Organizational socialization is specific to the educational context. Each school is comprised of a complex array of people, policies, processes, and priorities to which school administrators must adjust (Hart, 1993). As teachers make the transition to school administrator new socialization experiences emerge (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003). When preparing for their new administrator roles, aspiring administrators begin to take on a different role as an educator. Consequently, the need to be resocialized becomes crucial and a new professional identity unfolds. The need to fit into the immediate work environment and organizational norms tend to replace those learned during professional socialization. There are mediating influences on administrator’s socialization such as work setting, culture and relationships with peers, superiors, district policies and procedures, formal training, and outcomes. Experiences can range from carefully planned training and induction programs to unplanned, on the job experiences (Crawford, Carlton, & Stengel, 2003; Daresh, 2000) and include workshops, formal courses, job shadowing, principal meetings, peer coaching, and mentoring (Hart, 1993). Induction experiences and ongoing professional development opportunities are key to organizational socialization (Daresh, 2000). This suggests that the profession adopt a longer-term view of the preparation and development of school leaders that extends not only into the induction period but provides planned socialization experiences each time a new leadership assignment is made (Daresh, 2000; Pounder & Young, 1996). Curriculum Content and Instructional Delivery Within a Virtual Environment Leadership is proposed as the outcome of self-knowledge, sensitivity to the orientations of others, and a technical sophistication that leads to a synergy of leadership action (Begley, 2001, 2003). Taught in a learnercentered environment, the goal of SLP at CSUDH is for the emerging leaders to assimilate these values and incorporate them into curriculum and instruction in order to promote a transformational and constructivist leadership style. Given the research on the significance of reflection (May,

Sustaining School Leadership Programs   11

et al., 2003; Starratt, 2007) and reflective inquiry (Normore & Jean-Marie, 2008) survey data regularly gave us opportunity to pause and reflect on our own program leadership and look for ways to promote meaningful curriculum and instruction instead of continued assignments that inhibited true reflections. Ongoing personal reflection and assessment is an integral part of such a learning experience as administrative candidates encounter new ideas and increasingly rapid societal change (Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Starratt, 2004). This type of knowledge base is a foundational part of the curriculum for the personal and professional growth and development by each administrative candidate. Participants in the programs encounter the topics including law, finance, instruction, ethics, organizational leadership, and facilities. Rather than teaching these topics in isolation as a series of traditional managerial courses however, they are taught in a problem-based curriculum built upon genuine experiences of the challenges of teaching and learning encountered in actual schools working toward improved achievement for all students (Bridges & Hallinger, 1995; Orr, King, & Lapointe, 2010). Graduates of the program indicated that the use of “problems of professional practice” via case-study analyses in all six content courses was very useful in their preparation program. At the core of authentic leadership preparation is a thorough understanding of teaching and learning processes not only for K–12 students, but also for the faculty and staff working with those students (Fry, O’Neill, & Bottoms, 2006; Shapiro & Hassinger, 2007; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011; Starratt, 2004). Some recent and instructional innovations include assignments and projects requiring more cooperative learning and more collaborative research such as the case study method where active learning and practical insights are discussed and shared. The use of case method teaches aspiring leaders how to assess, analyze, and act upon complex educational issues. Rooted in real-life experiences, the case method develops analytical skills, sound judgment, and the leadership potential within students. Through active engagement with cases based on real school events, students learn how to arrive at, and defend, important decisions in the face of complex or even ambiguous dilemmas (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011). By conducting rigorous analyses, interacting with equally talented peers, and exercising authentic leadership skills in the classroom, students develop an increased capacity for strategic thinking and decisive action that they will bring back to their school sites (Normore & Jean-Marie, 2008; Begley & Stefkovich, 2007). There is some experimentation with team teaching approaches to instruction. This practice models for students what is considered increasingly important in K–12 work settings, the ability to cooperate and be collegial and respectful of sensitivity. Such approaches provide for the effective modeling of relationships and ethical decision making, and gives

12    A. ISSA Lahera and A. H. Normore

meaning to the aphorism “how you teach is what you teach.” Coursework delivered in a coherent, spiral design integrates all new topics studied with material presented previously, combining six content courses with prepost leadership assessment and leadership skill development in areas such as vision building and articulation, teaching and learning/instructional leadership, change, organizational leadership, collaborative and responsive leadership, conflict resolution, social justice, communication, ethical leadership, and diversity teamwork. Analytical and process skills such as problem finding and problem solving are taught to hone decision-making skills. DUSL candidates learn to utilize multiple data sources, including state and national testing results and local action research in gathering and analyzing field-based information to drive school improvement efforts. A series of practicum workshops around supervision and instruction is also provided. Following earlier research, this practicum focuses on an implementation project where the participants use data to identify instructional needs, implement what they have learned, and use outcome data to determine the project’s effectiveness (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). These workshops are designed for teams of aspiring leaders and current leaders from the same school. The team design has three purposes: to improve aspiring leaders’ skills; to connect aspiring leaders with current administrators for networking purposes; and to involve participants in a site-based practicum of workshop skills and knowledge. Further, coursework in the programs assists emerging leaders to understand, respond to, and influence the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context of schooling not only with expertise, but also with integrity, moral character, justice, caring, and an eye toward fostering learning communities (Starratt, 2004). A significant instructional practice in the programs is the use of contemporary instructional technologies for delivery. In response to research that suggests the integration of instructional technologies in content delivery (Hughes, McLeod, Brahier, Dikkers, & Whiteside, 2005) the programs are delivered in a blended hybrid format via Blackboard technology, face-toface interaction, Google Hangouts, Adobe Connect, and field experiences. As asserted by Hughes and colleagues (2005, cited in Brooks et al., 2010, p. 422) instructional technologies “help leaders develop an appreciation of what it means to lead in a rapidly changing world of technological advance.” Instructional technologies include online postings, blogs, webinars, web page development, record keeping, data presentation, Internet-based research, discussion boards, and methods for keeping cohorts or other learning communities linked. Beyond the coursework, students conduct a Field-Based Project based on a theory of action and designed to provide leadership experience at their school sites (i.e., internship component). The Field-Based Project involves the candidate’s leadership ability to work with other adults on the

Sustaining School Leadership Programs   13

site (i.e., teachers, counselors, coaches, etc) who in turn assesses student learning needs. It requires participants to collect continuous improvement and outcome data over a period of 9 months to more clearly demonstrate how their efforts contributed to improvement of student achievement. According to Jackson and Kelley (2002), field experiences are intended to be meaningful, values-based, and substantive and integrated into other educational experiences in order for authentic learning and growth. The Field-Based Project is designed to help students practice course concepts and skills that teachers will need as administrators to meet the goal of improving student outcomes (e.g., behavior, climate, attendance as well as achievement) and holding themselves accountable and responsible for the improvement every step of the way over the course of one year (BrowneFerrigno, 2007; Issa Lahera & Normore, 2012; Orr, 2011). At the beginning of the field-based project each SLP candidate is assigned to a school site mentor in a leadership role and who holds an administrative credential. Additionally, the candidate is assigned job-shadowing opportunities with practicing school or district leaders at other schools and at different levels (e.g., elementary, middle, secondary). The cohort model is currently utilized in the SLP program with the expectation that students, faculty, and school district personnel become a learning community. The cohort coordinator (university level) also serves in a mentor role and remains in close contact with the site mentor and the student as the field-based project unfolds. The SLP model focuses not only on traditional discrete knowledge and content, but also on a combination of knowledge, skills, and dispositions, delivered in a learner-centered setting utilizing the principles of adult learning theory, all built around standards such as those enumerated in the NCATE/ISLLC standards. We concur with the research that the success of the cohort model is impacted by the degree to which the faculty embrace the program at the CPCU and are effective in working with adult learners (Barbett & Muse, 1993; Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2003; Whitaker & Barnett, 1999). Since “adult learners are self-directed and have strong internal motivation, it is argued that cohort models engage them in a meaningful way” (Preis et al., 2007, p. 5). As a result, we have included more time for “adult learning” and reiterated its values and significance when introducing and supervising all field-based project related activities. Conclusions and Implications Expectations, guiding principles, structure and responsibility are aspects that guide and influence decision-making through all stages of the leadership development, preparation, and succession planning process. Clear

14    A. ISSA Lahera and A. H. Normore

expectations for leadership are central and must be understood consistently among all school leaders and aligned with future strategic direction. Aspiring and practicing administrators systemically need to know what leadership knowledge, skills, attitudes, behavior and roles are expected and supported in the district. This is especially important as the role of the school administrator continues to change and expand. The mission of succession planning also needs to be articulated. Some districts adopt the philosophy of internal promotion, some support external promotion, while others endorse a combination of both. The overall organization of the succession planning process should be clear outlining the organizational and support structures, timelines, events and assignments. Universities and school district personnel need to collaborate to ensure both arenas are striving for the same effective processes. For example, at the district level some districts appoint the responsibility to a superintendent and organize centrally, while other districts employ a shared leadership approach. In order to attract and recruit potential leaders principals and superintendents need to recognize leadership qualities among teachers and to encourage them to pursue and apply for administrative roles. The application process must be aligned with the selection process and include any contractual considerations that may hinder and, or support appointments. Emotional and financial support for a structured leadership preparation program is a key part of leadership succession planning. Leaders participate in both professional and organizational socialization experiences in order to learn about leading. These processes involve understanding culture, norms and values of the new schools, and district and consist of a range of formal and informal leadership for learning activities. Well-structured formal induction programs are important to support new administrators in the transition from a teaching role to an administrative role and should be considered an integral part of ongoing professional development. The SLP program is intended to prepare leaders for high-need schools, place aspiring leaders in high-need schools, retain leaders in schools for two or more years, and provide staff development to leaders with the ultimate outcome resulting in learning experiences that positively impact student achievement. SLP expands the emphasis on participants’ reflection on their core values and dispositions while fostering and promoting diversity, equity, ethical behavior, and excellence in order to improve interpersonal and professional practice. Principles that guide the SLP program focus on the need to recruit and select qualified school-leader candidates especially those who are culturally, economically, and/or linguistically diverse, as well as assistant principals and principals with less than five years experience, to meet the leadership needs of underperforming schools in local school districts.

Sustaining School Leadership Programs   15

We engage in professional discourse and dialogue around the needs of the districts and the predominant theories that drive our program —transformational and distributed leadership. Further, program personnel recognized that successful completion of an educational leadership program and passage of licensure examinations makes one eligible to serve as an assistant principal and subsequently a principal. However, becoming a successful school leader requires important dispositions, morals, ethics, values, and skills including “the integration of new knowledge into authentic practice, reflection about school leadership issues, and confidence to take calculated risks” (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007, p. 21). In keeping with Orr (2011) and Orr and Orphanos’ (2011) research recommendations, we will continue to regularly track and monitor the graduates’ performance to help determine how the SLP program has changed leadership practices and behaviors that have positively influenced student achievement. What we have realized is that the making of an effective educational leader is an ongoing learning process and often stimulated through active-learning experiences in schools, well-structured succession planning, rigorous recruitment and selection processes in place, and guided reflections about these experiences. In turn, the leadership and learning continuously improves the community of professional practice (Matthews & Crow, 2003). We need continually to revisit and revise the program based on the economic climate and needs of local districts. As with other programs in educational leadership (e.g., Brooks et al., 2010; Browne-Ferrigno, 2007; Orr, 2011; Orr & Orphanos, 2011; Preis et al., 2007) we have found that keeping up with the rapidly changing expectations and demands placed on school sites and the needs of our students has given us an opportunity to reflect on our program leadership as we move forward in its development. In the quest to improve leadership preparation, various models of effective programs in educational leadership have become a focal point for discussion and program improvement. If we are to be successful as a program and demonstrate effectiveness around leadership development and preparation in the current plethora of reforms, then it is incumbent upon us as program developers and deliverers to plan for succession, monitor, recognize, embrace, and address program challenges and conflicts and respond accordingly. The SLP program is an evolving quest to change, improve, and adjust while still maintaining rigor and authenticity within the curriculum. The challenge for us is staying abreast of ongoing, changing demands while, at the same time, meeting and exceeding NCATE, national, and state leadership standards and addressing local districts educational leadership needs in an economic recession period with major budgetary shortfalls. As a collective endeavor of theoretical and clinical expertise, we continue to revisit and dialogue about program content and

16    A. ISSA Lahera and A. H. Normore

delivery in relation to its authenticity, standards, research/evidence-based practices, relevant field experiences, and expectations of school leaders who are engaged in transforming a community of professional practice. This process informs the SLP program design and/or redesign while simultaneously making us aware that there will be times when we must pause to evaluate our progress. We examined various considerations as suggested in the literature regarding school leadership commitment. The ultimate goal is to plan succession, and deliver a program that educates leaders with credibility, strength of character, self-awareness, sensitivity, and ethics in order to positively influence the lives of children so they make a difference in the larger world. With this as our primary goal, we believe we have committed to shaping educational leaders with the integrity and capacity to build and nurture world-class schools. It is commonly known throughout the research that strong leadership rises to the top again and again as the key advantage that separates world-class schools from the rest (see Normore & Issa Lahera, 2012). Great leaders are able not only to craft winning leadership and outcome strategies, but also to drive critical innovation, implement change, and create agile schools that can succeed in complex times. Similar to other leadership succession and preparation programs, the school leadership program at CSU Dominguez must deal with “the realities of accountability placed upon schools that will be led by younger, more inexperienced teachers and provide the necessary programmatic changes to ensure that novice leaders have the skills and support system necessary to succeed” (Bruner, Greenlee, & Hill, 2007, p. 20). Acknowledgments Educational leadership programs are supported by multimillion dollar grants from the U.S. Department of Education. The research, conclusions, and recommendations herein are those of the authors and do not represent the official positions or policies of the funder or of the educational institutions of the researchers. References Banks, J., & McGee, C. (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Barnett, B. G., & Muse, I. D. (1993). Cohort groups in educational administration: Promises and challenges. Journal of School Leadership, 3, 400–415.

Sustaining School Leadership Programs   17 Barnett, B. G., & Muth, R. (2003). Assessment of cohort-based educational leadership preparation programs. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 15, 97–112. Begley, P. T. (2001). In pursuit of authentic school leadership practices. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4, 353–366. Begley, P. T. (2003). In pursuit of authentic school leadership practices. In P. T. Begley & O. Johansson (Eds.), The ethical dimensions of school leadership (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Begley, P. T. (2006). Self-knowledge, capacity, and sensitivity: Prerequisites to authentic leadership by school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 570–589. Begley, P. T., & Cambell-Evan, G. (1992). Socializing experiences of aspiring principals. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38(4), 285–299. Begley, P. T., Stefkovich, J. (2007). Integrating values and ethics into post secondary teaching for leadership development: Principles, concepts, and strategies. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(4), 398–412. Bennis, W. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Bridges, E. W., & Hallinger, P. (1995). Problem based learning for administrators. University of Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Brooks, J. S., Havard, T., Tatum, K., & Patrick, L. (2010). It takes more than a village: Inviting partners and complexity in educational leadership preparation reform. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(12). Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/storage/JRLE/pdf/Fall_2010_Special_Issue/12_4_ Brooks_et_al.pdf Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2007). Developing school leaders: Practitioner growth during an advanced leadership development program for principals and administrator-trained teachers. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(3). Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/storage/JRLE/pdf/vol2_issue3_2007/ BrowneFerrignoArticle.pdf Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role identity transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 468–503. Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2003). Effects of cohorts on learners. Journal of School Leadership, 13, 621–643. Bruner, D. Y., Greenlee, B. J., & Hill, M. S. (2007). The reality of leadership preparation in a rapidly changing context: Best practice vs. reality. The Journal of Research on Leadership Education 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/ JRLE/issue.php Carlson, R. O. (1961). Succession and performance among school superintendents. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6, 210–227. Cheney, G. R., Davis, J., Garrett, K., & Holleran, J. (2010). A new approach to principal preparation: Innovative programs share their practices and lessons learned. Fort Worth, TX: Rainwater Leadership Alliance. Clayton, J., Normore, A. H., Myran, S., Issa Lahera, A., Holzman, S., & Sanzo, K. (2011, Nov. 16–20). Preparing educational leaders: A conversation with aspiring leaders in SLP Grant Programs. Symposium accepted for presentation at

18    A. ISSA Lahera and A. H. Normore the annual conference of University Council of Educational Administration (UCEA), Pittsburgh, PA. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author. Crawford, J., Carlton, P., & Stengel, L. (2003, November). The effects of principal succession on school climate in Urban settings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Portland, OR Daresh, J. C. (2000, April). New principals: new induction programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Donaldson, J. F., & Scribner, J. P. (2003). Instructional cohorts and learning: Ironic uses of a social system. Journal of School Leadership, 13, 644–665. Firestone, W. A., & Riehl, C. (2006). A “new” agenda for research in educational leadership. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fry, B., O’Neill, K., & Bottoms, G. (2006). Schools can’t wait: Accelerating the redesign of university principal preparation programs. Atlanta, GA: SREB. Fullan, M. (1997). What’s worth fighting for in the principalship? (2nd ed). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233–256. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2004). The seven principles of sustainable leadership. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 8–13. Hargreaves, A., Moore, S., Fink, D., Brayman, C., & White, R. (2003). Succeeding leaders? A study of principal succession and sustainability. Toronto, ON, Canada: Ontario Principals Council Hart, A. W. (1993). Principal succession: Establishing leadership in schools. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Hughes, J. E., McLeod, S., Brahier, B., Dikkers, A. G., & Whiteside, A. (2005). School technology leadership: Theory to practice. Academic Exchange, 9(20), 51–55. Issa Lahera, A., & Normore, A. H. (2012, April 13–17). Promoting excellence and equity through inquiry and reflective practice: Transforming urban school leadership in Southern California. Paper presented at the annual conference of American Educational Research Association (AERA), Vancouver, BC. Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192–212. Jean-Marie, G., & Normore, A. H. (2010). Educational leadership preparation: Innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to the Ed.D and graduate education. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A. H., & Brooks, J. (2009). Leadership for social justice: Preparing 21st century school leaders for a new social order. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/ current-issues/

Sustaining School Leadership Programs   19 Johnson, B. (2001, January). The dynamics of succession: A qualitative study of principal succession in four elementary schools of the Toronto Catholic District School Board. Paper presented at the 14th Annual International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Toronto, ON, Canada. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: Review of Research. Commissioned by The Wallace Foundation and produced jointly by the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, the University of Minnesota, and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, the University of Toronto. Levine. A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project. Manprin, A. (2002). Next in line: The five steps for successful succession planning. Retrieved from http://www.asaecenter.org/AboutUs/Index.cfn Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005) School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Matthews, L. J., & Crow, G. M. (2003). Being and becoming a principal: Role conceptions for contemporary principals and assistant principals. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. I., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247–260. McCarthy, M. M. (1999). The evolution of educational leadership preparation programs. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (pp. 119–139). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McCarthy. M. M., & Kuh, G. D. (1997). Continuity and change: The educational leadership professoriate. Columbia, MO: The University Council for Educational Administration, Murphy, J. (2006). Preparing school leaders: Defining a research and action agenda. Rowman & Littlefield Education: Lanham, MD. Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1987). New directions in the professional development of school administrators: A synthesis and suggestions for improvement. In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Approaches to administrative training in education (pp. 245–281). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Normore, A. H. (2002). Recruitment, socialization and accountability of school administrators in two Ontario school districts. Ontario Principals Council Register: Professional Journal for Ontario’s Vice-principals and Principals, 4(3), 22–40. Normore, A. H. (2004, May). Recruitment and selection: Addressing the leadership shortage in one large Canadian school district. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 30. May 12, 2004. Retrieved from http://www. umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap Normore, A. H. (2007). A continuum approach for developing school leaders in a large urban school district. UCEA Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(3). Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/JRLE/issue.php Normore, A. H., & Issa Lahera, A. (2012). Striving for authenticity in leadership program development and implementation: Transforming a community

20    A. ISSA Lahera and A. H. Normore of professional practice. Journal of Authentic Leadership in Education, 2(2). Retrieved from http://csle.nipissingu.ca/JALE/JALE_Vol2Num2Online.pdf Normore, A. H., & Jean-Marie, G. (2008). Female secondary school leaders: At the helm of social justice, democratic schooling, and equity. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 29(2), 182–205. Orr, M. T. (2011). Pipeline to preparation to advancement: Graduates’ experiences in, through, and beyond leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 114–172. Orr, M. T., & Orphanos, S. (2011) Conventional leadership preparation programs for principals school leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and how graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 18–70. Orr, M. T., King, C., & LaPointe, M. (2010). Districts developing leaders: Lessons on consumer actions and program approaches from eight urban districts. Washington, DC: The Wallace Foundation. Preis, S., Grogan, M., Sherman, W. H., & Beatty, D. M. (2007). What the research and literature say about the delivery of educational leadership programs in the United States. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/JRLE/issue.php Pounder, D. G., & Merrill, R. J. (2001). Job desirability of high school principalship: Job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 27–57 Rebore, R. W. (2001). Human resources administration in education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Renihan, P. (1999). In-school leadership for Saskatchewan schools: Issues and strategies. Saskatchewan Educational Leadership Unit, University of Saskatchewan Riehl, C., Larson, C. L., Short, P. M., & Reitzug, U. C. (2000). Reconceptualizing research and scholarship in educational administration: Learning to know, knowing to do, and doing to learn. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 391–427. Shapiro, J.-P., & Hassinger, R. E. (2007). Using case studies of ethical dilemmas for the development of moral literacy: Towards educating for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(4), 451–470. Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. (2011). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis, Starratt, R . J. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Starratt, R. J. (2007). Leading a community of learners: Learning to be moral by engaging the morality of learning. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 35(2), 165–183. Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thomas, S. (1994). Artifactual study in the analysis of culture: A defense of conceptual and relational analysis in a postmodern age. Communication Research, 21, 683–697. Whitaker, K. S., & Barnett, B. G. (1999). A partnership model linking K–12 school

Sustaining School Leadership Programs   21 districts and leadership preparation programs. Planning and Changing, 30(3/4), 126–143. Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Young, P., & Castetter, W. (2003). The human resource function in educational administration (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Young, M. D., & Peterson, G. J. 2002). The National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation: An introduction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 130–113.

Chapter 2

Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools Lasting Impact of One District’s Efforts to Transform School Leadership Tricia Browne-Ferrigno

Abstract The Principals Excellence Program, a unique leadership-development initiative for principals and administrator-certified teachers in a high-need rural district, was one of the first projects funded in 2002 through the newly created U.S. Department of Education School Leadership Program. Delivered through a partnership between Pike County Public Schools and the University of Kentucky, the program sought to recruit, develop, and retain a cadre of school leaders to serve as visionary change agents whose ultimate impact would be transformed leadership practice and improved student learning in the district. This chapter presents two assessments of sustained program impact—the first conducted in September 2006 for the summative evaluation required by the funding agency, the second in December 2013 for this publication.

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 23–46 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

23

24   T. Browne-Ferrigno

Multiple, and sometimes competing, factors influence the success of educational change efforts. The outcome can depend on the nature of the change and how it is introduced (Evans, 1996; Fullan, 1993; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999), the strategies and structural supports used to implement it (Fullan, 1999, 2003; Hall & Hord, 2006; Short & Greer, 1997), or the type of professional development opportunities provided to those required to implement the change (Hall & Hord, 1987; Schlechty, 2001; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth, & Smith, 1999). Because change agents’ visions and actions have significant influence on change adoption (Fullan, 2003; Quinn, 1996; Rust & Freidus, 2001), educational leaders must understand that “competencies, conditions, culture, and context [are] necessary parts of transformation” (Wagner et al., 2006, p. xix). Moreover, in order to ensure sustainability of changes, educational leaders must also be historically aware and politically savvy (Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006; Labaree, 2006; Sarason, 1990). This chapter presents two assessments on the longitudinal impact of a comprehensive change initiative within a high-need rural school district. The first was conducted as part of the required summative evaluation for a leadership development program supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education (USDE). Based on a sustainability model proposed by Fullan (2005a), the first assessment spans from July 1998, when a new superintendent began his tenure in the district, through June 2005, when data collection for the federally funded project closed. The second assessment utilized publicly available data at the time this chapter was written to report career paths of former program participants and district accountability performance for two recent academic years. The author served as the project director and principal investigator for the program, one of the first to receive a grant through the USDE School Leadership Program launched in 2002, and independently conducted both assessments presented here. Although the district is located in a rural region of eastern Kentucky, its leadership-development initiative has applicability elsewhere, evidenced by its inclusion as a model program in Innovative Pathways to School Leadership (USDE, 2004). The project was selected for inclusion in that publication for its three promising elements: (a) its unique vision to change the principalship, (b) its work to establish support for schools and districts in rural Appalachia, and (c) its innovative integration of theory and practice. From Change Efforts to Sustained Innovation Using an extensive review of literature to support his proposition, Fullan (2005a) identified eight elements he perceives are essential for leading

Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools   25

sustainable innovation efforts (see Table 2.1). Because a publicly funded system of education is “the cornerstone of a civil, prosperous, and democratic society” (Fullan, 2003, p. 3), educational leaders must embrace the “moral imperative of school leadership” (p. 31). That is, their primary responsibility is to ensure a deeply ingrained, broadly shared understanding that learning is the core purpose of schooling: Every school must provide every student opportunities to achieve academically and develop requisite personal and social skills for success in life. According to Fullan (2005a), cyclical energizing is “a powerful new idea” that “needs to be a fundamental element of our sustainability strategizing” (p. 27). Soon after publication of his book about leadership and sustainability, Fullan (2005b) introduced the concept of resiliency, which he borrowed from Abrahamson (2004) who posits that successful change adoption requires two seemingly conflicting forces—activity and rest. Like individuals developing and maintaining athletic prowess, organizations engaged in innovation implementation must experience periods of intense change movement juxtaposed to periods of stability creation. The counterbalance of alternating periods of activity and rest is essential to successful systemic change for several reasons. When energy is continually expended toward change adoption, employee performance often remains at rudimentary levels. The initial overload of learning and implementing new performance expectations may also generate frustration, anger, and cynicism among personnel, which can produce chaos that hampers goal achievement. Conversely, during periods of stability, energy is directed toward institutionalizing new procedures and practices. Progress is monitored, and accomplishments are celebrated. During this phase, resisters have time to learn how to work in changed environments, and leaders can direct their energy toward addressing the needs and expectations of those outside the organization (Abrahamson, 2004). Sustainability requires both perseverance and flexibility to develop organizational resiliency toward further change adoption. This necessary cycle of change—periods of activity and rest—is often misunderstood or ignored by educational change agents who fail to realize that change adoption requires significant time commitment and energy expenditure (Abrahamson, 2004; Fullan, 2005b). In particular, those most closely affected by the required change need time dedicated to adaptation, reflection, and performance improvement (Hall & Hord, 2006; Schlechty, 2001; Wagner et al., 2006).

26   T. Browne-Ferrigno Table 2.1. Required Elements for Leading Successful, Sustainable Innovation Eight Elements Element 1 Public Service with a Moral Purpose Element 2 Commitment to Changing Context at All Levels

Element 3 Lateral Capacity Building through Networks Element 4 Intelligent Accountability and Vertical Relationships Element 5 Deep Learning

Element 6 Dual Commitments to Short-term and Longterm Results Element 7 Cyclical Energizing

Element 8 The Long Lever of Leadership

Descriptions Collective efforts are required to raise achievement expectations and close gaps in student learning, to ensure social justice for individuals and organizational justice for institutions, and to improve social environments within schools and districts. Setting achievement goals and mandating changes alter only parts of an education system. Changing the context—to create the potential for sustained innovation—requires broad and purposeful interaction within and across all levels. Educational leaders at every level must instill and maintain a shared moral purpose for the desired change. Creating a system that sustains innovation requires leadership capacity building and collaborations with and among multiple stakeholder groups. Networks of like-minded individuals sharing common visions about the future provide the requisite synergy to expand innovation and support its sustaining influences. Change initiatives often create interconnected, systemic problems that must be appropriately identified and corrected. Openness in sharing problems, issues, and concerns requires communication avenues across and between all levels and shared commitment to that transparency through vertical relationships. Collective problem solving, adaptation, and continuous improvement foster deep learning in systems that sustain innovation. Deep learning through collective problem solving necessitates expanded interactions between and across all levels. Adaptation and continuous improvement are risk-laden activities because failure occurs often during early attempts at change—yet without risk-taking and failed attempts, second-order change rarely happens. An innovation-supporting system allows intelligent failure, a concept embracing both forgiveness and remembrance. Because innovation sustainability encompasses short- and long-term results, educational change agents need to set incremental targets and take appropriate action to obtain early results. Attaining shortterm benchmark goals is critical for sustaining goal achievement.

A repeating pattern of energy expended toward implementation followed by stable periods to allow for adaptation and reflection generates sustainable innovation. Sustainability of innovation requires leaders at all levels, not simply leadership by one individual or one group. Effective change agents build leadership capacity throughout their organizations, beginning when innovation efforts are first considered. Leaders at all levels sustain successful innovation through their collective efforts.

Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools   27

Methodology to Assess Sustainability of District Efforts The overarching goal of the Principals Excellence Program (PEP), the grant-supported leadership development program assessed in this chapter, was to ensure learning for all students in Pike County Public Schools (PCPS), a high-needs rural district in eastern Kentucky. This goal was achieved through three proposed objectives: 1. Create a new generation of skilled instructional leaders and nurture a culture of learning that influences recruitment, preparation, and selection of future school leaders; 2. Institutionalize a grow-your-own strategy for empowering instructional leaders throughout the local community and within the school community of students and parents; and 3. Model and evaluate a program of preparation, professional development, and reculturation of school leadership to ensure learning for struggling students, utilizing a partnership among the local high-need rural school district, the state’s larger land-grant university, and the regional public university that provides pre-service preparation. (USDE, 2004, p. 53) Because annual formative-evaluation reports and a summative evaluation after program conclusion were required for grant funding, a qualitative case-study design was used (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). Data collection continued at regular intervals from commencement of learning activities in January 2003 through June 2005 when the final leadershipdevelopment activities and group interviews were conducted. Since progressive data analysis was conducted concurrently with data collection to assess progress of participant learning and project implementation, various qualitative-analysis techniques were utilized (e.g., Kvale, 1996; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999). District administrators and cohort instructors conducted member checks of the numerous technical and research reports that were disseminated to assure their accuracy and authenticity (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Schwandt, 1997). Data Sources Data used for program evaluation were available from three sources. First, reflections by members of all participant and support groups (i.e., cohort members, mentor principals, cohort instructors) were gathered through questionnaires, surveys, and group interviews. The second data

28   T. Browne-Ferrigno

sources were generated through observations of participants during program activities (i.e., biweekly cohort meetings, three summer institutes, presentations to district audiences) and during school visits where cohort members engaged with their mentor principals in conducting action research on authentic student-learning issues. The final data sources were obtained from document reviews (e.g., participants’ application materials and team-based action research reports, district’s administrator evaluation protocol, school and district reports). The district leadership team (i.e., superintendent, assistant superintendent, director of curriculum and instruction, director of personnel) and two retired superintendents with close ties to the district (i.e., leadership consultant, cohort instructor) participated in two group interviews. The first was conducted by the author in late May 2004 to gather historical data about district efforts to develop school leaders prior to implementation of the funded project (Browne-Ferrigno & Allen, 2006). The second group interview was conducted by WestEd researchers during their July 2004 site visit to substantiate information about PEP for inclusion in Innovative Pathways to School Leadership (USDE, 2004). Study Participants The 3-year federal grant supported the delivery and evaluation of intensive leadership development for two cohorts composed of principals, assistant principals, and teachers holding administrator certification. All 30 cohort members provided insider perspectives about the impact of the program on their professional knowledge and leadership practices. Outsider perspectives were gained from district administrators, mentor principals, and cohort instructors. A total of 50 individuals participated in this multiyear case study. Contextual Influences Pike County spans the easternmost tip of Kentucky, bordering Virginia and West Virginia, a rugged region of Central Appalachia characterized by steep mountains and narrow hollows. The closest metropolitan center is Lexington, located approximately 150 miles northwest of Pikeville, the largest town in Pike County. Over the decade from 1990 to 2000, the county population decreased by 5.3% when the coal mining industry declined, a trend that continues to this day. Demographic statistics at the time the project proposal was developed indicated that approximately 33% of the households reported annual incomes under $15,000 (United States Census Bureau [Census], 2000). Because its 3-year unemployment and poverty rates were 1.5 times the national average, Pike County was designated for several years as a “distressed” region in Appalachia (Hilston, 2000).

Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools   29

When PEP was launched in January 2003, the population of the district’s service area was reported to be 98% “White persons, not of Hispanic/ Latino origin” (Census, 2000), a statistic that has not changed over time because most residents were either born in Pike County or in nearby counties. Although the population is not diverse according to culture, race, or nationality designations, significant differences are evident in the residents’ socioeconomic status, level of education, residence location, work opportunities or responsibilities, and life experiences. For example, high school graduates comprised 62% of the population over age 25, but only 10% within that group had completed a postsecondary degree despite local availability of several colleges and satellite campuses of a regional university. Less than 45% of the county’s residents, age 16 or older, were employed in the civilian labor force (Census, 2000). The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2000 report, Kentucky Kids Count, also painted a sobering picture of the conditions in which many of Pike County’s children and youth lived. Among children under the age of 18 at that time, 78% lived in neighborhoods where 20% or more of the residents were considered impoverished. When data for Pikeville were excluded from the dataset, evidence of poverty became more pronounced among the 11,000 children and youth served by PCPS. For example, the district’s average rate for student participation in the federal free or reduced-price meal programs was 69%, but some isolated schools had participation rates that reached 90% or above. Although community-based support services are available to PCPS schools located near Pikeville, those situated elsewhere do not receive any external support. Instead, many county schools serve as the primary center for support services in isolated communities. Chapter Framework What follows is an assessment of the district’s efforts to transform the principalship into a model of learner-centered leadership to improve school performance and student learning. Fullan’s (2005a) sustainability model introduced above served as the assessment framework; thus, the headings for the next eight major sections begin with a framework element number and abridged title followed by a descriptor for the component of the district initiative discussed in that section. Following those eight sections is the author’s prediction for sustained initiative impact that was included in the summative evaluation submitted in September 2006 to the USDE. The chapter closes with discussion about events during intervening years and author’s second assessment based on publicly available data in December 2013.

30   T. Browne-Ferrigno

Element 1: Service with Moral Purpose— New District Expectations The district began its service-with-moral-purpose transformation when a new superintendent was appointed in July 1998. He inherited an educational system hindered by a $1.5 million budget deficit and widespread complacency about low student achievement. The Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) and PCPS board members expected him to eliminate the deficit and transform the district. As a lifelong county resident and 42-year veteran educator (i.e., teacher, assistant principal, principal) in the district, he understood well the challenges he faced. His first task was to decrease employment throughout the system by eliminating 350 positions, further compounding the county’s high unemployment rate. Although KDE assigned two retired superintendents to serve as monitors who assisted with deficit elimination, only the superintendent could respond to the public’s varied responses to his initial actions. School Accountability Demands: Learning by All Students The Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 (KERA) reconstructed the commonwealth’s system of P–12 public schooling and introduced school accountability. Because previous PCPS superintendents did not focus on student learning as stipulated in KERA, by 1998 the district ranked among the lowest performing among the 176 within Kentucky at that time. After addressing immediate budgetary issues, the superintendent invited three district administrators to work with him as a leadership team to design and implement strategies focused on improving school and student performance. With a shared goal to transform the district into an exemplar of progressive growth, the team strategized ways to develop a shared belief among every district employee that all children can learn. The team thus introduced the “Success For All” slogan in 2000, which was used throughout the superintendent’s 8-year tenure. Preparing for Systemic Change: Transformation Challenges Among the many components of the district-initiated reform agenda were the creation and delivery of continuous professional development for principals that emphasized visionary instructional leadership. Seeds for a transformed principalship were thus sown, but two potential stumbling

Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools   31

blocks to achieving success became apparent. First, a survey of then-current principals revealed that most viewed themselves as competent managers, not instructional leaders. Successful achievement of the district’s studentlearning goals required principals with appropriate dispositions and skills for leading, monitoring, and assessing instructional programs. Second, the survey data projected principal vacancies in half the district’s schools due to potential retirements within 5 years. Many teachers working in the district held administrator certification, but few aspired to become principals because their intent in completing a graduate degree in educational administration was solely to increase their salaries. The pool of potential principal candidates was thus insufficient for projected needs. Element 2: Changed Context— Reconceptualized Leadership When it became evident that current principals were not prepared for the new leadership expectations, the leadership-team members brainstormed ideas about what an “ideal principal” would know and be able to do. Following are the eight defining characteristics of their envisioned ideal principal: (a) understands Kentucky’s core content and learning goals, (b) believes all children can learn at high levels, (c) has a thorough knowledge of curriculum and assessment, (d) demonstrates instructional leadership within the school community, (e) shows evidence of being a master teacher, (f) works well as a collaborative team member, (g) shows evidence of being a lifelong learner, and (h) understands the learning-teaching process. Guided by a shared vision of an ideal principal, the leadership team began transforming the culture of administrative practice within the district. Focused Outcomes: Student Learning and School Improvement During his first year of service, the superintendent changed the monthly principals’ meeting into “leadership academy” sessions focused on discussions and activities related to instructional leadership, rather than management issues. These changes emphasized new expectations and served as the catalyst for further innovation. The following year, the leadership team began developing principals’ skills in public relations and communication about student-learning issues. For example, after release of the school-accountability results in October 2000, “press conferences” were introduced. Principals and their school-based governance council members were required to present an assessment of their annual improve-

32   T. Browne-Ferrigno

ment activities at PCPS board meetings, sharing what they had done in their buildings to improve learning and teaching and projecting what more they needed to do. The press conferences forced principals to demonstrate publicly their abilities as instructional leaders. Changed Expectations: Standards-Based Leadership Practices In 1998, Kentucky adopted without modification the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 1996) as the framework for the preparation and evaluation of school administrators. However, in 2001 most practicing principals had only limited understanding about the Standards because they had completed their administrator preparation prior to Kentucky’s adoption of national standards. The superintendent hired a leadership consultant to facilitate professional development activities and provide on-site coaching support for principals. The consultant, one of the two KDE-appointed monitors during the early years of the superintendent’s tenure, was working at that time as a part-time trainer in the Kentucky Leadership Academy, an initiative sponsored by the Kentucky Association for School Administrators. He became an ex officio member of the PCPS leadership team. One activity facilitated by the leadership consultant during an academy session had far-reaching impact. Small groups of principals and district administrators were formed and charged with developing examples of school-leadership performance for each indicator within the six Standards. Although the groups struggled at first, they eventually became totally focused on the task and asked if they could work with their staffs to develop descriptions for multiple performance levels. According to the leadership consultant, this activity provided a “great opportunity for principals, teachers, and central office staff to talk about what the system expected, what good practice would look like, and how that would be implemented.” This widespread effort not only disseminated the vision of a principalship emphasizing leadership for learning, but also resulted in a new administrator evaluation rubric collaboratively developed by representatives from various district stakeholder groups. Achieving Critical Mass: External Catalyst Needed A sustained commitment to ensuring learning for all students, a new vision for school leadership, ongoing professional development, and collaboratively constructed performance expectations for principals introduced significant change within the district. Although the leadership-team

Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools   33

members were pleased with initial results, they wanted to move the transformation to critical mass. They designed a framework for a “principal’s excellence program” and then sought assistance from professors at the University of Kentucky (UK) in transforming their concept into a deliverable initiative. Element 3: Lateral Capacity Building— Principals Excellence Program A team of professors refined and expanded the leadership team’s concept into an advanced leadership-development program guided by four theories of action—situated learning, leadership mentoring, community building, succession planning (Browne-Ferrigno, 2007). The two program goals were to improve instructional leadership among practicing principals and to expand the pool of principal candidates. Thus, a unique feature of PEP was its cohort composition—equal participation by veteran and novice principals and teachers holding provisional administrator certification. The PCPS-UK partnership received a $500,000 grant from the USDE in October 2002 to implement and evaluate its novel leadership development plan during the funded 3 years. Unique Development Strategies: Program Design Two 15-member cohorts engaged in weekly learning activities throughout a calendar year (Cohort A: January–December 2003, Cohort B: January–December 2004) and facilitated learning activities for district and school administrators and teacher leaders during three project-sponsored summer institutes. The four recurring themes within the Standards (CCSSO, 1996)—“a vision for success, a focus on teaching and learning, an involvement of all stakeholders, a demonstration of ethical practice” (Hessel & Holloway, 2002 p. 21)—framed the curriculum. Every cohort member was released from work responsibilities one day each week to participate in program activities. On an alternating schedule, cohort members either (a) participated in a seminar-workshop facilitated by university professors and district administrators or (b) worked as small action-research teams at their assigned mentors’ schools. Capacity Building: New Perceptions About School Leadership At the midpoint of each cohort’s learning activities, participants were asked to share how participation was changing their perceptions about

34   T. Browne-Ferrigno

the principalship. A teacher aspiring to become an elementary principal reported that she had “learned that being a leader involves more than just running the school.” She realized that leaders must guide their staffs in identifying their own and their school’s strengths and weaknesses, building on the strengths and finding “ways to address weaknesses.” She concluded, “It’s all about educating children in a caring and more productive way.” A first-year principal reported that participating in the cohort activities made him aware of multiple required responsibilities of school leadership (e.g., organizing, prioritizing, listening, communicating) and helped him overcome his feelings of “isolation and incompetence.” He also learned that “even the most experienced administrator is taxed for time and energy to deal with the many demands of a principalship.” Veteran principals participating as cohort members likewise reported changes in their perceptions and practice as school leaders. For example, an elementary principal developed greater understanding about why “changing school culture is not an overnight project.” He also learned that it is “not a sign of weakness” for principals to acknowledge they are “not all knowing or all doing” and that “using valuable human resources” is critical. After participating in the program for three months, another veteran principal candidly admitted that at first he did not think he needed to participate. By program midpoint, however, he realized he needed to participate actively in the program in order “to better [his] district, school, and self.” Due to the required weekly absences, he also learned the value of distributing leadership responsibilities to staff members and trusting them to achieve what he delegated or expected. Element 4: Accountability and Relationships— Research and Mentoring Cohort members conducted collaborative action research on student-learning concerns twice during the program, first in an elementary school and then in a secondary school. While investigating instructional programs in settings other than where they worked, cohort members developed collegial relationships among themselves and with their mentor principals. The cross-school, administrator-teacher interactions expanded professional networks and support systems throughout the district. Purposeful Work: Student Learning Accountability Near the close of their yearlong program, participants were asked to describe how the leadership development activities helped them under-

Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools   35

stand accountability issues. An elementary principal described the program as a “needs-based curriculum tailored” to the district, which stimulated her thinking about student-learning issues in new ways. She also understood the importance of taking time “to reflect about the role of social justice” in her school. A Title I coordinator perceived that her peers understood more clearly the importance of closing education gaps. She also reported gaining new insights through conducting action research intended to make “learning equal for all students.” The team-based action research not only gave cohort members opportunities to work in schools other than their own, but also provided valuable information to the host schools. According to a mentor principal, Having a team come into the school, conduct research, gather and analyze data, and then share that information was useful to the principal and teachers in preparing next steps for improving instruction to increase student achievement. The [cohort members] brought an unbiased view to the school.

Furthermore, the principal and her leadership team used recommendations made by cohort members in their written report to “improve teaching and student achievement.” The principal valued the contributions of the inquiry team so much that she volunteered to mentor another inquiry team during the second year of program implementation. Lateral Capacity Building: Relationship Networks A novice principal benefited from “developing collegial relationships” with veteran administrators in the district. When faced with challenging issues, she felt “comfortable asking [district personnel] for advice or assistance.” One of the veteran principals who participated in PEP both as a cohort member and as a mentor perceived that having cohort members conduct action research in different schools provided “positive professional experiences,” particularly for teachers who in the past had not perceived themselves as leaders. The yearlong interactions with diverse principals and assistant principals instilled confidence in the teachers that they too could lead schools. Accountability and Networking: Key Program Elements Assigned readings in the program focused specifically on instructional leadership practices, and the cohort instructors provided a variety of

36   T. Browne-Ferrigno

learning activities to stimulate thinking about accountability, relationship networks, and distributed leadership. Although the mentor principals were trained to guide inquiry teams in conducting action research, they more importantly opened their schools to external scrutiny. They were present when the inquiry teams shared their research findings to the entire administrative community during a luncheon sponsored by the superintendent at the close of each semester. The mentor principals’ willingness to reveal publicly the problems in their schools exemplifies the deep learning that had been developed within the district. Element 5: Deep Learning— Continuous Improvement and Adaptation The instructors spent considerable time engaging cohort participants in perception-broadening activities that challenged them to explore issues systemically. Their intent was twofold: (a) to enhance collaboration and develop relational trust within the cohort and beyond and (b) to stimulate thinking about districts as educational systems. In their survey responses near the close of each cohort, participants assessed how well the program developed school leaders with competencies and skills to promote learning success for children and youth in rural schools. A high school teacher selected to be an elementary school principal a short time before beginning PEP reported that he learned to “better delegate authority” and “be a successful instructional leader” through participating in the program. A novice assistant principal perceived that “participants’ perspectives about education” were broadened and their abilities to “be more reflective, make research-based decisions, and develop leadership skills” in others were enhanced. Other respondents indicated that the program stimulated innovation because instructors encouraged cohort members to “think outside the box.” The focus on collaboration and cooperation helped an elementary teacher realize that she “worked for the district, and not just one school.” An elementary school principal who served as a PEP mentor for the first cohort volunteered to support a second inquiry team because the experiential-learning component of the program provided cohort members “opportunities to observe how school leaders addressed equity issues.” Further, because “the culture in eastern Kentucky is unique” and the mountainous terrain “limits collaboration” with educators at other schools,” she believed that each school in the district faced different challenges in promoting “learning and success for all children.” Being able to spend time in other schools and conduct collaborative action research greatly expanded cohort members’ understanding of instructional leadership expectations.

Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools   37

According to a participating teacher, PEP’s attention to rural education filled a void in the preparation of rural school leaders. While conducting the literature review for her team’s action-research report, she discovered that there was little information relevant to the challenges faced by “school leaders in rural districts.” She found the opportunities “to collaborate with each other in rural settings” to be quite meaningful. The district administrator responsible for evaluating school principals offered a different perspective about PEP’s contribution to developing leaders. Because few new residents relocate to eastern Kentucky, districts in that region of the commonwealth are “not able to recruit administrators” from elsewhere. As a result, these rural districts must be intentional about developing “school leaders with a broader scope of understanding” about their impact on student learning, which she asserted the PCPS-UK partnership program did. Element 6: Dual Commitments— Authenticity and Relevance The leadership team used the dual-commitment strategy to transform the principalship. By sharing broadly the team’s envisioned description of an ideal principal, members of important stakeholder groups working with the Standards were able to develop performance indicators aligned with new professional expectations. By requiring principals to share and discuss their schools’ improvement efforts and accountability results in various public venues, the broader community learned that instructional leadership is a critical component of the contemporary principalship. By cultivating a professional culture valuing continuous professional development, mentors were available to support cohort members who understood their weekly release from regular work responsibilities was valued by the district and critically important for their ongoing professional growth. The district’s model of leadership development assured authenticity and relevance. References to the powerful learning that occurred as a result of principals and teachers participating in cohorts together are evident throughout program-evaluation data. During a group interview following the final program-sponsored event, a veteran middle school principal stated that participating in PEP as a cohort member was “probably as close to … being a principal as you can get” without serving in that capacity. A peer described the interaction between administrators and teachers as “an eye opener for aspiring principals,” a way for them learn firsthand what is really required to lead schools—an experience he wished he had. Another revelation for him was that “the principalship doesn’t have to be isolated, lonely work.” The professional conversations and action-research collabo-

38   T. Browne-Ferrigno

ration among PEP participants were important components of reciprocal leadership development because they were authentic and relevant to school leadership in a high-need rural district. During a group interview with the leadership team and cohort instructors, a district administrator asserted that the field-based experiences were especially powerful because PEP participants understood “the role of the principal.” Participating teachers gained “the big picture” of school leadership, something that aspiring principals “typically do not gain during preservice preparation.” A high school assistant principal shared a similar perspective drawn from her dual experiences as a cohort member and a mentor: Participating in PEP gave practicing and aspiring administrators “a practical view of the role of principals” particularly because they used data they collected and analyzed to “address real problems in schools.” Additionally, a veteran teacher responded on the closing survey that “traditional models of professional development often present theory but do not link [it] to practice.” In the past she received “an abundance of resources” during training events but did not have opportunities “to practice what had been taught.” She particularly appreciated the field-based learning component of the program because she was able to integrate “theory and practice through actual experiences within schools and with other administrators.” Element 7: Cyclical Energizing— Intense Activity, But No Rest When the superintendent began his tenure in July 1998, many schools in his district were among the lowest performing in Kentucky based on school-accountability measures. The leadership team worked tirelessly for years to transform the district, and their efforts were noticed. The superintendent was selected by his peers as the Kentucky Superintendent of the Year for 2004 and recognized as a Top Ten Superintendent in the Nation by the American Association of School Administrators in 2005. A high school in a remote area of the district, once scheduled for closing due to poor performance, was recognized by KDE in 2005 as a pacesetter for its steady improvement. During the 4 years after launch of PEP in January 2003, district and school data (e.g., accountability test scores, graduation and attendance rates, disciplinary actions) evidenced improved academic and personal performance among students. The leadership team’s focus on learner-centered leadership development made a difference. Evidence of the second important component of cyclical energizing— stability creation—does not appear in program-evaluation data. In fact, during the final group interviews conducted in June 2005, cohort members and mentor principals talked positively about what they had learned, but

Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools   39

also candidly talked about their fatigue. Several stated they needed time to apply what they learned. Further, despite being reminded that the superintendent was eligible for retirement after completing his 47th year of service, the interviewees almost unanimously viewed him as the individual solely responsible for assuring sustainability of the district’s leadership development efforts. The superintendent and his fellow leadership team members were the driving force for change in the district, working tirelessly to develop principals and teachers willing and able to provide optimum learning opportunities for the students they served. Concurrent with PEP implementation, other initiatives aimed at improving learning, teaching, and leading were launched. The barrage of change initiatives without any periods of stability produced change overload for many district personnel. Element 8: Long Lever of Leadership— Leaders at All Levels The learning activities delivered through the leadership academy in the late 1990s began developing instructional leaders among then-current principals and school-based governance council members. These early efforts exemplified to the broader community the new school-leadership expectations in the district. Leadership capacity expanded further when veteran, novice, and aspiring principals worked together as PEP cohort participants. Peer mentoring stimulated growth for practicing and prospective principals alike and helped to reculture the principalship and expand the candidate pool. Principals who participated in the first PEP cohort learned the value of asking others to assume leadership responsibilities during their weekly absences, discovering in the process that building leadership capacity in their schools was an unanticipated but very welcomed outcome. The principals nominated their teacher leaders to participate in the second cohort, and, in turn, those teachers suggested ways for their cohort peers who were principals to distribute leadership within their schools. Based on analysis of program-evaluation data, PEP participants valued distributive leadership both as a means to develop future leaders and as a way to share instructional responsibilities. Sustainability Prospects, Challenges, and Possibilities The superintendent featured in the summative assessment above began changing leadership practices within his district soon after beginning his

40   T. Browne-Ferrigno

tenure. He identified key district administrators to work with him as a leadership team committed to transforming PCPS into a high-performing district focused on “Success For All” students. The team envisioned an ideal principal to reframe the principalship from school management to learner-centered leadership. The superintendent (a) converted monthly principal meetings into academy sessions focused on instructional-leadership development activities and (b) required principals and members of their school-governance councils to share their efforts to improve student learning during school board meetings. He then located a university partner to transform the team’s concept of a “principals’ excellence program” into an innovative approach to advanced leadership development. The district-university partnership received a grant from the newly created USDE School Leadership Program to implement and evaluate their leadership approach. Recognition of PEP as an innovative model for leadership development from external sources (USDE, 2004) coupled with improved accountability for student outcomes evidenced that district’s efforts yielded positive results (Browne-Ferrigno & Allen, 2006; BrowneFerrigno & Lindle, 2006). By 2006 the district had expanded its principal candidate pool and had a critical mass of PEP cohort members serving in leadership positions. Eleven of the 15 (73%) teachers who participated in PEP were then serving as assistant principals or principals or as KDE-appointed Highly Skilled Educator (HSE) working in low-performing schools in other districts within the commonwealth (see Table 2.2).

Table 2.2.  PEP Cohort Members’ Career Paths Project Beginning (Jan 2003) Total Participants (N=30)

Year After Project Ending (Jun 2006)

Teacher

Principal

Teacher

Principal*

HSE

Cohort A (n = 15)

7

8

2

11

1

Cohort B (n = 15)

8

7

2

12

1

*In June 2004, the district did not renew the annual contract for a principal participating in Cohort A; the opening was filled by a teacher member of Cohort A.

One of the most valuable lessons learned during PEP implementation was the powerful reciprocal learning that occurred by including principals and teachers in the cohorts. Working together weekly throughout a calendar year, outside their own schools and with educators from all three school levels, gave PEP cohort members opportunities to develop expertise in col-

Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools   41

laborative leadership and receive mentoring from veteran principals not responsible for performance evaluations. They also assumed major responsibilities for designing and facilitating the learning activities during three district-wide summer leadership institutes funded by the federal grant. The hierarchical framework of principal as leader and teacher as follower was replaced by a network of educational-leadership peers focused on improving schools and enhancing student learning. This peer-based framework was used successfully by the author and the leadership consultant in designing and delivering another federally funded project implemented in PSCS and two neighboring districts to develop instructional teams in high schools (Browne-Ferrigno, Ellis, & Thompson, in press). The summative assessment, prepared in September 2006 and presented above, suggested that six of the eight elements required for sustainability according to Fullan (2005a) were achieved. The assessment also revealed two potential stumbling blocks to long-term sustainability—absence of rest cycles to support change adaptation and evaluation, lack of a broad-based effort among leaders at all levels to sustain innovation—that appeared to influence events when district leadership changed. Changes in District Leadership After a 50-year career as an educator in PSCS, the superintendent who was the driving force for district innovation retired in June 2006. Despite his efforts at succession planning, the school board composed of a majority of recently elected new members selected a long-term elementary school principal to serve as superintendent, rather than the assistant superintendent. The new superintendent staunchly opposed his predecessor’s vision, particularly the transformation of the principalship from school management to instructional leadership and the community of administrative practice that had emerged during the previous 8 years. Many district initiatives were quickly dismantled. All remaining members of the leadership team under the previous superintendent retired within a year, and several former PEP cohort members assumed administrative positions outside the district. Dissatisfaction about changes within PCPS was evident in data collected by the author between June 2006 and August 2007 from principals and teachers participating in the grant-funded project to develop instructional leadership teams in high schools. When the PCPS superintendent announced his resignation in early 2012, the former director of personnel who retired in 2006 contacted a schoolboard member about the open position. According to a quote in an online news source, the 35-year veteran educator, who had worked in the district as a teacher and administrator, “saw an opportunity to lead in a way more focused toward academics” and thus submitted his application. The school board appointed him as the new superintendent, effective July 2012.

42   T. Browne-Ferrigno

Potential Prospects for Revitalized Sustainability At the commencement of the new superintendent’s tenure, PCPS served 9,450 students in Kindergarten through Grade 12, a population of 1,550 fewer students than a decade earlier. According to the 2011–2012 report card posted on the KDE website, under the previous superintendent’s leadership the district’s overall accountability performance score was 49.6 (out of 100); this score placed the district’s performance in the 18th percentile and resulted in a “needs improvement” classification. The 2012–2013 district report card suggests that the new superintendent’s “focus toward academics” efforts yielded positive outcomes after only one academic year: The district’s overall performance increased to 54.9, which was a 50th percentile score that changed the district’s classification from “needs improvement” to “needs improvement/progressing.” A “proficient” classification is awarded when district performance is a 70th percentile score. Personnel listings on the current district website indicate that four individuals who participated in PEP currently serve in district-level positions. Ten of the 20 regular schools within the district have former PEP cohort members or mentors serving as administrative-team members (e.g., principals, assistant principals, media specialists). A search via the open-access, online educator locator system maintained by the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board indicates that seven former PEP cohort members serve in administrative positions in other Kentucky districts— two as superintendents, four as principals or assistant principals, one as a media specialist. Another PEP cohort member, who began the program as a high school business teacher and served as principal for a PCPS middle school, is now the president of a local college. Table 2.3 displays the current employment status of the 30 cohort members based on publically available information.

Table 2.3.  PEP Cohort Members Employment Changes Project Ending (Jun 2006)

Current Employment (Dec 2013)

Total Participants (N=30)

Teacher

Principal

HSE

Teacher

Admina

Districtb

Otherc

Cohort A (n = 15)

2

11

1

0

6

4

5

Cohort B (n = 15)

2

12

1

1

9

2

3

a. School administrative staff (i.e., principal, assistant principal, media specialist). b. District office staff (i.e., superintendent, director, supervisor, resource teacher) and college president. c. Retired educators and individuals no longer working as educators.

Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools   43

The goal of expanding the principal candidate pool and assumption of school leadership positions by PEP cohort members was achieved as evidenced in data displayed in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 (i.e., teachers participating in PEP assumed administrative positions). Lessons Learned PEP emerged from collective efforts by the superintendent and leadership team members in a high-need rural district to reframe the principalship into a contemporary model of school leadership focused on learning and teaching—a change required by Kentucky education reform policy and challenged by the district’s economic distress, geographic isolation, and shortage of viable candidates for projected principalship vacancies. A partnership between PCPS and UK was formed to educate principals and administrator-certified teachers in instructional leadership, action research, and collaborative problem solving focused on improving student learning. The program curriculum and experiences not only created links across leadership practices and accountability expectations that are at the heart of KERA and No Child Left Behind, but also supported the district’s efforts to create a vibrant community of leadership practice. These complementary actions to change leadership constructs within the high-need rural school district are perhaps best described by Drath and Palus (1994): Whenever people are doing something together for any period of time extended enough to form a community, we can usefully think of the striving to make things make sense, to create meaning out of the experience, as the process of leadership—however that process plays out and with whatever participation by various individuals. (p. 25)

The vision of a superintendent and his leadership-team members for a changed leadership culture became a reality: Student academic achievement steadily improved during and several years following implementation of PEP. The recent hiring of a new superintendent who was directly involved in all aspects of the PCPS improvement efforts between 1998 and 2006 suggests his focus on academics will yield improved student-learning outcomes in the coming years. The career paths of former PEP cohort members indicate that many now serve in formal leadership positions within the district. According to Hargreaves and Fink (2006), “If change is to matter, spread, and last, sustainable leadership that stretches across many leaders must now also be a fundamental priority of the systems in which leaders to their work” (p. 272). One could speculate that the new superintendent has a sufficient number of former PEP participants in leadership positions

44   T. Browne-Ferrigno

to support his focus-on-academics initiative, but the only way to discover if there is any sustained impact of earlier leadership-development efforts on current practice is through disciplined inquiry conducted within the district. Acknowledgment This research was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education School Leadership Program. References Abrahamson, E. (2004). Change without pain: How managers can overcome initiative overload, organizational chaos, and employee burnout. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2000). Kentucky kids count. Louisville, KY: Kentucky Youth Associates. Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2007). Developing school leaders: Practitioner growth during an advanced leadership development program for principals and administrator-trained teachers. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(3), 1–30. Retrieved from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ958856.pdf Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Allen, L. W. (2006). Preparing principals for high-need rural schools: A central office perspective about collaborative efforts to transform school leadership. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 21(1), 1–16. Retrieved from http://www.jrre.psu.edu/articles/21-1.pdf Browne-Ferrigno, T., Ellis, A. P., & Thompson, M. D. (in press). Promising practices for developing teacher leaders in high schools: Job-embedded mentoring for principals. In L. Searby & S. Brondyk (Eds.), Mentoring practices for teacher and leader development. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Lindle, J. C. (2006). Kentucky’s collaborative model for developing school leaders for rural high-need schools: Principals Excellence Program. In A. Danzig, K. Borman, B. Jones, & W. Wright (Eds.), Learnercentered leadership: Policy, research, and practice (pp. 171–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, M. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Drath, W. H., & Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common sense: Leadership as meaning-making in a community of practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and real-life problems of innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Preparing Principals for High-Need Rural Schools   45 Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer. Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer. Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Fullan, M. (2005a). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Fullan, M. (2005b, February). Resiliency and sustainability. The School Administrator, 16–18. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 3–41. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X05277975 Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Hessel, K., & Holloway, J. (2002). A framework for school leaders: Linking the ISLLC Standards to practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Hilston, J. (2000, November 26). Online graphic: Distressed counties in Appalachia, 2000. PG News. Retrieved from http://post-gazette.com/headlines/ Kentucky Education Reform Act, Kentucky Revised Statute, KRS 160.345 (1990). Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Labaree, D. F. (2006). Innovation, nostalgia, and the politics of educational change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 157–164. Retrieved from http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X05278194 LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Quinn, R. E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rust, F. O., & Freidus, H. (Eds.). (2001). Guiding school change: The role and work of change agents. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of education reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the school house: How to support and sustain educational innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Senge, P. Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York, NY: Currency. Short, P. M., & Greer, J. T. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from innovative efforts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

46   T. Browne-Ferrigno Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. United States Census Bureau. (2000). Pike Count, Kentucky. Retrieved from http:// quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/21/21195.html United States Department of Education. (2004, December). Innovations in education: Innovative pathways to school leadership. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/recruit/prep/alternative/report.pdf Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahey, L., Lemons, R. W., Gainier, T., Helsing, D., Howell, A., & Rasmussen, H. T. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chapter 3

Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development Lessons From a Collaboration Between an Urban School District, a State Leadership Institute, and a University Leadership Program Arlie Woodrum, Allison M. Borden, David Bower, Sharon Olguin, and Linda Paul

Abstract University principal preparation programs have been criticized for lacking selectivity in admissions, being academically weak, and all too often, being disconnected from the day-to-day challenges of schools and communities. In order to train more effective leaders for public schools, preparation programs require up-to-date research applied in real-life situations, as well curricula that draw upon the intellectual and experiential resources of a variety of

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 47–70 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

47

48    A. Woodrum et al. partners. This chapter presents the 3-year outcomes of one such partnership between a university, a school district, and a state institute that has created and supported learning for effective school leadership.

Introduction In order for states and school districts to meet the challenges of increased academic standards it is imperative that principal preparation programs train more effective school leaders. University leadership training programs have been criticized for lacking selectivity in their admissions, for being academically weak, and too often for being disconnected from the realities of schools and communities (Levine, 2005; Mitgang, 2012). It is becoming increasingly clear, therefore, that universities need up-to-date research applied in real-life situations, as well as collaborative training programs that draw upon the intellectual and experiential resources of a variety of partners (Barnett, 2005; Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007; Elmore, 2004; Leithwood, Lewis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). In addition, aspiring leaders must come to understand, respect, and act in accordance with a range of perspectives about the challenges and goals of education. Finally, the understanding of university faculty themselves needs to evolve in terms of what it means to effectively promote leadership development through their programs. This chapter presents the experience of how one such collaboration through a university-school district-state partnership has created and supported learning for effective school leadership. Context School leadership preparation programs have been under scrutiny for over three decades. Recommendations for changes were issued by such diverse entities as the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration and the National Association of Elementary School Principals (Jackson & Kelley, 2002), the Southern Regional Education Board (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001; Norton, 2002), and the Wallace Foundation (Mitgang, 2003), as individual authors continued to criticize university programs for lacking relevance and rigor (Hess & Kelly, 2007; Levine, 2005). These training programs have been criticized for lacking selectivity in their admissions (Duke et al., 2005; Levine, 2005; Steiner & Hassel 2011). Levine (2005) reported that admissions criteria for many school leadership programs are lower than those in other education programs. Results of low criteria include ease of access to courses, student desire

Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development   49

for credit completion rather than preparation, and poor writing abilities (Levine, 2005, p. 33). Leadership programs are also described as being academically weak. Levine (2005) cited irrelevant curriculum as a significant factor. Survey and theoretical courses often dominate the majority of principal preparation programs. A focus on teaching and learning may become lost in other course requirements. Courses are often disconnected from the realities of schools. Additionally, student evaluations reveal concerns about out-of-date textbooks, or courses taught by faculty members who have not worked in schools as principals, or who have not had school connections for many years (Steiner & Hassel, 2011; Duke et al., 2005; Levine, 2005). Finally, programs are too often criticized for being disconnected from the realities of schools and communities. Hess and Kelly (2007) reported a very small percentage—perhaps only 6 to 7%— of principal preparation courses address accountability and data use in relation to leading school improvement. Many programs do not adequately prepare principals to lead schools towards improved student achievement, focusing rather on technical management skills and procedures. Levine (2005) added that many programs have weak field-based experiences with inadequate supervision and experiences that do not bridge theory and practice. Effective Leadership Characteristics and Development Bottoms and O’Neill (2001) identified thirteen characteristics of successful principals, including the ability to create a culture of student value and support, a focus on academic achievement, and use of data, partnerships, and professional development to support learning. Leadership preparation programs, they argued, must be based on successful school improvement models, create a quality internship, and incorporate the knowledge of both education and business leaders. Orr, King, and LaPointe (2010), in their study of eight urban school districts, examined the relationships between universities and school districts. Four research areas were studied. In the area of school districts as consumers of principal preparation programs, a key implication was the importance of districts and universities creating a clear understanding of the knowledge and skills that principals need, and then working together to design responsive programs. The second research area, the core quality of program features as described in research, concluded that districts and universities must collaborate to identify knowledge and skills, and then translate these into instructional strategies. Third, the organizational relationships of districts and university programs implied possibilities to identify, admit, and prepare principal candidates and to support them into

50    A. Woodrum et al.

their placement in schools. Finally, it was clear that district context affects the university relationship in terms of meeting specific district needs while addressing broad skills development. In addition, aspiring leaders must come to understand, respect, and act in accordance with a range of community perspectives about the challenges and goals of education. Auerbach (2012) cited political awareness, cultural competence, and interpersonal skills as key abilities needed by aspiring leaders as they develop strong partnerships with families. The abilities to listen and to facilitate partnerships are critically important. Leaders who have a strength-based perspective will fare better as they work to identify partners who can build and maintain successful schools. Finally, university faculty themselves need to change their understandings of what it means to effectively promote leadership development through their programs (Barnett, 2005). Orr (2006) framed leadership development as both formal and informal experiences. Among the innovative program features that have the most promise are a cohort structure, redesigned supportive program structures, and revised instructional content (Orr & Orphanos, 2011). Standards-based curriculum and internships with more intensity also show positive results (Orr & Orphanos, 2011). Leadership Preparation and Development in New Mexico In early 2008, the New Mexico State Legislature passed Senate Joint Memorial 3 (SJM3). The legislation called for plans to improve the “quality of school leadership through recruitment, preparation, mentoring, evaluation, professional development and support for school principals and other educational leaders” (The Legislature of the State of New Mexico, 2008, p. 1). Senate Joint Memorial 3 also called for a redesign of required core courses for New Mexico principal preparation programs. In response to and as required by SJM3, three New Mexico state education agencies: the Office of Education Accountability, the Public Education Department, and the Higher Education Department, worked together over the course of 2008 to prepare a report to the New Mexico Legislative Education Study Committee (Winograd, García, & Dasenbrock, 2008). Those three entities held work sessions and focus groups across the state in which faculty from University of New Mexico (UNM) and other public universities offering educational leadership programs took part. Once the final report was submitted to the New Mexico Legislative Education Study Committee in December of 2008, educational leadership program faculty (including representatives from the UNM) met regularly for nearly 3 academic years (2008–2011) to collaboratively modify the existing, core courses for

Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development   51

administrative licensure at the five institutions to respond to the recommendations in the final report (Winograd, García, & Dasenbrock, 2008). The Educational Leadership Program at the University of New Mexico responded by revising the objectives, the learning outcomes, and assessments for the following five core courses that were part of the administrative licensure sequence prior to the passage of SJM3: • • • • •

LEAD 503: Data-Informed Instructional Leadership LEAD 509: Leadership and Organizational Change LEAD 521: School Finance and Resource Allocation LEAD 560: Instructional Leadership, Supervision, and Evaluation LEAD 561: Legal Issues for School Leaders

The report (Winograd, García, & Dasenbrock, 2008) also suggested revisions for the administrative internship (LEAD 596), which is required in addition to the five core courses. Some of the recommendations for the internship included: • Full year release time paid internship; • Project-based focus and opportunities for on the job learning; • Intern needs to have access to all components of school principal role; • Sustained, continuous internship program – at least one or two semesters; • On-the-job training with no classroom obligation and interruption; • Have a beginning–middle–end of year component; • Internship should include time away from the classroom for an extended period of time; a paid substitute should be in the classroom in order for the intern to fully have the impact of the principalship; • Make the theory to practical application connection; • Opportunities for mentors/new principal/students to reflect with each other; • Opportunities to learn from multiple practitioners; and, • Experience in schools with poverty. Due to a lack of state resources, suggested changes such as the full-year paid internship and the on-the-job training without classroom obligations were never enacted. However, other suggestions such as making the internship more project-based with greater emphasis on theory-to-practice became a regular feature of the internship.

52    A. Woodrum et al.

University, District, and Program Collaborations In 2006, in response to the national conversation about leadership preparation and in particular to Albuquerque Public Schools (APS), a small group of faculty at the University of New Mexico undertook a pilot project to transform its leadership preparation program emphasizing the importance of “multi-institutional partnerships, a willingness to hold classes beyond the university’s walls,” and working “more closely with the institutions that influence how educators think and act” (Borden, Preskill, & DeMoss, 2012, p. 124). The pilot project sought to integrate leadership development, school improvement, and university transformation and took into account research on educational reform and leadership preparation (Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Murphy, 2002; Oliva & Anderson, 2006; Orr, 2006; Orr, King, & LaPointe, 2010). Just over 2 years later another effort was undertaken to develop a partnership between APS and UNM (Browne-Ferrigno, 2004; Whitaker, 2006) to support APS in an initiative to grow its own school leaders (Hix, Wall, & Frieler, 2003). The recruitment letter described a partnership to “design authentic and relevant graduate level programs with internship experiences embedded throughout the programs” (Render, personal communication [recruitment letter], 2008, p. 1). A cohort of nine students completed the program. The successful completion of the program by all participants was certainly an important and primary outcome of the partnership, but perhaps of equal importance was the establishment of lines of communication between APS and UNM that contributed to the possibility of developing a more sustained partnership to prepare school leaders (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001; Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Norton, 2002). School Leadership Program Grant—Alliance for Leading and Learning (ALL) The U.S. Department of Education’s School Leadership Program (USDoE, 2010) presented an opportunity to formalize and expand a partnership to prepare leaders for Albuquerque’s public schools. On April 5, 2010, an application for a School Leadership Program grant was submitted. The proposal described a project “to establish a cohesive, comprehensive, and rigorous program that will support school principals, with special emphasis on those serving in high need schools” and to “support principals across their careers, from aspiring to beginning to experienced principals. Partners with the Albuquerque Public Schools in this program will be the University of New Mexico and the New Mexico School Leadership Institute” (School Leadership Program Grant Application, 2010, p. 21). The

Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development   53

three partners named in the grant adopted the name Alliance for Leading and Learning (ALL), to recognize “one of the longest school/university partnerships in the history of American public education” as well as the newly constituted New Mexico School Leadership Institute and its instrumental role to extend “the conversation about school leadership across the state” (School Leadership Program Grant Application, 2010, p. 32). In August 2010, the Alliance for Leading and Learning (ALL) received a 5-year, $3.7 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s School Leadership Program. The partnership sought to accomplish the following goals: 1. Be an authentic collaboration between an urban school district, a public university, and a statewide center to support school leaders; 2. Be more selective in choosing candidates for principal training; 3. Create a pre-service curriculum that focused on improved instruction and school change; 4. Deliver all courses as collaboratively designed and taught by university professors and district principals; 5. Adopt a core curriculum that was aligned to ISSLC Standards and New Mexico State Principal Evaluation Domains; 6. Incorporate a full-time, one-semester Internship for students in the district’s schools; and, 7. Provide professional mentoring for the first year that students were in the position of principal or assistant principal. As recipients of a U.S. Department of Education School Leadership Grant, we designed in the summer of 2010 a curriculum aligned to Interstate Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards and State Principal Evaluation Domains and a principal leadership development program that would: 1. Be more selective in choosing candidates for principal training (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Mitgang, 2012); 2. Be built on a cohort model (Barnett, Basom, Yerkes, & Norris, 2000; Whitaker, King, & Vogel, 2004); 3. Create a preservice curriculum that focused on improved instruction and school change (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Elmore, 2004; Leithwood et al., 2004); 4. Deliver all courses as collaboratively designed and taught by university professors and district principals (Barnett, 2005);

54    A. Woodrum et al.

5. Incorporate a full-time, one-semester internship for students in the district’s schools (Perez, Uline, Johnson, James-Ward, & Basom, 2010); and, 6. Provide professional mentoring during the first year that students were in the position of principal or assistant principal. Recruitment and Selection for the ALL Program Beginning in the fall of 2010, information on our new tuition-supported principal licensure program (a district-wide mailing, as well as an e-mail to all teachers originating in the APS Superintendent’s office) had been widely circulated in the large, urban school district. Additionally, current principals were urged to nominate educators in their schools who exhibited leadership potential. Information sessions for interested educators were advertised, delivered, and subsequently very well attended. This was a competitive process to select up to 15 members for each cohort (the grant allowed for 15 candidates per cohort per year, for a total of 75 graduates over a 5 year period). Beginning with the first cohort in spring 2011, the training of each cohort lasted three semesters (spring-summer-fall), with the full-time internship taking place in the final, fall semester. Applicants were required to have an MA, take the Principal Insight Assessment, submit an application packet that included a personal narrative and three letters of recommendation from current or former supervisors, and participate in a personal interview with a panel composed of university, school district, and state educators. State, district, and university educators jointly selected the participants for each cohort. Table 3.1 displays information on the total number of applicants for four of the five cohorts funded by the grant, the number of applicants that were invited to the interview phase, the number accepted and completed . Table 3.1.  ALL Program Application, Selection, and Completion Data as of November 2013 Applied

Cohort 1–2011

Cohort 2–2012

Cohort 3–2013

Cohort 4–2014

36

28

26

17

Interviewed

35

22

17

14

Accepted

14

13

15

13

Completed

13

12

13

12 began course work in January 2014

Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development   55

The distribution of participants by grade level varied over the four cohorts, with the majority of aspiring principals in Cohorts 1 and 2 coming from elementary schools. As seen in Table 3.2, there has been increased participation from applicants at the middle and high school levels with Cohorts 3 and 4. Female participants make up the vast majority in all four cohorts: 11 of 13 for Cohort 1, 10 of 12 for Cohort 2, 11 of 13 for Cohort 3, and 12 of 13 for Cohort 4. When compared to gender, the information in Table 3.3 reveals there is a somewhat more balanced representation in terms of race and ethnicity.

Table 3.2.  ALL Program Participants’ School-Level Information as of November 2013 Grade Levels

Cohort 1–2011

Cohort 2–2012

Cohort 3–2013

Cohort 4–2014

Elementary

7.5*

10

4.5

5

Middle School

1.5*

5.5

2

  2

5

High School

74

District

11

1

11

*.5 = shared elementary middle school placement

Table 3.3. Race/ethnicity of ALL participants Cohort 1

Cohort 2

Cohort 3

Cohort 4

White/Caucasian

7

6

7

10

Hispanic

6

5

5

  3

African American

1

One major purpose of the grant is to enable APS, in partnership with UNM and the New Mexico School Leadership Institute, to “grow its own” school leaders. Table 3.4 presents the placements to-date for the three cohorts that have completed the program.

ALL Program Curriculum The curriculum is comprised of UNM’s five core, 3-credit hour courses: Leadership and Organizational Change; Instructional Leadership, Supervision,

56    A. Woodrum et al. Table 3.4.  Placements Upon Completion of the All Program Cohort 1–2011

Cohort 2–2012

Cohort 3–2013

Principal

1

3

1*

Assistant Principal

8

6

6

Dean of Students

1 1

1

2

4

District Teacher

3

*Hired in April 2014 to be a principal in the 2014-2015 school year.

and Evaluation; School Finance and Resource Allocation; Legal Issues for School Leaders; and, Data Informed Instructional Leadership. Participants in the ALL Program take these five courses and also complete a six-credit one semester, full-time internship in APS for a total of 21 credit hours. The core curriculum grew out of a process undertaken at the administrative licensure program level as part of an effort to redesign K–12 leadership in New Mexico. In a Wallace Foundation-supported, 2-year effort, a team from UNM’s Educational Leadership Program, working with lead faculty from four other state universities, created a set of five core courses with common learning objectives and a framework for the administrative licensure. These changes were reflected in increased collaboration with district stakeholders and a practice-based set of educational experiences for students. The faculty members also aligned course content with best practices, such as the learning objectives and outcomes identified by the New Mexico State Legislature in Senate Joint Memorial 3 work, the competencies outlined by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the six standards identified by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), and with the “understandings, practices, and identities” in the conceptual framework determined by the UNM College of Education as important to the redesign work. The syllabus for each of the courses taught in the ALL program reflects all of these connections. The ALL Internship As described in the UNM Course Catalog (University of New Mexico, 2013–2014), the administrative internship provides significant opportunities in field-based experiences for interns to develop the skills, knowledge, and practices identified in the New Mexico Administrator Competencies, the Interstate School Leaders Licensing Consortium Standards, and the

Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development   57

National Policy Board for Educational Administration Standards through substantial, sustained, standards-based work in real settings, planned and guided cooperatively by UNM and school district personnel. The UNM Educational Leadership Program offers two types of internships. One, the more traditional, includes students from many schools and districts in New Mexico who are completing either a master’s or educational specialist (post-master’s) program. The internship usually takes place at the home teaching school since no release time is available. A significant challenge in the traditional program is finding substantial time for the internship work. The second type of internship is the ALL grant-funded collaborative cohort program. For both traditional and cohort internships, there are many similarities: • Courses required for licensure in New Mexico, which were revised in order to meet the goals of NM Senate Joint Memorial Bill 3. • A field-based internship. • Development of an evidence-based action plan, which sets goals for activities that meet state competencies. • Cooperating principal evaluations. • Field-based assignments. • Regular visits by UNM field supervisors. • Weekly seminars to support the internship. The ALL program includes the requirements of the traditional program and also offers significant options to the internship and course work: • A residency internship in a school other than the student’s home school. The residency provides depth of experience (a full semester of administrative work) in a role much like that of a full time assistant principal. Staff members see interns only as an administrator. They do not have dual roles as teachers and interns in the same school. • Supervision by an experienced cooperating principal selected by the ALL Grant Management Team. Cooperating principals must have many years of experience as a principal, a proven record of success, and ability to work with diverse populations. • Cohort-based courses for a “learning community” setting. • Instruction and internship based directly on APS programs, needs, and requirements. Course activities are connected directly to current APS practices such as supervision and evaluation, budgeting, and curriculum.

58    A. Woodrum et al.

• APS coteachers. Each UNM course in the ALL cohort is cotaught by an APS principal. The coteachers help to link current practice to the theory, which is part of all UNM educational leadership courses. While both the traditional and cohort internship programs offer quality preparation for aspiring principals, the ALL cohort has the potential to significantly meet the leadership needs of APS—and those of the State – by working with highly qualified cooperating principals, interns learn the “best practices,” which support highly effective schools. The residency internship at a school where the intern does not teach eliminates the dual and sometimes conflicting role of teacher and intern. This also provides in-depth experiences and opportunities to assume the full scope of duties of an administrator. The ALL program begins in January with enrollment in two classes. In addition to these classes, students also work on a limited number of preinternship experiences in their home schools where they teach. Some of these experiences are linked to the two courses. In addition, they plan and complete one project, which addresses the NM principal competencies. They also write two reflections on their experiences and personal growth, and they spend the time available to them in collaboration with their principals. The goal of the spring pre-internship is to build a foundation for the fall residency internship. In late spring, the ALL cohort residency internship begins with the process of matching the intern with a veteran cooperating principal who will serve as mentor. Interns complete an interest inventory, which identifies their strengths, goals, leadership characteristics they value, programs with which they hope to work (bilingual, special education, etc.) and school grade level. Principals interested in serving as mentors also apply for their positions by summarizing their experiences, strengths, and goals for an intern. Faculty members who were instructors during spring courses also offer insights about the interns’ strengths, needs, and dispositions. The ALL management team assembles the applications, faculty insights, a profile of the school, and makes tentative matches of intern and cooperating principal. APS associate superintendents made the final decision about the placements. Interns meet their cooperating principals in late April or early May. They spend a half-day at the new school and arrange for follow-up visits during the summer. Interns also arrange to acquire copies of the school budget to use as a resource in their June School Finance course. The fall internship begins when principals are back on contract in late July. A UNM field supervisor meets with the principal and intern to review goals of the internship, documents including an intern handbook, project

Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development   59

planning forms, a School Operations Inventory, and other resources. The School Operations Inventory is a list of school aspects that interns must know about such as budget, schedules, staff rosters, equipment operation (fire drills, bell system), keys, school map, bus schedules, and so on. The Inventory allows interns to work independently with other staff members to acquire information. This is especially helpful when principals are attending to other obligations. Some examples of ALL internship experiences and projects include: • Classroom walk-throughs and data collection; • Student support/intervention initiatives; • Assessment, planning, and revision of the school’s Educational Plan for Student Success; • Working with diverse populations that differ from home teaching school populations; • School presentations to school, community, and/or district leaders; • Assuming a leading administrator role with PLCs, staff meetings, and school-based committees; and, • Participation in district-level committees including curriculum, budget, and assessment. Highlights From ALL Program Evaluation Reports From the early stages of the project we planned to conduct an ongoing evaluation of the students’ experiences in this program, drawing on several data sources. These sources included formal program evaluation reports carried out independently by Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) at the end of each semester (including summer sessions), completion of professor-administered questionnaires at the end of courses, instructor evaluations submitted anonymously by students, and interviews conducted with students’ mentoring principals. Most of the focus group session work conducted by McREL was targeted on questions about different elements of the program design and its effectiveness. The evaluation processes were developed to uncover answers to these questions (McREL, 2013, p. 4): • Does the ALL program system for recruiting, supporting, and collaborating in the preparation of teacher leaders result in administrative licensure and placement in principal and assistant principal positions?

60    A. Woodrum et al.

• What kinds of support, assistance, and mentoring does the ALL program provide to novice principals and assistant principals in the induction year (1 to 3 years), particularly those placed in high needs schools? • Does the support, assistance, and mentoring provided by the ALL program to novice principals and assistant principals have an impact on principal practices and student performance? • What kinds of support, renewal, and career enhancement does the ALL program provide to currently practicing principals, particularly those in high needs schools? • Does the support, renewal, and career enhancement provided by the ALL program to currently practicing principals have an impact on principal practices and student performance? For this section, we primarily drew on data from the Year 3 program evaluation report prepared by McREL (2013). The program evaluation reports were prepared from data where evidence [was] collected through a variety of methods, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, and the collection of artifacts. All protocols for primary data collection activities were drafted by McREL evaluators and revised in collaboration with ALL staff. These protocols were intentionally aligned with the evaluation questions. (McREL, 2013, p. 4)

See Table 3.5 (McREL, 2013, p. 5) for the 2013 data collection methods and the numbers of participants from each group. The McREL evaluators “audio-recorded and transcribed” the interviews and focus groups and “transcripts were analyzed using an iterative process through which major themes were identified and summarized” (McREL, 2013, p. 5). The evaluators also administered online surveys and conducted quantitative analyses that “included calculation of means and/or examination of frequency distributions” (p. 5). “Artifacts provided by UNM course instructors were reviewed for content in alignment with the research questions” (McREL, 2013, p. 5). Key Findings From the Coursework Component of the Program In this section, we highlight the benefits of the coteaching model, the knowledge and experiences critical for the success of future school leaders, and the relationship between the coursework and the New Mexico Highly

Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development   61

Objective Uniform Statewide Standard of Evaluation for Principals and Assistant Principals (HOUSSE-P).1

Table 3.5.  Data Collection Methods by Participant Group for Year 3 Evaluation Participant Group

Data Collection Method

Target Number of Participants

Actual Number of Participants

University of New Mexico (UNM) Instructors/APS Coinstructors

Interview Artifacts

8 4 (course syllabi)

8 4 (course syllabi)

Home School Principals

Survey

17

13

Aspiring Principals (Cohort 2)

Survey

12

12

Aspiring Principals (Cohort 3)

Survey 1

14

14

Survey 2

14

14

Focus Group

14

14

Survey

19

19

Focus Group

19

19

New Principals

Assistant Principals

Peer Mentors

PLC Members

Survey

29

28

Focus Group

29

18

Survey

18

17

Focus Group

18

18

Survey

8

7

Coteaching was found to be a “positive and beneficial experience” where the UNM instructor and the APS principal co-instructor “valued the insights and experiences of their counterparts (McREL, 2013, p. 8). The benefits of serving as coinstructors included “increased reflection upon and examination of personal practice, as well as changes to teacher observation, evaluation, and professional development processes” (McREL, 2013, p. 8). Participants from all three cohorts generally appreciated the coteaching model, offering “positive comments about the coinstructors’ partnership and flexibility” (McREL, 2013, p. 24). Three of the four coteaching teams from 2012 continued to work together in 2013, a process that allowed for “a fluid exchange of teaching and learning together” and the opportunity

62    A. Woodrum et al.

to “build upon each other’s strengths and improve and refine their respective courses” (McREL, 2013, p. 8). After 11 semesters of course work,2 the knowledge and experiences the instructor teams “believe are critical to the success of future administrators” include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Classroom walkthroughs and observations; How to move forward with a school improvement process; An understanding of the principal’s role as an instructional leader; An understanding of how a school’s culture and climate can affect the success of a school’s initiatives; An understanding of the connections among school systems and processes and their role in school improvement; An understanding of process-based rather than program-based work; Collaborative group work; Insights from a practicing administrator; The ability to present a school budget to colleagues and articulate the budget details; An understanding of how state and federal funding connects to district and school funding; and, A foundation of basic school law cases (McREL, 2013, pp. 14–15).

Alignment of Program Components With HOUSSE-P The five courses and the internship are aligned with the New Mexico Highly Objective Uniform Statewide Standard of Evaluation for Principals and Assistant Principals (HOUSSE-P). All New Mexico principals and assistant principals must meet the competencies in four domains, with a fifth domain reserved for middle and high school principals. As part of the evaluation process conducted by McREL, aspiring principals in the ALL program report on their perceived growth in the HOUSSE-P competencies. Generally speaking, students agree or strongly agree that their course work contributed to their growth in the HOUSSE-P domains. Feedback from instructors, aspiring principals, and mentor principals recognized the importance of continuing to “emphasize the HOUSSE-P domains and indicators in university classes” (McREL, 2013, p. 76). Key Findings Related to the Internship Component of the Program The ALL Program, as was mentioned earlier in the chapter, includes a one-semester, full time residency component that serves as the administrative

Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development   63

internship. This approach is well supported by the literature (see, e.g., Perez et al., 2010) and has been central to the students’ success and their perceptions of being prepared to assume building-level leadership positions as evidenced by the evaluation reports (McREL, 2013). Based on the 2010 program evaluation, several adjustments were made to the fall internship. A formal midpoint review was scheduled for late September. Interns wanted to know exactly how they were doing, what progress was being made, and what goals might be set for the remainder of the semester. Cooperating principals completed a formative evaluation, interns completed a self-evaluation, and field supervisors met with the principal and intern to review the documents. Progress on the School Operations Inventory often provided additional information. After the midpoint review, the intern, principal, and supervisor had a clearer understanding of progress and goals. Another program change based on evaluations was to set “target experiences.” During the first year residency internship it was clear that schools, principals, and internship opportunities varied greatly. The goal of the target experiences was to provide for more similarities across the internships. These goals included: (1) Cluster-based experience and collaboration with principals (clusters are the high school, middle schools, and elementary schools that feed to each other); (2) Presentations to school and to a larger community (cluster, school level, district committee, etc.); (3) Teacher observations (nonofficial) and classroom walk-throughs; (4) Interviewing candidates for positions; and, (5) Full assumption of administrative duties for the office of principal and/or assistant principal for duration to be determined by the cooperating principal. During the fall internship, interns attend weekly seminars with the cohort. The seminars are held in the schools where they are interning and their principals visit the seminar that they host. Initially, the seminars offer time for interns to share their experiences, process their challenges, and offer support. After a few weeks interns often take the lead with seminar topics. One example of this was in the fall of 2013 when interns were working with a new teacher evaluation system in New Mexico. Several interns led discussions of classroom teaching videos and discussed the calibration process of applying new evaluation rubrics to actual classroom practices. Three cohorts of ALL interns have completed the program as of December 2013. Transition points in the internship cause considerable stress and concern. The first transition is beginning the residency internship by meeting the cooperating principal and school staff. Field supervisors and ALL management team members try to provide extra support with this process including a group social event for introductions, personal field

64    A. Woodrum et al.

visits with the principal and intern during the summer, and sharing some “frequently asked questions” from prior cohorts. Interns inevitably compare their experiences and on occasion there is some jealousy around what seems to be a better placement, or a nice principal, or more opportunities that colleagues seem to have. We tried to discourage these inevitable comparisons by likening the internship to boats in a river. Interns are not all in the same boat; they are in the same river, but their boats are very different. The boat is less important than the journey. The transition back to the “home school” after the residency internship was a challenge for many interns. One intern said she felt like “a puzzle piece that no longer fit.” The home school had already started the year; staff may have changed; some schools now had a new principal. Field supervisors offered individual guidance to help interns with this transition. The topic of “getting your life back” after the internship was highlighted at a November internship seminar. Former interns often attended a seminar to discuss their own experiences with this challenge and to offer tips and strategies. Finally, the issue of providing a safe and supportive environment was significant. Occasionally an intern would question the reason for the residency internship placement. During one situation, the intern was denied any explanation; the answer given was that the placement was made through a complex process and it could not be changed. While this problem was being addressed, a field supervisor received a thank you note from an intern in the traditional program. The note expressed appreciation for providing a safe and supportive environment in which to take risks, find personal growth, and experience a transformation of self and identity. The timing of these two events was a powerful reminder that formal responses of large bureaucracies may undermine the safety and support needed for professional growth. Key Findings From the Mentoring Program for New Principals The ALL Program grant includes a component that provides mentoring for principals in the first year on the job. In contrast to the traditional approach of handing a first year principal the keys to the building and wishing her luck, the mentoring of first year principals has grown “beyond a buddy system” to “providing new school leaders with an experienced guide who has both the training and the disposition to press new principals to put learning first—whatever that takes, whatever the obstacles or opposition” (Spiro, Mattis, & Mitgang, 2007, p. 21).

Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development   65

Support for new principals through the ALL program is provided through district mentors, peer mentors, and Principals as Leaders through Mentoring (PALM). Although new principals in 2013 reported meeting monthly with their peer mentor, “five new principals indicated that the frequency with which they met their peer mentor was not enough” (McREL, 2013, p. 39). Nevertheless, the new principals were “overwhelmingly positive in their comments about the mentor with whom they were matched” and they highlighted “the mentor’s ability to make the new principal feel understood, validated, and respected” (McREL, p. 40). Some of the new principals found value in the Mentoring Partnership Agreement, but also “expressed a need for it to evolve with them over the year” (McREL, 2013, p. 40). Suggestions to improve the peer mentoring system included “building in more time for new principals and peer mentors to meet, matching new principals and peer mentors within clusters, and extending the mentoring provided to new principals beyond the initial year” (McREL, 2013, p. 41). All the “participants [in the mentoring program] recommended reconsidering the timing of Learning Labs to begin earlier in the year and many also recommended increasing (and one recommended decreasing) the frequency of the Labs” (McREL, 2013, p. 63). Participants believed the ALL mentoring program should consider differentiating the Learning Labs and offer one for first-year assistant principals and one for more experienced assistant principals. Peer mentors reported positive experiences in the ALL program and “the majority of peer mentors named the stipends. Although they agreed they would have agreed to serve as peer mentors without financial compensation, they reported stipends made them feel ‘honored’ and ‘valued’ ” (McREL, 2013, p. 73). The peer mentors believe the most important things they can teach their mentees are “it will look better tomorrow” and “hold your head up,” and “behaviors such as documenting everything, having patience, and being visible in the school community” (McREL, 2013, p. 70). Two additional considerations that emerged from the evaluations were that the ALL program should “consider helping peer mentors build the capacity to work with new principals who do not recognize they need support” and the “supports provided to new principals should continue in a second year” (McREL, 2013, p. 77). There are implications here for additional funding and training, which may or may not be feasible or continued after the funding via the ALL grant ends. The three partners (UNM, APS, and the New Mexico School Leadership Institute) should continue to explore this and determine how these needs might be addressed. As is the case with the aspiring principals, new principals that participate in the mentoring component of the ALL program self-assessed their growth in the HOUSSE-P domains. As a result of their interactions with the

66    A. Woodrum et al.

peer and district mentors and their participation in the program’s mentoring activities, the majority of the new principals “perceived increased capacity” in the Instructional Leadership, Communication, Professional Development, Operations Management domains, and when appropriate based on their grade level, the Scope of Responsibility in Secondary Schools domain (pp. 43-48). Lessons From the First 3 Years Large organizations do not collaborate easily. Institutions such as universities, school districts, and state-sponsored entities have long-established structures, organizational cultures and values, reward systems, and patterns of communication. Even when anticipated and carefully planned for, misunderstandings and frustrations will arise out of these organizational differences. Rules and regulations that make perfect sense in one organization may well not in the others. Those working in these organizations seldom “speak” the language of the others. It is all too tempting when differences arise, to attribute the resulting misunderstandings to individuals and their perceived failures when, in fact, these are often inherent in the organizations’ lives (Argyris & Schön, 1996; Bolman & Deal, 2008; Brown, 1983; Bunker & Alban, 2006; Elmore, 2000; Weick, 1976). Colleagues who collaborate must expect that settling into a working relationship will take time. Merely creating the structures for collaboration, while absolutely necessary, will not be enough. It will take time for colleagues to get to know, respect, and trust one another as professionals (Miller & Hafner, 2008). There can be no hierarchy; all team members have knowledgeable contributions to make to ensure the collaboration’s success (Baker, 2004; Baldridge, 1971; Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Deming,1986). There can never be too much communication. When difficulties arise, all members of the collaborative team must have the same information. No team member can act independently of the others, even when the issue might seem insignificant (Fullan & Ballew, 2004; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Effective coinstruction of courses by university professors and district principals requires the thoughtful planning of each class, a shared understanding of issues to be covered, and balanced responsibility for the delivery of the course content. In addition, it is essential that both university instructor and principal model respect for each other’s expertise and interweave this expertise into each other’s teaching, in each class (see, e.g., Jeffery & Pollock, 2010).

Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development   67

Effective collaborations between universities, school districts, and state agencies may require the work of a liaison to ensure that all matters of student applications, tuition reimbursement, and general communication among the partners and aspiring principals take place in a timely and efficient manner (McRel, 2013). First-year principals and assistant principals require the ongoing support once they are placed in leadership positions in schools, possibly including support from the program they completed (Boerema, 2011; Spiro, Mattis, & Mitgang, 2007). Conclusion The ALL program is field-based, actively includes practitioners from leadership, and follows adult learning principles within a holistic school district-university-state leadership institute framework. This structure balances immediate needs of participants with current participant knowledge by developing professional learning community models that both rely on participant expertise and bring in external expertise to address needs. Through this program, the University decenters itself and becomes an equal partner—that is, as with other members of the learning community, a partner in both learning and in sharing of expertise—with a goal to inform broader university practice about leadership preparation reform (Borden, Preskill, & DeMoss, 2012). This leadership development model expressly integrates three conceptual realms critical to our public educational system: leadership development, school improvement, and university transformation. These three realms are currently more isolated than is desirable. Deep partnerships built on significant structural and pedagogic shifts away from isolated university coursework engenders positive and lasting changes in schools, the state, and the university itself (Borden, Preskill, & Demoss, 2012; Darling-Hammond, et al., 2007; Mitgang, 2003, 2012; Norton, 2002; Oliva & Anderson, 2006; Orr, 2006; Shirley, 2002). Notes 1. For more information on NM HOUSSE-P see http://teachnm.org/administrators/ principal-and-assistant-principal-evaluation-process.html 2. Spring 2010: two courses; Summer 2010: two courses; Fall 2010: two courses; Spring 2011: two courses; Summer 2011: two courses; Fall 2011: two courses; Spring 2012: two courses; Summer 2012: two courses; Fall 2012: two courses; Spring 2013: two courses; Summer 2013: two courses.

68    A. Woodrum et al.

References Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Auerbach, S. (2012). Conceptualizing leadership for authentic partnerships: A continuum to inspire practice. In S. Auerbach (Ed.), School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research perspectives for transforming practice (pp. 29–51). New York, NY: Routledge. Baker, C. (2004). Behavioral genetics: An introduction to how genes and environments interact through development to shape differences in mood, personality, and intelligence. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/page/behavioral-genetics-publications Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and Conflict in the University. New York, NY: Wiley. Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about the effects of network structure on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 49–68. Barnett, B. G. (2005). Transferring learning from the classroom to the workplace: Challenges and implications for educational leadership preparation. Educational Considerations, 32(2), 6–16. Barnett, B. G., Basom, M. R., Yerkes, D. M., & Norris, C. J. (2000). Cohorts in educational leadership programs: Benefits, difficulties, and the potential for developing school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 255–282. Boerema, A. J. (2011). Challenging and supporting new leader development. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(5), 554–567. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Borden, A. M., Preskill, S., & DeMoss, K. (2012). A new turn toward learning for leadership: Findings from an exploratory coursework pilot project. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7(1), 123–152. Bottoms, G., & O’Neill, K. (2001). Preparing a new breed of school principals: It’s time for action. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Brown, D. L. (1983). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2004). Principals excellence program: Developing effective school leaders through unique university-district partnership. NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 5(2), 24–36. Bunker, B. B., & Alban, B. T. (2006). Large group interventions and dynamics. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Organization development: A Jossey-Bass reader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr. M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study. Duke, D. L., Tucker, P. D., Belcher, M., Crews, D., Harrison-Coleman, J., Higgins, J., … West, J. (2005, September). Lift-off: Launching the school turnaround process in

Raising the Quality of Principal Leadership Development   69 10 Virginia schools. Charlottesville, VA: Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education. Retrieved February 2014 from http://www.darden.virginia.edu/ upload-edfiles/Centers_of_Excellence/PLE/VSTPS-Final.pdf. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute. Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Fullan, M., & Ballew, F. (2004). Leading in a culture of change: Personal action guide and workbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principalpreparation programs. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244–274. Hix, B., Wall, S., & Frieler, J. (2003). From the ground up: Growing your own principals. Principal Leadership, 22–25. Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 192–212. Jeffery, J. V., & Polleck, J. N. (2010). Reciprocity through co-instructed site-based courses: Perceived benefit and challenge overlap in an urban school-university partnership. Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer 2010, 81–99. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the HighPerformance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. The Legislature of the State of New Mexico. (2008). A joint memorial requesting the Office of Education Accountability of the Department of Finance and Administration, the Public Education Department and the Higher Education Department to develop a plan to enhance the recruitment, preparation, mentoring, evaluation, professional development and support for school principals and other school leaders. (Senate Joint Memorial 3). Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/documents/ educ/NMSchoolLeaderTaskForceReport2008.pdf Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation. Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: Education Schools Project. McREL. (2013). Alliance for leading and learning: Year 3 report. Denver, CO: Author. Miller, P. M., & Hafner, M. M. (2008). Moving toward dialogical collaboration: A critical examination of a university-school-community partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 66–110. Mitgang, L. (2003). Beyond the pipeline: Getting the principals we need where they are needed most. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Mitgang, L. (2012). The making of the principal: Five lessons in leadership training. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 176–191. Norton, J. (2002). Universities in the lead: Redesigning leadership preparation for student achievement. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Oliva, M., & Anderson, G. L. (2006). Dilemmas and lessons: The continuing leadership challenge for social justice. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 279–307). New York, NY: Pearson.

70    A. Woodrum et al. Orr, M. T. (2006). Mapping innovation in leadership preparation in our nation’s schools of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 492–499. Orr, M. T., King, C., & LaPointe, M. (2010). Districts developing leaders: Lessons on consumer actions and program approaches from eight urban districts. Newton, MA: EDC. Orr, M. T., & Orphanos, S. (2011). How graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership preparation programs for principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 18–70. Perez, L. G., Uline, C. L., Johnson, J. F., James-Ward, C., & Basom, M. (2011). Foregrounding fieldwork in leadership preparation: The transformative capacity of authentic inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 217–257. School Leadership Program Grant Application. (2010). Albuquerque, NM: Albuquerque Public Schools. Shirley, D. (2002). Valley interfaith and school reform: Organizing for power in South Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Spiro, J., Mattis, M. C., & Mitgang, L. D. (2007). Getting principal mentoring right: Lessons from the field. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Steiner, L., & Hassel, E. A. (Public Inpact). (2011). Using competencies to improve school turnaround principal success. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia’s Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education. Retrieved from www. DardenCurry.org The University of New Mexico Course Catalog (2013–2014 ed.). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). School Leadership Grant Program. Washington, DC: Author. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. Whitaker, K. (2006). Preparing future principals. Principal Leadership, 38–42. Whitaker, K. S., King, R., & Vogel, L. R. (2004). School district-university partnerships: Graduate student perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of a reformed leadership development program. Planning and Changing, 35(3 & 4), 209–222. Winograd, P., García, V., & Dasenbrock, R. (2008). Strong leaders for New Mexico schools: Senate Joint Memorial 3: Report & Recommendations, A Report to the Legislative Education Study Committee. Santa Fe, NM: Office of Education Accountability, Public Education Department, and Higher Education Department. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/documents/educ/NMSchoolLeaderTaskForceReport2008. pdf

Chapter 4

Reflections on What Was Learned in the U.S. Department of Education Funded Learner-Centered Leadership (LCL) Project 2002–2006 Arnold Danzig and Gary Kiltz

Abstract Beginning in October 2002, the Division of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies at Arizona State University implemented an educational leadership and professional development program for aspiring, rising, and experienced school leaders. The Learner Centered Leadership (Arizona State University, 2002) project was implemented in collaboration with the Southwest Center for Educational Equity and Language Diversity at ASU and four diverse, urban school districts in the metro Phoenix area. The original grant provided under the auspices of the United States Department of Education’s School Leadership Program provided the opportunity to create The Learner Centered

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 71–99 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

71

72    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz Leadership Program (LCL) For Language and Culturally Diverse Schools In High Needs, Urban Districts. The intention of the federal grant program was to assist high need local educational agencies in developing, enhancing, or expanding their innovative programs to recruit, train, and mentor principals and assistant principals (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The purpose of the partnership (among the university educational leadership program, a university-based research center, and four urban school districts) was to recruit and enhance the professional preparation of aspiring principals, provide mentoring and coaching to newly hired administrators (assistant principals and principals), and provide opportunities for experienced school administrators to participate in the preparation and professional development of administrators/candidates within and across districts. This chapter is both a description of the LCL program that was established with grant funding and a reflection on some of the overall successes and challenges in the grant activities and outcomes by the principal investigator and project director. 

Reflections on What Was Learned in the US Department of Education Funded Learner Centered Leadership (LCL) Project 2002–2006 Beginning in October 2002, the College of Education at Arizona State University (now the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College) implemented an educational leadership and professional development program for aspiring, rising, and experienced school leaders. The Learner Centered Leadership program was implemented in collaboration with the Southwest Center for Educational Equity and Language Diversity at ASU and four diverse, urban school districts in the Phoenix area (Arizona State University, 2002). The original grant from the United States Department of Education’s School Leadership Program provided the opportunity to create “the Learner Centered Leadership program (LCL) for language and culturally diverse schools in high needs, urban districts” (Arizona State University, 2002, p. 1). The intention of the federal grant program is to assist highneed local educational agencies in developing, enhancing, or expanding their innovative programs to recruit, train, and mentor principals and assistant principals (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The purpose of the original partnership (among the University educational leadership program, a university-based research center, and four urban school districts) was to recruit and enhance the professional preparation of aspiring principals, provide mentoring and coaching to newly

Learner-Centered Leadership  73

hired administrators (assistant principals and principals), and provide opportunities for experienced school administrators to participate in the preparation and professional development of administrators/candidates within and across districts. This chapter is both a description of the LCL program that was established with grant funding and a reflection on some of the overall successes and challenges in the grant activities and outcomes by the principal investigator (PI) and project director. Mission, Core Beliefs, Guiding Principles, and Strategic Actions of the Learner-Centered Leadership Project This reflection begins with brief outline of the LCL program mission, core beliefs, guiding principles, and strategic actions. These statements were largely written by the principal investigator, project director, and project team. In retrospect, these statements were a public announcement of some of the aspirations of the LCL project/program. The language is optimistic, hopeful, and almost idealistic in tone. It highlights importance of equity, diversity, sustainability, collaboration, trust, community, words that are taken from the research on educational leadership, the domain of university partners. The grant proposal and subsequent project activities explicitly were aimed at bridging theory and practice. The grant aspired to connect research on educational leadership, conceptual frameworks for understanding the administration of teaching and learning, and the craft knowledge of participating administrators. Working collaboratively, the grant attempted to foster new relationships among school administrators and university faculty involved in in teaching and preparing new administrators by developing and revising leadership preparation courses, creating and implementing workshops and professional development activities, and building an infrastructure for coaching and mentoring new and newly hired school administrators. Program activities, including courses, workshops, reading roundtables, guest speakers, also focused specifically on the roles of educational leaders in urban, language, and culturally diverse schools. The funding of the Learner Centered Leadership (LCL) program underscored the importance of educational leadership in schools, the need for change in leadership programs, and the expansion of professional development opportunities for school leaders in urban schools characterized by language diversity. The LCL program claimed to “bridge theory and practice by building connections between university scholars and public school practitioners” (Arizona State University, 2002, p. 1)

74    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz

Defining the Mission, Core Beliefs, Guiding Principles, and Strategic Actions of the LCL Program The grant narrative pointed to the need for a redirection in leadership and leadership professional development based on learner-centered principles. This framing of school and district leadership, one in which leaders act more like learners, was implicit in the mission of the learner-centered leadership program. According to Lieberman, Falk, and Alexander (1995), learner-centered leadership: requires school leaders to simultaneously be educators, problems solvers, crisis managers, change agents, enablers, consensus builders and networkers, as well as limit setters and authority figures. Enacting these sometimes contradictory roles and achieving a balanced performance tests even those with the strongest mettle: when to assert and when to hold back; when to intervene and how to do it right; when to deliberately lead and take a position and when to facilitate group struggle; how to handle conflict and how to make it productive; how to be accepting and respectful of differences while seeking to achieve overall agreements; how to be patient and supportive of strengths, even in the face of difficult problems; how to advocate for teachers, children and their families while simultaneously maintaining a smoothly running school. (p. 120)

The mission for the learner-centered leadership program was built around changing conceptions of the social, political, and economic context of schooling that the leaders of 21st century schools would need to redefine the role they perform and the work that they undertake. According to Murphy and Louis (1999), the education and professional development of school leaders should be built around a number of core design principles: • Move from management to leadership and movement to reorient the principalship from management to leadership and to refocus the principalship from administration to education • Priority on defining purpose and vision of schooling and movement away from leadership as maintaining the status quo • Changing organizational structures which replace a traditional focus on stability with a new focus on change • Enhancing quality and equity which implies a much greater commitment to youth and children than has been demonstrated previously • Developing learning communities in which greater attention is needed to promote an atmosphere of inquiry with greater focus on collaboration and shared decision making

Learner-Centered Leadership  75

Systems management and educational leadership. Certain circumstances or problems can only be addressed by bringing together the multiple providers of services to children, parents, and families. The systems approach recognizes various levels at which services must be coordinated in order to provide meaningful assistance (Crowson, & Boyd, 1993; Senge, 1990). Collaboration implies sharing among educators and other service provider and requires understanding of one’s own organizational culture, philosophy as well as that of others. Collaboration is also needed when integrating complementary services, particularly services committed to insuring all children are well prepared to learn and achieve (Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith, Roth, & Kleiner, 1999). Typically professionals have not shared or shared easily. School principals and administrators expect to be held accountable for school-site stability and control. Teachers expect to be in control of their classrooms. Territorialism is a problem in organizations. As a result, the norm of reciprocity prevails: a quid pro quo of arrangements is typical of schools; between teachers and students, between parents and teachers, between administrators and the school board, etc. Without powerful incentives, stakeholders will resist collaboration to preserve their individual control over their respective domains (Senge et al., 1999). Systems management involves an unfolding of the cultural order of organizations. School leaders and stakeholders must often learn different terminologies, find common interests, and resolve ideological conflicts. Institutional disincentives to collaboration must also be understood and recognized. According to Crowson and Boyd (1992) autonomy, time, nonaccountability, control over one’s own clientele, a sense of personal accomplishment, discretionary decision making, and the control of space are all rewards for noncollaboration. Consequences of too little collaboration among providers include: (1) isolation of problems and labeling of children, (2) discontinuity of care, (3) conflicting goals of services, (4) inability to bring existing resources to bear on problems, and (5) disempowered youth and families (Kirst & McLaughlin, 1990). Leadership training along with strong incentives is required to overcome these pressures toward nonconnection (Crowson & Boyd, 1992). Training segregation is also a problem in which the isolation of professionals leads to conceptions of problems as discrete, instead of seeing them as interconnected. There is a need for more of a systems model, which considers includes multiple levels of organizational culture and complexity. The goal is to see children in a broader context of what they need and see educative needs as dynamic. The model of professional development being proposed helps school leaders to consider the child in relationship with: (1) families  children, siblings, and parents; (2) school systemaides, teachers, school therapists, administrators, school psychologists; (3) social service

76    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz

providerscase workers, social workers, group home workers, government workers; and (4) health care systemnurses, physicians, alternative health providers therapists, bureaucrats, and insurance providers. The LCL program also articulated the need for collaborative structures within educational settings as an important goal of schools and educational leadership (Putnam, 2000; Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1996; Crowson & Boyd, 1993). Public schools address the interests and objectives of many different groups while providing a common underpinning for citizenship. There is growing consensus that it takes the combined efforts of many providers to respond to the needs of children and families. Kirst and McLaughlin (1990) suggest that fragmentation of services is a major problem for schools. Providers do not talk with one another; and when they do communicate, there is often disagreement over the priorities for services—educational, social, emotional, legal, or healthrelated services—for children and for families. This outcome is partly the result of conflicting organizational cultures and partly due to intraorganizational debates over organizational purposes and meaning. Even among educators there is much debate about multiple purposes of schooling: to produce successful workers, to enhance meaning, or to improve quality of life. Learner-centered leadership references the institutional changes that will be required if collaboration among educators, parents, and providers is to take place. In urban education settings, there is particular need to bring multiple systems (including social services, legal, and health care providers) and schools together to respond to the needs of children and their families. However, collaborative service delivery models are not commonplace. The difficulties in implementing them are considerable and involve establishing commitment among all participants to deliver comprehensive services that are complementary and integrated. Getting schools, families, and service providers from a variety of disciplines to work, as an effective team, requires a better understanding of community and the multiple systems to be engaged in serving youth and families in educational settings. The mission, core beliefs, guiding principles, and strategic actions of the LCL program propose reframing the leadership for schools under a learner-centered umbrella. Conceptually, learner-centered leadership implies service to the community and recognizes that community is a work-in-progress; schools simultaneously contribute to and reflect the development of local culture and democratic participation (Murphy & Louis, 1999; Putnam, 2000, Bellah et al., 1996, Lieberman, Falk, & Alexander, 1995; Clandinin & Connelly, 1991). Mission of the learner centered leadership program. The mission of the Learner Centered Leadership Program provides an overall framework

Learner-Centered Leadership  77

for the educational program and professional development activities that were part of the grant proposal. The mission includes the following 1. Create leadership capacity and sustainability in educational institutions and organizations located in urban, diverse communities. 2. Promote equity and diversity in leadership to meet the evolving needs of diverse students in high needs urban schools and districts. 3. Provide opportunities for leadership development in urban schools through personal growth and mentoring relationships. Promote learning about key topics related to urban schools through the analysis and distribution of research and best practice. Core beliefs of the learner-centered leadership program. Core beliefs refer to the stated values that inform the program components, program actions, and commitments of participants. The core beliefs of the LCL Program focus attention on both learners and to the ways that people learn: 1. Learning is a fundamental aspect of leadership. Learning allows for growth during challenges and promotes the importance of reflection and dialogue in learning organizations. Learning for leadership occurs best when school leaders have opportunities to collaborate, dialogue and share ideas. Learning creates the capacity to fuse leadership practice with theory, helping to guide the work in each field. Learner centered leaders recognize that they control their own learning experiences and through their own thought and actions, benefit from the learning opportunities. 2. Leadership creates capacity for organizational learning by modeling personal and professional learning and by creating an environment where learning becomes the focus. The emphasis on learning among leadership ultimately improves student learning within and outside of school. Leadership for learning exists in many places in educational organizations including school administrators, teachers, staff, community members, families, and students. All of these resources need to be tapped for children to reach their full potential. Experience serves as a valuable learning tool for leaders and is the basis for reflecting in action and on action. 3. Equity and diversity are strengths and resources in schools and communities. Learner-centered leaders create educational environments that value diversity and promote equity. Leaders contribute to equity and justice for all students by developing opportunities to confront and negate patterns of discrimination. School leaders are stewards who are motivated by a deeper commitment to serve

78    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz

the needs of their community. Leaders also realize that change is a slow process and take long-term approaches to actions that improve equity and focus on diversity. Guiding principles. Guiding principles refer to ways in which values are captured principles which shaped the design and decision making in the LCL program. 1. Developing opportunities for learning for school leaders. This principle requires building collaborative and trusting relationships and creating explicit opportunities (or spaces) for difficult conversations about the challenges of urban and diverse schools to occur. Learning requires challenging organizational assumptions about processes and product of school systems and taking new risks in order to improve student learning. Learning for educational leadership connects research and theory with practice; each guiding the other. To make this connection explicit, the learning opportunities must take the real issues and events faced by practitioners and provide some light about how to best understand the problem, and how to create the capacity to change practice in ways that serve children with kindness and care. 2. Improving leadership capacity and retention in urban schools. Sustained leadership requires creating opportunities for reflective dialogue and collaboration where school leaders can talk about risks, failures, successes, and learning experiences. Capacity for learner-centered leadership is built by promoting and enhancing leadership from all parts of the organization including nontraditional leadership paths. The program is committed to encouraging individuals from many places within the education organizations to seek leadership opportunities. 3. Promoting learning opportunities that focus on equity and diversity in urban schools. The program seeks to work in education and community environments in which diversity and equity are valued, and/or in organizations that are willing to question taken for granted assumptions regarding equity and diversity. The program wants to encourage participants to think about the long-term impact of educational programming on equity and opportunity. LCL hopes to lead efforts to extend opportunities to experience life more fully and develop richer experiences and opportunities for diverse populations. Strategic actions. Strategic actions are anticipations of actions to be taken as the LCL program unfolds. These actions include:

Learner-Centered Leadership  79

1. Partner with other educational institutions including schools, districts, universities on leadership training and development with a focus on learner centered leadership in diverse, urban educational institutions 2. Develop materials, workshops, and guided experiences to reflect on professional development for education leadership in urban settings with an emphasis on equity and diversity 3. Conduct research to deepen understanding of education leadership in urban settings and how it may be similar and/or different to leadership in business, military, and political environments 4. Disseminate and extend what has been learned through conversation in classrooms, meetings, conferences, in papers, articles, and books. The extent to which these aspirations were achieved in the program is explored elsewhere (Danzig et al., 2004; Danzig, 2009; Danzig, Borman, Jones, & Wright, 2007; Danzig, Blankson, & Kiltz, 2007; Kiltz, Danzig, & Szecsy, 2004). There is also a moral press behind these statements, one that suggests leaders serve a public good beyond their individual actions and aspirations (Vickers, 1995). In addition, there are many assumptions about learner-centered environments and the leadership which serve in them (National Research Council, 2000; Lieberman, Falk, & Alexander, 1995). Goals and Objectives for the LCL Project The LCL project included degree and certification coursework and internships for prospective school administrators. At the same time, early career administrators participated in professional development activities and developed mentoring relationships with more experience school administrators. The program attempted to provide a continuous ladder for advancement from teacher to administrative leader in selected school districts to provide a pipeline of qualified, quality school administrators; it was also a way to integrate instructional leadership, community leadership, and systems management from the earliest stages of preparation to later stages of administrator professional development. Subsidiary goals for the project included: 1. To recruit and select able teacher and teacher leaders into a pipeline leading to certification as a principal in high needs urban school districts in the state of Arizona. 2. To recruit and select practicing principals and assistant principals for professional development and mentoring, which leads to en-

80    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

hanced abilities in instructional leadership, community leadership, and systems management in high needs urban school districts. To recruit, select, and train school district leaders to serve as mentors to novice principals and assistant principals in high needs urban school districts. To prepare prospective school administrators to assume the assistant principalship or principalship in schools with large concentrations of low achieving Hispanic, Native American, and immigrant students in high needs urban school districts. To provide prospective and practicing school administrators with knowledge about improving teaching and learning in schools with large concentrations of low achieving Hispanic, Native American, and immigrant students in high needs urban school districts. To provide prospective and practicing school administrators with authentic, field-based experiences through which they refine skills in light of what they learned about designs for optimal teaching and learning for Hispanic, Native American, and immigrant students in high needs urban school districts. To provide prospective and practicing school administrators with direct experiences with Hispanic, Native American, and immigrant cultures through immersion in Hispanic, Native American, and immigrant communities and community organizations.

Creating Capacity and Building Relationships across the Four Urban School Districts This section of the chapter provides descriptions of LCL program features and highlights design elements of the program and priorities of the program team. As mentioned previously, the initial grant writing team consisted of university professors in the Educational Leadership & Policy Studies (ELPS) Division at Arizona State University and included three educational leadership professors, the division director, director of a college research institute, a research associate, and two doctoral students. After the grant was funded, this group was expanded to include liaisons from each of the four participating urban school districts, which included two superintendents, one associate superintendent, and one assistant to the superintendent. This group then began the process of translating the grant proposal into a working program to support a pipeline of school administrators, including aspiring administrators, teachers in the respective districts, novice school administrators in the first 3 years on the job, and experienced school administrators, those on the job more than 7 years.

Learner-Centered Leadership  81

Descriptive Elements: Cohorts, Experiences, and Courses This section of the chapter describes several aspects of the LCL program including the development and implementation of programs for three groups of participants: Group 1 was comprised of prospective or aspiring administrators, Group 2 was comprised of rising administrators, and Group 3 experienced administrators. Participants from these groups had specific needs and offerings and were each engaged in varying program activities. Beginning in 2005, a second cohort of participants was recruited from within these four districts. Specific design elements included discussion of recruitment, selection, course development, and professional development. 1. Preliminary guidelines for desired participant characteristics were developed by the project team in collaboration with the participating districts responsible for recruitment. This process of district selection is significant and provides a way of rewarding and guiding promising staff. During an early project team meeting, university faculty members and participating district assistant superintendents or superintendents developed a nomination and selection criteria for program participants. Discussions among the leadership team focused on how best to tap people for leadership positions that might otherwise be overlooked, and what qualities or dispositions of participants at each level should be prioritized. These criteria were discussed by the project team and summarized in a subsequent email from the PI to the meeting participants and passed along to district liaisons, who were asked to recruit program applicants/participants. Each district liaison was to have list of names and packets to ASU by December 3, 2002 2. Rising administrators (Group 1) consisted of participants that were teachers, considered to be emerging leaders, interested in pursuing a career in educational administration. Application packets included three pieces of information: (a) individual letter of nomination from the district; (b) applicant’s resume or vita; and (c) applicant letter of interest and potential contribution to MEd/certification program in educational administration. 3. After review, a letter was sent by the department inviting potential participants to apply to the ASU Graduate College following their recommended acceptance into the program by the Educational Administration Admissions Committee. 4. There was agreement by the project team (district liaisons and university project team) that future school leaders needed to be identi-

82    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz

fied in traditional and nontraditional ways. It was explicit in these discussions that participants reflect the diversity of the community in these high-needs, urban school districts. A list of qualities that included multiple criteria was discussed by the entire project team (university and school district representatives). Nominations were to be based on multiple considerations that included the following characteristics: a. successful teachers in classroom with demonstrated effective instruction b. teachers who enjoy being in the classroom c. effective in classroom management skills d. demonstrate self-direction and initiative e. have ability to work within established standards and structures f. loyal to the district g. stewards of school district and community h. smart people i. have the ability to communicate effectively j. have the ability to prioritize k. resilient l. individuals in the beginning stage of formal training in educational administration m. consideration for overlooked persons These criteria were the result of multiple team meetings, and discussions among district representatives and university faculty. Careful attention to these criteria led to the inclusion of minorities in the LCL program who are often underrepresented in school administration. Districts were asked to honor these guidelines in selecting participants, particularly for the group of aspiring administrators. Each district, however, used its own local processes in making recommendations. Prospective administrators. Prospective administrators (Group 1) enrolled in a masters and administrator certification program. There were some key differences in the program from those that had been offered at ASU previously. Typically, graduate students entering a degree program may take required classes in the same sequence, but students’ optional coursework and elective classes diverge. The LCL masters students (Group 1) entered the program as a cohort and all classes in the program were required (no electives). Participants attended classes and completed course work together, as a cohort. This process lends itself to developing longstanding relationships (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, &

Learner-Centered Leadership  83

Cohen, 2007; Donaldson & Peterson, 2007), which changes the in-classes dynamics. The LCL program also emphasized human relationships and collaboration, which resulted in revising old courses and developing new ones. The course matrix below illustrates the ten required courses that were part of the masters/certification program. There was also a 1-year internship, which replaced the previously required single semester internship.

Figure 4.1.  Learner Centered Leadership Master’s/Certification in Educational Administration and Supervision—Course Matrix (October 2004).

Rising administrators. Group 2, rising administrators, were part of the professional development program. These individuals were selected by their respective districts. For many participants, being tapped by one’s district, to participate in a mentoring and coaching program was something out of the ordinary. The Learner-Centered Leadership program used research on mentoring (Crow & Matthews, 1998; Danzig, 1999a, 1999b; Daresh, 2001, 2004; Daresh & Capasso, 2002; Daresh & Playko, 1992; DuFour, 2002) to develop a four-stage process of mentoring as the foundation of professional development for school administrators involved in the project. Those stages are: (1) developing relationships that create the capacity for mentoring; (2) negotiating the mentoring relationship through action and mentoring plan processes; (3) embedding mentoring through action plan implementation; and (4) reflecting on the learning that occurs over the course of the mentoring experience. Activities in the first year focused on developing relationships and assessing the needs of this group. Over the course of this first year, the grant

84    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz

moved from building relationships to developing a capacity for action plans, implementation, and mentoring. The activities listed below describe the assessments used and the facilitated events. Introduction to learner centered leadership. The first meeting provided a general overview of the grant program. Each participant received a binder that presented general grant information, the philosophy behind learnercentered leadership, an overview of the project website, information on mentoring, specific material for both the rising administrators and the accomplished administrators, and a list of organizations and resources available through Arizona State University. During the second half of the session, the rising administrators met separately from the accomplished administrators in order to discuss needs and concerns and to collect specific information from each group. This information provided the guide for planning future activities. During this meeting, participants had an opportunity to introduce themselves, to share questions and concerns related to educational administration, and to complete surveys that provided introductory data for the grant. Team building exercises. Teambuilding exercises were an important part of the development of the rising administrators and built capacity for working together on multiple activities over an extended period of time (Kiltz, Danzig, & Szecsy, 2004). The LCL participants engaged in various teambuilding activities on ASU’s campus early in the first-year of the project. Teambuilding is not a silver bullet for fixing dysfunctional teams, or assuring that all of your teams will work well. The teambuilding exercises were designed to build trust among participants (Tschannen-Moran, 2004) and to explore group process issues that help a team function effectively (Kiltz, Danzig, & Szecsy, 2004). Participant self-assessments: Training and Educational Leadership Self Assessment (TELSA) and the Leadership Development Needs Assessment (LEADNA). The tests were completed by the rising administrators. The purpose of the assessments was to provide educational leaders with a tool for assessing their development needs. The TELSA is divided into ten general functions: (1) lead analysis, design, and development of instruction; (2) lead implementation of instruction; (3) lead evaluation of instruction; (4) lead staff development; (5) perform learner-related duties; 6) perform staffrelated duties; (7) perform budgetary and other administrative duties; (8) communicate and use communication technology; (9) self-development; and (10) crisis management. The LEADNA is a 360 degree assessment in which the participants selected five individuals (two were those whom they supervise, two were colleagues, and one was a supervisor) to complete the survey. All 32 rising administrators completed the TELSA and LEADNA. Mountain hikes. Participants had an opportunity to meet informally during a morning for a hike up to the summit of one of the local area

Learner-Centered Leadership  85

mountain peaks. Those who wanted had an opportunity to get breakfast after the 2 hour hike. Participants had a second opportunity to meet informally to hike the summit trail at a different regional park and afterwards met for breakfast. Sunrise storytelling. Alhambra and Creighton School District administrators hosted a morning coffee social where participants from all three groups had an opportunity to share humorous stories related to teaching or administrative experiences. Nineteen participants reflecting all three groups attended the Sunrise Storytelling. Session on management versus leadership. During the second Saturday session, participants first had an opportunity to meet in respective rising administrator or accomplished administrator groups in order to wrap-up unfinished business from the previous meeting. During the second half of the session, participants broke into small groups to engage in more intimate discussions. Facilitators from the four districts provided prompts to initiate the discussion and lead the activities. In the first session, participants worked in small groups to discuss differences between leadership and management (Bennis, 2000), and during the second session, small groups carefully considered a scenario related to a teacher’s dress code violation, in order to apply some of the concepts from the first group session (on how administrators manage meanings). Professional portfolios. The rising administrators had an opportunity to talk about the importance of professional portfolios in relation to personal improvement and reflective practice. The participants used the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISSLLC) and state standards for school administrators as a foundation for dialogue about professional leadership practices and daily activities that reflect these. Rising administrators were introduced to professional portfolios and the importance of capturing daily practice in a format that reflects professional standards and principles of learner-centered leadership. The workshop was held at a school campus of one of the participating districts and was used to introduce the action planning activity that all rising administrators would complete. A draft of the action plan form was shared with the participants. Participants agreed the professional portfolio, the Arizona Professional Standards, and the action plan could be intertwined in a way that engaged the participants to professionally improve while simultaneously helping the school work toward its site-improvement goals. Seventeen of the rising administrators attended. At the end of the workshop, a feedback form was completed by participants. Student achievement and school climate. Participants from one of the school districts developed the curriculum and experience and hosted this workshop, which focused on both using data to improve student achievement

86    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz

and fostering a school climate that reflects student success. Sixty-four people attended the workshop. Facilitative leadership workshop. The leadership team from one school district developed the curriculum and facilitated the workshop on facilitative leadership. During this activity, participants learned several strategies related to this leadership skill. Fifty-two participants attended this event. Coffee gathering. Administrators from Phoenix Union High School District hosted a coffee gathering for all participants during the morning. This was an informal opportunity for the participants to socialize. Nine individuals participated in the coffee social. Reading roundtables. Reading roundtables were organized using the project website and listserv for the summers of 2003 and 2004. All participants were asked to participate in two online Summer Reading Roundtables during the months of July and August, 2003 and in July and August of 2004. This was done to connect LCL project participants with some of the leading researchers and practitioners in the fields of urban education and education for linguistically and culturally diverse settings to draw from popular readings in the field. The planning group opted to capitalize on the strength of technology to mediate summer book discussions among participants who could be anywhere in the country. Eight online discussions were held on the following books in year 2003: °° °° °° °° °° °° °° °°

Giuliani’s Leadership Kohl’s I Won’t Learn from You Delpit’s Other People’s Children Stailey’s Think Rather of Zebra Fisher’s Getting to Yes Healy’s Endangered Minds Valdes’s Con Respeto Kohn’s Punished by Rewards

Based on participant feedback, for 2004, the program adopted more opportunities for face-to-face discussions for the following texts. °° °° °° °° °° °° °° °°

Tannen’s You Just Don’t Understand Tse’s Why Don’t They Learn English Tatum’s Why are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria Wagner’s Making the Grade Heifetz’s Leadership Without Easy Answers Clawson’s Getting Below the Surface Maxwell’s Laws of Leadership Whitaker’s Dealing With Difficult Teachers

Learner-Centered Leadership  87

Activities in the second year shifted as they became more focused on bringing personal and professional development into daily practice. This took several forms and demonstrated the strength of the cross-district and university relationships established in the first year. The centerpiece of the activities was the action plan. Workshops were designed by planning teams to give the rising administrators (Group 2) guidance and tools for developing and implementing successful action plans. Another dimension was added to this progression with the creation of formal mentoring relationships between Group 2 and Group 3. The following paragraphs and subsequent papers give more details of each of the activities and initiatives. Strand workshops. From December 2003 through March 2004, the LCL program sponsored professional development programs in four areas: (1) human relations/communications, (2) language and cultural diversity, (3) learner centered leadership, and (4) mediating change/dealing with resistance. Rising administrators were asked to select two strands that tied directly to the action goals they had identified. The workshops were designed to provide the rising administrators with resources and information that could be incorporated into their comprehensive action plan and to continue to develop relationships between mentors and those being mentored so that the rising administrators would be able to identify key individuals who could act as coaches with specific steps of the action plan. Southwest leadership institute. In February 2004, LCL program participants attended a leadership institute that featured the work of Peter Senge (1999) and others from the book, Schools that Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares about Education (1999). Twenty-four participants from LCL attended the conference (2 liaisons, 9 accomplished administrators, 8 rising administrators, and 5 prospective administrators). Members of the project team (liaisons, superintendents, and ASU faculty) also served as facilitators of the breakout sessions at the conference. Strategies and materials which were introduced at the institute and in the book were used in future workshops facilitated by LCL participants. For example, an iceberg metaphor was used as a tool to examine situations and dilemmas related to urban education and to further reflect on the root causes. The Southwest Leadership Institute served as a conduit for disseminating valuable strategies that rising administrators could incorporate into their action plan process and that accomplished administrators could use as part of school improvement planning. Action planning workshop (April 2004). The project team hoped the rising administrators would select a model that worked best for them to reach their professional goals. Instead, the project team identified six critical attributes that needed to be reflected in the final action plans. In analyzing various models for action planning (Donaldson, Bowe, MacKenzie, & Marnik, 2004; Goldberg & Sifonis, 1994; National Study of School Evaluation, 2004), the

88    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz

LCL project team noted that the six attributes are critical regardless of an action plan’s format or focus (e.g., professional development, program implementation, or action research). The attributes are: (1) specific, (2) observable and measurable, (3) data-driven, (4) continuous and ongoing, (5) sustainable, and (6) critically reflective. Formal mentoring relationships. Mentoring relationships were designed to be systemic and planned (Daresh, 2001; Hay, 1995; Johnson, 1997). At one district, the team of participants decided to develop mentor-mentee pairings that were based on location. At the other three districts, pairings were connected to the substance of the action plan and mentors were selected based on substantive knowledge. Each mentee was asked to select an individual who had the expertise and knowledge that aligned with the action goal and needs of the rising administrator. Coaching mentoring. Along with one-on-one relationships between mentors and mentees, the district teams also wanted to use a team coaching mentoring process. In this process, each rising administrator would have a team of mentors who help with the implementation of the action plan. Each rising administrator (mentee) would identify a mentor(s) with each action step or strategy associated with the plan. This mentor would serve as a coach who specifically assists the mentee with the completion of that action step. The mentees were encouraged to use mentors outside of the district teams including university faculty and mentors from the other three districts. By doing this, the mentoring process became more collaborative and worked to develop interdistrict and district-university relationships. Examples of the growing connections among the school districts and between the university and school districts were noted in multiple program developments: Experienced administrators took part in the same activities as the rising administrators, but as facilitators of activities. These administrators contributed to the overall design and procedures used in group activities and workshops. The nature of their facilitation included: (1) coinstruction; (2) planning teams; (3) action planning; (4) mentoring. Praxis, the melding of practice and theory (Freire, 1970) was a stated project goal, and program workshops/events served as a conduit for theory infused practice. In particular, four program features highlight these connections: 1. Coinstruction went beyond the workshops. As mentioned above, courses for the master's program taught by the professors and practitioners was new for the university as well as the districts. Four of the 10 courses were cotaught and both internships supervised by clinical faculty with strong administrative experience at principal and superintendent levels. Members from the experienced administrator group also facilitated online discussions for the summer roundtables.

Learner-Centered Leadership  89

2. Planning teams created four strands that focus attention on the issues and challenges associated urban education. The strands, which developed from needs assessments and program priorities, are human relations/communication, language and cultural diversity, learner centered leadership, and mediating change. The planning team for each strand includes mentors, liaisons, and ASU faculty. 3. Action planning served to make professional development part of daily practice in alignment with district goals. The project team identified six critical attributes that needed to be reflected in the final action plans. The action planning gave group 3 participants the opportunity to serve as outside resources on goal driven plans. 4. Mentoring went on informally in some of the districts, but the creation and support of a formal mentoring program was a way of ensuring that administrators who might otherwise have been missed were included.

Preliminary Outcomes The LCL program established a learning community among aspiring leaders, emerging leaders, and experienced school administrators. Over time, each group learned and demonstrated talent in areas related to instructional leadership, community leadership, and systems management, with particular attention to language and culturally diverse urban schools. Members of each of the groups learned from other participants, in ways which honored experience and appreciated what was to be learned from experience. Action Learning Leaders are not developed in the classroom. While they may be stimulated by discussions, real learning comes when developing leaders are given projects or jobs in which their leadership is applied and tested. Therefore, the proposed development activities are built around task-specific learning and constructive feedback. Best practices for leadership development identify multiple factors that make programs successful (Giber, Carter, & Goldsmith, 2000; Guskey, 2000), which included: 1. Interactive curriculum designed to engage the whole person; 2. Coaching to help participants translate their learning back into the natural work area;

90    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz

3. Leadership competencies in which there is self-assessment of leadership skills and 360 degree feedback; 4. Organizational support which demonstrates administrative support for the program from the highest levels within the organization. The connecting feature among the three groups of participants in the project was the action learning experience. Action learning requires participants to engage in real work with their staffs and stakeholders in ways that contribute to overall organizational performance. Action research methods were situated in a real-life school setting of the novice principal or assistant principal. Emerging school leaders preparing for administrative certification used real-life settings to support an extended internship experience for which the action learning experience will be the culminating, field-based experience to solidify academic knowledge gained through coursework. The guiding question for the action learning experiences was, “What does a school principal do as an instructional leader, community leader, and systems thinker to ensure that all students achieve?” The following section gives data on project participation. Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 offer a breakdown of the original project participants by gender, ethnicity, and employment. Table 4.3 provides similar data for year 2. Table 4.4 indicates the number of promotions for participants by at the end of the second year of the LCL program.

Table 4.1.  Participant Information (Gender and Ethnicity) Gender

Ethnicity

Prospective Leaders (N = 32)

Female = 18 (56%) Male = 14 (44%)

African American = 7 (22%) Caucasian = 14 (44%) Hispanic =1 1 (34%)

Rising Leaders (N = 31)

Female = 23 (74%) Male = 8 (26%)

African American = 6 (19%) Asian American = 1 (3%) Caucasian = 13 (42%) Hispanic = 10 (32%) Native American = 1 (3%)

Accomplished Leaders (N = 30)

Female = 17 (57%) Male = 13 (43%)

African American = 9 (30%) Caucasian = 16 (53%) Hispanic = 5 (17%)

Reflecting on What Was Learned The best examples of professional development reflect a method of embedding new knowledge into the existing roles, processes, and structures of

Learner-Centered Leadership  91

schools (Guskey, 2000). The LCL program approach fostered individual and collective learning through a collaborative mentoring process that included action learning projects. Though the empirical evidence is limited, and mostly based on self-reported data, we ultimately suggest that collaborative mentoring leads to changed leadership practices, and by extension, impacts practices in schools and classrooms associated with student learning.

Table 4.2.  Participant Information—Employment Category Professional Position

Number/Percent

Prospective Leaders (N = 32)

Elementary Teacher Secondary Teacher

24/75% 28/25%

Rising Leaders (N = 31)

Assistant Principal Dean of Students District Personnel Intervention Specialist Principal

15/49%   4/13%     2/6%   4/13%   6/19%

Accomplished Leaders (N = 30)

Assistant Superintendent Directors Principal

    2/7%     3/9% 25/84%

Table 4.3.  Participant Information (Rising Administrators)(April 30, 2004) Rising Administrator Participation

Total Population

Gender

Ethnicity

Total Enrolled (Year One and Two)

35

23 Females (66%) 12 Males (34%)

7 African Americans (20%) 1 Asian American (3%) 17 Caucasians (48%) 9 Hispanics (26%) 1 Native American (3%)

Current Participation

31

21 Females (68%) 10 Males (32%)

6 African Americans (20%) 1 Asian American (3%) 14 Caucasians (45%) 9 Hispanics (29%) 1 Native American (3%)

92    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz Table 4.4.  Promotion (Participants Within Each Group) (2 Years Into the Project) Group

Number of Promotions

Prospective Administrators

  1

Rising Administrators

10

Accomplished Administrators

  3

In the feedback collected from participants in the Learner-Centered Leadership program, the dominant theme that emerged was the importance of having the time to engage in conversation with other administrators about the intricacies of administration in urban settings. As part of this dialogue, stories, case studies, and narratives are used as a way to illustrate the complexities and complications related to school administration and leadership (Danzig, 1999a, 1999b). Narratives and cases illustrate some of the ways in which administrators work through challenges and make decisions regarding complicated issues using personal knowledge. One goal of crafting cases has been to provide opportunities for urban school administrators to share experiences, information, and innovative strategies, which address complex school leadership themes such as accountability, assessment, and student achievement. Sharing knowledge and information and understanding its complexity, through cases and narratives, has been an important part of the interactive and communal process (Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski, 2002; Danzig, 1999a, 1999b). Using formative assessments and initial focus groups with participants, the Learner- Centered Leadership project team identified four themes as the subjects for the collaborative mentoring: (1) learner centered practice; (2) language and cultural diversity; (3) collaboration within a democratic community; and (4) school improvement and change. These topical areas became the source of focused dialogue and sharing of practical experiences around closing the achievement gap for students. In several instances, case stories (Ackerman & Maslin-Ostrowski, 2002) were used in order to provide data that could be critically analyzed to discuss impact of instructional and programmatic decisions on student achievement. Based upon selfdetermined needs and action planning goals at the school site, participants had an opportunity to participate in thematically-based collaborative mentoring sessions. Participants then used these sessions as a framework to examine programs and instructional practices at their individual school site, raise issues and concerns, and adopt new strategies concerning student learning. This collaborative mentoring model, examined through this research project, was designed to assist school leaders in urban districts develop

Learner-Centered Leadership  93

collective wisdom regarding practice. The importance of leaders seeing themselves as learners, of recognizing the significance of language and culture, and of understanding the power resulting from collaboration, are all part of the wisdom that came from the project. Collaborative mentoring assisted school administrators to become better learners, collaborators, and problem-solvers by encouraging them to tap into community resources and think systemically about how to manage challenges associated with urban, diverse schools; ultimately, these administrators take actions resulting in better learning outcomes for students. One other theme of this chapter and the project considers the learning that resulted from creating a university and district collaboration. This learning led to three changes at the university: (1) The educational administration curriculum was refined, developed, and taught with greater collaboration among university faculty involved in the program and school district partners; (2) the university developed greater interest in professional development of administrators, which by definition required greater collaboration between the university and schools than traditional research on education administration and leadership in schools; (3) collaboration among partners developed on project and strand teams as people spent time together. Other Findings From the Partnership Between University and School Districts Upon reflection, many themes stand out in considering the work accomplished in the LCL program. Some of the ideas covered include: 1. Time is hard to find. The time commitment for school administrators is great, and finding adequate time to meet and discuss ideas was a reoccurring challenge within the grant. Using the action planning process forced administrators to find time to achieve planning goals. The more aligned to district goals, the better these action plans were implemented (Kiltz, Danzig, & Szecsy, 2004; Danzig, Borman, Jones, & Wright, 2007). 2. Collaboration takes time and commitment. In order for people to open up and create a genuine dialogue; they must often first become comfortable with one another. The collaborative efforts required consistent time and commitment from all participants. This does not happen by accident (Kiltz et al., 2004; Danzig, 2009). 3. Drawing knowledge and relevant needs from districts is instrumental to gaining support. The input from the districts on pertinent schoolbased issues and topics is highly valued. In order to effectively build

94    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

a partnership with the school personnel, it is first imperative to collect and gather their needs from the experiences of practitioners, and only then, work on what can be learned from experience (Danzig, 2009; Danzig, Blankson, & Kiltz, 2007; Kiltz et al., 2007). Making professional development part of an overall district commitment is needed to build commitment to change. Districts are often mired in day to day functions of schools. A long-term commitment to professional development is a key component to opening opportunities for the multitude of stakeholders while proving opportunities for growth and improvement (Kiltz et al., 2004; Kiltz & Danzig, 2003; Danzig et al., 2004). Action plans tied to district goals and mentoring were viewed equally as important. Practitioners like applicable projects and goals that can help them in the day to day operations of a school. While the mentoring did provide valuable knowledge and information from more seasoned administrators, the action plans were locally focused, and therefore truly representative of the praxis of teaching (Danzig et al., 2007). Participation by superintendent and district administration teams is crucial to administrator professional development. Their presence in encouraging and enriching member participation was important to morale, sense of ownership, value for the project, and overall rating of success (Danzig, Borman, Jones, & Wright, 2007; Danzig, Blankson, & Kiltz, 2007). School practitioners enjoy the company of university professors and vice versa. Being able to appreciate the differences in personality, perspective, and experience makes working together and investing extra time worthwhile (Danzig et al., 2004). The university role in working collaboratively in schools is based less on research alone than understanding research in context. In order to make contact and engage with administrators during planning, workshops and events, it was key for professors to be sensitive to the context. Presenting the statistics or history of state testing was not the same as addressing the direct concerns of speaking with teachers, students or parents about them (Danzig et al., 2004, 2007). The roles and work ethic of each group of participants became more respected over time. Familiarity led to the adoption of new viewpoints which respected the workplace cultures and challenges of each particular group, aspiring administrators, emerging administrators, experienced administrators, and university professors (Danzig et al., 2004; Kiltz et al., 2004). It takes time and trust to create spaces for criticism. The climate of respect and understanding is needed to maintain constructive

Learner-Centered Leadership  95

critique and dialogue. A “critical friends” approach was possible as participants became more familiar with each other in safe zones between university and district environments. (Danzig et al., 2004, 2007; Kiltz et al., 2004).

Final Reflections The collaborative model embraced in the Learner-Centered Leadership project promoted greater understanding of how school leaders develop individual and collective knowledge about leadership practices. These outcomes are highlighted in the experiences of participants in both formal educational programs (coursework) and in the professional development/ coaching experiences that were part of the project. The experiences of the project participants highlight the importance of human appreciations, which are needed to ensure that all students attending schools in urban settings have opportunities to be engaged by their experiences in school. The collaboration among leaders in learner-centered settings encourages participants to reflect upon their own knowledge and preconceptions and make more explicit the assumptions they bring to concrete situations. The hope is that such experiences will assist in the learning required to manage complex problems and to appreciate the diversity present in the educational environments they inhabit. Finally, important education policy contexts were considered over the course of the LCL program. Formal sessions and informal conversations focused greater attention on the experiences of English language learners and by extension, all learners in schools. Language policy and diversity were important considerations in the implementation of the learner-centered leadership program, and the importance of language in culturally diverse settings was a major component of all program activities. These concerns raised many questions for future research on children and adults, students, teachers, and administrators, experience schooling including: • Is language policy an instrument for social control or instrument of social mobility? • How do school leaders and university faculty implement coherent language and literacy development practices in schools, when divergent and conflicting language policies exist? • What are the implications for school leadership when children have a right to schooling in their home language and literacy is a civil right?

96    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz

• How does professional development proceed from the assumption that educators are intellectuals and change agents? How do institutionally discriminatory practices (unequal facilities, unequal course offerings, unequal access, opportunity gaps) manifest in schools? What can be done about this? Conversations on the significance of language, diversity, and how language policy and politics are played out in schools were important concerns of the LCL program. Many program components, formal and informal, focused on the school leadership required for language and culturally diverse schools. These conversations are part of the legacy of the program. For those interested in current research on these topics, the 2014 volume of the Review of Research in Education (Borman, Wiley, Garcia, & Danzig, 2014) is focused on language policy, politics, and diversity in education and illustrates how these themes play out in schools and communities locally and globally. Appendix A—Description of Participating Districts All four participating districts are high needs, urban districts with language and culturally diverse student populations. One of the districts is an urban high school district. The other three districts are urban elementary school districts that feed into this high school district. The community in which these districts are located can be described as lower income with a high percentage of ethnic minorities and immigrant populations. The percentage of children living in poverty among these four districts ranges from 50.4% to 89%. In the high school district, 50.4% of the students are identified at the poverty level. The student population is comprised of 69.2% Hispanic, 10.4% African American, 15.5% Anglo, 1.7% Asian and 3.1% Native American students. Over 60% of the student population speaks English as a second language. In one of the three elementary districts, the schools serve approximately 8,300 students, with a minority enrollment of 88%. Eighty-two percent (82%) of the students live at the low income/poverty level, and 74% are English language learners. Since the 1985–86 school year, there has been a 446% increase in students who have immigrant status within this district. The second elementary school district has about 11,500 students in twenty schools and is facing rapid growth. Four additional schools will be built. The student population has the following breakdown: 75% Hispanic, 19% African American, 5% Anglo, 0.9% Native American, and 0.15% Asian. Eighty percent (80%) of the school population is at or below the poverty level with over 65% of the students enrolled as English language learners.

Learner-Centered Leadership  97

The final elementary school district is comprised of 15 school sites serving over 14,000 students. The student population is comprised of 61.05% Hispanic, 21.127% Anglo, 9.4% African American, 5.17% Native American and 3.1% Asian. This elementary school district has an 85% poverty level, and has over 60% of its student population speaking English as a second language. Authors’ Note The LCL program and related research were originally supported by a grant from the United States Department of Education, Office of Innovation and School Improvement under NCLB, Title II Subpart 5, Section 2151, School Leadership. References Ackerman, R., & Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2002). The wounded leader: How real leadership emerges in times of crisis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Arizona State University. (2002). Learner-centered leadership for language and culturally diverse schools in high needs urban settings. Grant submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and School Improvement under NCLB, Title II Subpart 5, Section 2151, School Leadership. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University. Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1996). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life (2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bennis, W. (2000). Managing the dream: Reflections on leadership and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Borman, K., Wiley, T., Garcia, D., & Danzig, A., (Eds.). (2014). Review of Research in Education: Language policy, politics, and diversity in education (Vol. 38). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association/SAGE. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, F. M. (1991). Narrative and story in practice and research. In D. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Crow, G., & Matthews, L. J. (1998). Finding one’s way: How mentoring can lead to dynamic leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Crowson, R., & Boyd, W. (1993). Coordinated services for children: Designing arks for storms and seas unknown. American Journal of Education, 101, 140–179. Danzig, A. (1999a). How might leadership be taught? The use of story and narrative to teach leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 2(2), 117–131. Danzig, A. (1999b). The use of stories in the preparation of educational leaders. International Studies in Educational Administration 27(1), 11–19.

98    A. Danzig and G. Kiltz Danzig, A. (2009). Learner-centered leadership: A new perspective for the preparation and professional development of school leaders. In M. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds.) Transformative leadership and educational excellence: Learning Organizations in the Information Age (pp. 285–308). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. Danzig, A., Blankson, G., & Kiltz, G. (2007). A learner-centered approach to leadership preparation and professional development. In A. Danzig, K. Borman, B. Jones, & W. Wright (Eds.) Learner-centered leadership: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 51–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Danzig, A., Borman, K., Jones, B., & Wright, W. (Eds.). (2007). Learner-centered leadership: Research, policy, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Danzig, A., Kiltz, G., Szescy, E., Wiley T., Osanloo, A., Boyle, C., … & Macey, D. (2004). Creating an environment for learner centered leadership: an emerging model of professional development for school administrators. In C. Carr and C. Fulmer (Eds.), Educational leadership: Knowing the way, going the way, showing the way (pp. 190–221). Twelfth Annual Yearbook of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Yearbook, Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Daresh, J. (2001). Leaders helping leaders: A practical guide to administrative mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Daresh, J. (2004). Mentoring school leaders: Professional promise or predictable problems? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 495–517. Daresh, J., & Capasso, R. (2002, April). Where are the future school principals? Explaining a lack of interest. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Daresh, J., & Playko, M. (1992). The professional development of school administrators: Preservice, induction, and inservice applications. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Donaldson, G., Bowe, L., MacKenzie, S., & Marnik, G. (2004). Learning from leadership work: Maine pioneers a school leadership network. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(7), 539–544. Donaldson, J., & Petersen, G. (2007). Cohort doctoral preparation programs: Neo- institutional perspectives. In Handbook of doctoral programs: Issues and challenges. Ypsilanti, MI: National Council of Professors Of Educational Administration. DuFour, R. (2002). The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12–15. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder. Goldberg, B. & Sifonis, J. (1994). Dynamic planning: The art of managing beyond tomorrow. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Giber, D., Carter, L., & Goldsmith, M. (Eds). (2000). Linkage Inc.’s best practices in leadership development handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Learner-Centered Leadership  99 Hay, J. (1995). Transformational mentoring: Creating developmental alliances for changing organizational cultures. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Johnson, H. (1997). Mentoring for exceptional performance. Glendale, CA: Griffin. Kiltz, G., & Danzig, A. (2003). Learner-centered leadership for language and culturally diverse schools in high need urban settings: Annual performance report-year one. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Kiltz, G., Danzig, A., & Szecsy, E. (2004). Learner centered leadership: A mentoring model for the professional development of school administrators. Journal of Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 12, 135–153. Kirst, M., & McLaughlin, M. (1990). Rethinking policy for children: Implications for educational administration. In B. Mitchell & L. L. Cunningham (Eds.), Educational leadership and changing contexts of families, communities, and schools (Eighty-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2, pp. 69–90). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lieberman, A., Falk, B., & Alexander, A. (1995). A culture in the making: Leadership in learner-centered schools. In J. Oakes & K. H. Quartz (Eds.), Creating new educational communities (Ninety-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, pp. 108–129). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Murphy, J., & Louis, K.S. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of research on educational administration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Study of School Evaluation. (2004). School improvement: Focusing on student achievement. Schaumberg, IL: Author. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Senge, P. (1990, Fall). The leader’s new work. Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, 32(1), 7–23. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Duton, J., & Kleiner, A. (1999). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York, NY: Doubleday. Senge, P., Roberts, C. Ross, R. Smith, B., Roth, G., & Kleiner, A. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York, NY: Doubleday. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. United States Department of Education. (2002). Application for grants under the school leadership program. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. Vickers, G. (1995). The art of judgment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chapter 5

SUSTAINING DATA-INFORMED DECISION MAKING Walter L. Burt, Jianping Shen, Robert Leneway, and J. Mark Rainey

Abstract This study sought to determine the extent to which and how building staff sustained their data-informed decision-making (DIDM) school renewal activities 8 months after having participated in a 30-month Learning-Centered Leadership Development Program. The study also attempted to identify facilitators and barriers for sustainability. Twenty-two of the 25 practicing or aspiring principals were surveyed and 16 (or 72.2%) returned the questionnaire. A case study was conducted with one of the school principals to contextualize the findings. Findings in this study suggest that the majority of buildings had sustained their DIDM school renewal activities. Sustainability could take the form of (a) continuing as is, (b) evolving based on the changing context, or (c) incorporating into the overall school improvement plan. “Staff participation, collaboration and commitment” and “leadership effort to put a structure in place” served as factors that facilitated sustainability. Leadership turnover was the primary barrier to sustaining DIDM school renewal activities. Implications of the findings were discussed.

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 101–120 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing 101 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

102   W. L. Burt et al.

Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to describe the extent to which 25 elementary and secondary schools were able to sustain their school renewal activities after having participated in a two and one-half years federallyfunded project designed to improve the leadership skills of practicing and aspiring principals. In each participating school, project staff developed data-informed decision-making (DIDM) renewal activities that were specifically designed to improve student achievement. These renewal activities were modeled after Marzano, Waters, and McNulty’s (2005) twenty-one leadership responsibilities. Equally important, this study sought to describe how project staffs were able to sustain their school renewal activities, as well as to describe the barriers they encountered when attempting to implement research-based school improvement initiatives. With the publication of the Nation at Risk report, it ushered in a call for more rigorous standards and accountability measures that would enable America’s public schools to become more competitive with other industrialized nations (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Ron Edmonds’ (1982) work on effective schools garnered considerable attention about the importance of principal leadership and its concomitant influence on student achievement. The reauthorization of ESEA of 1965 by President George W. Bush in 2001 strengthened the federal government’s role in demanding greater accountability on the part of schools to ensure that children receiving Title 1 services would make adequate yearly progress (AYP). Repeatedly poor performance would result in mandated state systems of support, up to and including, school closure, takeover, and conversion of locally-operated schools to charter schools (No Child Left Behind, 2001). This augmented demand promulgated by the federal government had a tremendous impact on the nation’s public schools. In fact, in recent years, the education community has witnessed increased interest in data-driven decision making (DIDM)—making it a mantra of educators from the central office, to the school, to the classroom. (Marsh, Pane, & Hamiliton, 2006, p. 1)

In this new era of increased accountability, the role of the principal has evolved from that of a manager to an instructional leader. Principals must not only focus on student achievement, but they must also support the intellectual and emotional work of teachers (Hargraves, Earl, Moore, & Manning, 2001). As an instructional leader, the principal is responsible for demonstrating behaviors and responsibilities that will lead to improved student achievement (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Shen,

Sustaining Data-Informed Decision Making   103

2005). Increasing amounts of research suggest excellent schools typically have excellent principals (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996; Leithwood, 2003, Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, Wahlstrom, 2004). Principals and teachers have been given an enormous task of taking data, usually student test data, and turning this information into a systemic plan to improve instructional practices and student achievement. Developing leadership capacity around improving school conditions is a difficult task and few educators have the background and experience to do this important work (Fullan, 2001, 2005; Wayman, Midgley, & Stringfield, 2006). Principals sorely need the ability to use data to monitor important school conditions that are aligned to improved student and school success. According to Shen et al. (2012), “a broader frame is needed to help principals achieve better accountability for the conditions in their schools that impinge upon student success” (p. 2). There is an abundance of research that suggests principals have a significant influence on improving student achievement (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996; The Wallace Foundation, 2013). The bulk of this research includes studies on effective schools (Edmonds, 1979) and various educational leadership theories (e.g., Bolman & Deal, 2001, Collins, 2001; Covey, 1990; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Leithwood et al., 2004; Lezotte, 1991; Marzano et al., 2005; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003). From its onset, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was specifically designed to utilize federal dollars to introduce and spread innovative practices in public schools. Today, these expectations continue. These change agent programs provide temporary funding to school districts as seed monies to spur innovative programs, and if successful, it is assumed that the district would incorporate and spread the innovation in part, or all, of the schools using federal dollars (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978). Given the enormity of demands placed on schools to improve the performance of students, it becomes quite obvious principals could not do this work alone. Consequently, we saw a new wave of educational reforms that emerged in the 1980s that shifted the role of the principal from manager to one that supports and embraces the concept of shared governance, and more importantly, the emergence of the principal as the instructional leader (Edmonds, 1979; Leithwood, 2003; Shen & Associates, 2005). Senge et al. (2000) suggest that, “growth in nature arises out of interplay between reinforcing growth processes and limiting processes” (p. 7). This basically means that leaders, such as building principals, teacher leaders, and district personnel, who hope to bring substantive change within their buildings, must take steps to ensure that staffs are provided the support they need to implement their research-based initiatives.

104   W. L. Burt et al.

Data-Informed Decision Making During the 1990s, American educational policies relied heavily on test scores to improve student performance and reduce the achievement gap between majority and minority students. The impetus behind this accountability system, coupled with governmental sanctions, helped change the way students were taught in America’s public schools (Kowalski, Lasley, & Mahoney, 2008). This onslaught of data use marshaled in a new direction for teaching and learning, and subsequently, became the harbinger of educational reform efforts in the nation’s public schools (Ash, 2013; Bernhardt, 1998, 2004, 2010; Jennings, 2012; Roderick, 2012; Shen et al., 2012; Weiss, 2012). Notwithstanding the recent accountability movement precipitated by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top (RTTT), the use of data to inform instructional practice has been part of the school research literature for more than 40 years (Edmonds, 1979; Weber, 1971). Achievement test data play a significant role in federal and state accountability systems (Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006). Today, federal and state accountability systems are placing even greater demands on teachers and principals to use data to improve student performance (Ash, 2013; Bernhardt, 2010; Jennings, 2012; Kowalski, Lasley, & Mahoney, 2008; Shen & Cooley, 2008; Weiss, 2012). Consequently, using data for improvement purposes have become the mantra for improving public schools in the United States (Weiss, 2012). There is evidence that there has been an increase in principals’ use of data (Bernhardt, 1998, 2004, 2010) and the typology of data used tend to be student test scores typically aligned to state accountability systems (Bernhardt, 2004; Burt, Cooley, Shen, Yuan, & Reeves, 2008; Jennings, 2012; Marsh, 2012; Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006; Reeves & Burt, 2006; Shen et al., 2010). The use of student test data has helped to change practices at the classroom, building, and district levels. Some of these practices have resulted in assessing student learning, identifying strengths and weaknesses in the curriculum, identifying content that have not been mastered by students, disaggregating school data by subgroups to see which groups of students are benefitting most from the curriculum and instruction, as well as encouraging teachers to work harder and smarter, aligning curriculum to state and federal standards, improving professional development opportunities, and allocating resources within schools (Bernhardt, 1998, 2004, 2010; Jennings, 2012; Wayman, 2005; Weiss, 2012). What is strikingly clear, as pointed out by Weiss (2012), is that some of the data practices are intended to improve the performance of school staff, while others practices are intended primarily to hold school districts accountable for student outcomes. Unfortunately, however, there is

Sustaining Data-Informed Decision Making   105

a paucity of research that show the relative impact of these initiatives on improving student achievement, as well as how these initiatives are being sustained at the building level. NCLB, and its accompanying companion, RTTT, are externally initiated mandates requiring educators to change normative practices. These legislative fiats have spurred state educational institutions, as well as local school districts, to utilize data management systems to diagnose and establish prescriptive measures to inform instructional decision making (Kowalski, Lasley, & Mahoney, 2008; Picciano, 2006). Teachers and principals now have greater knowledge and access to data than what they had previously. Unfortunately, however, Wayman (2005) opined “schools have been ‘data rich’ for years, they were also ‘information poor’ because the vast amount of available data they had were often stored in ways that were inaccessible to most practitioners” (p. 296). Fortunately, there is emerging technology helping to address this issue. Unfortunately, however, having a greater understanding and access to data alone will not ensure its use and eventual goal of improving student achievement (Marsh, 2012). Building staff and central office administrators will continue to need assistance in helping them to use data to support their school improvement efforts. Change and Sustainability The demand for school change and involving all stakeholders in the change process is gaining increasing promise in schools today. Through this process, “schools can be re-created, made vital, and sustainably renewed not by fiat or command, and not by regulation, but by taking a learning orientation” (Senge et al., 2000, p. 5). Principals are an important ingredient to the success of improving schools. They are especially critical to a school for maintaining a “laser-like” focus on improving student achievement and eliminating the achievement gap between the various subpopulations of students (Clayton & Radcliffe, 1996). Principals have the capacity to create structural tension in schools by serving as a catalyst for helping to eliminate the gulf between the school’s vision and its current reality (Fritz, 1999). Kotter (1996) supports this contention and encourage organizational leaders to remove sources of complacency. Over the years, many school districts have adopted key strategies to ensure the sustainability of their school renewal initiatives. Although sustainability can be defined in many different ways, its underlying premise is improved student achievement is inextricably linked to creating a culture of cooperation and collaboration and high expectations for all students.

106   W. L. Burt et al.

The federal government has often used federal dollars as “seed” monies to spur innovations in school districts. The basic argument was if this innovation was successful, it would then be used to spread beyond the district. A study conducted by Berman and McLaughlin (1978) found that although the adoption of an innovation came “top down” and “voluntary,” many districts only looked at the reform efforts for “opportunistic,” rather than for substantial structural changes in the way they teach and how students learn. A perusal of the literature on the sustainability of reform efforts offers both a disconcerting picture (Garcia, 2005) as well as optimism for improving teaching and learning in the nation’s public schools. There is increasing evidence that show the spread and sustainability of improved approaches to teaching and learning will require a new set of norms and cultures (Fritz, 1999; Fullan, 2000, 2001, 2003). Borman, Hewes, Overman, and Brown (2003) research support the contention that when schools are able to sustain their school reform initiatives over five or more years, they were able to demonstrate particularly strong effects and the benefits were consistent across schools of varying poverty levels. Every school has a moral obligation to ensure optimal opportunities for the learning success of all students (Fullan, 2005). When examining the research literature on school change and sustainability, one will find continued sustainability tend to coalesce around the conditional variables discussed below. Strong and Effective Leadership. Effective principals are strong instructional leaders whose focus is on teaching and learning (Edmonds, 1979, Fullan, 2001; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996; Leithwood, 2003). In an initiative designed to involve teachers in the use of a computer data system to support teacher inquiry and reflection, Wayman (2005) found the successful implementation and teacher use of a data system required the initiative to be supported by strong leadership. In this particular case, the researcher found the implementation was not only influenced by the principal modeling the use of the data, but also establishing the conditions that supported and encouraged teachers to grow in their use of the system. Similar findings were also documented by Garcia (2005) and Chrispeels, Burke, Johnson, and Daily (2008). Collaboration. Collaboration and sharing of information are essential elements to the successful implementation and sustainability of innovation (Chrispeels, Burke, Johnson, & Daly, 2008). The benefit of school staff working as a collaborative team is extremely valuable when implementing new program initiatives. Wayman (2005) and Wayman, Midgley, and Stringfield (2006) found the successful implementation and sustainability of a data initiative was characterized by widespread involvement of teachers and other faculty members. Fullan (2005) describes collaboration as capacity building in that the organization is constantly developing leadership for the future.

Sustaining Data-Informed Decision Making   107

Professional Development. Lack of professional development has been a barrier to the successful implementation of many initiatives. In a study addressing the failure of sustainability of reform efforts in 36 schools in one urban school district, Garcia (2005) found there was a need to develop “front-end time” to build constituencies committed to the goals and process of change, as well as the need to develop leadership skill of principals required to implement and sustain reform efforts. Wayman (2005) noted relevant and ongoing professional development should be developed to the unique needs of teachers when promoting widespread teacher involvement. Chrispeels et al. (2008) conducted a study and found the school leadership team and the central office were more likely to develop greater collaboration and shared mental models when they were engaged in a professional development program focused on leadership development. Time. There is an abundance of research that document principals’ concern about not having sufficient time to plan for the implementation of their school reform initiatives (Cooley & Shen, 2013; Marsh, Pane, & Hamiliton, 2006). Reeves and Burt (2006) found time was a major barrier for teachers to use and analyze data and collaborate with other staff members regarding the meaning and use of data. Chrispeels et al. (2008) found additional time was needed for building staff and central office to have dialogue and protocols that specifically helped them surface the assumptions and beliefs that underlie their mental models and shape their actions. Our Learning-Centered Leadership Development Program In 2010, Western Michigan University’s (WMU) Department of Educational Leadership, Research and Technology (ELRT) received a 5-year grant from the United States Department of Education (USDE) to develop and implement a Learning-Centered Leadership Development Program. This program was designed for Practicing and Aspiring Principals who work in high-needs school districts in the State of Michigan. Our program is based upon the balanced leadership study (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005) and 25 additional high-quality studies, as well as the learning we received from other principal leadership development projects funded by the United States Department of Education (USDE) and The Wallace Foundation. After these initiatives, and the continuing work and research in many Michigan urban, suburban, and rural school districts, WMU faculty developed the Learning-Centered Leadership Development Program for Practicing and Aspiring Principals.

108   W. L. Burt et al.

Our work with participants in high-needs school districts focuses on the seven dimensions of principal leadership that are empirically related to improved student achievement. These dimensions are based upon the empirical research of Marzano et al. (2005), and have been reconstructed into seven dimensions that are closely aligned to improved student achievement. These dimensions are listed as followed: (a) data-informed decision making; (b) safe and orderly school operation; (c) high cohesive and culturally relevant expectations for students; (d) distributive and empowering leadership; (e) coherent curricular programs; (f) real-time and embedded instructional leadership; and (g) passion and commitment for school renewal. In addition to the seven dimensions as content of our program, we also focus on the five levels of learning. These five levels of learning activities for participants range from knowing what is important and why (experiential), to what to do (declarative), to how to do it (procedural), to when to do it (contextual), and to what to look for as to results and how to make adjustments (evidential) (adapted from Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).

Figure 5.1.  A schematic presentation of the LCL theory of action.

Data Collection and Analysis We surveyed 22 schools whose principals participated in the survey. In the case where the principal had left the school, we surveyed the aspiring principal. These participants were involved in our project from October 2010 to March 2013. The respondents were surveyed in November, 2013— eight months after they had completed their 30-month learning-centered leadership development program. Our purpose for conducting this study

Sustaining Data-Informed Decision Making   109

was to determine the extent to which the building staffs were still implementing their school renewal activities related to data-informed decision making. And if so, we also wanted to know the perceived benefits, as well as challenges, they incurred while attempting to sustain their data-informed decision-making school renewal activities. Respondents were assured that their participation was strictly voluntary and that their responses would be kept confidential. In an effort to improve the response rate, participants who completed the survey instrument were provided a book on school leadership. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistical procedures including the development of frequency distributions. Qualitative data were analyzed to identify themes from the open-ended questions. Excerpts were edited for errors in syntax, punctuations, and clarity. Of the 22 principals requested to respond, 16, or 72.7%, completed and returned the survey. In addition to the survey, we also conducted a case study with one participating school. The purpose of the case study was to contextualize the findings from the survey. Approval for data collection was processed through the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (HSIRB) at Western Michigan University. Findings Regarding Sustaining Data-informed Decision-Making Renewal Activities Based on the Survey The Extent to Which DIDM Activities Are Sustained Among the 15 valid responses to the questions related to the extent DIDM renewal activities are being sustained within the school this current school year, the data in Figure 5.4 revealed 53.3% (n = 8) of the respondents selected “all of it,” 40.0% (n = 6) “most of it,” and 6.7% (n = 1) “not at all.” No one selected “very little” or “somewhat”. The result all respondents, except for one, selected “all of it” or “most of it” suggest that the rate of sustaining DIDM renewal activities is very high (see Figure 5.2). Given these findings, it is quite apparent that almost all schools reported having sustained DIDM renewal activities “to a great extent,” and only one respondent reported that the school did not sustain their school activities “not at all,” beckon the need for additional follow-up to learn more about how schools sustained their DIDM renewal activities, what served as facilitators and barriers for sustaining DIDM renewal activities, and the reason why they did not sustain these activities.

110   W. L. Burt et al.

Figure 5.2.  The extent to which DIDM renewed activities are sustanined within the school this current school year (N = 15).

How Schools Sustain Their DIDM Renewal Activities The qualitative comments from respondents provide data on how schools sustained their DIDM renewal activities. Although SurveyMonkey was used to collect these data, in addition to various ratings we solicited their qualitative feedback on how these schools sustained DIDM renewal activities. The following paragraphs listed below describe the patterns emerging from the qualitative responses on how schools sustained their DIDM renewal activities. Sustaining means that the school continues to implement DIDM renewal activities. Most schools reported that they continued to implement the DIDM renewal activities. Excerpts in the following table illustrate this theme. Although schools worked on various DIDM renewal activities, the excerpts suggest they continued to implement DIDM renewal activities — although their participation in the project had ended. Sustaining means that DIDM renewal activities evolve given the changing context. The second theme emerging from the data is that sustaining does not necessarily mean that the renewal activities remain exactly the same. Rather, sustaining means that when situation changes, the renewal activities will evolve accordingly. For example, respondent #5 mentioned

Sustaining Data-Informed Decision Making   111 Table 5.1.  Excerpts Related to the Theme that Schools Continue to Implement the DIDM Renewal Activities Respondent

Excerpt

#1

“... informed decision making based on DIBEL’s data....”

#2

“Data discussions with all staff.”

#6

“Data informed decisions are made utilizing the systematic strategies developed through WMU.”

#8

“We incorporated all our renewal activities into our school quality plan along with the methods for measurement.”

#10

“All teachers participate in Professional Learning Community (PLC) meetings. These meetings are scheduled to allow grade level and multigrade level teachers to meet and plan instruction using data. These meetings are held once per week.”

#11

“Our school continues to use the Data Team process for units of instruction.”

#12

“Decisions are made based on student need. We use data notebooks w/ intervention notes. All staff are using.”

#15

“Data, Assessment Focus Team, and Data Walls will start back-up for 2nd Semester. These strategies are embedded in our SIP, and is a consistent component of staff meetings.”

that “we have decided to not push Data Walls as much as we have in the past. We no longer feel the need to post data in our classrooms.” While respondent #5’s comments above implied “subtraction,” respondent #9’s remarks indicated “addition”—more time was allocated to the team for DIDM to develop a plan of action. Still, evolving could mean taking a new direction. For example, respondent #11 mentioned that “We are beginning to use our data in different ways now. Teachers and teams are creating ‘power hours’ or ‘team time’ to better meet the needs of our students based on what our data tell us.” Respondents #10 and #13 echoed the same sentiment of taking a new direction. Please refer to Table 5.2 for more details on how respondents reported that sustaining means renewal activities evolve given the changing context. Sustaining meaning incorporating into the overall school improvement process. The third theme on how schools are sustaining their DIDM renewal activities is that schools incorporated DIDM renewal activities into the overall school improvement process. Respondent #13’s remarks illustrate this theme very well when she (or he) emphasized that “EVERYTHING is based on data”: Data teams are alive and well in my building.... EVERYTHING is based on data, but we are now using data in different ways, including a new initiative

112   W. L. Burt et al. called Power Hour. We also are deeply committed to Professional Learning Communities (or Critical Friends Groups) which is a big part of school improvement and professional growth. Table 5.2.  Excerpts Related to the Theme That Sustaining Means Renewal Activities Evolve Given the Changing Context Respondent

Excerpts

#5

“We have decided to not push Data Walls as much as we have in the past. We do look at data monthly at Grade Level Meetings and have a clear overall picture which we use to drive our instruction for that month. We no longer feel the need to post the data in our classrooms.”

#9

“We are currently structuring our grade level PLC’s to include more time allotted to at least an hour. Providing this extra time really allows our team to analyze the data and develop a plan of action.”

#10

“Last year our school had a data leadership team which met to discuss the various data that was used to plan for school improvement in reading, math and behavior. This year our leadership developed the idea of using an Instructional Leadership Team to help guide the best practices and teaching learning that would drive increased student achievement by using data. The ILT meets once per month and then filters the information to the PLC’s. Administration monitors the progress and the ILT is in constant position to adjust best practices as needed to address any concerns as cited by the school data.”

#11

“We are beginning to use our data in different ways now. Teachers and teams are creating “power hours” or “team time” to better meet the needs of our students based on what our data tell us.”

#13

“... we are now using data in different ways, including a new initiative called Power Hour. We also are deeply committed to Professional Learning Communities (or Critical Friends Groups) which is a big part of school improvement and professional growth.”

This theme was also echoed by respondent #8 who mentioned, “We incorporated all our renewal activities into our school quality plan” as well as Respondent # 14’s comments: Formative reading assessments used to monitor reading progress for Reading Rotation Program. AimsWeb universal screener used this year as a means of using a more standardized tool to assess math and grade level abilities. All data gathered through formative assessment is used to make decisions regarding student placement within groups, for SPED consideration, and for instructional decisions, including differentiation and individual support.

Sustaining Data-Informed Decision Making   113

To triangulate the theme of sustaining DIDM renewal activities through incorporation into the overall school improvement process, we also gathered quantitative data. When we asked the respondents “to what extent have your current school improvement process changed to reflect the following.” Approximately 61% of the respondents mentioned that “we now decide school improvement goals based on student and school data” and they attributed the change to the grant project. Similarly, 64.3% of the respondents indicated “we now decide school improvement strategies based on student and school data.” Respondents attributed the change to the grant project. Facilitators for Sustaining DIDM Renewal Activities The predominant theme on facilitators for sustaining DIDM renewal activities is related to the participation, collaboration and commitment of staff. Data in Table 5.3 illustrate this theme.

Table 5.3.  Staff Participation, Collaboration and Commitment as a Facilitator for Sustaining the DIDM Renewal Activities Respondent

Excerpts

 #1

“These activities have been sustained based on staff commitment to student achievement.”

 #2

“Data discussions with all staff.”

#10

“All teachers participate in Professional Learning Community (PLC) meetings” (related to data-informed decision-making)

#12

“We are able to sustain this through having a structured plan in place, staff buy in, and continually improving the process through staff collaboration.”

#13

“Data teams are alive and well in my building. Common planning time is a huge help.”

Another emerging theme related to “facilitator for sustainability” is the notion of leadership. One aspect of the notion of leadership is “having a structured plan in place” (Respondent #12). The other aspects are indicated in the following except from Respondent # 11 which highlighted not only the leadership to support the data team, but also the leadership to monitor the process: “Factors that contribute to the success have been continuous professional development and support not only for our data team leaders, but the members as well, and the fact that principals monitor the data team process.”

114   W. L. Burt et al.

Barriers to Sustaining DIDM Renewal Activities One emerging theme related to barriers to sustaining DIDM renewal activities is leadership turn-over. For example, Respondent #3 mentioned the “principal was let go from his position and new principal hasn’t used anything from the previous one.” Respondent #16 also mentioned “administrative change over.” Although this theme is supported by the literature which tends to conclude that leadership change is a barrier to sustainability, it is interesting to note, in our sample, there were other cases of leadership change and the DIDM renewal activities were sustained. It appears other factors, such as the depth of the implementation of the renewal activities and the circumstances surrounding the leadership change, might interact with the factor of leadership change to produce various outcomes. Findings Related to Sustaining DIDM Renewal Activities from the Case Study This case study was purposive in nature. We decided to conduct a case study of school to contextualize the survey data. We felt the case study would inform our understanding about the factors that facilitated and impeded the sustainability of school renewal activities. After much consideration, we decided to conduct a case study at Midwest Elementary School (a pseudonym). More than 60% of the students at Midwest Elementary School receive free or reduced price lunches. Our research staff conducted the case study of Midwest Elementary School during the month of November, 2013. This school has not had any contact with the project for over eight months, as this school started their involvement with the project in October 2010, and concluded their project training in March 2013. Naturally, we were most interested in learning about the status of the school renewal activities on data-informed decision making in the building, and whether these activities were still in existence, and if they were, to what extent did these initiatives have an impact on improving their building’s school improvement efforts. This school implemented two school renewal activities that fell under the data-informed decision-making dimension. Formula for Success was the first initiative developed by this school. It emerged by taking a violence prevention program and combining it with an existing building culture program to create one overarching program called “4S” (atmosphere + attitude + appropriate behavior = achievement). In reflecting upon this

Sustaining Data-Informed Decision Making   115

program, the principal recalled the purpose of the program is designed to reduce violence and bullying in school. It trains students to become good bystanders, and is primarily focused on deterring violence in school by providing a set of consequences for students that violate school rules. A reward system serves as the cornerstone of the program and it recognizes students who display positive behaviors. Regular announcements are made on the school’s PA system, as well as recognizing students through cards, and letters to parents acknowledging their children’s recognitions. School leadership team incorporated data teams as their second school renewal activity. Data teams are comprised of grade-level members. These teams are asked to create a pretest prior to teaching an instructional unit. Teachers immediately score the test and then analyze the results for meaning. Teachers developed a six-step protocol they use to guide their assessment of student learning. Once the pretest is analyzed, teachers identify students’ “strengths and weaknesses.” “SMART Goals” are developed by data team members. According to the principal, the most powerful part of this process is the brainstorming that occurs between teachers about the instructional strategies they will use for the various grade levels. The team develops the following: (a) instructional strategies they will use for all students; (b) instructional strategies that will be used for students that are already proficient; (c) instructional strategies that will be used for students that are below proficient; and (d) instructional strategies that will be used for students that will not attain proficiency in this particular instructional cycle. Data team members developed monitoring meetings where they bring in examples of student work and then analyze the data to determine whether they are obtaining the expected results from students. If not, according to the principal, teachers are then responsible for making adjustments in their instructional strategies. Responding principal noted this work is heavily dependent upon teacher collaboration and “pooling” of resources. Teachers take time to celebrate when there is evidence of student success. At the end of the instructional cycle when the posttest is given, teachers are required to go back and assess whether the SMART Goals were attained. If not, teachers are required to come up with an additional plan to help students meet instructional goals. Respondent school has seen achievement growth in every instructional cycle. Spring-to-spring assessment results show continued yearly improvements and increased collaboration and sharing between teachers. With

116   W. L. Burt et al.

respect to the 4S program, there was been a significant decline in the number of incident reports. In referencing the number of incidents occurring in September 2012, there were 40 reported incidents. In September 2013, there were 6. In October, 2012, there were 69 reported incidents. In October 2013, there were 32, respectively. Project principal indicated that this trend was consistent over the remaining months when comparing the number of incident from one year to the next. A data wall is used to report the frequency distribution of positive student recognition awards as the school has a goal of getting three more positive behaviors than one negative behavior. When the principal was queried about how the school was able to sustain the two school renewal activities, she mentioned it was through the direct support of the central office. A source close to the project school made the following observation: All central office and principals were trained about implementing Data Teams…. Each month, principals from each building are responsible for meeting with their team leaders. We don’t always talk about the logistics of these meeting, but we talk more about leadership. When you encounter someone that does not turn in their items, or have a negative attitude, at meeting, how do you deal with that? What are your responsibilities as a leader? We talk about these logistics, but we are most concerned about giving our teachers the skills to lead these meetings and be able to delegate these responsibilities as well. With respect to the 4S program, teachers are constantly bringing new ideas to the curriculum and reminding us of the importance of providing the “Crash Course” to new teachers to our building. In both of our initiatives, everyone knows that we are not letting them go away.

Getting “buy-in” from staff was one of the major barriers impeding the implementation and sustainability of data teams. She stated, “it is important to convince teachers of the value about collaborating with other staff members.” Time also became an issue as there was the need for teachers to get additional training to enhance their knowledge in this content area. Additional time was needed for teachers to clarify differences in perception between staff about what was deemed as “acceptable” and “not acceptable” behaviors, and their corresponding consequences. A source for the case study reflected upon the school’s participation in the Learning-Centered Leadership Program in the following manner: When we adopted the two initiatives over three years ago, we were able to learn more about the work and the research that had been conducted in these areas. This initiative came at a perfect time. When we started with Western on this grant, we were able to start thinking deeper about what we were doing, and what we had not thought about previously.

Sustaining Data-Informed Decision Making   117

Learnings from Studying the Sustainability of Data-Informed Decision Making An examination of the literature and our direct involvement with schools concerning the sustainability of school renewal initiatives provide optimism for meaningful change in schools today. Our optimism was reinforced when project staff reported meaningful changes were possible when they were able to couple the school renewal activity, using the seven dimensions of leadership and corresponding effective practices, with the school improvement planning process. In addition to this, there are other conditions important to sustainability and will be discussed below. Sustainability is feasible. Larry Cuban’s (1990) classic “Reform again, again, and again” seems to lament the fact that educational change functions in a pendulum pattern. In other words, if there is no sustainability in the work, people will jump from one bandwagon to another (Senge et al., 2000). In our study, 93.3% of the schools reported that they sustained “all” or “most” of the DIDM renewal activities. Although the time span from the completion of the project, and accompanying study, is not long, the findings suggest that sustainability is feasible and the enthusiasm surrounding the development and implementation of renewal activities, as well as the pervasiveness of the DIDM renewal activities into many other aspects of the school improvement efforts, contribute to the sustainability of renewal activities. Sustainability takes many forms. According to the findings, sustainability could take the form of (a) continuing as is, (b) evolving based on the changing context, and (c) incorporating into the overall school improvement plan. Depending on the changing context of the school, sustainability could take on various forms. To view sustainability only as “continuing as is” might define the concept “sustainability” too narrowly. Leadership interacts with other factors to impact sustainability. In the literature, the emphases tend to be on the importance of leadership as an isolated factor that impact sustainability. Our study seems to indicate that leadership interacts with other factors to impact sustainability. One school reported that the DIDM renewal activities were not sustained due to the change of principals. However, many other schools experienced the change of principals as well and the sustainability of the DIDM renewal activities was achieved. It appears other factors, such as the depth of implementation, the circumstance of the change of principals, and the cultural embeddedness of the renewal activities, interact with the leadership factor to impact sustainability. This is an area of research that needs further exploration. The renewal model contributes to sustainability. Different from the “reform” model which emphasizes the implementation of an externally

118   W. L. Burt et al.

developed and “validated” program and impose alternatives, our renewal model emphasizes the process of “dialogue, decision, action, and evaluation” within a general framework of effective practices. Therefore, the emphasis is on the connection to and moving beyond the existing improvement efforts. Because of the features of our renewal model, the renewal activities are more likely to be sustained than the alternative activities under the reform model. School renewal requires a district-wide commitment. The task of improving schools is a very complex endeavor. Principals have to deal with the complexities of many conflicting initiatives that come from federal, state and local requirements. The central office is critical in providing direction and support to building principals as they navigate through shoals of unchartered waters. To ensure the sustainability of school renewal initiatives, district offices have a responsibility to place principals with strong leadership skills in schools and support them in their school improvement efforts (Leithwood et al., 2004; Mendal & Mitgang, 2013). References Ash, K. (2013). Data-sharing GOALS data development drives change: Districts need to build better information intelligence. Education Week, 32(25), 22. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Implementing and sustaining innovations (Vol. viii). R-1589/8-HEW. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Bernhardt, V. (1998). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Bernhardt, V. (2004). Data analysis for continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Lachmore, NY: Eye on Education. Bernhardt, V. (2010). Data, data everywhere: Bringing all the data together for continuous school improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2001). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey of spirit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Borman, G., Hewes, G., Overman, L., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 73(2), 125–230. Burt, W. L., Cooley, V., Shen, J., Yuan, W., & Reeves, P. (2008). Michigan public school principals’ perception regarding the importance and actual use of instructional data: An ex post facto study. JABSE, 7(1), 75–86. Chrispeels, J. H., Burke, P. H., Johnson, P., & Daly, A. J. (2008). Aligning mental models of district and school leadership teams for reform coherence. Education and Urban Society. Retrieved from http://eus.sagepub.com/content/40/6/730. Clayton, A. M., & Radcliffe, N. J. (1996). Sustainability: A systems approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Sustaining Data-Informed Decision Making   119 Collins, J. (2001). Good to great, why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New York, NY: Harpers Business. Cooley, V. E., & Shen, J. (2013). Data-informed decision-making. In J. Shen & V. E. Cooley (Eds.), A resource book for improving principals’ learning-centered leadership. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Cuban, L. (1990). Reform again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13. Covey, S. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Garcia, R. (2005). Sustainability crisis: Time for resolution. Educational leadership and administration, 17, 33+. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24. Edmonds, R. (1982). Programs for school improvement. Educational Leadership, 40, 4–11 Fritz, R. (1999). The path of least resistance for managers: Designing organizations to succeed. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler. Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 581–584. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. London, England: Routledge. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & Sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hargraves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change: Teaching beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Culture and education administration. Journal of Education Administration, 34(5), 98–116. Jennings, J. (2012). The effects of accountability system design on teachers' use of test score data. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–23. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kowalski, T. J., Lasley, T. J., & Mahoney, J. W. (2008). Data-driven decisions and school leadership: Best practices for school improvement. Boston, MA: Pearson. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). Leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Leithwood, K. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University. Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstron, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/NRrdonlyres/E3BCCFA5-A88B-45D38E27B973732283C9/0/ReviewofResearchLearningFromLeadership.pdf Lezotte, L. W. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products. Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamiliton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.

120   W. L. Burt et al. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mendels, P., & Mitgang, L.(2013). Creating strong principals. Educational Leadership, 70(7), 22–29. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 113– 130. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003). Picciano, A. G. (2006). Data-driven decision making for effective school leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Reeves, P., & Burt, W. (2006). Challenges in data-based decision-making: Voices from principals. Educational Horizons, 85(1), 65–71. Roderick, M. (2012). Drowning in data but thirsty for analysis. Teachers College Record. 114, 1–9. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline educators, fieldbook for parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York, NY: Doubleday. Shen, J., & Associates. (2005). School principals. New York, NY: Peter Lang Shen, J., & Cooley, V. (2008). Critical issues in using data for decision-making. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(3), 319–329. Shen, J., Cooley, V. E., Reeves, P., Burt, W. L., Ryan, L., Rainey, J. M., & Yuan, W. (2010). Using data for decision-making: Perspectives from 16 principals in Michigan, USA. International Review of Education, 56 (4), 435–456. Shen, J., Cooley, V. E., Ma, X., Reeves, P. L., Burt, W. L., Rainey, J. M., & Yuan, W. (2012). Data-informed decision-making on high-impact strategies: Developing and validating a measurement tool for principals. Journal of Experimental Education, 80(1), 1–25. Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. Retrieved from www.wallacefoundation.org Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved from at www.mcrel.org Wayman, J. C. (2005). Involving teachers in data-driven decision making: Using computer Data systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 295–308. Wayman, J. C., Midgley, S., Stringfield, S. (2006). Leadership for data-based decision-making: Collaborative educator teams. In A. B. Danzig (Ed.), Learnercentered leadership: Research, policy, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools. Washington DC: Council for Basic Education. Weiss, J. A. (2012). Data for improvement, data for accountability. Teacher College Record, 114, 1–7. Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 398–425.

Chapter 6

Efforts to Sustain Activities Developed through Federal Funding The Case of Project All Charol Shakeshaft, Kerry Robinson, Barbara Driver, and Jennifer Wilkerson

Abstract This chapter describes strategies to sustain a principal preparation program funded by the U.S. Department of Education in a university leadership department. Sustainability was supported by developing a conscious plan for continuance and building it into the funding proposal; developing collaborative decision making with department members from the beginning; and making changes to the program based upon full department and grant member participation.

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 121–130 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing 121 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

122    C. Shakeshaft et al.

This chapter describes strategies for sustainability for a U.S. Department of Education funded project for preparing principals and assistant principals for the Richmond City Schools (RPS). At the time of the proposal, RPS projected 14 central office administrators and 12 principals and assistant principals (APs) slated for retirement. In their 2008 Balanced Scorecard Needs and Planning Assessment, the district called for increased attention to building-level leadership, including succession planning and instructional leadership. To address this issue, Project ALL was developed to create a pool of candidates ready to lead as principals or assistant principals. Project ALL provides a model of authentic learning through a three pronged approach: two semesters of leadership preparation modules developed around Virginia leadership competencies and supplemented by a full motion video simulation, A Year in the Life of a Middle School Principal; a 2-month, full time summer internship; and a year-long apprenticeship as an assistant principal. For both of our learning groups, we chose teachers who were identified by their peers and building administrators as instructional leaders within their schools. We were interested in selecting candidates whose instructional IQ was high. The recruitment and selection processes were built around evaluation of instructional and leadership artifacts presented by the applicant as well as classroom observations and interviews. Sustainability of Leadership Development Program Curriculum The primary goal of Project ALL was to provide an authentic and novel leadership development program for prospective secondary, urban school leaders as a means to address leadership needs in our partner school district. We also wanted to develop materials that could be used for ongoing leadership development by Richmond City Schools, as well as other districts. This program consisted of the development of content structured in a cohesively built modular format and the development of complementary content delivered as a simulation of a year in the life of a middle school principal. Project personnel reflected carefully about sustainability in the design of the project. We examined sustainability for both of our outcomes— leadership modules and the online leadership simulation—and for both Richmond City Schools and the Educational Leadership Department at VCU. We knew it would be easier to promote sustainability at VCU because we were faculty members in the department with control of our content and decisions. We also knew that it would be harder to institutionalize a program within the Richmond City Schools both because of finances and

Efforts to Sustain Activities Developed Through Federal Funding   123

because leadership changes were more frequent than at VCU—with new leadership comes new commitments. Therefore, we proposed developing a leadership program tailored to preparing principals for the Richmond City Schools that would also be appropriate for our entire metro student population. The goal was to replace our existing program with the modules developed with Project ALL funding. Once completed, the modules would be used in all of our administrator preparation programs and also be available to the Richmond City Schools if they wished to use the materials for leadership development. Sustainability was also addressed with the development of our simulation, A Year in the Life of a Middle School Principal. Once developed, this simulation would be available to Richmond City Schools personnel to use for staff leadership development and at the same time, would be used in VCU’s leadership preparation program. Receiving funding for Project ALL provided an opportunity to scrutinize VCU’s existing program curricular content and its viability in light of the changing needs of candidates seeking educational leadership roles in PK–12 schools. We chose to take a frank and open look at our programs and refine both the content and delivery to increase the program’s ability to address the world in which school principals live. On the university side, sustainability meant that postgrant we would be able to continue to provide an innovative leadership development program in ways that allowed us to be responsive to the needs of our regional catchment area and to the needs of the larger educational leadership community. In other words, we did not want to spend five years developing leadership curriculum modules and activities only to have them put on a shelf at the end of the funding. Our goal, then, was to make the program created for the Richmond Public Schools available to all of our students as the only leadership preparation program in our department. We employed three strategies to work toward sustainability: (1) develop a plan specific to sustainability, (2) involve stakeholders, and (3) make interim data-informed adjustments. Strategy 1: Develop Sustainability Plan We knew sustainability could not be an afterthought. Achieving our goal of developing and implementing a locally responsive, innovative leadership program that exsited beyond the life of the grant that funded it had to be considered at the onset. The project was planned and targeted at addressing an established need of the partner district with a response that would be available after the funding cycle ended.

124    C. Shakeshaft et al.

Sustainability beyond the end of the grant requires the plan begin by considering the final destination (World Health Organization, 2011). In other words, what were our ultimate goals? We also considered short-term goals related to organizational structures and practices that might need to change if the core project elements were to be sustained over time. In short, we asked ourselves: what would be different and in what way at the end of the grant? We had two goals: (a) develop an authentic curriculum that addressed the needs of school leaders, especially those in urban settings, and (b) develop a simulated experience in which candidates can safely apply their new knowledge and skills in a formative way. At the very beginning of the project, we reached consensus with department members to agree that the program developed within the grant project would become the department leadership preparation program at the end of the grant. We also secured agreement of department members to help in the development of the curriculum, even though they were not formally part of the grant team. We believed that institutionalizing the curriculum was the only way to make sure the work we did continued to be used. We began by setting some guiding principles: No existing program or courses would be included in the curriculum; modules, not courses, were to be the building blocks of the program; content to be focused on discrete skills and knowledge. Figuring out how to put the content into university containers would come later and was not to guide our thinking. At the same time, we were also developing a full motion video simulation and needed to make it authentic as well as compatible with the curriculum if it was to be sustained. Strategy 2: Cultivate Collaborative Relationships Building an innovative and sustainable leadership development program requires more than magical thinking. It requires shared awareness and understanding of what is germane to the field of school leadership and it requires shared commitment of stakeholders. Meaningful involvement of stakeholders is a key strategy for project sustainability (Stroul & Manteuffel, 2007; Trutko, O’Brien, Holcomb, & Nightingale, 2007). Accurate alignment of leadership development needs with university programs that fulfill those needs creates mutual benefit. Because we wanted our end products (curriculum and simulation) to match the needs of our constituents, our project’s curriculum development processes welcomed broad participation by our “in-the-field” partners. It also offered equal representation in the decision making. The constituents who developed content and made final

Efforts to Sustain Activities Developed Through Federal Funding   125

decisions included both full time members of the educational leadership department and representatives from the field. Field-based stakeholder involvement. Local school administrators were encouraged to share their perceptions of knowledge and skills needed by school leaders via multiple planning meetings. Our professors of practice (adjunct professors), who collaborate with the department of educational leadership at VCU more routinely, were part of this group and together with other school administrators, provided us with input on the “of the moment” needs of principals as well as anticipated needs. These individuals formed teams who provided real world stories, descriptions of school leadership challenges, and suggested pertinent content for the modules. They also provided suggestions about the experiences and activities in which prospective candidates might engage that would support the learning goals of individual modules. Administrators including principals and assistant principals at elementary, middle and high school levels, central office specialists and directors, and superintendents and assistant superintendents reviewed successive iterations of the modules. In all we held three all-day meetings with groups and each ranged from 20 to 45 school leaders from five local county school districts reviewing, developing, and evaluating the modules. We also held several shorter meetings with school leaders to gather additional feedback as we made changes. Groups of sitting principals “played” our simulation twice to provide feedback for changes to insure both authenticity and usefulness of the story and choices. Qualitative data from these meetings resulted in determination of critical information and applicable activities and experiences that were considered for use in the module development. This information assisted formatively in deciding what would constitute the final versions of the modules prior to piloting. University stakeholder involvement. School-based partners were influential as guides in the development phase. Involvement of the individuals who would be charged with implementing the changes—department full and part time faculty—was also an important consideration for insuring that the new curriculum would be sustained. Commitment beyond those who were directly involved in the grant-supported program would be needed for sustainability. Like the school partners, full and part time faculty were involved at all critical stages from the initial analysis of the data from the school leaders to pilot testing the modules. After gathering feedback from the field, full and part time department faculty worked in teams to organize the modular content, competencies, learning objectives, and accompanying activities according to professional standards. This same process was also applied to the development of scenarios used for the simulation.

126    C. Shakeshaft et al.

Department faculty and professors of practice continued to be involved in review of the modules during implementation of the pilot. After the initial teaching of each module, the instructor met with the grant project team and department chair to evaluate the completed module. Data from student evaluations specially designed to provide insight on whether the content and activities authentically supported their understanding and application of the content of the module were utilized as a means to determine areas of potential revision. Collaborative partnerships and sustainability. Stakeholder involvement maintained commitment to sustaining change in important ways. Capturing the experiences and effective practices of current leaders and bridging that to leadership theory lent relevancy to the curriculum by providing a powerful framework for what should be included as essential. This partnership resulted in effectively organized, authentic curricular content that was well positioned to be seamlessly institutionalized. Involving our school district partners in the project to support curriculum development was especially beneficial. Being part of a transparent process that kept them informed of the successes and challenges in the development process meant that our partners had insight and knowledge of the goals and intent of the project at important stages in development. Specifically, our partners were engaged in both providing suggestions for the content and related activities and in developing individual modules. By conducting the process in a forum that included school leaders, an understanding of how the new program curriculum would meet leadership needs in their respective districts emerged. Our partners became champions who generated support for the project and identified us as a School of Education concerned with the realities of leadership practice and authentic leadership preparation. The opportunity to work together, build together, and address challenges together brought about a shared commitment to success. While creating opportunities for collaboration gave us a strong foundation for sustainability, collaboration as a single strategy would not be sufficient. Realistic and pragmatic sustainability could only be achieved if the development and plan for sustainability was nimble enough to be responsive to information that indicated an alteration was necessary. The road map that provided the overall sustainability plan needed to be to flexible enough to allow refinement adjustments during planning and pilot implementation Strategy 3: Make Interim Data-informed Adjustments At the outset of grant implementation, all applicable circumstances that may influence sustainability cannot be anticipated. Long-term sustain-

Efforts to Sustain Activities Developed Through Federal Funding   127

ability requires short-term, data-supported decisions that maintain the momentum of implementation toward the established end goals. We found that viewing the plan as being flexible within the scope of the funded project allowed for occasional interim adjustments and revisions that were important to reaching our sustainability goals related to institutionalizing the new curriculum. The plan provided clarity about where we wanted to be; however, to meet our goals, several questions proved significant in guiding our response to unanticipated situations. We used the following questions: (a) How realistically attainable are our interim goals? (b) What is worth sustaining? And (c) How does the data inform us related to need for interim adjustments? These questions served as important checks and balances system to address challenges as they arose. Goal attainability. We faced challenges not unlike other teams implementing a grant-funded project over the course of several years. One of those challenges was related to human resources. Project implementation was initiated with a fully staffed and committed team. In the course of implementation, however, the makeup of the team changed as project staff and department faculty moved from the department or were reassigned to other responsibilities. The challenge was not one of adequate numbers of staff—no critical position was left vacant—but it did require us to explore how we could pragmatically maintain momentum in attaining our interim goals in light of changing staff. We needed to address the preservation of institutional memory as a means for realistically staying on track in development of the curriculum and the simulation. Several actions became key to mitigating the effects of new staff inexperienced with the grant. All artifacts, from the proposal process forward, were preserved electronically or as hard copy and were made available to new staff. These proved particularly helpful for those supporting the curriculum development in making clear the intent of the grant proposal and how the project would address local unmet needs for leadership development. Other information was stored on a project website which included links to drafted content, components of the simulation, and information about grant participants. Interim adjustments needed due to changing staff were made easier because the work of curriculum development was not isolated to one individual. Multiple staff had understanding of functions beyond their specific focus area. Individuals working on the simulation also had knowledge of the content of the modules, for example. Because no person had singular knowledge of an element of the curriculum development, loss of important information was barred and meeting interim goals was not adversely affected.

128    C. Shakeshaft et al.

Sustainability value. Sustainability is about determining what is worth keeping and to what scale (U.S. Department of Labor and Training Administration, n.d.). Attempting to sustain something for which there are indications of unaddressed vulnerability likely will not succeed. We encountered such a situation when we tested the simulation as we implemented the new curricular modules. One important element of our new curriculum included a simulation that provided candidates with opportunities to practice new skills in a safe environment that replicates authentic leadership circumstances. The initial iteration of the simulation was implemented in tandem with the modules. After finalizing the goals and objectives for the modules, the modules were organized so that each would substantively build on another. This created a coherent order through which candidates would sequentially move. We learned in the pilot stage that portions of the simulated experiences in which the candidates engaged logically matched the concurrent module content. In these cases, evaluative feedback from the candidates and module instructors revealed that the simulation was effective in providing an authentic learning experience and helped measure the candidate’s success at applying new knowledge and skills. A significant amount of the simulated experiences, however, did not connect in a well-timed way. That is, we found that course content could not be logically arranged to plausibly mirror the course of events of a school year. From a sustainability standpoint, we then needed to use the information obtained from student evaluations and module instructors to determine what part of the simulation might need to be adjusted. Given the data from the candidates and module instructors indicating that the simulation provided an innovative opportunity to authentically apply learning, the project team determined that the simulation was sound but that the timing of its use needed to be adjusted to maximize benefit to candidates. Our original plan to embed the simulation was adjusted to support the longterm sustainability of this portion of our project. Making adjustments in the way the simulation was used is an example of the positive outcomes that may result from interim “tuning” of the plans and processes of project implementation. This example is also illustrative of the importance of collecting ongoing formative data that guides decision-making and maintenance of a forward trajectory. Functional data. To identify changes that should take place, we needed useful data that identified what worked and what did not work. The question for us was not whether we should gather information, but what processes should we employ to we make sense of that data in the most purposeful ways. Thoughtful analysis of data organized in easily accessible formats would guide us toward our goal and to position us for sustainability.

Efforts to Sustain Activities Developed Through Federal Funding   129

We have previously described several ways information was gathered from practitioners and faculty. Information collected from multiple sessions where educational leaders generated suggested content and related experiences that matched the knowledge and skills needed by PK–12 leaders was reviewed and further detailed by faculty. The data we were most interested in was that which was actionable; that is, the data that would allow us to take steps toward curriculum development. What remained, however, was that information needed to be organized meaningfully so that it could be applied. Curricular mapping, a process where the sequence of the content over the course of the leadership development program is organized in a visual map or chart (Uchiyama & Radin, 2009, provided an effective organizing system). The information captured by the curriculum map included the module goals and objectives, content taught, the activities and assignments that supported learning, texts and assigned readings, and assessments. This tool was used collectively by the Project ALL team and faculty. As mentioned earlier, after the teaching of the modules during the pilot phase, the instructor and the Project ALL team met to discuss the evaluation results of the course. The curriculum map provided both a succinct overview of the module being discussed and an opportunity to see the fit within the overall progression of other modules. This review provided us with information about needed interim adjustments. Examples of those adjustments meant that some modules could be streamlined by deleting activities that were similarly presented in other modules. Other improvements included modifications to assessments that increased the level of authenticity and more closely mirrored the realities of PK–12 leadership. This alignment supported sustainability proactively by allowing us to benchmark our work. We were able to determine that we could merge some modules and that others needed to be expanded in ways different than what we had originally planned. We were also able to determine the effectiveness of various delivery methods (face-to-face, online, or a combination) and modify accordingly. The adjustments made along the way meant that implementation of the changes could be made surreptitiously and without obstacles. Evaluation All of the activities we have discussed in this chapter are formative. We used these evaluations in the development of the curriculum and the simulation. We also want to know the long term effects of our project. While the data are not yet analyzed, we can share out template to evaluate the outcomes of the program.

130    C. Shakeshaft et al.

We chose a number of ways in which to evaluate our project. This evaluation is not completed, but we can share our process. In Virginia, all graduates of leadership preparation programs must pass the SLLA exam in order to become certified in school administration. We have collected the SLLA exam outcomes from the students who participated in Project ALL and from students who completed the department program that was in place while we were developing the new program. We also compared the scores of Richmond candidates who completed Project ALL activities and Richmond candidates who completed another program. Prior to beginning the Project ALL program, we collected NASSP Leadership Skills Assessment data from students in the Project ALL group and students in the traditional program. We also collected the same data at the end of the programs. We are comparing gains by program. Finally, we are comparing scores on the simulation of Project ALL and traditional program students. We are also comparing job status of both groups 1 year and 2 years after completion as well as supervisor evaluations. Summary While it is too soon to know if the sustainability mechanisms we built into the project will work, we have adopted Project ALL modules as the only leadership preparation program offered by our department. The simulation will also be online and available to our partners and VCU students for use in leadership development. This seems like a good start. We hope we feel the same in five years. References Stroul, B. A., & Manteuffel, B. A. (2007). The sustainability of systems of care for children’s mental health: Lessons learned. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 3(34), 237–259. Trutko, J, O’Brien, C, Holcomb, P., & Nightingale, D. S. (2007). Implementation and sustainability: Emerging lessons from the Early High Growth Training Initiative (HGJTI) grants. Final report prepared by the Urban Institute for the Department of Labor. Washington, DC. Uchiyana, K. P., & Radin, J. L. (2009). Curriculum mapping in higher education: A vehicle for collaboration. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 271–280. doi:10.1007/s10755-088-9078-8 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (n.d.). Moving forward: Tips for sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.doleta. gov/business/PDF/SustainTips.pdf World Health Organization. (2011). Beginning with the end in mind: Planning pilot projects and other programmatic research for successful scaling up. Geneva, Switzerland.

Chapter 7

Performance-based Academic Coaching Teams (PACT) A System-Wide Support for Principals and Aspiring Principals Michele Skinner and Irma Harper

Abstract Training and support for principals is critical to counter turnover rates of school administrators. The need for ongoing mentoring of campus administrators is something many school districts neglect when addressing school leader retention. The Performance-Based Academic Coaching Teams (PACT) website is used to assist newly hired administrators during their first years. The website focuses on the development of instructional leadership through electronic mentoring, immediate help requests, professional development modules, administrator mentor training, principal research support, message boards, and chat sessions. These components focus on helping the novice administrator with daily challenges and areas they may not have developed

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 131–143 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing 131 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

132   M. Skinner and I. Harper during their preservice preparation. The PACT website has grown over the past 5 years into a part of the educational leadership programs in the Texas A&M System universities and now is being used throughout the state. In 2015, the PACT site will be presented nationally. This will in turn give the PACT site a greater audience and will also help with the financial sustainability as the site continues to grow.

Studies consistently indicate that exemplary schools have effective leadership (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Or, & Cohen, 2007). It is the principal who sets the climate for the school and engages the community in efforts to improve student learning. The Wallace Foundation (2013) highlighted the importance of the role of the principal: Education research shows that most school variables, considered separately, have at most small effects on learning. The real payoff comes when individual variables combine to reach critical mass. Creating the conditions under which that can occur is the job of the principal. (p. 2)

The job of the principal is of such importance that the Obama administration has mandated the replacement of principals in persistently low-performing schools undergoing federally funded turnaround efforts (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2013). Understanding the impact that an administrator has on school success emphasizes the importance of providing every school with an effective principal. School success begins with the school principal. The principal has the important responsibility for ensuring all students meet grade-level and college and career readiness standards. A study by the Southern Regional Education Board [SREB] (2011) suggests that a principal can impact the lives of anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand students during a year. Acknowledging the importance of a strong principal to a school’s academic success is important. However, acknowledging this is not enough. It is critical to find ways to retain quality principals. A study conducted by RAND Corporation (HR Exchange, 2012) indicates that one in five principals new to a school will leave within the first 2 years and the school’s academic struggles are likely to continue after they leave. About 20% of public school principals in the United States leave their positions each year and most schools are led by principals with fewer than 10 years of experience (Miller, 2013). Texas, the focal state of this chapter, is not immune to high principal turnover. In a study of Texas employment data (1995–2008) involving more than 16,500 public school administrators, it was found the average tenure was approximately 5 years for elementary school principals, 4½ years for middle school principals and slightly less than 3½ years for

Performance-Based Academic Coaching Teams (PACT)   133

high school principals, the level at which change is most notoriously difficult to achieve (Samuels, 2012). Retaining quality principals is not an easy task. With high-stakes accountability and increasing demands on campus leaders, new and experienced principals need support. As Mitgang and Gill (2012) indicate, “Getting pre-service principal training right is essential. But equally important is the training and support school leaders receive after they’re hired” (p. 24). Good support programs that mentor the school administrators while they are experiencing daily leadership challenges are the key to the growth and retention of quality leaders for schools. This chapter will explore the creation of The Performance-Based Academic Coaching Teams (PACT), an interactive website used to assist newly hired administrators during their first years. Performance-based Academic Coaching Teams (PACT) It is critical to support novice principals. A 2012 Wallace Foundation study found that, especially in their first years on the job, principals need highquality mentoring and professional development tailored to individual and district needs. In response to the need for principal mentoring support, the Texas A&M System created the PACT website. PACT is a support website designed specifically for aspiring and novice principals in the Texas A&M System. It focuses on providing support in the form of training and development in instructional leadership through electronic resources. PACT is considered a professional learning community (PLC). A PLC is defined as a group or educators that meet regularly, share expertise, and work collaboratively to improve teaching skills and the academic performance of students (Great School Partnership, 2014). PACT is a PLC where principals can join together to find and provide support and grow professionally. Background PACT was designed and created by the Texas A&M University System (TAMUS). The TAMUS is one of the largest systems of higher education in the nation. The System educates more than 123,000 students through a statewide network of 11 universities, 7 state agencies, and a comprehensive health science center. Because of this large outreach, it is critical to find a format of support that could reach all A&M System’s principals and aspiring principals

134   M. Skinner and I. Harper

The focus of the School Leadership Program (SLP) grant is to build a collaborative relationship between high-need local education agencies and TAMUS universities to recruit, train, and retain principals and assistant principals. Through this project, the principals and assistant principals are guided through the attainment of their principalship certification and supervised through traditional and innovative mentoring services during their first administrative experiences. A component of the SLP project is the PACT website. The mission of PACT is support novice and aspiring principals. PACT serves two populations: PACT (for administrators) and PACT (for teachers). PACT (for administrators) is a modified replica of the sustained PACT website for novice teachers, which was initiated and funded by a Department of Education Transition to Teaching FY 2002 grant. It is now offered to all teachers in Texas and endorsed and supported by the Texas Education Agency. The original PACT site was developed for novice teachers. It is a great success with over 16,000 participants. The impact of this site uncovered the need for the same type of support for our new campus administrators. PACT Design The PACT website is designed to accommodate the novice principal’s needs and busy schedule through the format of electronic support. This method of support also allows the A&M System to serve its large populations of school principals and principal candidates. The advantages of electronic mentoring and support is abundant, but perhaps the most cited advantage is its “boundary-less” existence; it can be done anywhere regardless of distance and time (Work Insight, 2014). PACT is a PLC designed as an online environment where novice principals and assistant principals can receive support from experienced campus leaders. The participants also have the opportunity to network with other novice principals who are experiencing the same or similar issues they encounter daily. There are several features of support on the PACT website: Electronic mentors (eMentors), immediate help requests, professional development training, administrator mentor training, principal research support, message boards and chat sessions. These features are listed in Table 1.7. Electronic Mentoring The PACT website’s major source of support is provided by electronic mentoring. Electronic mentoring is defined as a mentoring relationship

Performance-Based Academic Coaching Teams (PACT)   135

which uses the tools of electronic communications either to enhance an existing mentoring relationship, or to create one where it would not otherwise exist (Muller, 2009). It is difficult for new principals to seek collegial help and support during their busy day. Electronic mentoring enables mentors and protégés otherwise constrained by time and geography to participate because electronic mentoring programs connect participants through electronic communications, primarily e-mail, supplemented by web sites and electronic discussion lists (Muller, 2009).

Table 7.1.  PACT Features PACT Features Electronic Mentors (eMentors)

Experienced administrators (retired and active) mentor PACT participants

Immediate Help Requests

eMmentors answer confidential questions and mentor participants on a one-to-one basis

Professional Developments

Participants have access to electronic professional developments

Chat Sessions

eMentors hold Q&A sessions in the chat rooms

Message Board

eMentors answer questions and encourage discussions on the message board

Administrator Mentor Training

Principals learn how to mentor novice teachers though electronic modules

State Mandated Test Reviews

Review modules are available to help prepare participants for the state mandated principalship exam

Principal Research Support

Participants can access research resources

PACT’s eMentors are experienced administrators that support principals by helping them with their daily administrative challenges. These eMentors are employed by the A&M System. They were selected for these positions because of their expertise in leadership areas such as curriculum and instruction, school finance, school law and human resources. Most of the eMentors are recent retirees who are able to provide PACT participants support during and after school hours. Immediate Help Request Peer networking and support is beneficial to the PACT participants, but sometimes novice principals need help from veteran principals. Scott (2014) indicates two observations regarding principals and mentors:

136   M. Skinner and I. Harper

1. Mentoring helps principals learn how to reflect on how they do their job and understand their leadership style and development needs. 2. Mentored principals are better able to develop instructional focus, clear missions, and increased collaboration that can lead to improved student performance. EMentors are a critical source of support for the PACT website and serve as mentors for the principals. Participants have access to immediate help from the eMentors. When principals are experiencing problems and they need advice, they can submit a confidential “help request ticket”. Upon doing this, the eMentors receive an e-mail stating that a “help request” has been submitted. The eMentors then respond to the inquiry the participant has submitted. In many cases, several eMentors respond. The participant is able to answer back and continue the “conversation” confidentially with the eMentors. Principals do not have much time during their daily schedules to talk to other administrators to find answers or receive advice or opinions about issues. This resource allows them to ask questions quickly and receive responses within a short time. Traffic data for the PACT site indicate the most common help requests are in regard to ways that the principals can help their teachers with communication. The requests are specifically with parental communication. Inquiries regarding updates in education law are also popular help requests. Mentoring provides a crucial support system for principals by offering advice and counsel from retired and active seasoned professional and can play an important role in reducing the high rate of principal turnover around the country (Mason, 2013). PACT provides this support to its principals, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Professional Development Training For school leaders to be as effective as possible, they must continually expand their knowledge and skills to implement the best educational practices (Mizell, 2010). Professional development for principals is critical in their growth as a leader. A study was conducted by Farkas, Johnson, Duffett, and Foleno (2001) to determine how school administrators perceive the value of professional development. They found 56% of superintendents and 54% principals viewed professional development as a “very effective” way of improving school leaders. As campus leaders it is important that principals participate in professional development trainings that help them become strong instructional

Performance-Based Academic Coaching Teams (PACT)   137

leaders. The dilemma is to ensure the professional development is of value to the participants. To solve this dilemma, high quality staff development must be driven by a compelling vision of student learning and a data-based assessment (Sparks, 2002). The PACT website has professional development modules which engage participants in an examination of their own practice with the aim of defining for themselves a vision of what it means to be a principal of a high performance learning community and how they can contribute to the organization’s processes of continuous improvement. The modules are designed to create knowledge and to test mastery of that knowledge through quizzes and remediation of the nonmastered areas. The participants can earn continuing professional development credit which they can apply to their inventory of professional developments required by their school district and state. The topics of the professional development modules were selected based on a needs assessment implemented through the universities, local school districts, and the aspiring administrators in January, 2010. Superintendents in Texas were also invited to a “round table discussion” with the A&M System College of Education deans (September, 2012) to discuss what they felt were essential areas of knowledge that their campus administrators needed. The following were chosen as topics for the PACT professional developments through these needs assessments and round table discussion with partnering school districts: Educational law, ethics, school safety, human resources, school violence, decision making, curriculum implementation, budgets, home language survey, public relations, technology in school leadership, bullying, and teacher assessments. A&M System subject matter experts were hired to create professional development modules in these areas. Each of the modules consists of video presentations discussing the topic led by experts in the field. Upon completion of the presentation, a quiz is taken and if the participant is successful, continuing professional education (CPE) credit is awarded for the completion of the specific module. CPE credits are determined by the length of time that is involved in completing each module. As indicated in PACT usage report, a popular training in the professional development modules is the TExES (Texas Exam of Educator Standards) Principal Exam review. (The TExES tests are criterion-referenced examinations designed to measure a candidate’s knowledge in relation to an established criterion [Educational Testing Service, 2013]). In Texas, before anyone can become a principal they must pass the TExES principalship exam. PACT has a review module for this test. This module covers every competency in detail that will be covered on the TExES exam. In assessing the PACT professional development modules, participants have indicated that the availability of the professional developments have

138   M. Skinner and I. Harper

been one of the “most useful” components of the PACT website. The assessment has also indicated the most utilized professional development topic is in educational law, decision making, communication, and ethic. Chat Sessions Peer networking is a component of the PACT site. The importance of peer-to-peer interaction cannot be over emphasized. Peer networking can be found throughout the PACT site especially in the “PACT Chat” rooms. PACT has open chat rooms where principals can virtually visit and network with other principals experiencing common issues. The chat room is available for any group to discuss any topic. PACT also has “spotlight chats.” These are chats that are scheduled and PACT subscribers register for these chats before that particular time. This is an area that is utilized for organized chat sessions on specific topics. These “spotlight chats” cover a variety of topics that are of interest to principals. These sessions are lead by subject matter experts. Surveys are conducted with participants after attending the chat sessions. In analyzing these follow up surveys with the PACT participants, the spotlight chats on test preparation (TExES principalship certification exam) have been reported as the “most beneficial” sessions. Message Boards Johnson (2012) states in, Future Perfect, “We know a whole world of pressing social problems can be improved by peer networks, digital or analog, local or global, animated by those core values of participation, equality and diversity” (p. 210). PACT addresses peer networking through message boards. Messages boards are available for participants to post a topic for discussion. This section of the website is not confidential, therefore anyone, including novice administrators and eMentors, can see and respond to the post. As a topic is posted, people in similar situations or those who have experienced a similar situation respond to give their opinion and/ or advice. Conversations can be held amongst the interested participants. The posts remain online so in the future if another individual has the same question, he or she may find it and review the discussion thread. The PACT site allows any of the users to participate in the message board postings. Participant feedback indicates that PACT users enjoy the networking with fellow colleagues on the message boards. The message board generates discussion threads and creates collegial connectedness. Inquiries such as, “What resources do you use at your school to help teach-

Performance-Based Academic Coaching Teams (PACT)   139

ers prepare for the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) test?” have generated large and active discussion thread. Another popular discussion thread is, “What type of professional development activities does your faculty find beneficial?” Administrator Mentor Training Administrators set the standard for the level of commitment that is made to ensure that new teachers are successful and that those who support new teachers are given the time and resources that are needed (Saphier, Freedman, & Aschheim, 2001). New teachers need continual nurturing throughout their first, second, and perhaps even third year of teaching and this takes consistent communication and effort on the part of the campus administrator (McDonald, 2013). PACT has an extensive training module in teaching a principal to be an effective mentor to new teachers. The “Administrative Mentor Training” module consists of lessons in communication, class placement and scheduling, and mentor assignments. This training prepares principals for their roles and responsibilities as a mentor. The communication module discusses how communication is the key in supporting new teachers become self-confident and effective. The class placement and scheduling module covers the placement of teachers into situations that give them a high probability of success. The mentor assignment module stresses the importance of pairing mentor and novice teacher as it could be the deciding factor for a novice teacher to stay or leave the profession. These modules are designed to help the administrator meet the needs of the new teacher. Addressing the support needs of new teachers can improve the rate of teacher retention and the quality of the teaching profession (FeimanNemser, 2003). The PACT site helps principals to become better mentors for their teachers with the hope of retaining effective teachers. Principal Research Support A report released by The Wallace Foundation (2013) states research indicates that most school variables, considered separately, have at most, small effects on learning. The real payoff comes when individual variables combine to reach critical mass. Creating the conditions under which that can occur is the job of the principal (The Wallace Foundation, 2013). It is important for principals to stay current in research and best practices. Keeping this in mind, the PACT website has a section titled “Principal

140   M. Skinner and I. Harper

Research Resources.” This component of PACT contains sections titled, Leadership: Communication and Culture; Management: Personnel and Budgets; and Guidance: Curriculum and Instruction. Each of these sections includes one to three page documents of quick information on the selected topic. The purpose of this section is to give principals a quick resource and possible external resources in which they can look further into their topic of interest. In analyzing the traffic data for PACT, the most popular research topics are communication and school finance. On a daily basis principals are faced with having to make decisions dealing with all types of issues. As a new administrator, quick research resources can give some basic information to draw from in order to make an informed decision. Sustainability Billig, Sherry, and Havelock (2005) acknowledge that for a program to be sustainable it has innovation that (a) endures over time, (b) typically does not lose it identity, and (c) becomes supported as part of the culture of the institution (pp. 987–1003). The PACT website meets the sustainability standards as set by Billig et al. PACT is an innovative resource that has been accepted by the Texas A&M System universities as an integral part of their educational leadership programs. Sustainability of a grant involves making sure the goals of the project continue to be met through activities consistent with the current conditions and resources available (Riggs, 2012). In order to achieve sustainability of the PACT website, a comprehensive evaluation will be conducted prior to the end of federal funding, to ensure all inner components of the website are working and are useful and helpful to the participants. This process will involve the 3 R’s: review, refine, and renew (Riggs, 2012). All stakeholders will review what has worked, what needs modification, what needs enhancements, what funding issues have surfaced, and what the findings from the formative evaluations indicate. The main issue for sustainability is funding for the enhancement and maintenance of the website. In order to acquire maintenance funds, the PACT site will be open to the public. Fortunately, the site was created to have a technological infrastructure that could support a large population. This decreased the need to find funding to expand the infrastructure of the website. Because of this capability and the expressed value of the website, PACT has been recently offered to all new principals, all school districts, and Education Service Centers in Texas. This has served as a “pilot” to determine the feasibility of participation expansion. The impact of this expansion has resulted in PACT serving 20% of all principals in Texas.

Performance-Based Academic Coaching Teams (PACT)   141

Plans are in the early stages of offering the PACT site to all principals and school districts throughout the United States. A fee will be charged for participation. Those funds will be used to enhance and maintain the site. Conclusions The PACT site was developed by The Texas A&M University System and made possible by funds from the Department of Education and the Texas Education Agency. This electronic PLC for administrators is in its early years. The site was developed in 2009 and 2010 and released to the Texas A&M University System aspiring principals and novice principals in 2011. In 2013, it was released to all aspiring principals and novice principals in Texas. Presently, there are 1,908 novice principals and 181 aspiring principals on the site. The PACT site also has 786 school districts and universities registered on the site and have 20 Education Service Centers (ESC) in the state. The mission of all these ESCs is to serve and support the public schools in Texas. All 20 Education Service Centers have been trained on the PACT site and using it as a resource for their schools. It is the goal of the Texas A&M University System to create the conditions to support, develop, and retain highly effective school leaders. PACT is a resource toward achieving this goal. References Bilig, S., Sherry, L., & Havelock, B. (2005). Challenge 98: Sustaining the work of a regional technology integration initiative. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 987-1003. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14678535.2005.00569.x Branch, G., Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2013). School leaders matter: Measuring the impact of effective principals. Education Next, 13(1), 62–69. Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr. M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. ETS. (2013). ETS proficiency profile criterion-referenced scores. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/proficiencyprofile/scores/proficiency_classifications Farkas S., Johnson, J. Duffett, A. & Foleno, T. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game: Superintendents and principals talk about school leadership. Washington, DC: Public Agenda.. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003, May). What new teachers need to learn. Education Leadership, 60(8), 25–29. Retrieved from educationalleader.com/subtopicintro/read/ ASCD/ASCD_232_1.pdf

142   M. Skinner and I. Harper Great School Partnerships. (2014). The glossary of education reform. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/professional-learning-community/ Johnson, S. (2012). Future perfect: The case for progress in a networked age. New York, NY: Penguin Group. FarkasMason, C. (2013, April 6). The principal mentoring process [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.schoolbriefing.com/4374/the-principal-mentoring-process/ McDonald, E.(2013). 10 ways a principal can support their new teachers. Retrieved from http://www.inspiringteachers.com/classroom_resources/articles/ administrators_professors/10_ways_to_support.html Miller, A. (2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 36(C), 60–72. Mitgang, L., & Gill, J. (2012). The making of the principal: Five lessons in leadership training. Retrieved from: www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/ school -leadership/effective-principal-leadership/Documents/The-Making -of-the-Principal-Five-Lessons-in-Leadership-Training.pdf Mizell, H. (2010). Why professional development matters. Learningforward. Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/why_pd_matters_web. pdf?sfvrsn=0 Muller, C. (2009). Understanding e-mentoring in organizations. Adult Learning. 20(1) 25–30. HR Exchange. (2012). RAND study indicates that principal turnover has lasting effects. Retrieved from https://www.tasb.org/services/hr_services/hrexchange/2012/ may12/a_principal_turnover.aspx Riggs, K. (2012, October). Strategies for sustainability of grant-funded programs. Families and Communities. Retrieved from http://extension.usu.edu/files/ publications/publication/FC_Youth_2012-01pr.pdf Samuels, C. (2012, March 7). Churn in the principal’s office bodes poorly for success of schools. Education Week, 13(23), 10. Saphier, J., Freedman, s., & Aschheim, B. (2001). Beyond mentoring: Comprehensive induction programs: How to attract, support and retain new teachers. Wellesley, MA: Teachers 21. Scott, L. (2014). Enhancing principals’ skills through sustainable mentoring programs [Webinar]. Retrieved from https://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/ EnhancingPrincipalsSkillsThroughSustainableMentoringPrograms060712. pdf Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Southern Regional Education Board. (2011). Good principals aren’t born: They’re mentored: Are we investing enough to get the school leaders we need? Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/ principal-training/Documents/Good-Principals-Arent-Born-TheyreMentored.pdf The Wallace Foundation. (2012). The making of the principal: Five lessons in leadership training. Perspective. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation. org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/effective-principal-leadership/

Performance-Based Academic Coaching Teams (PACT)   143 Documents/The-Making-of-the-Principal-Five-Lessons-in-LeadershipTraining.pdf The Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation. org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/effective-principal-leadership/ Documents/The-School-Principal-as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-BetterTeaching-and-Learning-2nd-Ed.pdf Work Insight. (2014). Mentoring vs e-mentoring. Loughborough University. Retrieved from http://www.workinsight.info/e-mentoring/mentoring/

Chapter 8

Thinking like an Evaluator A Paradigm for Preparing Practice-Ready and Change-Focused School Leaders Miriam L. Fultz and Stephen H. Davis

Abstract This chapter introduces the paradigm of “thinking like an evaluator” (TLE) in the context of K–12 public school leadership preparation programs and provides a review of important theories and concepts relating to evaluation, change agency, and leadership decision-making. Thinking like an evaluator represents a theory of action that leverages systems thinking and moves iteratively through the tasks of describing organizational problems and opportunities, determining the readiness to engage in evaluation planning and design, and communicating and using evaluation evidence to inform changes to and decisions about problems and opportunities. The relevance of this paradigm to the development of leaders who can facilitate meaningful and lasting change in their schools is described within the context of the School-Wide Change Initiative (SWCI), a capstone assignment used by the

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 145–179 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing 145 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. .

146   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis Great Leaders for Great Schools Academy (GLGSA), a U.S. Department of Education-funded school leadership preparation program in the College of Education and Integrative Studies at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal Poly Pomona).

Preface This chapter introduces the paradigm of “thinking like an evaluator” (TLE) in the context of K–12 public school leadership preparation programs through a review of the relevant theories and concepts. In addition, the relevance of this paradigm to the development of school leaders who can facilitate meaningful and lasting change in their schools is described within the context of the School-Wide Change Initiative (SWCI), a capstone assignment used by the Great Leaders for Great Schools Academy (GLGSA), a U.S. Department of Education-funded school leadership preparation program in the College of Education and Integrative Studies at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal Poly Pomona). The Pomona Unified School District (PUSD) is the GLGSA educational partner, a partnership described by Davis, Leon, and Fultz (2013). For the purpose of this chapter, the term “paradigm” is defined as a framework that details the “methodology, basic assumptions, and ways of thinking” about school administrator preparation (adapted from the dictionary.com definition). Further, evaluation is defined as “the systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and results of programs to make judgments about the program, improve or further develop program effectiveness, inform decisions about future programming, and/or increase understanding” (Patton, 2008, p. 39). Finally, given the importance of inquiry in the GLGSA and in the implementation of the SWCI, we use Preskill and Torre’s (1999) conception of evaluative inquiry as “an ongoing process for investigating and understanding critical organizational issues. It is an approach to learning that is fully integrated with an organization’s work practices, and as such, it engenders organization members’ interest and ability in exploring critical issues using evaluation logic, organization members involvement in evaluative processes, and the personal and professional growth of individuals within the organization” (pp. xxi, 1–2). Introduction What kind of leadership is needed to improve a school, regardless of its position on a performance continuum? This is a perennial question for all stakeholders, from families to the highest levels of federal government.

Thinking Like an Evaluator   147

As the nation transitions away from the high-stakes testing and accountability approach of the federally-mandated No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (U.S. Department of Education, 2014) and toward a state-led effort to establish the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014), the question continues to garner a significant amount of attention. Policymakers, scholars, and practitioners at all levels have attempted to identify and replicate the attributes and behaviors of effective school leadership for years, but with mixed success. Leadership is a highly apperceptive endeavor that is inevitably influenced by past experiences, environmental contexts and conditions, psychological factors, follower characteristics, organizational dynamics, and social-emotional skills. Nevertheless, leadership practices that result in effective and enduring improvements in teaching and learning in districts and schools are highly valued, especially those change initiatives that are research-based and which involve rigor in all aspects of design, implementation, and evaluation (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007). The quest for effective school leaders has been part of a larger national education reform agenda that emerged from the release of the report A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). While policymakers have been particularly interested in facilitating reliable, valid, and effective strategies and systems that produce equality of educational opportunities and optimal learning for all students, the importance of school leadership in such efforts was largely unrecognized until the adoption of NCLB. Although NCLB succeeded in illuminating the critical role of leadership, as of 2011 it was not on track to achieve its intended outcomes of 100% proficiency for all American public school children by 2014 or narrowing achievement gaps between White and non-White students (Dee & Jacob, 2011). Even with the advent of the CCSS, it remains to be seen whether such large-scale policy initiatives will “cure all that ails” the American public school system. Academia has also focused on the question of how to cultivate effective school leaders. In fact, since the 1970s, the field has amassed a considerable body of empirical research on the subject. The scholarly literature abounds with theories and descriptions of transformational and instructional leaders, visionary leaders, and distributive leaders (Northouse, 2013). Nevertheless, a universal model of school leadership that achieves the many desired outcomes (e.g., high student achievement, decreased achievement gaps, increased graduation rates, etc.) does not yet exist for many reasons. First, the forms, functions, and conduct of organizational leadership in general and in America’s public schools can vary dramatically (and necessarily so) according to the particular conditions, characteristics,

148   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

and needs of individual schools and the people who serve them (Antonakis, Day, & Schyns, 2012). Second, the field of educational leadership is notoriously diverse and complex as are the current national, state, and local policy environments that regulate public schooling (Wirt & Kirst, 2005). Contemporary school administrators play a daunting array of roles, ranging from educational visionaries and change agents to instructional leaders, curriculum and assessment experts, budget analysts, facility managers, special program administrators, and community builders. As noted by Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, and Meyerson (2005), it is critical to understand the scope of the challenge faced by both practitioners who lead today’s schools and by policymakers who need to recruit and support them. Despite federal efforts to support educational reform efforts through programs such as Race To The Top, the national recession that began in 2007 created a climate in public education in which there are far fewer resources available to deliver adequately supported educational programs and missions for most schools and school districts (Klein, 2014). For example, in elementary schools today, far fewer assistant principal positions exist when compared to pre-2007 levels. Many schools across the nation have suffered significant losses of funding support for the arts, social studies, other elective courses, and for co- and extracurricular activities. As a result of such economic pressures and multiple national reform agendas, the role of the principal has changed dramatically over the past 30 years, from caretaker to manager, instructional leader, entrepreneur, and lead evaluator (Davis & Leon, 2011; Mendels, 2012). In this emerging paradigm, school districts have increasingly sought to hire school leaders who can promote organizational improvement and collaboration through change initiatives that meld appreciative inquiry (Bushe, 1995), utilization-focused, developmental, and empowerment evaluation (Fetterman & Wandersman, 2005; Patton, 2011, 2008), and rational approaches to problem-solving and data analysis (Davis & Davis, 2003). This approach differs markedly from the more traditional paradigm in which school leaders operate as managers, focus on risk avoidance, and preserve organizational stability through command and control mechanisms (Hoachlander, Alt, & Beltranena, 2001; Murphy, 2008). Beyond large-scale reforms like NCLB, at the federal level, targeted efforts have addressed the need for effective school leadership by cultivating a new generation of school leadership preparation models. Since 2002, the United States Department of Education (DoE) has funded 110 innovative leadership preparation programs, some of which use hands-on,

Thinking Like an Evaluator   149

problem-based learning approaches. One such program, the Great Leaders for Great Schools Academy (GLGSA), has directly addressed the demand for highly skilled leaders who possess the metacognitive, critical thinking skills, behavioral skills (decision making and problem solving), and emotional intelligence necessary to accomplish systematic, empirically-grounded, and effective change initiatives designed to advance powerful teaching and learning for all students. In addition, the program also focuses on ensuring that graduates develop a strong sense of efficacy as a leader; political acuity; a deep commitment to leadership grounded in social justice and ethical principles; habits of mind that are inquiry-based and self-reflective, and a clear set of values relating to the purposes and functions of public schooling. Finally, the program focuses on ensuring that graduates leave the program with an enhanced ability to effectively interact within the diverse sociocultural environments and communities common to urban public schools. Grounded in Mezirow’s (1991) Theory of Transformative Learning, the GLGSA school leadership preparation model stimulates transformative learning by engaging students in unfamiliar and challenging workplace problems and by challenging their assumptions and established mental models about the nature of schooling and school leadership. The curriculum itself reflects critical variables associated with effective experiential learning (Fenwick, 2001), through a problem-based curriculum, cohort-based discourse, and hands-on clinical practice via a four-month apprenticeship at a school site. A second theoretical frame of the GLGSA is informed by the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) model detailed by Bridges and Hallinger (1997). As the authors describe, PBL presents students with authentic problems of practice and emphasizes student-centered problem solving informed by relevant content knowledge in the various disciplines that comprise the field of educational leadership. In PBL, the instructor acts as a knowledge facilitator rather than as a knowledge purveyor. Transformational and problem-based learning provides the conceptual scaffolding for a novel theory of action developed by the GLGSA that emphasizes inquiry, analysis, evaluation, and self-reflective practice: Thinking like an Evaluator (TLE). In this chapter, we describe the theoretical foundation as well as the methodology, basic assumptions, and core principles of what it means for school leaders to “think like an evaluator.” In addition, we will discuss a yearlong capstone, inquiry-based project known as The GLGSA School-Wide Change Initiative, how it exemplifies the TLE theory of action, and its implications for school leadership development.

150   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

Part I: The Theoretical Tenets of Thinking like an Evaluator Evaluation: Definition and Misconceptions As defined by Scriven (1991), evaluation is the “the process of determining the merit, worth or value of something … and involves establishing values and standards, performing empirical investigations, and then integrating … conclusions with the standards into an overall evaluation or set of evaluations” (Scriven, 1991, pp. 139–141). To those less familiar with the theories and practices of evaluation, the term “evaluation” is often thought of something that is too hard to accomplish, and that it is “done to” instead of “done with” the stakeholders of an evaluation. In addition, the term “evaluation” is often misperceived as an effort that is “just about the numbers” (Krepcio, Mabe, & Yarbrough, 2011), is only summative in nature, occurs after program implementation, and focuses on questions about whether the program yielded the intended effects (Scriven, 1991). Another misconception is that assessment (the collection, analysis, and interpretation of information) is the same as evaluation (Secolsky & Denison, 2011). Often, anxiety around the process of evaluation is encountered by those leading an evaluation (Donaldson, Gooler, & Scriven, 2002). Although summative processes are indeed important elements of many program evaluations, a more robust approach to evaluation includes not only the summative component, but also consideration of what is important to schools and school stakeholders, and understanding why and how a particular set of actions led to outcomes (intended results) and impacts as a result of evaluative practice. These factors are elements of formative evaluation, or evaluation conducted to determine what is occurring, whether the program is being implemented as intended, and how the program activities are related to the intended results (outcomes). Evaluation in public schools, as described here, is NOT the same as the conduct of basic social science research (Scriven, 1995). In social science research, conclusions are based solely on the facts revealed by empirical data—what is observed, measured, or calculated (Scriven, 1991, p. 1). When properly conducted, an effective program evaluation is an applied research process involving the systematic analysis, interpretation, and management of resources and information (e.g., quantitative and qualitative evidence) pertaining to stakeholders, goals, objectives, restrictions, contingencies, implementation strategies, organizational systems, and outcomes (Scott, Lonergan, & Mumford, 2005; Smith, 2001, 2006).

Thinking Like an Evaluator   151

Evaluative Thinking and the Role of the School Leader Problem solving, decision making and their processes, qualities, and outcomes are the sine qua non of school leadership. It is what school leaders do day-by-day, hour-by-hour, and often, minute-by-minute. In fact, the pace of a typical day for most managers in complex organizations is so hectic that on average they attend to dozens of discrete decision events (Mintzberg, 1973). This leaves very little time for lengthy and deliberative analysis. Importantly, the pressures on school leaders to be effective and efficient decision makers are such that a failure to solve problems often leaves “debris of disappointment, cynicism, and feelings of guilt” (Cuban, 2001, p. 16). Clearly, not all decisions made by school leaders are of equal importance, nor do they each require deep analytical deliberation. To a large extent, administrative decisions are made through a combination of experience, craft-wisdom, common sense, and intuitive ability (Davis & Davis, 2003). Nevertheless, decisions regarding important program initiatives and system-wide change clearly require thoughtful and accurate analyses of organizational conditions, stakeholder needs and perceptions, and opportunities for organizational growth. To develop and master this “habit of mind” requires training and practice in authentic, real-world settings—an approach that is often absent from school leadership preparation programs (Davis, 2008). In the GLGSA model of school leadership preparation, candidates complete a rigorous capstone educational change initiative within an actual school setting that requires the ability to “think like an evaluator.” A Definition of “Thinking like an Evaluator” Within the Context of Public School Leadership Evaluation in public K–12 schools is not new. Much like it sounds, the concept of thinking like an evaluator is a reasoning process and a mindset, as well as a set of critical thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills (Decker, Gregg, & McDermid, 2003; Engle, 2011; Lord & Hall, 2005; Patton, 2008). Thinking in this way (i.e., using evaluative reasoning) is not unique to the field of evaluation; in fact, the logic and methods of evaluation are not only used by the field of evaluation, but also by other disciplines, e.g., social work, engineering—AND, education (Patton, 2008, p. 14). Within the field of evaluation itself, evaluative thinking involves principles of systematic inquiry, logical reasoning, and effective communications. More specifically, when individuals use evaluative thinking, they are clearer, more, intentional and accountable; they focus and prioritize; they are systematic and work to make assumptions explicit (Patton, 2008,

152   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

p. 154). Thus, when school leaders “think like an evaluator,” they work to operationalize concepts, ideas, and goals, distinguish inputs and processes from outcomes, draw conclusions, make interpretations based upon data using explicit criteria and standards, limit their generalizations and causal explanations to the evidence that they have developed, and incorporate factors to increase both the cultural sensitivity and cultural competence of the evaluative work (Patton, 2008, p. 154). At the federal level, the use of evaluation processes and methods in schools is not new. While teachers and administrators have conducted various forms of school and classroom evaluation for decades, the 1983 release of A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform by the Commission on Excellence in Education ushered in the modern era of standards and accountability. The report also stimulated the development of more rigorous and standardized curriculum and teaching practices among the states and local educational agencies. In addition, the adoption of NCLB in 2001 significantly raised the stakes around these issues by applying various sanctions against chronically underperforming schools and school districts. At the same time, the United States Department of Education set rigorous standards and benchmarks for research-based school reform initiatives (Davis, 2008; Whitehurst, 2004). Other examples of educational program accountability measures at the federal level exist. Currently, the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance supports evaluation studies that provide scientific evidence relating to the questions of program impact on attaining outcomes and the effectiveness of the program model (Institute of Education Sciences, 2014a). For entities that receive awards from the U.S. Department of Education, technical evaluation assistance is available that is directly linked to the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, which requires evidence regarding the program outcomes and impact, (i.e., those that are developed through the use of evaluation) (Institute of Education Sciences, 2014b). In addition, from a policy perspective, the NCLB Act could be construed as a call for education to use evaluation in order to demonstrate that children have achieved proficiency in state developed academic standards for math and English/Language Arts (N. Sanders, personal communication, March 6, 2014). Whereas the achievement of proficiency represents an important indicator of accountability, evaluation and the thinking that it entails provide the means from which to judge proficiency. Therefore, under NCLB, evaluative thinking has become a necessary component of effective policy implementation. While the impact of such policies on student learning remains subject to debate (Polikoff, McEachin, Wrabel, & Duque, 2014), these initiatives have stimulated data-driven inquiry processes within classrooms, schools, and school districts across America (Whitehurst, 2004). The terms “evidence-

Thinking Like an Evaluator   153

based teaching practices” and “data-based decision making” have become ubiquitous elements in the lexicon of public schools. In such ways, evaluative thinking has deeply penetrated public school practices, research, and policymaking. Nevertheless, the field lacks a uniform and well-articulated theory of evaluation and its application to school leadership and school leadership preparation programs. Program accreditation is another example of the call for and use of evaluation in K–12 education. Initiated during the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century, accreditation processes for schools and universities were designed to ensure that schools are engaged in continual improvement while meeting “rigorous, research-based standards that reflect the essential elements of a quality and effective school” (Accrediting Commission for Schools, 2014, p. 1). The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), is one of six regional accrediting agencies across the country that integrates evaluative thinking into school operations and the planning and delivery of the curriculum. The accreditation process generally begins with a rigorous and comprehensive self-study that describes the mission, vision, goals, programs, and outcomes of each school under review. It also illuminates where the school has succeeded in accomplishing its mission and where it has not. An outside team of evaluators reviews the self-study, conducts an onsite visit, and offers its recommendations and commendations, which are intended to assist the school in its ongoing effort to provide high quality education for all students. Other examples of the support for evaluation in education include the National Study of School Evaluation (Fitzpatrick & National Study of School Evaluation, 1998) and the Comprehensive Assessment of Leadership for Learning (CALL) at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, a formative evaluation approach (Kelley & Halverson, 2012). Finally, there are three sets of standards for evaluation in education initially developed in 1975 by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (JCSEE), that is, the Personnel Evaluation Standards (2008), Program Evaluation Standards (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011), and the Student Evaluation Standards (2003). These standards have seminal importance to all types and formats of program evaluation, including the Great Leaders for Great Schools Academy; these standards are used by those engaged in the professional practice of evaluation and are organized into four quality dimensions: utility (timeliness, influence, informative); feasibility (viability, efficiency), propriety (ethical, legal standards), and accuracy (technical accuracy, validity, logic of evaluation). Importantly, these standards provide a robust and comprehensive set of evaluation guidelines that are equally relevant at all stages of a change initiative, from start to finish. From the perspective of existing application within public schools, support for “thinking like an evaluator” as a mindset for school leaders is

154   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

found in the area of school-based evaluation (MacBeath, 1999, 2006; MacBeath & Mcglynn, 2002; Nevo, 2002; Wick, 1987) and other frameworks that explicitly incorporate evaluation into the school environment (e.g., curriculum-based measurement) (Hosp, Howell, & Allison, 2014 Hosp, Hosp, & Howell, 2006). This approach is not new. For example, in 1933 the National Study of School Evaluation (NSSE) focused on the development and validation of a self-evaluation instrument that can be used by K–12 institutions (Ridout & Manlove, 1987). Another example is a case study based in New Zealand that focused on school self-evaluation (Lai & Kushner, 2013). In it, the authors advocate for a decentralized approach to school quality that acknowledges the local context, “school autonomy, shared learning and local control.” Definition of “Thinking like an Evaluator” Within the Context of School Leadership Development. Here, we define “thinking like an evaluator” as the use of evaluation methods and an inquiry-based approach to organizational change that stem from the evaluative mindset (habit of mind) and from the use of evaluative reasoning. One might ask, why use the term “thinking like an evaluator” to describe the strategies and actions of an effective change leader in elementary and secondary schools? The answer is relatively straightforward: by engaging in school leadership with the mindset of “thinking like an evaluator” leaders increase the likelihood that the central mission of public schools will be achieved, that is, effective student learning. In addition, the evaluation-oriented strategies, methods, and philosophy associated with thinking “with the end in mind” ensures a more effective response to the inherent uncertainty found in public schools through the anticipation of, and planning for, the future. Moreover, with this mindset, evaluation evidence can be used to improve the processes of delivering education and to ensure the continuous improvement of schools with a focus on informing decisions about what should be retained and improved (Kaufman, Guerra, & Platt & 2005). Ainsworth (2010) describes the approach for the use of self-evaluation in the daily operations of a school as, “ongoing mindset, which encourages reflection and continuous challenge by all” (p. ix). Essentially, school leaders need a way to corral the unprecedented demands to effectively manage people, issues, events, and problems within increasingly complex social and technical school environments (Lane & Richardson, 1992; Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, & Byrne, 2007). At the same time, they must interpret, make sense of, and communicate the complex dynamics of organizational life to multiple stakeholders in ways that can be easily understood (Mumford et al., 2007; Weick, 1995). To successfully address such demands, leaders must draw upon (and synthesize) their knowledge, expertise, cognitive abilities, analytical skills, interpersonal skills, and ability to identify and to minimize biases and

Thinking Like an Evaluator   155

errors in problem solving (Mumford, Blair, Dailey, Lertiz, & Osburn, 2006). Moreover, effective problem solving is most likely to occur when leaders understand how the needs and characteristics of stakeholders intersect with the contextual properties of workplace environments to produce new learning (Fenwick, 2001; Lave & Wenger, 1991). In social service organizations, like schools, thinking like an evaluator, or employing evaluative thinking, strategies and methods, is an inherently social activity. The successful implementation of evaluative processes and systems in organizations requires the participation, empowerment, and commitment (not simply compliance) of key stakeholders—concepts that are key to systems theory in which there is a focus on interrelationships, attention to multiple perspectives, and an awareness of the need to set boundaries in any given situation (Williams & Hummelbrunner, 2011). In addition, because human behavior in social service organizations is difficult to predict and manage, evaluative processes often require highly adaptive and constructivist methods that can examine problems as they exist while simultaneously attending to opportunities for organizational growth and development (Bushe, 2013; Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). This point illuminates the dichotomy between logical positivists who perceive program evaluation as a fundamentally rational problem-solving enterprise and sociorationalists who perceive evaluation as an appreciative and constructive activity. While logical positivists focus on the identification and repair of organizational problems, the sociorationalists are most concerned with identifying the elements of organizational success and using them to foster a culture that engenders collaborative approaches to ongoing organizational improvement (Bushe, 1995). One perspective is most concerned with fixing what is broken, while the other looks to amplify the elements of successful practice. Of course, in the real world, these perspectives exist on opposite ends of a more nuanced evaluation continuum. Importantly, the idiosyncratic complexion of human behavior in schools requires multiple approaches to the use of evaluation in organizations. Freedman (2006) posits program evaluation as a form of action learning whereby complex organizational problems that are characterized by uncertain outcomes and solutions stimulate system-wide learning opportunities and, subsequently, exert a transformative effect on behaviors and processes. Fetterman and Wandersman (2005) describe this concept as “empowerment evaluation” in which the focus rests on the development of people, programs, and their institutions. Empowerment evaluation theory places the locus of power and responsibility for program evaluation among stakeholders, with the goal of engendering a self-corrective organization (e.g., one that over the long term does not need to rely on outside evaluators to engage in self-diagnosis, analysis, and improvement). With this approach, the leader works as a critical friend to facilitate the evaluative process and

156   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

to keep it on track (Fetterman, Rodríguez-Campos, Wandersman, & Goldfarb O’Sullivan, 2014). However, as noted by Patton (2008), there are many ways to focus on evaluation frameworks or approaches, and when thinking like an evaluator the school leader must be clear about which model is most appropriate for the school and which aligns with the nature of the particular issue under consideration (pp. 300–305). For example, will the evaluation approach focus on ensuring that a program meets accreditation requirements (accreditation focus, e.g., Hughes & Kushner, 2005 as cited in Patton, 2008); affirming self-determination and political agendas (empowerment evaluation, e.g., Fetterman and Wandersman, 2005); building the capacity of stakeholders (capacity-building focus, for example, Preskill & Boyle, 2008); the intended use by intended users (utilization-focused evaluation, e.g., Patton, 2008), and/or engaging in organizational development and rapid responses to emergent realities in highly dynamic and complex systems under conditions of uncertainty (developmental evaluation, e.g., Patton, 2011)? In the GLGSA, we emphasize the application of several evaluation approaches (utilization-focused, developmental, evaluation capacity-building) and how they intersect with systems thinking to promote effective teaching and learning for all (Senge, 1990). In summary, thinking like an evaluator represents a theory of action that leverages systems thinking and moves iteratively through the tasks of describing organizational problems and opportunities, determining the readiness to engage in evaluation planning and design, and communicating and using evaluation evidence to inform changes to and decisions about problems and opportunities. School leaders who think like evaluators are also particularly adept at using the skills of evidentiary inquiry to illuminate successful organizational practices and amplifying them in pursuit of ongoing improvement. We maintain that the challenges posed by underperforming schools or by good schools in pursuit of greatness can be effectively addressed through the efforts of school leaders who employ the mindset of “thinking like evaluators.” Implementing the Thinking like an Evaluator Paradigm Through a School-Wide Change Initiative From a more pragmatic perspective, it is important to understand how the paradigm actually works in practice. We turn now to the capstone assignment of the GLGSA, the School-Wide Change Initiative (SWCI), its conceptual foundations, and its design features. Through this assignment, the GLGSA operationalizes the “thinking like an evaluator” theory of action

Thinking Like an Evaluator   157

within the context of an authentic and practical school-wide problem. All candidates must successfully complete this requirement in order to be eligible for the preliminary administrative service credential in California. Rationale for the SWCI The task of making highly rational, accurate, and effective decisions in public schools requires thoughtful and comprehensive problem-solving skills and the ability to enlist the participation and support of those who will be affected by them. The School-Wide Change Initiative (SWCI) is purposefully designed to help candidates “think like evaluators” by sharpening their ability to diagnose problems and to conceptualize and craft viable solutions that integrate the evaluation of a change initiative’s implementation strategy and overall effectiveness. It is also the intent of the assignment to instill among candidates important metacognitive skills and heuristic capacities that will enable them to make sound evaluative judgments that, ultimately, will enhance learning for all children. Leadership “by the seat of the pants” will not address or resolve the complex challenges faced by public schools and their various stakeholders. School leaders must competently fulfill many roles, including, visionary, conflict resolver, resource manager, personnel administrator, entrepreneur, public affairs official, data analyst, lead evaluator—just to name a few. In addition, leaders must demonstrate both the political acuity and communication skills to effectively implement change initiatives in highly diverse and pluralistic school communities. Given these multi-faceted leadership roles, we developed the SWCI to enhance the prospect that GLGSA graduates will begin their initial employment as school administrators “practice-ready.” The SWCI is a rigorous and comprehensive assignment that integrates elements from each of these leadership roles. Since “thinking like an evaluator” is not an intuitive approach for many school leaders, they must practice, with the aim that over time, the model will become more of a mindset than merely a set of discrete problem-solving steps. Through practice, as knowledge and experience grow, the elements of the TLE model will become increasingly automatic and part of the repertoire of heuristic solutions available to school leaders. Overview of the School-Wide Change Initiative The GLGSA is unique among most administrator credentialing programs in that candidates engage in a 4-month, full-time administrative

158   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

apprenticeship during which they are assigned to work with trained mentor principals at a school site other than their home school. The GLGSA Planning Team matches apprentices and mentor principals, with particular attention given to the perspectives and suggestions of Pomona Unified School District (PUSD) officials and the individual characteristics of both mentors and apprentices (the PUSD is GLGSA’s educational partner and Cal Poly Pomona’s neighboring school district). The SWCI is fully integrated into the daily activities associated with the apprenticeship experience. Candidates collaborate with their mentor principals in all phases of the development and implementation of the SWCI and have full and ongoing access to school resources and management systems as they attend to the apprenticeship task requirements. This close working relationship is especially important since the mentor principals may eventually oversee the actual implementation of the SWCI after the apprentices return to their home schools. We strongly encourage, but do not require, the actual implementation of the SWCI during the 4-month apprenticeship. Depending upon the school site, the apprentice’s change initiative may consist of the development of an action plan that includes implementation and evaluation strategies and the use of the resulting evidence to improve teaching and learning at the school. We should note that in more traditional credential programs, a candidate would be more likely to mentor with the principal of their home school and the SWCI would become a part of his/her after-hours work. Integration of the SWCI into all GLGSA components. Although the SWCI is a capstone assignment that must be completed by the end of the 1-year preliminary administrative services credential program, candidates begin working on the initiative at the beginning of the fall quarter (the first of three academic quarters at Cal Poly Pomona). In addition, the core concepts of the SWCI are threaded into the various learning activities of each weekly class session. As the candidates progress through the SWCI, the GLGSA external evaluator delivers evaluation content that is tailored to meet the needs of each apprentice and the cohort as a whole (e.g., cohorts consist of six students each year). The SWCI also provides an opportunity for candidates to synthesize and apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions acquired through the various GLGSA learning experiences (summer coursework, weekly seminars, content modules, fall quarter fieldwork experiences, school visits, the SWCI, and a 4-month apprenticeship). Importantly, the SWCI is used by the GLGSA faculty to assess candidate competency in the areas of social-scientific inquiry, program evaluation, and communication skills—each being necessary elements of a leader’s ability to turnaround low performing schools.

Thinking Like an Evaluator   159

SWCI requirements and components. Guided by input from key stakeholders (e.g., mentor principals, assistant principals, teachers, parents), the SWCI is structured around key principles of adult learning (e.g., application of life experiences, relevance and practicality, self-directed learning, goal driven) (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005). Candidates move through six components of the SWCI, that together, are designed to engage candidates in a thoughtful and systematic process of social scientific inquiry: (1) Executive Summary; (2) Problem Focus; (3) Stakeholder Analysis and Problem Context; (4) Problem Diagnosis; (5) Proposed Solution and Evaluation Plan; and (6) Annotated Bibliography. As candidates begin work on the SWCI, the intent is that they develop the project components simultaneously while using the skills of evaluative inquiry to guide them (see Figure 8.1). For example, once a Problem Focus has been identified, candidates should begin work on the Stakeholder Analysis and Problem Context component and review the requirements of the Proposed Solution and Evaluation Plan component (so that they operate with “the end in mind”). In some cases, an engagement in the Stakeholder Analysis and Problem Context component was needed before the final Problem Focus could be fully identified. Like with most rigorous and complex research studies, the analysis is an iterative process that moves forward and backward over time (e.g., the development and maturation of each component informs and reinforms the others).

Figure 8.1.  One potential path for developing the SWCI.

160   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

Executive Summary. While this summary is the first section in the candidates’ written submissions, they are required to develop it after they have completed a draft of the Proposed Solution and Evaluation Plan component of the SWCI. Like the oral presentations that the candidates deliver to their colleagues toward the end of the spring quarter, the act of writing this summary is intended to enhance their ability to communicate with a busy and diverse audience in a clear and effective manner—something that they will need to do as school leaders. Problem Focus. Candidates begin their work on the SWCI by collaborating with their mentor principals to identify an unresolved school-wide problem at the school site that must be addressed in order to advance powerful teaching and learning. The problem must be nested in one of three priority areas identified by our partner school district, the Pomona Unified School District (i.e., for the 2013–2014 school year these included, culturally responsive instruction, positive behavior support, and response to intervention [RTI]), as well as in the district’s theory of action (“The Six Essentials”). The Six Essentials provide an actionable framework for leadership across the district that include the following themes and their related criteria: responsive instruction, shared leadership, professional development, student work and data, aligned resources, and family and community. Stakeholder Analysis and Problem Context. Once the problem focus has been identified, candidates use a systematic approach to gain a deeper understanding of the needs and perspectives of relevant school stakeholders and stakeholder groups. They accomplish this by working collaboratively with the mentor principal to identify and engage stakeholders using “overarching” questions relating to the nature of the problem and that guide the stakeholder analysis. While conducting the stakeholder analysis, candidates not only seek to garner stakeholder buy-in into the change process, but also to examine the context in which the problem exists, and collect information and data that will provide breadth, depth, and clarity to the analysis. Moreover, the apprentice (candidate) also leavens his/her work by reviewing the relevant literature. This process helps the apprentice gain a deeper understanding of the presented problem and to use the literature to inform the stakeholder analyses and subsequent tasks of the SWCI. Problem Diagnosis. To diagnose (deconstruct) the problem, candidates use their enhanced understanding of the needs and perspectives of stakeholders, as well as a deepened understanding of the problem context to develop a comprehensive analysis of the problem that includes a discussion of “core issues” (e.g., relating to the immediate circumstances) and “root causes” (e.g., relating to the deeper institutional or societal factors). Candidates also deepen their review of the literature and use it to explain

Thinking Like an Evaluator   161

how other relevant factors (e.g., legal requirements, resource issues, policy mandates, political circumstances, etc.) support their diagnosis, and especially as it relates to the needs and contexts of urban schools. Proposed Problem Solution and Evaluation Plan. Proposing a viable solution and evaluation plan is a major component of the SWCI and, ultimately, represents the plan of action that will be implemented at the apprenticeship school-site. Since effective evaluations begin with the end in mind, candidates are instructed to carefully review the requirements of this section as soon as they receive the SWCI assignment. The final solution and accompanying evaluation plan emerges from the candidates’ work on the Problem Focus, Stakeholder Analysis and Problem Context, and Problem Diagnosis components of the SWCI. To “think like an evaluator” requires the ability to logically and artfully connect the elements of the SWCI model conceptually. To accomplish this, candidates create a logic model that outlines the goal(s) of the proposed solution, the objectives (sets of related activities) that are educationally and ethically appropriate, the outputs, and the measurable outcomes (intended results). In addition, they develop overarching evaluation questions that reflect the evaluation purposes and establish the scope of the evaluation enterprise. Annotated Bibliography. Candidates must include a detailed list and short description of the sources that were used to support their proposed solution and the various components of the SWCI—from the Problem Focus through Proposed Solution and Evaluation Plan. The format must adhere to the publication manual (6th edition) of the American Psychological Association (APA). For each reference, candidates also describe how the reference was used to inform the development of the SWCI. A minimum of five scholarly references is required. SWCI checkpoints: Scaffolding to ensure candidate success. It is important to note that the SWCI is, for most candidates, a rigorous and novel learning experience that requires ongoing monitoring and support. This is not an assignment that can, or should be, left entirely to the constructive efforts of the candidates and their mentor principals. To build and sustain candidate capacity in “thinking like evaluators,” the program includes a series of five checkpoints to guide and assist candidates as they progress through the SWCI requirements. These checkpoints offer opportunities for formative feedback and one-on-one coaching from the GLGSA external evaluator on each of the SWCI components. At each checkpoint, candidates are given an opportunity to present and revise rough drafts of each task while simultaneously learning about various research methods, stakeholder engagement strategies, data analysis, and the design features of logic models and evaluation plans. As candidates progress through each checkpoint, they develop an increasingly robust knowledge base and con-

162   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

ception of what it means to “think like an evaluator.” Since the SWCI was designed to be both progressive and iterative, candidates often move back and forth across checkpoints (e.g., revising and refining their work on each of the SWCI components as they develop expertise with the model). The critical coaching cole of the GLGSA external evaluator. Throughout the development of each candidate’s SWCI, instruction and coaching by the external evaluator is grounded in the principles of Utilization-Focused Evaluation (Patton, 2008), that is, working to ensure that there is intended use of the evaluation evidence by the intended users. The intent is that the SWCI, and especially the evaluation plan, is comprehensive and maximizes the potential to positively impact the entire school (hence, the term “schoolwide”) and a constant focus on ensuring alignment between school systems, vision, mission, and goals, and the proposed solution is maintained. In essence, the GLGSA external evaluator facilitates the learning of the candidates that embodies the “learn by doing” philosophy of Cal Poly Pomona and the theory of andragogy (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005). Serving as a “critical friend,” the external evaluator coaches each of the candidates on an individual basis. This support can take many forms: helping the candidate to gain clarity about the overarching Problem Focus; assisting the candidate with developing the “overarching” questions that will be asked of the stakeholder groups identified by the candidate and mentor principal; helping the candidate craft the stakeholder analysis method (e.g., survey, focus group, interview); assisting the candidate with downloading data files from the web-based survey tool (surveymonkey.com), and providing direct instruction about how to analyze the data, including how to select the appropriate statistical analyses. Moreover, the evaluator models, through ongoing and frequent interaction with the candidates, what it means to “think like an evaluator.” In addition to working with the candidates, the external evaluator also works directly with the mentor principals as they collaborate with their apprentice in the development of the SWCI. Over the course of the 4-month apprenticeship, the external evaluator visits each of the apprenticeship sites and discusses the status of the SWCI development effort as well as the next steps. Instead of leading the discussion during these visits, the candidate leads the discussion with the evaluator serving in the role as facilitator and instructor. Feedback from mentor principals indicates that these visits are effective in enhancing their understanding of the SWCI as well as the candidates’ progress toward completion of the SWCI. Key SWCI products. There are two key product requirements for the SWCI. One consists of the written narrative and associated materials (including a logic model and evaluation plan) and the second consists of a formal oral presentation before an audience of school district and school site stakeholders. This 40–60 minute professional presentation is designed

Thinking Like an Evaluator   163

to advance the candidates’ presentation and communication skills and to reinforce their command over the project’s elements. Typically, the candidates use software such as Microsoft PowerPoint or Prezi.com to deliver this presentation. Each component of the SWCI oral and written presentations is assessed through the use of a set of rubrics which ground the development of the project. Following each presentation, the audience provides feedback on a form that reflects the required components of the SWCI. In turn, the candidates use this feedback to refine and finalize the written component of the SWCI. During the fall academic quarter, before candidates arrive at their apprenticeship sites, each candidate works with his/her mentor principal to identify a problem or issue at the apprenticeship school site that falls into one of three areas of need identified by the PUSD (culturally responsive instruction, positive behavior support, and response to intervention). This early start to the SWCI allows the candidates to learn the skills of inquiry while making headway into the first stages of the project and prior to their formal placement as apprentices. In addition, this strategy helps to reduce project ambiguity, builds the mentor/mentee relationship, and increases the likelihood of a successful SWCI project by the end of the school year. Key Lessons: Our Vision of What Candidates Gain From the SWCI and Key Lessons We realize that the GLGSA candidates are engaged in an initial administrative credential program and not in a formal program evaluation course. Therefore, we weave the evaluation components of the curriculum into authentic problems of practice at their schools sites, one of which becomes the actual focus of their school-wide change initiative. By the time the candidates complete their SWCI oral and written presentations, we expect them to possess a habit of mind that reflects evaluative thinking and the ability to use the theory of TLE in their approach to solving problems of practice and developing change initiatives once they assume the role of school leader. In addition, we describe five important lessons for the candidates to learn as a result of their SWCI experience— lessons that are critical to using the mindset and practices associated with “thinking like an evaluator.” Briefly, the five lessons are: 1. Do not jump to the solution (Problem Focus) 2. Start with inquiry (Problem Focus, Stakeholder Analysis and Problem Context) 3. Do not overthink the problem—make the best judgment possible (Problem Diagnosis)

164   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

4. Once you have your evidence, be practical about the solution (Proposed Solution and Evaluation Plan) 5. Pay now or pay later (Proposed Solution and Evaluation Plan) The first lesson: Don’t jump to the solution. This is a key lesson from the SWCI Problem Focus component. School leaders are often presented with problems, program needs, and opportunities in which stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents) want quick resolutions. However, before a leader goes about creating and implementing change initiatives, she must understand the nature of the gap that exists between present conditions and the ideal—in essence, to conceptualize the gap as “a problem” that must be solved. As noted earlier, there are two ways of thinking about problems in organizations: the logical-positivist perspective emphasizes fixing that which is broken while the sociorationalist view leverages successful practices to stimulate organizational improvement (Bushe, 1995; Bushe, 2013; Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). In either case, to solve a “problem,” a leader must first identify its causal elements, its value to the organization, and the curative strategy for eliminating or bridging the gap. As obvious as this statement may seem, it is ironically less-so to leaders who are caught in the throes and turbulence of day-to-day problem solving and decision making. Stanford University Professor Emeritus James March (1996) explains: Decisions will be affected by the way decision makers attend (or fail to attend) to particular preferences, alternatives, and consequences. They will depend on the ecology of attention: who attends to what, and when. Interested participants may not be present at a given decision because they are somewhere else. Something may be overlooked because something else is being attended to…. Decision makers are often criticized for dealing with the “wrong” things, or for dealing with the right things at the “wrong” time. Short-run problems often seem to be favored over long-run. Crises seem to preempt planning. (p. 24)

What March describes is the bane of present day (and past) school leaders—the “ready, fire, aim” syndrome. In essence, decision makers are often so harried and pressed that they fall prey to expediency over accuracy and action over deliberation (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 2001). Symptoms of the “ready-fire-aim” syndrome will commonly find school leaders attending to factors that may not be particularly relevant to the problem at hand, or that reflect various biases in the leader’s approach to problem solving (e.g., giving disproportionate weight to information first received, a tendency toward maintaining the status quo, overconfidence, or inaccurate problem framing). Such behaviors are uncomfortably common among school leaders and exemplify the natural tendency to rely on

Thinking Like an Evaluator   165

heuristic approaches when confronted with complex circumstances; more specifically, humans seek to simplify rather than to “complexity” (Davis & Davis, 2003). Determining whether a problem is worth solving requires that it be properly, completely, and objectively identified (Bowman, 2013; Drucker, 2001). In doing so, the decision-maker also develops a better understanding of how the problem, if left unattended, creates a domino effect on other organizational functions and systems. Only then can its value to the decision maker (and/or the organization) be fairly assessed. However, identifying the causes of a problem requires a thoughtful search of available facts, historical antecedents, and an examination of stakeholder perceptions. Root causes (environmental) must be separated from core causes (situational), and both must be clarified through a narrowing process that requires choosing between highly relevant and less relevant problem variables (Gaynor, 1998). This is where “thinking like an evaluator” can help the school leader avoid jumping too quickly toward an uninformed solution and the pitfalls of the “ready-fire-aim” syndrome. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that there will be times where the school leader does not have the luxury to move through the steps of inquiry inherent to the SWCI assignment—action must be taken and fast. In fact, sometimes it is necessary to act in order to think. While the TLE model offers a robust and comprehensive framework for solving problems and initiating change, it is not intended to be a mechanism for resolving every problem or crisis that may arise during the course of any given workday. The leader who thinks like an evaluator learns how to begin a change process by first identifying the “problem” to be solved and the performance gap that it represents, its relevant elements, and its value to the organization—that is, to engage in the “get ready” aspect of “ready, aim, fire.” To this end, the leader will resist selecting a solution without sufficient knowledge or understanding of the presenting problem, because after further investigation she might find that there is some other underlying issue or situation beneath the surface that requires attention. The essence of lesson one is that when faced with a problem, the GLGSA graduate will work to fully describe the problem and not jump to a solution because of the inclination to achieve a “quick win” and/or to respond to pressure from various stakeholders. The second lesson: Start with inquiry. This lesson relates to both the Problem Focus and to the Stakeholder Analysis and Problem Context components and is vital to the successful development of a problem solution or viable change initiative. In our work with the five GLGSA cohorts since 2008, the majority of the apprentices identified the need to refine their initial problem focus or to change the focus altogether as a result of talking with

166   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

stakeholders and by gathering more data about the context of the problem and of the school itself. This is the purpose of the Stakeholder Analysis and Problem Context component of the SWCI: to gather empirical information that serves to describe the problem in greater detail and to affirm the identification of the problem focus itself before working to develop a solution. When thinking like an evaluator, the leader will identify all those who have some level of interest in the problem. Generally, apprentices do not have the time or resources to gather the input and perspectives of all stakeholders, so they are encouraged to classify stakeholders by their level of utility. This allows apprentices to identify which stakeholders to engage with first, (e.g., “primary, secondary, tertiary” stakeholders or “internal and external” stakeholders). Apprentices use a locally-developed tool, the GLGSA Evaluation Audience Checklist, to categorize the various types of stakeholders and to also consider the questions that each stakeholder might have about the problem as well as about the evaluation itself (the checklist is adapted from a template found in Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen [2008]). Boutelle (2004) posits four categories of stakeholders, organized according to their comparative power and interest in a change initiative: 1. High Influence, High Interest: These are people who have a close and vital relationship with the content, processes, and outcomes of a change initiative. Moreover, their cooperation and inputs are indispensable to its success. They can also be described as having high utility to a change initiative. 2. Low Influence, High Interest: Although lacking in the political power to effect change, these stakeholders can provide valuable background information, institutional histories, and illuminate potential organizational constraints. Over the long term, they will prove to be valuable allies as change unfolds. 3. High Influence, Low Interest: Lots of power, but very little investment in the success of a change initiative. Leaders clearly do not want to alienate these stakeholders, but cannot hope to gain much in terms of useful feedback or cooperation. A key strategy is to keep them on the sidelines, at least during the initial stages of a change project. Then, as the initiative begins to unfold (and flourish), the leader carefully nurtures and cultivates the support of these stakeholders to ensure change sustainability and continuity. 4. Low Influence, Low Interest: The less time spent dealing with these stakeholders, the better. Because they have low utility to the development and implementation of a change initiative, tactful avoidance is likely to be the most appropriate strategy.

Thinking Like an Evaluator   167

While Boutelle’s (2004) framework is instructive, it is not determinative. A person’s influence may or may not have much bearing on his/her utility in a change initiative. For example, influence may be the result of a person’s expertise, legitimate power, coercive power, or referent power (French & Raven, 1959). When influence is predicated upon legitimate, coercive, or reference power, one’s ability to provide useful or technically accurate information may be limited. Likewise, it is important to recognize that “interest” waxes and wanes, particularly among top level managers as the demands and dynamics of organizational life flex and contract over time. However, while knowing the attributes and characteristics of stakeholders are important, knowing when to engage stakeholders in the change process is equally so. The leader who thinks like an evaluator strategically, comprehensibly, and systematically, engages “high utility” stakeholders at the onset of important change initiatives and on a regular basis throughout a change process. Effectively managing stakeholders is both a strategic and tactical endeavor, often enlisting the leader’s negotiating skills and subtle powers of persuasion to enlist stakeholder cooperation and to extract useful information, including personal perspectives (Beach, 1997; Cialdini, 2001). Gaynor (1998) notes that, from a political-organizational perspective, it is essential to know those people at all levels of the organization, and sometimes outside of the organization, who are committed to the changes that must be made, and who will work to address the root causes of the problem. Ultimately, the success of a change initiative will depend on stakeholder trust, commitment, and feelings of empowerment (Fetterman, 2001). Leaders who “think like evaluators” understand this and develop a stakeholder engagement strategy that identifies the qualities most likely to engender feelings of trust and affiliation for the change initiative and aligns these with stakeholder characteristics such as organizational role, expertise, influence, and interest (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, & de Colle, 2010). While a detailed description of this process exceeds the scope of this chapter, it is important to understand that mandated change from above might produce short-term compliance, but rarely, long term commitment. The SWCI offers a useful example. With the stakeholders in mind, the apprentices develop a set of overarching, or guiding questions used to structure the interactions with stakeholders as well as their investigation of the context of the problem. For example, in investigating the problem of an increase in the number of student discipline referrals by teachers, one over-arching question might be: How well do teachers and staff understand the referral process at the school? The apprentices then determine how they will collect the answers to such questions from the stakeholders (e.g., through surveys, focus groups, face-to-face and/or group interviews based

168   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

upon in-class discussions involving the cohort, the GLGSA external evaluator, and the GLGSA faculty). To conduct of this analysis, the apprentice may choose to use one method (typically, a survey) or a combination of methods. If the apprentice elects to gather stakeholder input using survey methodology, then the GLGSA external evaluator works with the apprentice to develop survey items that reflect or “operationalize” the overarching questions using a web-based survey tool (surveymonkey.com). In most cases, this is an apprentice’s first experience with survey development. Once these survey items are finalized (or when the interview questions or focus group protocols are finalized), the apprentice administers the survey to the stakeholders. Prior to administration, the apprentices learn about the requirements for and process of ensuring informed consent and participant safety through class discussions about Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Apprentices are required to include the informed consent language in any data collection tool used to facilitate their change initiative. Once the data are collected, the external evaluator works with each apprentice and in many cases, provides direct instruction about data analysis and interpretation. Again, in most cases, this is another first experience with the survey analysis and interpretation. As the survey data are collected and analyzed, the apprentices use the information and evidence to refine their problem focus. In addition, the apprentices continue to review the related empirical literature and other sources of information to clarify the problem context, to affirm the problem diagnosis and the direction of the stakeholder analysis, and to illuminate any existing efforts to address the problem. In essence, the problem context matters—a lot. Leaders who think like evaluators understand this and as a consequence, are much better able to calibrate their problem-solving strategies (DeRose, 2009). A dominant constraint for leaders of public service organizations like schools is that they are very, very difficult to quantify. Simply put, there are innumerable moving parts to schools that require leaders to attend to both ground level details while simultaneously overseeing the entire enterprise from 30,000 feet. Under such conditions, to identify a problem and its causal factors requires a crystal clear understanding of the context within which it resides (e.g., social, technical, economic, political, environmental) and how contextual variables interact (or do not interact) (Davis & Davis, 2003). Importantly, analytic errors are often exaggerated because judgments and decisions tend to be made on a small number of explicit rules. If any one of the rules is incorrectly addressed, the resulting analysis may be seriously flawed and may lead to disastrous consequences. Consider, for example, the 1999 loss of the multi-million-dollar Mars Climate Orbiter space probe. The technical design and operational imple-

Thinking Like an Evaluator   169

mentation of the project was nearly flawless, except for one small break in the rules: the probe’s builder used American measurements (e.g., feet and inches) while NASA scientists and technicians relied upon metric measurements. As a result, navigation software failed to properly guide the spacecraft along the correct trajectory and it was destroyed upon entering the Martian atmosphere. Amid the myriad of calculations and analytical procedures used successfully to construct and implement this highly sophisticated machine, one amazingly simple rule violation derailed the entire project (Davis & Davis, 2003). The example of the Mars Orbiter disaster is instructive to school leaders, but only to a point. In most schools, problems arise in impressionistic ways and rarely in such a forthright manner as the painfully obvious measurement error associated with the orbiter’s unfortunate demise. The most vexing problems in schools often emerge from differences in personal values, beliefs, motivations, skills, and interests. As we noted earlier, in schools, highly technical problems are often nested within circumstances where there is no clear pathway to an optimal solution and where managing a problem, rather than solving it, is the dominant goal for a decision maker (Cuban, 1996). Thus, a leader who “thinks like an evaluator” actively seeks information and data that confirms the existence of the identified problem, including a variety of data about the context in which the problem exists. Moreover, the leader will also consult the empirical literature to determine if others have experienced the problem and how it was addressed. Without question, judging the value of a problem and its ideal solution requires disciplined thinking and the ability to consider problem attributes through multiple frames of reference (Bolman & Deal, 2008). It also requires the ability to construct a conceptual framework consisting of “the collection of data related to its [the problem] constitutive elements and the dynamic relationships among them” (Gaynor, 1998, p. 27). From the perspective of evaluation, the activities described above are related to understanding and describing the problem and identifying the information that is most relevant to stakeholders with an eye toward enhancing use of the evidence by those stakeholders—a major principle of utilization focused evaluation (Patton, 2008). Also, as a final step, the leader who thinks like an evaluator assesses the degree to which there are resources to implement a solution as well as the resources for conducting the evaluation. This is a form of an “evaluability assessment,” which will reveal the school site’s readiness for evaluation. Lesson three: Don’t overthink the problem. This lesson is related to the Problem Diagnosis Component. Stanford’s Larry Cuban (2001) notes that in complex organizations like schools, most of the challenges faced by leaders are not really problems but wicked dilemmas. By definition, problems can be

170   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

solved, whereas wicked dilemmas can only be managed. Cuban’s reasoning is based on the well-documented unpredictability and turbulence of the public school as a workplace. In such settings, problems are fraught with ambiguity, conflicting opinions and values, unclear goals, and multiple (but imperfect) solutions. As a result, the best that a school leader can hope to do is manage difficult problems by working to reduce counterproductive behaviors, and to strive for reasonable (even if not perfect) outcomes. In such environments, highly deliberative approaches to problem solving may at best, yield only meager results. In fact, overthinking a problem can lead to unmanageable complexity and an overly rigid problem solving orthodoxy that merely frustrates stakeholders and obstructs creative thinking (Davis, 2006; Davis & Davis, 2003). This rather sober perspective of problem solving and change in schools reminds us that finding the perfect or optimal solution to any complex problem or change initiative may be beyond the reach, time, or energy of the leader (or school stakeholders). While learning to think like an evaluator will increase the probability that problem solving and change initiatives will succeed in accomplishing the vision, mission, and goals of a school, it does not guarantee perfection, or even success. Sometimes, it is important to give due diligence to rational problem solving, while recognizing that it may be equally important to get the ball rolling—even before the process of inquiry and analysis has been completed (Davis, 2006). The essence of this lesson is to use the model of thinking like an evaluator, but do not allow the model to use you. Lesson four: Once you have your evidence, be practical about the solution. This lesson is linked to the Proposed Solution and Evaluation Plan component of the SWCI. Even the most rigorously crafted change initiatives and problem solutions are subject to derailment or modification by factors and influences beyond the control of the leader. Given the highly pluralistic nature of public schools, political influences will inevitably play a role in the design, implementation, and outcomes of any major change initiative or problem-solving event. Leaders who are successful at applying the TLE model are constantly aware of the political dynamics of their schools, communities, school districts, and state and federal policymakers. Attempting to adhere with strict fidelity to the components of the TLE model without consideration of the extant political environment may be a recipe for disaster. The bottom line is that major change in schools is always a process of negotiation and compromise—and sometimes at the expense of rationally derived solutions. March (1996) refers to this as the art of “satisficing,” in which the problem-solver must settle for an outcome that is “good enough” rather than optimal. It is also true that in complex organizations like schools, the process of solving one problem often creates new, unanticipated problems. Sometimes these can obstruct a school’s ability to accomplish its vision, mission,

Thinking Like an Evaluator   171

and goals, and sometimes these can serve as opportunities for positive change. Either way, the leader who thinks like an evaluator understands the importance of thinking beyond the immediate problem and anticipating the unexpected (Davis & Leon, 2011). Finally, it is important for leaders to listen to their inner ears and intuitions. Sometimes the most rationally derived change initiatives simply do not feel right. Experienced leaders accumulate a professional lifetime of insights, knowledge, and skills that are often more tacit than explicit. They just claim to know what to do and how to do it. A study of 100 public school principals revealed that each of them admitted to using their intuitions to help solve important problems. However, to a person, they stated that while their intuitions were not always correct, they always regretted it if they failed to consider their intuitions when dealing with complex problems and issues (Davis & Davis, 2003). Lesson five: Pay now or pay later. This lesson is also related to the Proposed Solution and Evaluation Plan component of the SWCI. School leaders are, by nature, action oriented—they want to fix things and move ahead. They think ahead in anticipation of potential problems (i.e., If this happens, I will respond by doing that.) and they are easily frustrated by situations that require lengthy deliberations or deep cognitive effort (March, 1996). This kind of reflective thinking is prospective—which is advantageous in that it provides leaders with easily retrievable heuristic guidelines that can be used to quickly address the multitude of problems and issues that arise (often without warning) throughout the workday. In essence, heuristics provide a way of economizing the mental effort required to think through complex problems under challenging circumstances (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). However, most leaders carry around a large backpack of heuristic solutions to problems that have not yet occurred (March, 1996). In the midst of the turbulent social and political conditions that typify public schools, leaders often look for solutions that are quick fixes during the early stages of problem identification, problem analysis, or change efforts; previously identified here as the “ready, fire, aim” syndrome. All too often, accuracy over the long term (pay now) is subordinate in importance to efficiency over the short term (pay later) (Davis & Davis, 2003; Cuban, 2001; March, 1996). To counteract this natural human tendency to seek a solution in advance of a properly defined problem, leaders who think like evaluators take the time to engage with stakeholders to gain a deeper understanding of the problem. Such leaders realize that investing the time to properly identify, confirm, diagnose, and design an effective evaluation before a solution is implemented pays huge dividends in the long run. A common belief among many school leaders is that evaluation occurs at the conclusion of a change initiative or decision-making event. Nothing could be further from

172   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

the truth. In fact, leaders who think like evaluators begin change processes by paying up front—they invest time and resources in the development of an evaluation plan. Essentially, they begin with the end in mind and then construct a plan of action designed to move the change process forward— often in incremental steps, and often using benchmarked measures of progress. Guided by a set of evaluation questions, thoughtful inquiry, and the analysis of empirical evidence, the school leader who “pays now” will employ evaluative tools to design the structure and implementation of a proposed solution and to build evaluation into the program design from the very beginning—this is thinking with the end in mind. Given the limited time and resources of school leaders and public schools in general, determining the emphasis of the evaluation, a priori, is a hallmark of evaluation methodology (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2010; Weiss, 1999). A leader who employs the mindset of evaluative thinking will develop a model or explicit theory around how a proposed solution will work, an approach that has become a part of mainstream evaluation practice (Funnell & Rogers, 2011). Such leaders seek to understand the causal links between what is done (the objectives, or sets of related activities) and the intended results (outcomes) of engaging in those activities with fidelity (e.g., in the short-, intermediate, and long-term). This represents a theorydriven evaluation (Chen, 1990) and is typically made explicit in the form of a logic model. Through logic modeling, the elements and steps of a rational and inclusive problem-solving pathway are clearly laid out and provide a useful visual reference that can both guide decision making and ensure its fidelity to the key aspects of the change initiative (Funnell & Rogers, 2011; Patton, 2008). The logic model also provides an accountability yardstick that can help preserve group focus, foster the conservation of effort, and incrementally benchmark progress as the change initiative unfolds (Frechtling, 2007; W.W. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). In addition, logic models help to explicate assumptions about how the proposed solution is intended to function. It is important to note that turbulence and spontaneity of human behavior in schools often defies attempts to develop highly predictable models for change. While logic models provide a useful roadmap that plots the trajectory of planned change, it is not a static document. Rather, they live and breathe alongside the inevitable changes in pace, organizational priorities, and sudden shifts in attention that typify schools and the people who populate them. In addition, logic models come in a number of forms and that they need not be excessively detailed to be useful (Funnell & Rogers, 2011).

Thinking Like an Evaluator   173

Discussion and Implications for Practice A leader’s ability to successfully identify, diagnose, and address the needs of underperforming schools ultimately rests on his/her ability to make sound and well-crafted decisions. To facilitate deep and durable change initiatives, school leaders must know how to apply the skills of inquiry, analysis, planning, and evaluation. They must know how to get to the heart of an issue, separate the wheat from the chaff. As discussed earlier, this is accomplished by diagnosing the problem, identifying solution options, and then, using evaluative thinking to devise a final solution. Essentially, the paradigm of thinking like an evaluator flips the pervasive tendency by chronically busy school leaders to apply solutions to problems that are not fully understood (e.g., “ready, fire, aim”). Instead, the leader who thinks like an evaluator “pays now” with the investment of time and resources before the implementation of the solution; instead of implementing a solution without an articulated program theory (embodied in a logic model) and dealing with the consequences of an ill-conceived solution. (i.e., “paying later”). By learning how to think like an evaluator, a school leader provides her school and its stakeholders with a more certain and secure decision making environment where decision making is transparent, deliberative, logical, focused, democratic (when possible), and above all else, demystified. Moreover, the leader who thinks like an evaluator facilitates an organizational culture where ongoing improvement becomes the norm and where stakeholders share a collective confidence that change efforts will be made with careful investigations into clear and objective evidence that provides both a rational basis for change and subsequent evaluations of change effectiveness. Finally, the skills of thinking like an evaluator increase the likelihood that there will be a coherent (i.e., logical) alignment between problem attributes, stakeholder participation and input, program goals and objectives, change strategies, evaluation processes, the validity of the resulting evaluation evidence, and the use of this evidence to inform future decisions about the implementation of a solution. For the Great Leaders for Great Schools Academy, the School-Wide Change Initiative has been a successful mechanism for applying the skills of thinking like an evaluator to an authentic problem of practice, for assessing candidate competence and performance on the tasks required for effective change leadership, and for integrating key administrative theories and concepts with rational problem-solving strategies. The SWCI departs from many traditional administrative credential program learning activities in that it begins with a problem nested in a real-world setting and progresses toward the creation of a concrete and practical action plan that is important to the school and its stakeholders. By the virtue of its authenticity, the SWCI

174   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis

is a high stakes learning activity—the quality of its processes and outcomes matter for real people in a real school. The successful implementation of the SWCI requires an active and direct role by the instructor and by the GLGSA external evaluator in order to effectively guide candidates and their mentor principals through all stages of the process. Over time, we have observed that as candidates progress through the various stages of developing their SWCI, they report a greater confidence in their ability to address the requirements of the SWCI assignment without the direct assistance of faculty and the GLGSA external evaluator. Essentially, as the apprentices become increasingly self-reliant, they take ownership over the process and the product. It is this dynamic that exemplifies what we mean when we describe the GLGSA graduates as “practice ready.” We also believe that the paradigm of thinking like an evaluator puts several popular theories of enlightened school leadership (e.g., transformational, instructional, servant, turnaround) to the test. For the administrator in training, it provides a platform (and venue) to apply contemporary conceptions of leadership and to weigh the comparative attributes of each. To address the complexity and challenges of effectively navigating the turbulent, idiosyncratic, and pluralistic political dynamics of public schools, the SWCI requires the application of different leadership styles. Finally, a critical lesson for administrator preparation programs is that singular, or typecast, approaches to leadership will fail to successfully address the organizational polymorphism found in America’s public schools. The SWCI was specifically designed to prepare candidates to effectively address this dynamic by engaging them in the skills of thinking like an evaluator. Acknowledgments The Great Leaders for Great Schools Academy is funded by a 2008 School Leadership Program grant from the United States Department of Education, PR/Award U363A080106 References Accrediting Commission for Schools. (2014). About WASC Accreditation: Overview. Retrieved from Accrediting Commission for Schools: http://www.acswasc.org/ about_overview.htm Ainsworth, P. (2010). Developing a self-evaluating school: A practical guide. London, England: Continuum. Antonakis, J. D. (2012). Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp of a renaissance. The Leadership Quarterly, 643–650.

Thinking Like an Evaluator   175 Beach. (1997). The psychology of decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Boutelle, J. ( 2004, May 6). Understanding organizational stakeholders for design success. Retrieved from Boxes and Arrows: http://boxesandarrows.com/ understanding-organizational-stakeholders-for-design-success/ Bowman, R. A. (2013, March 7). Thinking evaluatively, acting evaluativey, and searching for impact: How far do you want to go? Paper presented at the 2013 Minnesota Evaluation Studies Institute, Minneapolis, MN. Bridges, E., & Hallinger, P. (1997). Using problem-based learning to prepare educational leaders. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 131–146. Bushe, G. (2013). The appreciative inquiry model. In E. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (pp. 42–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bushe, G. R. (1995). Advances in appreciative inquiry as an organizational development intervention. Organizational Development Journal, 13(3), 14–22. Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory driven evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the power of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, Reprint Number R01109D. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Preparing America’s students for success. Retrieved from Common Core State Standards Initiative: http://www. corestandards.org/ Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In W. Pasmore, & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 129–169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Cuban, L. (1996, October 9). Techno-reformers and classroom teachers. Education Week, 16(6), 37. Cuban, L. (2001). How can I fix it? Finding solutions and managing dilemmas: An educator’s roadmap. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Davis, S. H. (2006). Unleashing creativity in your schools. Leadership, 36(2), 8–34. Davis, S. H. (2008). Research and practice in education: The search for common ground. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Davis, S. H., & Davis, P. B. (2003). The intuitive dimensions of administrative decisionmaking. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education Davis, S. H., & Leon, R. J. (2011). The big 20: Critical principles and essential attributes of great leadership in schools. Educational Leadership Review, 12(1), 52–64. Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals (Review of Research). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Davis, S. H., Leon, R. J., & Fultz, M. L. (2013). The power of institutional partnerships in the development of turn around school leaders. In K. Sanzo, S. Myran, & A. H. Normore (Eds.), Successful school leadership preparation and development advances in educational administration (pp. 23–47). Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Decker, E., Gregg, D., & McDermid, M. (2003, April 21–25). Critically thoughtful leadership. Paper session presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

176   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446. DeRose, K. (2009). The case for contextualism: Knowledge, skepticism and context (Vol. I). Cary, NC: Oxford University Press. Donaldson, S. I., Gooler, L. E., & Scriven, M. (2002). Donaldson, S.I., Gooler, L.E., & Scriven, M. (2002). Strategies for managing evaluation anxiety: Toward a psychology of program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(3), 261–273. Drucker, P. (2001). The effective decision. In H. B. Review (Ed.), Harvard Business Review on Decision Making (p. 8). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review. Engle, M. (2011, September 22). TIMELY TOPIC: Evaluation mind set (Web log post). Retrieved from http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/programevaluation/2011/09/22/ timely-topic-evaluation-mind-set/ Fenwick, T. J. (2001). Experiential learning: A theoretical critique from five perspectives. Information Series No. 385. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. Fetterman, D. M. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fetterman, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (2005). Empowerment evaluation principles in practices. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Fetterman, D., Rodríguez-Campos, L., Wandersman, A., & Goldfarb O’Sullivan, R. (2014). Letter to the editor: Collaborative, participatory, and empowerment evaluation: Building a strong conceptual foundation for stakeholder involvement approaches to evaluation (A response to Cousins, Whitmore, and Shula, 2013). American Journal of Evaluation, 35(1), 144–148. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2010). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson North America. Fitzpatrick, K., & National Study of School Evaluation. (1998). Program Evaluation Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide for Standards-based Program Evaluation for Schools Committed to Continuous Improvement (National Study of School Evaluation) (Vol. Indicators of Schools of Quality Series). National Study of School Evaluation. Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Freedman, A. M. (2006). Action research: Origins and appications for ODC practitioners. In N. I. Science (Ed.), The NTL Handbook of Organizational Development and Change: Principles, practices, and perspectives (pp. 83–103). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A. C., Parmer, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. New York, CA: Cambridge University Press. French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Institute for Social Research & D. Cartwright (Eds.), Studies of social power. Ann Arbor, Mi: Institute for Social Research. Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Thinking Like an Evaluator   177 Gaynor, A. K. (1998). Analyzing problems in schools and school systems: A theoretical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hoachlander, G., Alt, M., & Beltranena, R. (2001). Leading school improvement: What research says. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Hosp, J. L., Hosp, M. K., Howell, K. W., & Allison, R. (2014). The ABCs of curriculum-based evaluation: A practical guide to effective decision making (Vol. Guilford practical intervention in schools). New York, Ny: The Guilford Press. Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. L. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (Vol. Guilford practical intervention in schools). New York, Ny: The Guilford Press. Hughes, M., & Kushner, S. (2005). Accreditation. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Evaluation (pp. 4–7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Institute of Education Sciences. (2014a, March 12). A new generation of rigorous evaluations. Retrieved from National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/index.asp Institute of Education Sciences. (2014b, March 12). Technical Assistance with Evaluations of U.S. Department of Education Grant Programs. Retrieved from National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance: http://ies.ed.gov/ ncee/projects/evaluation/assistance_data.asp Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2003). Student Evaluation Standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2008). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kaufman, R., Guerra, I. J., & Platt, W. A. (2006). Practical evaluation for educators: Finding what works and what doesn’t. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kelley, C., & Halverson, R. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of leadership for learning: A next generation formative evaluation and feedback system. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 3(2, Article 4), 1–22. Klein, A. (2014). “Sequester” impact proves tough to track. Education Week, 32(37), 1, 29. Knowles, M., Holten, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Krepcio, K., Mabe, W., & Yarbrough, C. S. (2011, September). Evaluating workforce programs: A guide to what policymakers need to know to structure effective, user-friendly evaluations (J. J. Development, Ed.). Retrieved March 11, 2014, from John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development: http:// www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/content/Evaluating_Workforce_ Programs_Brief.pdf Lai, M., & Kushner, S. (2013). Preface: Walking backwards into the future. In M. Lai, & S. Kushner (Eds.), A developmental and negotiated approach to school self-evaluation (advances in program evaluation) (Vol. 14, pp. xi–xvii). Bingley, England: Emerald Group. Lane, K. E., & Richardson, M. D. (1992, August). Critical thinking for administrators: The cookbook mentality syndrome. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting

178   M. L. Fultz and S. H. Davis of the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration, Terre Haute, IN. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, CA: Cambridge University Press. Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identify, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 591–615. MacBeath, J. (1999). Schools speak for themselves, again: The case for school self-evaluation. London, England: Routledge. MacBeath, J. (2006). School inspection and self-evaluation. Abingdom, Oxon, England: Routledge. MacBeath, J., & Mcglynn, A. (2002). Self-Evaluation: What’s In It For Schools? London, England: Routledge Falmer. March, J. (1996). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York, NY: The Free Press. Mendels, J. G. (2012). The effective principal. JSD Learning Forward, 33(1), 54–58. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Mumford, M. D., Blair, C., Daily, L., Lertiz, L. E., & Osburn, H. K. (2006). Errors in cognitive thought? Cognitive biases in a complex processing activity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 75–109. Mumford, M. D., Friedrich, T. L., Caughron, J. J., & Byrne, C. E. (2007). Leader cognition in real-world settings: How do leaders think about crises? The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 515–543. Murphy, J. (2008). The place of leadership in turnaround schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 74–98. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform: a report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author. National Study of School Evaluation. (2005). Breakthrough school improvement: An action guide for greater and faster results. Washington, DC: Author. Nevo, D. (2002). School-based evaluation: An international perspective (Vol. Advances in Program Evaluation Series). Bingley, England: Emerald Group. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Polikoff, M. S., McEachin, A. J., Wrabel, S. L., & Duque, M. (2014). The wave of the future? School accountability in the waiver era. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 45–54. Preskill, H. S., & Boyle, S. (2008, December). A multidisciplinary model of evaluation capacity building. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(4), 443–459. Preskill, H. S., & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thinking Like an Evaluator   179 Ridout, S. R., & Manlove, D. C. (1987). The development of the national study of school evaluation’s K–12 school evaluative criteria. Retrieved from http://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED289908 Scott, G. M., Lonergan, D. C., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Conceptual combination: Alternative knowledge structures, alternative heuristics. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 79–98. Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Scriven, M. (1995). The logic of evaluation and evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 49–70. doi:10.1002/ev.1019 Secolsky, C., & Denison, D. B. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook on measurement, assessment, and evaluation in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London, England: Random House. Smith, M. K. (2001). Evaluation for education, learning and change – theory and practice. Retrieved from Infed: http://infed.org/mobi/evaluation-theory-and-practice/ Smith. M. K. (2006). Evaluation for education, learning and change—theory and practice. Retrieved March 10, 2014 from Infed: http://infed.org/mobi/evaluationtheory-and-practice/ Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124–1131. U.S. Department of Education. (2014). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. Retrieved from http://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kelloggfoundation-logic-model-development-guide Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London, England: Sage. Weiss, C. H. (1999). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Whitehurst, G. (2004). Making education evidence-based: Premises, principles, pragmatics, and politics. Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University. Wick, J. W. (1987). School-based evaluation: A guide for board members, superintendents, principals, department heads, and teachers (Vol. Evaluation in education and human services). Lancaster, England: Kluwer Academic. Williams, B., & Hummelbrunner, R. (2011). Systems concepts in action: A practitioner’s toolkit. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. (2005). Political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.). Richmond, CA: McCutchan. Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chapter 9

Utilization of a cohort model in school leadership preparation programs Lessons Learned From a USDE Grant Jennifer K. Clayton

ABSTRACT One common feature across grant-funded school leadership preparation programs is the cohort model for instructional delivery of graduate programs. As such, this common bond can be used to understand lessons learned across grants about the design, benefits, and challenges of this model. This chapter will examine qualitative interview data from one small grant in a rural area of Virginia, as well as quantitative data from a survey offered to all SLP programs. The following five recommendations emerged as guidance for universities or other programs that intend to establish cohorts.

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 181–198 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing 181 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

182    J. K. Clayton 1. Create appropriate preconditions for cohort member interaction through careful selection and induction of the group. 2. Monitor group membership and use the group analysis process as a selfstudy and learning experience for aspiring leaders. 3. Remain vigilant for groupthink and ensure diversity of thought through exercises, guest speakers, and experiences. 4. Prepare for and plan for discord within the group. Determine how this will be addressed by program managers. 5. Conduct long-term program evaluation to look at experiences of cohorts over time, and conduct within and between case studies for long-term improvement.

You build a true educational brotherhood when you start, work through, and wrap up together. —SLP Program Participant

Introduction The School Leadership Program grants represented in this book and across all funded programs utilize a variety of program features to deliver graduate instruction to aspiring school leaders and provide professional development to existing school leaders. The variance across these programs includes different course delivery methods, courses, internship designs, entrance requirements, practical experiences, mentoring, and assessment, to name a few. One common feature across many programs, due to the nature of grant funding cycles, is the cohort model for instructional delivery of graduate programs. As such, this is a common bond that can be used to understand lessons learned across grants about the design, benefits, and challenges of such a model. These lessons may provide input to traditional graduate programs in leadership preparation about the advantages and disadvantages of such a design. While the use of cohorts is not new and research has been conducted previously to look at this organizational structure, it is clear that we have more to learn as leadership preparation programs continue to engage in redesign. This chapter will examine qualitative interview data from one small grant in a rural area of Virginia, as well as quantitative data from a survey offered to all SLP programs used to explore the following overarching research question: How do graduate students in an SLP cohort model program make meaning of their cohort experience?

Cohort Model in SLP Programs   183

Review of Literature The term cohort dates to the Roman army who used the term to describe a specific military unit within a legion, representing 600 soldiers. Since that time, the term has come to mean any group that is banded together and the term is used across disciplines. Statistically, we might use the term to indicate a particular age band or demographic class, whereas, in education, we might use it as a mechanism to track student performance or graduation rate. In higher education programs, a cohort is generally used to describe a group of students who begin a program together, complete coursework along the same program plan, and generally complete the coursework simultaneously, unlike peers who complete programs on individually paced tracks. For those in educational leadership preparation programs, the use of cohorts has consistently increased over time with almost 50% of institutions using them in 1995 (Norton, 1995), and 63% in 2000 (Barnett, Basom, Yerkes, & Norris, 2000), and the practice continues to gain popularity (Durden, 2006). Barnett and Caffarella (1992) found four common characteristics to cohort programs in higher education including an initial development of the group, reflective seminars, individual learning opportunities, and long-term involvement. The connections established through this model and the focus on the individual learning opportunities coupled with meaningful conversation and relationship building as a group is consistent with Knowles’s (1980) approach to andragogy. Similarly, Maher (2005) described the cohort model as providing opportunities for a format of a learning community where the emphasis is not only on individual development, but also on “shared learning.” Researchers (Barnett et al., 2000; Burnett, 1989; Norton, 1995; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Coffin, 1995; Scribner & Donaldson, 2001) have identified positive and negative aspects of the cohort experience for students, and largely, the body of research is focused on student experiences, rather than on specific outcomes. Participants in this type of research generally report a sense of solidarity and support emerging from the cohort because of the bonds that form from experiencing the educational journey together. They often describe the relationships and professional networks that develop during coursework that extend well beyond the life of the program. There is clearly a sense of cohesion for these groups resulting in not only a sense of individual accomplishment, but also of group progress (Saltiel & Russo, 2001). Tucker, Henig, and Salmonowicz (2005) found that cohort members in one educational leadership preparation program also found great value in the learning experiences leaving them well-prepared for leadership roles. It was unclear, as acknowledged by the authors, whether the design or cohort model was a major factor leading to this outcome. For universities, the cohort structure provides predictability

184    J. K. Clayton

of enrollment and allows for concrete planning. Additionally, it helps a program address one criticism reported by Levine (2005) of disjointed courses without common foci or themes that instruct on discrete skills. By working in a cohort structure, universities and organizations engaging in leadership preparation are able to sequence courses and plan experiences and internships to allow for maximum learning benefit. Cohort experiences can also be characterized by challenges or potential pitfalls. One concern of cohort structures can be the induction of groupthink, as predictability of cohort members’ viewpoints may holistically impact the group’s opinions. Some participants have also reported being “boxed in” to a particular role within the cohort dynamic because of their behavior and interactions early in the process. Barnett and Muse (1993) and Hill (1995) discovered that discord within a cohort group could create challenges for faculty leading these groups and discomfort for group members. Additionally, there may be discomfort that comes with a disclosure of personal information due to close relationships that can be a learning distraction. Greenlee and Karanxha (2010) examined cohorts through a lens of group dynamics and found similarly to previous studies a high level of trust and cohesiveness among those in a cohort model, but also found that there was a limitation of discussion that occurred with cohort members when contrasted to students in a noncohort program. Importantly, they note that even noncohort programs can implement some of the characteristics of group dynamics which lead to the positive outcomes researchers discovered of cohort programs. By programs implementing features that consider appropriate pacing and course order and a sense of cohesiveness of the program and classes, these outcomes might also be achieved. Context of the School Leadership Program Grant(s) The School Leadership Program Grant program is funded through the United States Department of Education and supports programs which prepare aspiring school leaders or provides professional development to current school leaders. The grant began with original funding in 2002 and the most recent cycle of awarded in 2013. This chapter and the reported research focuses on the SLP in general. Participants from 2008, 2009, and 2010 were invited to respond, however, more focused qualitative information is shared from one of the 2008 grant project participants in rural Virginia, the Generational Futures Program. The partnership at the hub of the Generational Futures Program was developed long before the grant funds were disseminated, and in fact, the grant application itself involved

Cohort Model in SLP Programs   185

collaborative efforts. This funding cycle included a five year program funded by the U.S. Department of Education to prepare two cohorts of students to obtain master’s degrees in educational administration. The program included embedded internships and mentoring, as well as a focus on building capacity for instructional leadership, data-based decision-making, and formative assessment. The public university is located approximately 60 minutes from the rural and geographically- isolated school district. The district itself includes three schools, two that serve K–7 and one that serves 8–12. Due to low performance on state mandated assessments, the state is restructuring the schools in the district which led to the removal of all three principals during the 2011–2012 academic year. Seventy percent of the students are categorized as economically disadvantaged, with nearly 10% of households not having running water. There is also high mobility due to migrant farming. Despite these challenges, the grant program resulted in 16 newly licensed school leaders, 4 of whom were employed as administrators within the district one year after completion of the grant effort. The grant resulted in sustainable changes in capacity for data-based decision-making and instructionally focused leadership as uncovered by the program evaluation through interviews with myriad stakeholders, participant interviews, surveys, and work products, and the strategic plans for both the district and the schools. It will take some additional time to fully assess the impact of these efforts on student learning, particularly because there were significant leadership and governance changes at the midpoint of the grant implementation. Methods In order to examine the experience of SLP grantees in cohort model programs, several pieces of data were collected as part of a mixed methods study design. The mixed methods approach allows the researcher to use multiple methods that each provide a unique strength and highlight a specific aspect of the question, as well as maintaining an intentional focus on solving real-world problems (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). This study’s design included concurrent data collection. To gain a broad understanding of overall student experience, a survey was administered to a variety of SLP grant recipients. As I had to rely on SLP personnel to deploy the survey, it is not possible to identify which grant recipients participated, however a total response of N = 180 was achieved. One open-ended question was included in the survey that yielded some limited qualitative data. To gain a more complete understanding of individual student cohort experience, interviews were conducted with the grant recipient previously discussed in this chapter. Fourteen of sixteen agreed

186    J. K. Clayton

to participate in these interviews. While the interviews were focused on broader program evaluation, specific questions were asked about cohort experience and the experiences of the two distinct cohorts were compared. Overall, the guiding research question was: How do graduate students in an SLP cohort model program make meaning of their cohort experience? To understand the research question noted above, two specific methods were used in this study. The first method was the survey developed for dissemination to the SLP community. The survey included demographic questions regarding gender, race, age, job title, years’ experience in education, Title I employment status, and verification of participation in a cohort program. Participants were then asked to respond to survey Likert-style rating questions on 18 items. The survey was first fielded to a group of leadership preparation program students not engaged in SLP grant efforts to assess construct validity and question clarity. Additionally, the survey was further reviewed by a group of SLP grant program administrators. Finally, upon receipt of the usable results, a Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess internal reliability and the instrument was found to be highly reliable (18 items; α = .87). One open-ended item was included which asked the student to describe his/her overall experience as a member of a cohort in their graduate experience in educational leadership. The second method utilized was interviews which were conducted as part of a larger program evaluation effort with 14 of 16 members from one SLP grant project. While the interviews were not isolated to the topic of cohort involvement and productivity, several questions were posed that elicited responses about the cohort experience, including Describe your overall experience as a member of the SLP program. and In what ways, if any, did your experience in this group change your sense of professional involvement within your district? For each 45–60 minute interview, I digitally recorded to facilitate verbatim transcription. Using a basic qualitative approach (Merriam, 2009), the transcripts were open coded using Atlasti. Following the development and collapsing of emergent themes, including comparison of themes by cohort group, member checking was conducted by providing the list of emergent themes to the participants. Findings The two types of data collected yielded a picture of the cohort experience of the participants in this study. There is clearly a limitation based upon the lack of ability to comment on how many SLP grants are represented in the survey and the single grant represented in the interviews. Readers can best determine the generalizability and transferability of these findings to

Cohort Model in SLP Programs   187

their own grant projects or preparation programs. Results of the data are included below, followed by discussion and implications. Survey Results The survey was sent to all project directors with an e-mail inviting them to share the survey link through SurveyMonkey with their students. Reminders were sent at 1 week and again at 2 weeks. In total, 180 surveys were returned. Twenty-seven of those were deemed unusable because they did not respond to the question confirming cohort participation, and an additional 11 more were discarded because they did not participate in an SLP program. This yielded 142 useable surveys. The demographic representation as self-reported by the respondents is shown in Table 9.1. There was a higher representation of females, Whites, those ages 30–49, those serving as teachers, and those with 6–15 years educational experience. Additionally, 80 % of respondents currently work for Title I schools, which was expected based upon the expressed intent of SLP programs to serve high-need school districts. The survey responses were based on a 1–4 rating, representing strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree, and not applicable. The overall mean, as well as the mean disaggregated by gender for each response is included in Table 9.2. Generally, the statements yielded strong agreement, with the exception of, “My instructors were not aware of discord within our cohort,” and, “The cohort was limited in their ability to speak freely because of the cohort model,” where low agreement was found. It is also notable that the overall mean for how the participants felt supported by their peers was the lowest for support in personal life. This mean, however, was higher for females than males. The highest means indicating strong agreement came from the statements related to the overall experience with the cohort and the collaboration. Statements regarding interactions outside of mandated assignments yielded lower levels of agreement, but still fell between 3 and 4 indicating overall agreement. Survey results were also disaggregated by age group. Overall means by the combined age groups of ages 21–39 and ages 40–above provided are shown in Table 9.3. Overall, the older age category reported higher levels of agreement except on the statements, “The cohort supported me through challenges in my personal life” and, “The cohort was limited in their ability to speak freely because of the cohort model.” It would be important in future studies to conduct further statistical analyses for both age and gender to determine if either predicts how individuals might experience a cohort model. Specifically, with age, one might also want to explore generational membership, rather than just chronological age.

188    J. K. Clayton Table 9.1.  Demographics of Survey Respondents Demographic Category

N

Percent

Male

43

30.7

Female

95

67.9

White

88

62.9

Black or African American

21

15.0

American Indian or Alaska Native

3

2.1

Asian

3

2.1

Gender

Race

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

2

1.4

16

11.4

Age 21–29

8

5.7

Age 30–39

76

54.3

Age 40–49

44

31.4

Age 50–59

10

7.1

2

1.4

Teacher

53

37.9

Principal

14

10.0

Assistant Principal

21

15.0

Central office administrator

11

7.9

Teacher Leader

20

14.3

Other Occupation

21

15.0

0–5

7

5.0

6–10

47

33.6

11–15

47

33.6

16–20

26

18.6

21–25

6

4.3

26 or more

7

5.0

Multiple Races Age

60 and older Current Position Title

Years Experience in Education

Title I Employing District Title I

112

80.0

Non-Title I

19

13.6

Not school-based

8

5.7

Cohort Model in SLP Programs   189 Table 9.2. Mean Responses by Gender and Total Item

Total

Male

Female

My experience in the SLP graduate program was positive.

3.69

3.70

3.67

My experience in the SLP program as a cohort member was positive.

3.73

3.81

3.68

My cohort got along as a group.

3.59

3.74

3.51

My cohort collaborated on class projects.

3.59

3.74

3.51

My cohort collaborated on class projects, even when not specifically directed to do so.

3.31

3.44

3.25

I engaged with cohort members outside of SLP class requirements.

3.36

3.37

3.36

If I had the opportunity to engage in a cohort model again, I would.

3.63

3.67

3.60

My instructors were not aware of discord within our cohort.

1.73

1.45

1.80

The cohort model enhanced my graduate experience.

3.60

3.47

3.65

My cohort still interacts even though our graduate experience has ended.

2.97

3.05

2.95

I will remain close to certain members of the cohort.

3.24

3.33

3.23

The cohort supported me through challenges in my personal life.

2.30

2.19

2.38

The cohort supported me through challenges in my professional life.

3.00

2.84

3.06

The cohort supported me through challenges in my academic life.

3.21

3.14

3.25

I was closer to some members of my cohort than others.

3.45

3.23

3.55

I would describe my cohort as diverse.

3.41

3.24

3.55

The cohort was limited in their ability to speak freely because of the cohort model.

1.71

1.67

1.75

The group bonded quickly because of the cohort model.

3.24

3.40

3.17

Open-Ended Survey Question and Interview Results Survey Question Results. Two data points were collected qualitatively, including the survey open-ended question and the interviews with the single SLP cohort. The survey open-ended question yielded some responses too brief to ascribe meaning (i.e., “It was great.”), however it also yielded

190    J. K. Clayton

several responses that provided a unique glimpse at the experience. Three themes emerged from these statements. First, several participants discussed the importance of the support that emanated from the cohort membership and interaction. Second, several participants indicated that the cohort had groups within the group that created both positive and negative experiences. Finally, a few participants reported that the nature of the cohort led to dysfunction. Table 9.3. Mean Responses by Age Group Age 21–39

Age 40–above

My experience in the SLP graduate program was positive.

Item

3.64

3.75

My experience in the SLP program as a cohort member was positive.

3.67

3.82

My cohort got along as a group.

3.54

3.66

My cohort collaborated on class projects.

3.55

3.66

My cohort collaborated on class projects, even when not specifically directed to do so.

3.26

3.39

I engaged with cohort members outside of SLP class requirements.

3.33

3.41

If I had the opportunity to engage in a cohort model again, I would.

3.57

3.71

My instructors were not aware of discord within our cohort.

1.66

1.84

The cohort model enhanced my graduate experience.

3.50

3.73

My cohort still interacts even though our graduate experience has ended.

2.86

3.13

I will remain close to certain members of the cohort.

3.18

3.34

The cohort supported me through challenges in my personal life.

2.37

2.20

The cohort supported me through challenges in my professional life.

2.93

3.05

The cohort supported me through challenges in my academic life.

3.12

3.34

I was closer to some members of my cohort than others.

3.42

3.48

I would describe my cohort as diverse.

3.40

3.42

The cohort was limited in their ability to speak freely because of the cohort model.

1.77

1.63

The group bonded quickly because of the cohort model.

3.22

3.29

Cohort Model in SLP Programs   191

Importance of Support. Participants who responded to the question about their overall experience in the cohort most commonly reported positive interactions stemming from a sense of camaraderie and cohesion. For example, one participant noted, Being a part of a cohort allowed us to make instant connections. We were able to network for professional purposes, and we made some life-long friends that we otherwise would not have found. I enjoyed taking classes with my fellow cohort members. We leaned on each other for support and assistance throughout the process by studying together, writing papers together, and being a sounding board for ideas. We could collaborate much better because we had class together so often and went through the whole program together.

Another participant echoed, The cohort was a safe place to learn leadership skills and a place to practice as we learned. Our group was very close and I know that they are a call away from any questions or advice that I may need. The group was supported along the way and I felt at ease knowing that I could ask any questions and that I had.

Several other participants noted the cohort was “invaluable to my development as a leader”; “the only reason I have my principal position today”; and “truly a family and some of my closest friends.” One participant discussed benefiting from the group resulting from knowing peers in a holistic fashion across courses and experiences, rather than from isolated interactions. Finally, another participant indicated that the cohort had positive interactions, but that those were limited by the online delivery mechanism of the program. The participant said, “It’s hard though when everything is done via email and typing over the computer. Adding something like Illuminate or Skype, I think would have made the experience more personal.” Impact of Nested Groups. Several participants noted that cliques or groups within groups emerged which sometimes led to powerful bonding, and other times led to discord. Sometimes these groups were randomly assigned by instructors, while at other times, the groups emerged more organically. One participant noted the power of her smaller group, saying: Being a member of a cohort helped me to bond and establish learning and social relationships that helped me to excel in the graduate program. The cohort, and even more so my small group within the cohort, was very supportive helping me to complete many assignments and tasks to a greater level than would have been possible by myself.

192    J. K. Clayton

Another noted the experience being positive in the smaller working group, but also lamented the lack of interaction with the cohort as a whole saying, “Within our cohort, we were broken up into smaller workgroups. The smaller workgroups developed very positive and memorable relationships but I wish I had the opportunity to interact with the rest of my classmates more during class time.” Again, another participant echoed the power of relationships established within the smaller working group noting, The 5 people in my reading group I became the closest with and I feel like that was a majority of my growth came from. I really enjoyed these four people. We would challenge each other and help each other with all the struggles we had with school work. We helped cheer each other on when we felt like we were just too overwhelmed to go on.

Finally, one participant noted the trouble that occurred between smaller groups saying, “The group was supportive and since I got along with everyone I could get help from whoever would help! What made it difficult was having to select which group to hang out with. There was a group that refused to hang out with the other and that made it difficult for everyone else.” Dysfunction within the Cohort. The final theme which emerged from the survey open-ended question was regarding discord created through a cohort structure, according to participants. One participant noted the design of how cohorts were broken into smaller groups was not reflective of best practices for leadership they were learning, noting: As our cohort was divided into subgroups, candidates spent a lot of time working within the designated groups. Our working group, (which was randomly formed at the first meeting), unfortunately did not work well in terms of generating lasting and meaningful professional and personal relationships; although we WERE able to accomplish mandated tasks. I believe we could have directly benefited from the strategies concerning developing collaborative groups, as we lived through the educational leadership training experience. As far as our overall cohort interaction is concerned, there was very little cohesion, beyond the beginning and ending ceremonies of our graduate leadership training experience, simply because the lion’s share of our work and professional interactions occurred within the randomly established, but SET working groups. If given the opportunity to work within a cohort model again, I would respectfully decline, unless the cohort was purposefully designed to include the strengths of a diverse set of professionals, AND included many opportunities for group cohesion and interaction, by actively requiring participants and smaller working groups to utilize the collaborative grouping principles and to constantly reflect on the efficacy of those groups. After all, what good is the knowledge and leadership training if it is not actively applied to situations in need of it?

Cohort Model in SLP Programs   193

Another participant noted his/her role in helping the group work through discord, saying, I was the leader of the group and had to manage the group during discord. In order to keep the group focused and moving forward, I gave each member responsibilities to feel part of the group at all times. This experience helped me grow as a leader.

Another participant found concern about the potential lack of equity among group or cohort members for required assignments as well as a lack of group diversity saying, “My group within my cohort was not truly collaborative and several members managed to pass their coursework on the coat tails of others. I also wish my cohort was more diverse. While ethnically diverse, our educational backgrounds were not.” Finally, one participant noted feeling stifled in free expression because of the cohort format and said, The teaching was good and the relationships among cohort members was what could be expected from a group of people who are all “in the same ship,” However, there were times when I wished we could have had more liberty to speak freely about our feelings when it came to certain aspects (limited benefits) of belonging to a cohort.

Interview Findings. Additional qualitative data were collected through fourteen interviews of one SLP cohort. As previously mentioned, the efforts to collect these data were part of a larger program evaluation, but specific content about cohorts became evident. The ability to take lessons learned from the first cohort and implement programmatic changes with the second cohort was a benefit of this grant design. Issues such as logistical planning, leveraging multiple grants to improve the overall preparation experience, internship quality, and communication were all improved with the second cohort. While these changes were well-received by students, the transition, which occurred in the superintendent’s office at the midpoint of this grant, led to two different experiences for the cohorts, as evidenced by between-case comparison of the responses of the two different groups. Despite efforts of grant personnel and the PI to take lessons learned from the first cohort and implement them for the second cohort, the experience of the students in the second cohort was more frustrating and involved less articulation between district and grant staff. This also occurred during state intervention in the district operations, leading to further time and morale challenges. Members of both cohort reported high levels of cohesion with their cohort members, calling them some of the closest professional allies they

194    J. K. Clayton

had ever had. Several members of the first cohort also noted feeling a strong sense of group belongingness within their district and known as “one of the ones doing the program” in a way that opened access to administrative tasks and meetings. “In a district that is small like ours, having 15 new leaders who are out in the schools preaching the data message, it really makes a difference.” Another cohort member reported, “We have been asked to lead professional development about data use. We are the go-to people in our buildings for this and we see it show up in our school improvement plans.” Members of the second cohort still reported high value in their coursework experiences and learning and in fact, for some, it was a bright spot during a time of turmoil. One cohort member reported, Overall, I’m happy to have completed the program. I feel that it has made me a better teacher, and has given me the credentials to further my career if I so choose. Now is not an ideal time to be in administration in our district, as administrators constantly feel their jobs threatened based on student performance. We are in a vicious cycle of school improvement that leads to working with extreme anxiety and classrooms that are not fun. I have hope that this will change!

The mixed methods nature of this study highlighted the overall findings expressed by a variety of participants in different grant programs about their experiences inside cohorts. Generally, the feedback on the survey instrument indicated that students had a positive experience with their cohorts. The qualitative data, however, allowed for some of the dysfunction that was less present in the survey results emerge in the qualitative analysis. Two findings specifically about nested groups and the dysfunction of the cohort were more readily understood through the qualitative data. The collective findings do allow for recommendations and implications discussed in the next section. Discussion, Implications, and Sustainability The quantitative and qualitative data in this study resulted in several conclusions regarding the cohort experience in SLP programs as reported by the participants. Overall, survey results indicated positive experiences with the cohorts, while qualitative data allowed for some of the critiques to be explored, such as nested groups and cohort dysfunction. The findings and general implications are explored here, along with discussion about aspects of the cohort experience that may be sustainable. Positive Outcomes of the Cohort Model. The participants generally reported high satisfaction with the cohort experience, regardless of age or gender. Those who experienced frustration often did so based upon

Cohort Model in SLP Programs   195

experiences with a smaller subset or group within the cohort, or overall management by those responsible for grant activities and design. There was a clear sense of camaraderie established, it seems, largely because of the group members going through a common experience as working adults that requires emotional and academic support to demonstrate resiliency in challenging situations. Brandenburg (2004) conducted a study with preservice teachers in a cohort model where similar high levels of trust were created and participants described themselves as sharing the making and learning of knowledge. Research regarding successful outcomes in doctoral student research shows parallels to the cohorts discussed in this chapter where research indicated that cohort models do help students persist and complete their programs (Donaldson & Petersen, 2007). Long-term professional relationships often emerged with participants in this study and were consistent with other cohorts and educational programs that present a set of courses in a meaningfully designed sequence with learning partners which led to more meaningful learning than an assemblage of random courses (Eifler, Potthoff, & Dinsmore, 2004). Participants in this study discussed their own leadership skills being furthered by the relationships they negotiated in the cohort consistent with findings from Adams and Hambright (2005) who found that leadership skills were a direct outcome of cohort involvement. As participants responded both qualitatively and quantitatively, it was clear that the cohort experience provided more powerful learning experiences for some, whereas some others did not feel the same sense of beneficence. In future work, it would be important to examine personality profiles of participants and determine if one’s own personality attributes makes us more apt to gain support and positive interaction in a group. For example, one’s extraversion or introversion dominance may make the cohort experience more or less important to overall graduate study satisfaction and impact. Other Aspects of Leadership Preparation. Consistent with previous research, there do seem to be some benefits to cohort models, however, participants in this study also pointed to other things they found more important to the quality of their experience including mentors, instructors, and internship experiences. As the SLP programs studied were all working on a cohort model, data were not collected about those in a similar program who were in a noncohort model. Therefore, comparative analysis is not possible. Recommendations. The data do allow for some recommendations for those who might use the SLP program cohort structure as a model. The following five recommendations might provide guidance for universities or other programs that intend to establish cohorts.

196    J. K. Clayton

1. Create appropriate preconditions for cohort member interaction through careful selection and induction of the group. 2. Monitor group membership and use the group analysis process as a self-study and learning experience for aspiring leaders. 3. Remain vigilant for groupthink and ensure diversity of thought through exercises, guest speakers, and experiences. 4. Prepare for and plan for discord within the group. Determine how this will be addressed by program managers. 5. Conduct long-term program evaluation to look at experiences of cohorts over time, and conduct within and between case studies for long-term improvement. Sustainability. The benefits reported by participants primarily were focused on relationships made with cohort members, an aspect that does not require funding. Therefore, this aspect of the SLP efforts is readily sustainable for other programs that do not enjoy an external funding stream. It is important, however, for programs to be intentional about using cohort models to achieve maximum benefit. Cohort grouping allows participants to learn from one another and to improve other desired outcomes such as critical thinking and self reflection (Blankenship, Humphreys, Dobson, Gamble, & Kind,1989; Imel, 2002). For graduate education, previous research and this study support the development of cohorts as a way to improve outcomes and achieve success (Calcagno, Crosta, Bailey, & Jenkins, 2007; Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004). Conclusion The SLP grants allow for an understanding of the cohort experience for those engaging in common graduate experiences related to leadership preparation. The data collected in the study primarily show positive outcomes according to the participants. However, caution should be taken to avoid group discord that is a distraction, as well as groupthink. One participant captured the benefit of the cohort experience well saying, I frankly believe that the experiences my particular cohort shared were unique in comparison to the past and current cohorts. That is not to say that other cohorts did not, and will not have the level of camaraderie that we did, but I do believe that we shared a distinct level of appreciation and respect for one another that helped to propel and drive us forward throughout each and every meeting.

Cohort Model in SLP Programs   197

References Adams, K. L., & Hambright, W. G. (Summer, 2005). Helping teachers become transformational leaders. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(2), 90–94. Barnett, B. G., Basom, M., Yerkes, D., & Norris, C. (2000). Cohorts in educational leadership programs: Benefits, difficulties, and the potential for developing school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 255–282. Barnett, B., & Cafarella, R. (1992, October 30–November 1). The use of cohorts: A powerful way for addressing issues of diversity in preparation programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Minneapolis, MN. Barnett, B.G., & Muse, I.D. (1993). Cohort groups in educational administration: Promises and challenges. Journal of School Leadership, 3, 400–415. Blankenship, C., Humphreys, S., Dobson, H. F., Gamble, P., & Kind, W. R. (1989, November). A State University. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council of States on In-service Education, San Antonio, TX. Brandenburg, R.  (2004). Roundtable reflections: (Re) defining the role of the teacher educator and the preservice teacher as “co-learners.” The Australian Journal of Education, 48(2), 166–181. Burnett, I. E. (1989, August). Elaboration on working together: A collaborative approach to university/school system principalship career development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Tuscaloosa, AL. Calcagno, J. C., Crosta, P., Bailey, T., & Jenkins, D. (2007) Stepping stones to a degree: The impact of enrollment pathways and milestones on community college student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 48, 775–801. Donaldson, J., & Petersen, G. (2007). Cohort doctoral preparation programs: NeoInstitutional perspectives. National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Connexions Project. Durden, P. C. (2006). Creating connectivity: An urban collaborator for preparation and practice in educational leadership. In F. L. Dembowski & L. Lemasters (Eds.), Unbridled spirit: Best practices in educational administration—The 2006 yearbook of the national council of professors of educational administration (NCPEA). Lancaster, PA: ProActive. Eifler, K. E., Potthoff, D., & Dinsmore, J. (2004). A bucket of EELS: A tripartite approach to renewing a teacher education program. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 91–101. Greenlee, B. J., & Karanxha, Z. (2010). A study of group dynamics in educational leadership cohort and non-cohort groups. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5, 357–382. Hill, M.S. (1995). Educational leadership cohort models: Changing the talk to change the walk. Planning and Changing, 26(3/4), 179–189. Imel, S. (2002). E-learning—trends and issues alert (Report No-40). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.

198    J. K. Clayton Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall/Cambridge. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Coffin, G. (1995). Preparing school leaders: What works. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Maher, M. (2005). The evolving meaning and influence of cohort membership. Innovative Higher Education, 30(3), 195–211. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons. Norton, M. S. (1995, October). The status of student cohorts in educational administration preparation programs. Paper presented at the annual convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Saltiel, I. M., & Russo, C. S. (2001). Cohort programming and learning: Improving educational experiences for adult learners. Malabar, FL: Krieger. Scribner, J. P., & Donaldson, J. F. (2001). The dynamics of group learning in a cohort: From nonlearning to transformative learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 605–636. Tucker, P. D., Henig, C. B., & Salmonowicz, M. J. (2005). Learning outcomes of an educational leadership preparation cohort program. Educational Considerations, 32(2), 27–35. Wenzlaff, T., & Wieseman, K. (2004). Teachers need teachers to grow. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(2), 113–124.

Chapter 10

Preparing Principals and Leadership Teams to Implement Schoolwide Instructional Initiatives Paula Egelson, John Uhn, and Fran Cowart

Leadership has significant effects on student learning, second only to the effects of the quality of the curriculum and teachers’ instruction. —Leithwood and Riehl (2003) Critical to the role of the principalship is developing people. This development includes allowing faculty and staff to do their work effectively, offering support to improve the work and providing models of practice. —Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004)

Abstract The effectiveness of learning-centered leadership and the value of targeted instructional professional development for principals and teachers are the underpinnings for the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) developing

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 199–212 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing 199 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

200   P. Egelson, J. Uhn and F. Cowart the Florida Leadership Academy of School Innovation and Improvement (FLASII) in 2008. FLASII is a professional development program funded by the United States Department of Education to train and support prospective principals and existing school leaders to become instructional leaders who promote high student achievement in traditionally low-performing middle schools and high schools. Seven school districts in Florida were originally asked to participate in FLASII. This chapter explores the components of FLASSII and discusses findings from a program evaluation of the School Leadership Program project.

Background Research The significance of principal leadership as it relates to student achievement cannot be underrated; leadership is foundational to school success (Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2003). Successful school principals influence student achievement through support and development of effective teachers and the use of effective organizational processes (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). In fact, the total effects of leadership on student learning account for a quarter of total school effects (Marzano et al., 2003). This makes for a substantial relationship between school leadership and student achievement. Learning-centered leadership is one type of leadership that is frequently seen in high-performing schools (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). This type of leadership has principals focused on the core of education—learning, teaching, curriculum, and assessment. The other areas of schooling—finance, organization and administration—support the instructional core. One of the reasons principals of low-performing schools adopt a learning-centered leadership approach is to positively strengthen student outcomes. Logically the effects of successful leadership are much greater in schools that are lower performing (Leithwood et al., 2004) than high performing. This means the greater the challenges are in schools, the greater the impact of principals on student learning. In fact, there is no documentation of schools being turned around without an effective principal in place. Case in point, look at the Chicago school reform that took place in the 1990s (Sebring & Bryk, 2000). Research from that project showed the quality of a principal’s leadership helped determine school achievement growth. There is great value in adding to the leadership capabilities of principals in underperforming schools. One of the Southern Regional Education Board’s strategies for supporting school reform in low-performing schools includes investing heavily in instruction-related professional learning for principals and school leaders (Bottoms & Fry, 2009). In successful schools, time and resources are

Preparing Principals and Leadership Teams   201

provided for principals and teachers to be involved in high-quality learning that ultimately raises school achievement. This professional learning is based on research-based school and classroom practices. The Florida Leadership Academy of School Innovation and Improvement The effectiveness of learning-centered leadership and the value of targeted instructional professional development for principals and teachers are the underpinnings for the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) development of the Florida Leadership Academy of School Innovation and Improvement (FLASII) in 2008. FLASII is a professional development program funded by the United States Department of Education to train and support prospective principals and existing school leaders to become instructional leaders who promote high student achievement in traditionally low-performing middle schools and high schools. FLASII was designed so participants could use a problem-centered approach in solving educational challenges. Seven school districts in Florida were originally asked to participate in FLASII. The aspiring new principal component of FLASII included an application and review process for prospective principal applicants from the seven districts, enrollment in an educational leadership master’s program, mentoring support from expert coaches, an internship with a school administrator and supporting leadership seminars. For FLASII’s other component, administrators from selected traditionally under-performing middle schools and high schools in the seven districts were chosen to participate in the 3-year professional development FLASII program. Professional development offerings that supported school improvement included such topics as creating a high-performance learning culture, using root cause analysis to reduce student failure, leading schoolwide literacy initiatives, assessment academic rigor and designing assessment to improve student learning. Literacy Design Collaborative and the Mathematics Design Collaborative Professional Development The FLASII development team in 2012 proposed to increase the capacities of 12 current principals (from three of the original seven districts) who had completed the initial FLASII 3-year professional development program (2008 to 2011). These principals were asked to lead schoolwide instructional initiatives in 2012–2013 that were designed

202   P. Egelson, J. Uhn and F. Cowart

to make instruction and assessment more powerful and to improve student achievement in literacy and mathematics through the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The new professional development prepared principals to lead small teams of teacher leaders in their school to apply two instructional methodologies that helped students meet standards—Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) and Mathematics Design Collaborative (MDC). These research-based frameworks were developed with the support of the Gates Foundation to engage students in thinking, analyzing, and completing operations embedded in the literacy and mathematics associated with the CCSS. There were five professional development sessions during the 2012– 2013 school year for educators implementing LDC and MDC strategies. Generally each MDC school team was comprised of at least one school administrator and three to four math teachers; each LDC school team was comprised of a school administrator, three to four teacher leaders from core content areas (besides math) and elective teachers. In some cases, the schools’ literacy and math instructional coaches were a part of a team. The intent was to prepare school administrators and their lead-teacher teams to effectively plan, support and facilitate a school-wide roll out of LDC and MDC after receiving eight months of training and coaching and in the lead teachers’ classrooms. In addition to the school administrators and teacherleaders, the other major participants for this professional development were trainers and coaches who worked in classrooms to assist lead teachers in implementing LDC and MDC. SREB leadership coaches also worked with principals and other members of the administrative team to help them learn to support their teachers in their classrooms. This collaborative approach resulted in positive outcomes for teachers and students. LDC professional development helps educators understand how to prepare all students with the reading and writing skills they need to be college and career ready, as well as how to and connect the CCSS with middle school and high school English/language arts, social studies, science and elective teachers. The teacher leadership teams learn about the key elements of CCSS and the LDC framework using template tasks and template modules and analyzing student work samples to establish teacher commentary that will guide students as they expand their learning. The template tasks are the beginning point for the LDC strategy, the building blocks for formative assessments and classroom-level assessments. Template tasks are the writing shell prompts that allow teachers to fill in the blanks with content and type of product. Students are required to read, analyze, and comprehend texts as specified by the CCSS and apply the standards for literacy to English/language arts, social studies, science and elective courses.

Preparing Principals and Leadership Teams   203

The initial LDC training for teacher leadership teams includes a module description, template tasks, CCSS for reading and writing, content standards, teaching task overview, teaching task instructional ladder including classroom preinstruction, the reading process, transition to writing, the writing process, classroom assessment tasks (final assessment of the unit), materials and resources. This 2-day training is followed by four additional 1-day sessions that are interspersed with 4 days on-site observation and coaching by expert LDC coaches. During the year, teacher leaders begin to implement the design in their own classrooms to develop their expertise as facilitators who will then work with the other teachers the next year. The principals work closely with the teacher leaders to provide guidance, time for planning and reflection and teaching resources that are needed to implement the design with fidelity. Expert LDC coaches conduct instructional rounds in teacher leaders’ classrooms, analyze student work, assist the design of standards-based units and assessments, provide feedback to them and their principal on the quality of implementation they have observed, assist in planning the for the next rounds of observations and debrief with the team on how to conduct this type of conversation when they work with other teachers in implementing the design. MDC professional development equips middle school and high school math teachers with research-based strategies for analyzing learning in the classroom. It provides a series a Formative Assessment Lessons (FALs) that are focused on conceptual understanding and problem solving. The FALs are built around a set of tasks connected to the CCSS and are intended to be embedded within a teacher’s curriculum. The FALs include an initial assessment task, collaborative activities around the initial task, whole class instruction and retake of the initial assessment task to improve responses. Math teacher teams participate in 6 days of training throughout the school year. Each teacher leadership team receives 5 days of school-based strategic coaching from an expert MDC coach and an additional 6 days of coaching from an SREB leadership coach that are interspersed with the training sessions. Initially the MDC coach conducts a mathematics needs assessment to determine how math is being taught in the school. In subsequent visits the MDC coach focuses on modeling FALs for teachers, arranging demonstration lessons, assist teachers with lesson planning, analyzing student assessments, determining the level of MDC implementation in math teachers’ classrooms, mentoring principals and assistant principals on how to support implementation and planning for scale up of MDC throughout the entire math department.

204   P. Egelson, J. Uhn and F. Cowart

Three Participating School Districts The schools participating in the LDC and MDC professional development during the 2012–2013 school year were located in three school districts in Florida; they included Hill School District, Mountain School District and River School District.1 To provide a context of the participating districts, it is helpful to learn about these very different communities as it has to do with their demographics and support and rollout of the LDC and MDC professional development.

Hill School District Hill School District is in a working-class community with a strong military influence and a discernible tourism industry. The student population of the entire district is made up of 50% White, 5% Hispanic, 35% African American students and 10% other (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013); however, the four schools participating in the professional development have over 60% minority students. The unemployment rate in the county is 8.1% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). One high school and three middle schools in the district participated in the LDC and MDC professional development. The principals and assistant principals in most of these schools have remained the same from year-toyear, while one school has seen a constant change in leadership. Attendance and support of the LDC and MDC professional development has varied from school to school. Each of the four schools had at least some level of support from a principal or assistant principal, and some principals had already considered how to train the entire faculty in LDC or MDC. The four schools in the Hill District will roll out LDC and MDC with varying levels of preparation in the fall, as school leaders had different concerns and levels of knowledge about these initiatives. The high school should have the smoothest rollout because the leadership was on board, and the star teacher at the school has been moved into an instructional coach position. While the middle school leadership teams had varying levels of participation and understanding, all three planned to have the trained teachers instruct the other teachers on the LDC and MDC frameworks in the fall, and intended to provide time for planning and collaboration for all.

Preparing Principals and Leadership Teams   205

Mountain School District Mountain School District is an impoverished rural school district an hour away from a large city. Traditionally it had been one of the lowest-performing districts in the state. There is a high unemployment rate, 10.1% as of August 2012 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). Thirty-eight percent of students are White, 4% are Hispanic, and 56% are African American (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). District educators are comprised of two groups: (1) individuals from the nearby large city, many of whom get a few years of experience and then move on to higher-achieving districts; and (2) those who have grown up in the area and want to stay and remain near family. Two schools in the district—a middle school and a high school—participated in this professional development. The high school principal has been at the school for 7 years and grew up in the community. He was taught by some of the teachers he now supervises. This principal was originally a traditional principal who concentrated on the upkeep of the buildings, student discipline and the management of faculty. With targeted professional development and coaching, he has moved to being an instructional leader at the school and student achievement has risen steadily. There has been a steady stream of principals at the other participating school, and student achievement remains low. The school appears to operate on a day-to-day basis and from crisis to crisis with no overall operational plan in place for making improvements. Neither principal nor assistant principals from the two schools participated in the LDC and MDC professional development offerings that their school leadership teams took part in. Instead, they had instructional coaches in math and literacy take part in the training with the teacher leadership team. Both principals supported the implementation of LDC and MDC in classrooms, and were pleased they were ahead of most districts in implementing the Common Core State Standards. Principals also observed participating teachers in their classrooms and noted the LDC and MDC instructional strategies teachers used. In terms of rolling out LDC and MDC throughout the school, the high school principal was more specific about a rollout. He said that in the fall there would be lesson studies and weekly meetings on LDC and MDC for teams, department heads and school-based leaders. Teachers would submit their LDC modules and their formative assessment lessons to the principal next year rather than their lesson plans. At the middle grades school, the principal stated that teachers who had been trained would train other teachers in their respective departments.

206   P. Egelson, J. Uhn and F. Cowart

River School District River School District is an affluent suburban school district due to tourism. The schools are well maintained and relatively new. The unemployment rate in the area is 8.4% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). Thirty-two percent of students are White, 33% are Hispanic, 27% are African American and 8% other (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Six schools in the district participated in the LDC and MDC professional development, five middle schools and one high school. The principals in this district exhibited high levels of leadership. They supported collaborative planning, providing instructional feedback for teachers and helping train their assistant principals to eventually serve as principals. Most of the principals at these six schools have been assigned to their schools for more than 3 years. Only one school had a principal whose tenure was less than 3 years. This school had a new principal who was formally an assistant principal at another school that participated in the LDC and MDC; therefore, the new principal was familiar with the program. As the 2013–2014 school year began, several principals were transferred to other schools in the district. These principals will implement the LDC and MDC strategies in their new schools, and the educators in the schools the principals left will continue using the LDC and MDC frameworks. The support of principals in this district for the LDC and MDC professional development was evident by their attendance at the training sessions. The principals attended at least one of the trainings; a few principals attended all sessions. Each school team included an assistant principal from the school, and a few school teams included an instructional/subject coach. This was critical because it gave the principal and assistant principal a strong understanding of how the LDC and MDC strategies worked. It also ensured that if the principal moved on to another school, the assistant principal could continue the professional development program. One school in the River School District did not have a rollout plan for the fall because all of the teachers had participated in the LDC and MDC professional development during the first year. This is the smallest school in the program, so it had the opportunity to expand quickly. Each school in the district had a carefully considered rollout plan that would be facilitated by district support. Teachers who participated in the training for the school year understood they were expected to assist in a full school rollout for the following school year through one-on-one mentorship or teacher-leaders helping to train other teachers. The principals had already begun thinking about how to create and support training and collaboration for the teachers to ensure the programs would be easily rolled

Preparing Principals and Leadership Teams   207

out schoolwide. The school leadership in these schools fully supported LDC and MDC implementation in their schools. An Examination of LDC and MDC Training and Implementation in Three School Districts A program evaluation was conducted to examine the quality of the professional development, participant reaction to LDC and MDC, and to determine the level of implementation and capacity for schoolwide rollout in these schools after administrators and selected lead teachers had received 8 months of training. In spring 2013, participating teachers were surveyed about the quality of the training, changes in teachers’ instruction, impact on students, ability to share what they had learned with others and their school’s ability to roll out LDC or MDC across the school. School administrators were interviewed about their impressions of the training, teachers’ reactions to training, and their level of participation. Coaches and trainers were individually interviewed to determine school and teacher reaction to LDC or MDC, changes in teacher practice, impact on students and capacity to roll out LDC and MDC. Focus groups were conducted with randomly selected participating teachers at each district training site. Teachers were asked about strengths and weaknesses of the training, trainer and coach support, their implementation of LDC or MDC and their school’s ability to roll out LDC and MDC. Trainers and coaches provided the number of modules (LDC) and/ or FALs (MDC) participating teachers completed. Eighty-eight percent of LDC teachers in all three districts agreed and strongly agreed that they have made changes in their instructional practices as a result of the training sessions. These are encouraging results that support teacher change and implementation. LDC teachers in two districts agreed and strongly agreed that a high level of training complemented the educational needs of their students (Mountain teachers 100% and River teachers 97%). It is significant to note that Mountain is a high-poverty district, and River is a more affluent community with fewer students receiving free or reduced price lunches. Eighty-two percent of Hill teachers agreed with this survey question. Hill serves a working-class military community. The Hill teachers were not as sure about LDC meeting the needs of their students as teachers in the other two districts were. One hundred percent of Mountain LDC teachers agreed and strongly agreed there has been increased student engagement after implementing LDC; but the percentages are lower for Hill teachers (80%), and River teachers (79%). When teachers were asked if they felt confident in sharing what they had learned

208   P. Egelson, J. Uhn and F. Cowart

with peers, the percentages were relatively low for Hill teachers (50%), and River teachers (59%), but Mountain teachers were more confident (86%). This raises some concern about effective and successful rollouts for LDC in these districts in the fall. Surprisingly, based on the LDC training they have received, teachers in all three districts (Hill—92%, Mountain—100% and River—86%) feel like they can assist their peers in rolling out LDC. LDC teachers at Mountain (88%) and River (89%) are confident their schools will be able to successfully adopt LDC; but Hill teachers lack that level of confidence (55%).

Table 10.1.  LDC District Teacher Leader Survey Results Site

Hill 5/6/2013 n = 18

Mountain 5/8/2013 n = 12

Percent Agreeing

Survey Statements I have made changes in my instructional practices as a result of the training sessions.

 88%

The LDC or MDC training complements the educational needs of my students.

 82%

Since implementing the LDC or MDC instructional strategies, I have seen an increase in student engagement in my classroom.

 80%

I feel confident in sharing what I have learned with my peers.

 50%

The training I have received this year has prepared me to assist my peers during the fall rollout of LDC and MDC.

 92%

My school will be able to successfully adopt LDC and MDC.

 55%

I have made changes in my instructional practices as a result of the training sessions.

 89%

The LDC or MDC training complements the educational needs of my students.

100%

Since implementing the LDC or MDC instructional strategies, I have seen an increase in student engagement in my classroom.

100%

I feel confident in sharing what I have learned with my peers.

 86%

The training I have received this year has prepared me to assist my peers during the fall rollout of LDC and MDC.

100%

My school will be able to successfully adopt LDC and MDC.

 88%

(Table continues on next page)

Preparing Principals and Leadership Teams   209 Table 10.1.  (Continued) Site

River 5/7/2013 n = 40

Survey Statements

Percent Agreeing

I have made changes in my instructional practices as a result of the training sessions.

 93%

The LDC or MDC training complements the educational needs of my students.

 97%

Since implementing the LDC or MDC instructional strategies, I have seen an increase in student engagement in my classroom.

 79%

I feel confident in sharing what I have learned with my peers.

 59%

The training I have received this year has prepared me to assist my peers during the fall rollout of LDC and MDC.

 86%

My school will be able to successfully adopt LDC and MDC.

 89%

SREB, 2013

The MDC training has had a positive impact on teachers in Hill, Mountain and River School Districts. They all strongly agreed or agreed that they have changed their instructional practices as a result of MDC (Hill— 93%, Mountain—88%, and River—100%). This speaks well to effective implementation during the early stages of development. There are some surprising results regarding the survey statement “MDC training complements the educational needs of students.” Both Hill and River teachers agreed and strongly agreed at the 100% level to this statement, but only 78% of Mountain teachers agreed, suggesting they are not totally convinced about the effectiveness of MDC for their students. Hill and River teachers agreed and strongly agreed at the 100% level that there has been an increase in student engagement since using MDC strategies. Only 43% of Mountain teachers agreed; some teachers have not yet seen the benefits for students. Teachers in two districts lack confidence when it comes to sharing what they have learned with peers (Hill—50%, Mountain—20% and River 79%). Teachers in all three districts agreed and strongly agreed that because of training they can assist their peers during the fall rollout of MDC (Hill—93%, Mountain—100%, and River—96%). One-hundred percent of River school district teachers agreed and strongly agreed that their schools will be able to adopt MDC; 79% of Hill teachers expressed some confidence; but half of Mountain teachers were not sure their schools could successfully implement MDC.

210   P. Egelson, J. Uhn and F. Cowart Table 10.2. MDC District Teacher Leaders Survey Results Site

Hill 5/7/2013 n = 15

Mountain 5/1/2013 n = 11

River 5/14/2013 n = 24

SREB, 2013

Survey Statements

Percent Agreeing

I have made changes in my instructional practices as a result of the training sessions.

 93%

The LDC or MDC training complements the educational needs of my students.

100%

Since implementing the LDC or MDC instructional strategies, I have seen an increase in student engagement in my classroom.

100%

I feel confident in sharing what I have learned with my peers.

 50%

The training I have received this year has prepared me to assist my peers during the fall rollout of LDC and MDC.

 93%

My school will be able to successfully adopt LDC and MDC.

 79%

I have made changes in my instructional practices as a result of the training sessions.

 88%

The LDC or MDC training complements the educational needs of my students.

 78%

Since implementing the LDC or MDC instructional strategies, I have seen an increase in student engagement in my classroom.

 43%

I feel confident in sharing what I have learned with my peers.

 20%

The training I have received this year has prepared me to assist my peers during the fall rollout of LDC and MDC.

100%

My school will be able to successfully adopt LDC and MDC.

 50%

I have made changes in my instructional practices as a result of the training sessions.

100%

The LDC or MDC training complements the educational needs of my students.

100%

Since implementing the LDC or MDC instructional strategies, I have seen an increase in student engagement in my classroom.

100%

I feel confident in sharing what I have learned with my peers.

 79%

The training I have received this year has prepared me to assist my peers during the fall rollout of LDC and MDC.

 96%

My school will be able to successfully adopt LDC and MDC.

100%

Preparing Principals and Leadership Teams   211

Recommendations and Implications School administrators should continue to participate in LDC and MDC professional development on a regular basis to sustain a successful implementation of these initiatives. This includes school district representatives such as reading and math specialists. There was a lot of pushback from teachers about the numerous resources required for these initiatives and the amount of preparation needed for LDC and MDC implementation. This concern should be addressed via a centralized LDC and MDC resource area in each school. The most effective teachers should be chosen to participate in initial training sessions. This is not the time to “improve” a low-performing teacher or include a teacher with a bad attitude. School reading and math coaches also need to be a regular part of LDC or MDC training. Staff in these roles with the appropriate preparatory backgrounds are critical to providing support to other teachers and to taking on a lead role in the rollout of LDC or MDC. Teachers need time (provided by the principals) to plan, write, and talk about their LDC modules. Across the three districts participating teacher-leaders, on average, are ready for the second year implementation of LDC and MDC. This implementation includes, but is not limited to, project-based instruction, higher level questioning techniques, and creating student-centered classrooms. Most teachers from all three districts reported students struggled initially with LDC and MDC. Working in small groups was foreign to students, and they wanted their teachers to take the lead in instruction. This student pushback was less of a problem as the school year progressed. In some classrooms, teachers saw the impact LDC and MDC strategies had on students. They observed a higher level of student engagement, students taking charge of their learning, and students demonstrating a higher understanding of content knowledge. This professional development project will continue for a second year with follow-up LDC and MDC training sessions for school leadership teams and coaching support for participating principals and assistant principals. The number of participating schools will increase next year due to a mandate from one district for all middle grades schools to participate and because of principal transfers in another district. The transferred principals wanted to begin the professional development program in their new schools. The schools where principals were reassigned will remain with the LDC and MDC professional development another year. Ultimately, the most critical component in a successful school implementation of LDC and MDC, is the principal’s strong support. Without it, these two initiatives will struggle in the future. Principal support includes the principal, or a member of the administrative team, consistently attending trainings throughout the year, providing teacher-leaders with the neces-

212   P. Egelson, J. Uhn and F. Cowart

sary resources for implementation, observing in classrooms, providing feedback, and developing an effective infrastructure for rolling out the initiatives. Some schools participating in the LDC and MDC professional development had more principal support than others, and this will strongly influence success and sustainability. Note 1. The names of the participating school districts have been changed.

References Bottoms & Fry. (2009). The district leadership challenge: Empowering principals to improve teaching and learning. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Labor force data by county, 2012 annual averages. Web. 4 November, 2013. http://www.bls.gov/lau/laucnty12.txt Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Leadership Institute. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University. Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. Marzano, R, Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: McREL. Murphy, J., Elliott, S., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. (2006, August). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual foundation. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The elementary/secondary information system. Retrieved November, 4, 2013 from, http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/ Sebring, P., & Bryk, A., (2000, February). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Chapter 11

THE EXPERIENCES OF WOMEN IN A U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PREPARATION COHORT PROGRAM Darra K. Belle and Karen L. Sanzo

Abstract This chapter explores the experiences of women in a School Leadership Program (SLP) cohort designed to create transformational leaders for public schools. The goal of the case study was to gain an understanding of the experiences of aspiring female leaders through their journey, as well as through the experiences of those who have become school leaders. Lessons from these women can help us understand both their own experiences in their SLP cohort, but also help us reflect on how to better develop leadership programs that support aspiring women leaders. Program sustainability is reflected not only in how the preparation program itself can continue, but also in the lasting impact the preparation program has on the individuals that were prepared.

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 213–236 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing 213 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

214   D. K. Belle and K. L. Sanzo

Public schools in the United States face many challenges, ranging from poor academic achievement, behavior problems, low teacher satisfaction, struggles with school budgets, and lack of parental involvement (Szente, 2006; Urick, 2009; Whitaker, 2006). School leaders are responsible for addressing these challenges and making significant improvements to positively impact student achievement. In this current era of high-stakes accountability, school leaders must possess the skills and knowledge to effectively transform schools. This can be accomplished through highquality professional training for aspiring and current leaders, paired with ongoing collaboration between school districts and universities that prepare aspiring leaders (Boesch, 2009; Griffiths, Stout, & Forsyth, 1998; Hale & Moorman, 2003; National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2002). This chapter explores the experiences of women in a School Leadership Program (SLP) cohort designed to create transformational leaders for public schools. The goal of this study was to gain an understanding of the experiences of aspiring female leaders through their journey, as well as through the experiences of those who have become school leaders. Lessons from these women can help us understand both their own experiences in their SLP cohort, but also help us reflect on how to better develop leadership programs that support aspiring women leaders. Program sustainability is reflected not only in how the preparation program itself can continue, but also in the lasting impact the preparation program has on the individuals that were prepared. The SLP project we explored was a partnership between a university and a school district that had been established for a number of years prior to the grant funding. Students went through the program in a cohort designed to prepare them for school leadership positions in the partner district. In this chapter we will provide a brief review of salient literature about university-district partnerships and cohorts. We will then discuss women and their experiences seeking leadership positions and as school leaders. The methods for the study will be discussed, followed by a review of research findings and implications for practice. University-District Partnerships and Cohorts Partnerships Partnerships make a difference and collaboration between key personnel working in higher education institutions and pre-K–12 school districts who commit to assuring that new principals have requisite knowledge, skills, and proficiencies for leading contemporary schools is crucial in

The Experiences of Women Cohort Program   215

today’s accountability climate (Boesch, 2009; Griffiths et al., 1998; Hale & Moorman, 2003; National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2002). Through this shared commitment across institutional boundaries, the theory-practice integration of school leadership is strengthened (Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Jackson & Kelley, 2002). In other words, because “neither districts nor universities can single‐handedly provide the breadth of experience needed to adequately develop and nurture leaders for today’s P–12 schools” (Laboratory for Student Success, 2005 p. 72), leadership educators and leadership practitioners must collaborate. In thriving collaborations, university professors provide a leadership knowledge base and assist with character refinement toward effective school leadership, while practicing administrators guide the socialization of candidates into the community of principal practice during mentored internships (Browne‐Ferrigno & Muth, 2004, 2006; Capasso & Daresh, 2001; Orr, 2006). Preparation programs delivered through university– district collaborations can thus support career advancement of program graduates, improve the quality and relevance of program content (Black & Earnest, 2009; Browne‐Ferrigno, 2007; Gutmore, Strobert, & Femicola, 2009), and lessen criticisms of university‐based preparation programs by building stronger links between preparation and practice (Goldring & Sims, 2005; Jacobson, 1998; Murphy, 1992; Stein, 2006). Further, the prolonged interaction between professors and practitioners can strengthen the continuum of recruitment, preparation, hiring, and induction of new principals (Darling‐Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007; Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Milstein, 1992) and provide mutually beneficial renewal of both universities and schools (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988). Cohorts Many administrator preparation programs have evolved into coherent, sequenced curricula delivered to cohorts of about 20 to 25 students (Barnett, Basom, Yerkes, & Norris, 2000; Kelley & Peterson, 2000). A premise for using cohorts is that keeping students together as a unique group of learners enhances professional learning and skill development (Norris & Barnett, 1994: Peel, Wallace, Buckner, Wrenn, & Evans, 1998). Another assertion is the cohort structure provides excellent opportunities for aspiring leaders to learn and practice skills in community building, corporate goal setting, conflict resolution, and culture management (Geltner, 1994; Milstein & Krueger, 1997). Consequently, the use of cohorts in educational leadership preparation programs has been highly recommended (Milstein & Krueger, 1997; Murphy, 2001).

216   D. K. Belle and K. L. Sanzo

The use of an effective cohort model requires program coherence (Dick & Carey, 1990) and faculty must be involved in identifying and implementing critical elements that generate advantageous learning environments for both faculty and students (Barnett et al., 2000; Kelley & Peterson, 2000). The effective use of cohorts in higher education requires collaboration and additional work for faculty (Muth & Barnett, 2001). Some faculty members teaching cohorts express frustration with this approach. Cohort students can be demanding and require more from their instructors than students in a traditional program. Cohort students are more likely to challenge conventional instructional approaches and the relevance of the content, often creating tension between faculty and students (Barnett & Muse, 1993). The cohort approach can increase faculty members’ advisement workload and create divisions between faculty who are and are not teaching in the cohort program (Norton, 1995). Likewise, certain problems can arise for students involved in cohorts. Since cohort members spend a great deal of time together, personal conflicts can emerge. Because of the close friendships and intimacy that develop in cohorts, students’ personal dilemmas such as marital and family problems may become more visible among group members (Barnett & Muse, 1993). In addition, academic competitions among group members and pressure to monitor others in the cohort who are not performing adequately have been reported (Hill, 1995). While there may be some issues regarding cohorts, the benefits of cohorts in educational leadership preparation programs strongly outweigh any concerns. Ongoing professional support and encouragement occurs as graduates help each other to identify and seek administrative positions and provide a sympathetic ear and suggestions for leadership behavior in difficult situations once positions are obtained. Many close lifetime friendships are also forged as a result of these intensive interactions (Milstein & Associates, 1993). Furthermore, some reports suggest the cohort experience can directly affect students’ leadership practices in the workplace (Basom, Yerkes, Norris, & Barnett, 1996; Norris, Barnett, Basom, & Yerkes, 1997). Cohort students experience empowerment as adult learners and are more aware of the need to practice collaborative leadership as school administrators (Milstein & Associates, 1993). Although learning in cohorts may differ depending on faculty experiences, the relationships that cohort involvement can foster have proven to be immeasurable. Evidence provided by students and faculty members who have participated in cohorts suggests that the long-term association of learners in a cohort fosters interpersonal relationships, supports students’ competence, and creates caring learning climates (Crow & Glascock, 1995; Norris & Barnett, 1994; Peel et al., 1998). Previous studies about group dynamics, participant interaction, personal

The Experiences of Women Cohort Program   217

relationships within cohorts, and group affiliation (Basom et al., 1995; Norris & Barnett, 1994) also show that the culture of a well-functioning cohort increases the level of learning for all participants. However, research about learning in cohorts further indicates that cohort structures both can foster and impede learning. Similarly, research by McPhail (2000) and Horn (2001) stressed the value of the cohort experience relative to its real world group and interpersonal dynamics and the ability to generalize and transfer cohort experiences into the work setting. Beyond these benefits, Barnett et al. (2000) identified faculty and programmatic cohort advantages, citing increased program delivery efficiency and enrollment management. Specific to graduate program challenges regarding retention and completion, in a study titled “Cohesion or Collusion: Impact of a Cohort Structure on Educational Leadership Doctoral Students,” Hampton Wesson, Oleson Holman, Holman, and Cox (1996) observed cohort benefits in terms of program persistence and completion. There are many advantages to a cohort-based program. Perhaps the greatest benefit of such a structure is the degree to which it lends itself to the development of a learning community (Fulmer, 2009). In a properly led cohort program, participants quickly learn much about one another early on and develop a level of trust and sense of positive climate that is unlike traditional university course settings. Participants will engage in many learning activities that require teamwork, followership, and leadership—all necessary understandings for school leaders (Tallerico, 2001). Women Leaders and Preparation While female principals are no longer as rare as they once were in administration, especially at the secondary level, the position still remains male-dominated (Mertz & McNeely, 2007). Within the field of educational administration, women have been, at times, situated differently than men (Gardiner, Enomoto, & Grogan, 2000). Women have infrequently been placed in positions in which they experience “power over” the masculine bureaucratized context of the school district (Hurty, 1995). Orr and Barber (2006) assert that men have most often occupied positions in secondary schools and that these positions are often the gateway into higher administrative positions, including the superintendency. In a study of women administrators, Orr and Barber found a significant increase in the number of women administrators over the 20-year time period between 1985 and 2005. Many of these increases have been reversals of positions of leadership traditionally held by males. Specifically, an increase was noted in the number of women in leadership at the secondary school level, positions

218   D. K. Belle and K. L. Sanzo

traditionally held by male administrators. While the number of women in leadership positions has increased some, it still does not equal the same percentages as males in school leader positions, and there is a present need to study leadership ascension (Orr, 2006). One supposition that could speak to the lower number of women versus men in school leadership roles is that leadership preparation does not adequately address women leaders in schools (Danna & Bourisaw, 2006). Danna and Bourisaw (2006) pointed out that theory and research in preparatory program coursework leadership knowledge and understanding is based predominately on men’s leadership in school systems. There is a need to recognize that women leadership styles are different from that of men, to embrace that difference, and to make room for it in the educational leadership arena (Growe & Montgomery, 2007). Women should increase their clinical experience in preparation programs and work to gain access to an excellent support system to produce women leaders who are more socialized to the positions they desire and, consequently, can move into leadership positions and maintain them more successfully (Danna & Bourisaw, 2006). Leadership preparation programs are designed to provide aspiring leaders with skills, knowledge, and dispositions to become school leaders. With that end in mind, these programs often provide counseling regarding candidate role aspirations and mapping out their career trajectories. Hoff and Mitchell (2008) contended that career planning and career paths are factors that negatively affect women more than men and far fewer women than men had planned to enter administration upon leaving their graduate programs. In an additional study completed by Young and McCleod (2006), not a single woman had planned to enter administration when they initially entered education as a career. This could suggest that women are not receiving career counseling beyond teaching and that gender socialization continues to limit a woman’s perspective (Hoff & Mitchell, 2008). A majority of women (73.72%) and nearly half (45.7%) of men reported the existence of a “good ole boy” network (Hoff & Mitchell, 2008). Hoff and Mitchell (2008) contended that an awareness of the existence of the forces that advantage some and disadvantage others, with no steps taken to challenge or interrupt them, may serve as a disincentive and keep those outside (mostly women) from entering or trying to advance in leadership. As a result, those who view themselves as outside the network may give up before they even start. This may be attributed to, in part, the perceived level of support provided to men and women in the educational work setting. There are many different career paths that women take prior to becoming an administrator. Many women become administrators unexpectedly and often without a planned goal to ever becoming an administrator

The Experiences of Women Cohort Program   219

(Brown, 2005). Young and McLeod (2001) found, after surveying 127 female administrators in Iowa and interviewing them, that not one interviewee entered education thinking she would become an administrator. Adams and Hambright (2004) studied their own female students seeking a master’s degree in educational leadership. The researchers were struck by the percentage of students (45%) who reported they would never consider becoming an administrator. Additionally, 15 female superintendents studied by Garn and Brown (2008) did not begin their teaching careers with administrative goals. Garn and Brown (2008) also found often women do not begin their careers with the intent to become administrators; an experience or an event may change their thinking and start them down an administrative career path. Female administrators in Iowa identified three factors that affected their decision to become an administrator: (a) administrative role models with which these women either did or did not identify, (b) exposure to a nontraditional leadership style, and (c) the influence of endorsement and support they received (Young & McLeod, 2001). The Rand Corporation studied the career paths of female administrators and identified the importance of timing as a major factor in their professional decision making, suggesting that the “greatest barrier to female participation in school administration may exist at the point where an individual decides to switch from teaching to administration” (Gates, 2004, p. 64). Montz and Wanat (2008) found that supervisors’ support was evident by the fact that nearly half of female administrators were hired internally. Methods The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of women currently and previously enrolled in one school leadership preparation cohort program and was guided by the primary research question: What are the experiences of women currently/previously enrolled in a school leadership principal preparation cohort program? Overview A case study design was utilized. Case studies are “an exploration of a ‘bounded system’ of a case or multiple cases over time through detail, in depth data collection involving multiple sources of information rich in context” (Creswell, 1998, p. 61). Stake (1995) explained that cases are investigated because we are interested in them for both their uniqueness and commonality. We would like to hear their stories. We may have reservations

220   D. K. Belle and K. L. Sanzo

about some things the people tell us, just as they will question some of the things we will tell about them. But we enter the scene with a sincere interest in learning how they function in their ordinary pursuits and milieus and with a willingness to put aside many presumptions while we learn. This study explored the experiences of aspiring and current female school leaders who have participated in a cohort-based school leadership program in a grant-funded USDE SLP. Participants for this proposed case study were solicited from a school leadership preparation cohort program in an urban area in the western part of the United States with a large Spanish-speaking population. This study used purposeful sampling strategy in order to gain multiple perspectives on women’s experiences throughout the school leadership preparation cohort program (Creswell, 1998). To achieve this, women who were currently and have previously been enrolled in the school leadership preparation cohort program were recruited to participate. The women were selected based on two dimensions: those currently enrolled and those who completed the program and successfully obtained school leadership positions. These two dimensions allowed for a wide range of experiences on the phenomenon of this school leadership preparation cohort program. The cohort program is a partnership between a school district and neighboring university. Participants are selected through a highly competitive application process. Once selected, participants are given the opportunity to complete a full-time internship within an elementary or secondary school building, while completing various leadership courses. This unique set-up affords participants the opportunity to engage in real-time conversations with their professors, mentors, and peers. While the program does not target women, women were selected due to previous research that confirms that women tend to be the minority within the school leadership arena. The director of the program randomly selected about 30 names of both previous and current students. Participants were then randomly selected based upon their willingness to volunteer for the study. Out of the names given, nine agreed to assist. All nine participants were assigned pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality. Demographic information about the participants was collected utilizing a questionnaire administered at the individual interview. Participants’ profiles were created for a detailed description of the group used for this study (Appendix A). Data Collection and Analysis The data sources for this study consisted of individual interviews that lasted approximately one hour (with follow up interviews as needed),

The Experiences of Women Cohort Program   221

document reviews (which included philosophy of teaching statements, questionnaires, listings of core beliefs and values), and resumes. At the conclusion of each interview, participants were asked to e-mail the researchers documents that reflected their beliefs, values, and aspirations throughout the school leadership program. All interviews were recorded for later transcription. Data analysis began after the completion of the first two interviews. The data were transcribed by the researchers. In order to ensure accuracy, the researchers immersed themselves in the data, establishing emerging codes and themes. The researchers searched for keywords, phrases, themes, and patterns in data sets. With each transcript, coding began anew so that each data set was understood separately before integrating it into the whole. Upon completion of all individual interviews, initial codes and themes were established and the researchers determined the data were saturated and no new information had emerged that did not fit the established codes and themes. Document analysis was ongoing throughout the process. The documents from the participants came in different intervals and were collected and coded by the researchers. Most of the same themes and codes found during the individual interviews emerged in document review data sets as well. Findings In this section we present findings from the study guided by the primary research question: What are the experiences of women currently/previously enrolled in school leadership principal preparation cohort programs? Findings were consistent with the literature and were grouped into several thematic categories that addressed the primary research questions. These categories include leadership, networking, and success factors in the cohort. Subthemes within each category are identified in the findings below and include Leadership Roles and Strengths While exploring experiences of women in the cohort program, each participant was asked about any leadership roles they held. Those who completed the cohort program were all employed as administrators and held positions on district committees or played a significant role in leadership activities. The majority stated they sought out these leadership roles

222   D. K. Belle and K. L. Sanzo

and they felt it was their way of giving back to the SLP program and district. Three students in the cohort stated they also had leadership roles, but their current SLP program obligations prevented them from doing much more than what was already a part of the SLP internship leadership responsibilities. Document reviews revealed an overarching goal among participants was their desire to be visionary leaders. One participant defined a visionary leader as “the builder of a new dawn who works with imagination, insight and boldness.” Another mentioned, “there is a profound interconnectedness between the leader and the whole, and a true visionary leader serves the good of the whole.” All nine participants referred to wanting to make a difference as a leader within schools. Carol commented: Last year I was a teacher effectiveness coach which was a brand new position in the district and I was in two schools, two of the lowest performing schools in the district and I really saw how the administration/leadership made such a huge impact on the ability of the staff to function well, do their job as well as for students to achieve. Then I remembered back to my own teaching experience and recognized that I had a really good principal and that was one of the reasons why I felt so happy with my work and feel satisfied with my work … I realized that a position such as this could make a tremendous difference not only in my life, but the life of many children.

Making a difference in the lives of children also emerged in the review of documents. One participant wrote, “the purpose of education is to enable students to become successful in their lives. Leaders need to consider what is important to students and make learning meaningful in the lives.” Participants further mentioned they realized that a change was needed. For example, Martha stated, I know that something needs to change in education and I see people around me that are really hardworking and well-intentioned, yet we are not closing the achievement gap and so I wanted to learn more about what that was all about. I wanted to learn how to analyze data and figure out how to improve practice.

Of the participants who referred to making a difference, many emphasized the need or desire to be positive role models and provide equal education. Paula commented, “I strive to be a positive role model as well as put in place systems and structures that help alleviate the overwhelming stress.” Participants particularly referred to being able to look at their staff, schools, and data and see how they all fit together to assist with the common goal of servings students and increase success rates. These women

The Experiences of Women Cohort Program   223

felt as though changes needed to be made and wanted to make a difference by becoming school leaders. A strong emphasis was also placed on intrinsic rewards received from making a difference in the lives of youth, as exemplified by Tracy: “The reward of making an impact on someone’s life. If you can read, it is because a teacher helped you. If you have ever gone to a trusted or favorite teacher for advice, you know their influence has helped shape your life.” Challenges Many felt they were torn between remaining in a school building and pursuing a central office position. Tracy shared, “I go back and forth between wanting to be at the central office level and having a more systemic approach down on to buildings.” The participants also acknowledged that there is the potential of facing challenges, on their path to leadership. Carol stated: Definitely there are many, many, challenges. The challenge of finding the right position that matches my skill set, the SLP programs sets us up for leading schools in a new way, it is a reform type of program, it experiential and I would not be happy settling for just a regular old school. I really would want to lead a school that uses new and alternative methods in reaching goals and so that of course in a regular education system there are many barriers to that prevent you from doing things in an alternative way and because people often fall back into what they are familiar with or comfortable with. I think there are a lot of barriers to that but, that is what I would like to do so it is worth the fight, it is worth the challenge.

As noted previously, the school district had a high percentage of Spanish speaking students. A secondary concern centered on the fact that most interviewees were not bilingual. This concern aligned with literature stating challenges still exist for women aspiring to educational leadership positions, particularly at the secondary level in certain demographic areas (Logan & Scollay, 1999). Mary reasoned: Probably one of the challenges I initially saw is that I am not bilingual administrator although I work in a school environment that is 60% English language learners, I work in the Southwest part of the school district, which is primarily Hispanic-Latino population, so my initial thought is that it would be a really big challenge for me to get the position especially in the Southwest area, but I have addressed those challenges by my ability to connect culturally with my parents and my students. My Spanish has improved, but I think that was probably my biggest challenge, knowing that I couldn’t initially talk with my families at where they needed me to be but other than that I don’t see any additional challenges that I will face in continuing my task as a school leader.

224   D. K. Belle and K. L. Sanzo

Many school districts that commit to bilingual education grapple with the severe national shortage of qualified school leaders (National Association for Bilingual Education, 2008). Inadequate professional development for aspiring leaders compounds the impact of the bilingual school leader shortage. Tracy reiterated this challenge: I believe my biggest challenge will be not being a bilingual administrator. There are parts of the district that have a heavy population of Hispanic students and having bilingual skills is a must. I worry that when I complete the program, that the only positions that may be open would be those that require bilingual skills. Even though I know the program does its best to match up skill sets that is still a concern of mine. Although the participants all have aspirations, being the right fit at the right time, and having the advantage of being bilingual, appears to be potential challenges that could be faced by many.

Networking Networking emerged as a factor that promoted the success of these women in the SLP cohort program. For example, one participant stated I was in the program and I think the program has a certain amount of esteem within the district … I also think that being a graduate of the program, is a door opener as well as informal and formal times when all program members come together.

Similarly, Paula shared: “It has given me the opportunity to network between other novice leaders that are in my cohort.” Other participants expressed similar thoughts. Amanda responded: “It has also provided me opportunities because the title ‘being a cohort member’ has as a loud presence and a high level of esteem in the school system, the previous graduates, tends to embrace the novice members.” One participant shared how she uses her networking frequently. If I have a resident [intern] who needs to see exemplary practice in a certain area, I may call one of my cohort friends to see if they can visit their school if they are a principal or an AP. The program has such a high level of esteem, that I have called upon my cohort friends to help me get interviews and jobs for cohorts that are graduating and that are ready to become teachers of record. When I have a problem of practice, I have probably a dozen of people I can pick up the phone and call and say can you be a thought partner with me. I use my cohort members constantly.

The Experiences of Women Cohort Program   225

Evidence provided by students and faculty members who have participated in cohorts, suggests that the long-term association of learners in a cohort fosters interpersonal relationships, supports students’ competence and creates caring learning climates (Crow & Glascock, 1995; Peel et al., 1998). Many of the women interviewed agreed that networking also provided support. Paula stated: “Networking in this cohort program has provided me enormous leverage. The connections that I have made and will continue make will be priceless as I continue with my leadership career.” Amanda observed, “The networking that can occur outside of the mentoring relationships is phenomenal and provides such a fantastic leverage and a great support system.” Both responses illustrate the power and importance of networking. Success in the SLP Program Each interviewee was asked to share factors they believed either promoted or detracted from their success in the cohort program. Three themes emerged. The women praised the design of the program and the preparation they received to be resilient in the face of adversity. Some women indicated the primary detractor of the program was the time commitment. Program design. All of the participants agreed the design of the SLP program was remarkable. Kelly shared: “If it wasn’t for the program and its unique design, I would not be where I am today. I would not be a 3-year principal at this point. I know that for a fact.” They also felt the program was expertly designed. Martha stated: Everyone should have the opportunity to go through such a wonderful program. I know that there are many SLP programs out there, but how many are actually structured in this manner is the question. The focus of the program is truly on building great and exceptional leaders. The program is designed to promote a collaborative rather than competitive environment. The design promotes and supports my growth and truly fosters a collaborative and trusting environment.

All of the women interviewed held graduate degrees and felt the SLP program is no comparison to any of their previous programs in regards to the design and delivery. Paula said: I have completed both undergraduate and graduate level programs in the past, and I think this is the only program that solidifies our work and our strengths and gives us our own sense of ownership and voice in the district.

226   D. K. Belle and K. L. Sanzo

Prepared to be resilient. In leadership terms, resilience is the ability to adapt in the face of multiple changes while continuing to persevere toward strategic goals (Fennell, 2008). School leaders must build their resilience and they must also help their staff become more resilient. Leaders of today face numerous challenges on a daily basis within schools. Of the nine participants, five referenced the idea of being prepared for challenges and having the ability to recover from or adjust easily to change. Kelly shared: The program allowed me to learn a lot about myself. Week after week, the professors and my fellow colleagues always offered the right information at the right time. Yes, we had material and lessons to cover, but it was more important to hear the issues on our minds and the ones that we face on a daily basis. The program teaches you how to be a resilient leader.

Although it is impossible to train leaders for all challenges that may be presented to them, such as poor academic achievement, behavior problem, and lack of parental involvement, it is important to have cohort members look at themselves as a person and not just the mechanics of being a leader. Amanda stated: “The program teaches you to be resilient and prepared for any difficulty or hardships you may face. It also brings a lot of richness to the leadership experience.” Mary echoed this sentiment: It is really well designed, especially since I am a very concrete person. The beauty is the ambiguity that comes along with leadership. The program helps you to become a resilient leader and to not give up in the face of adversity.

Document reviews revealed even further what participants believe about resiliency. “A true leader is resilient, they don’t just bounce back, but they bounce forward.” “Good leaders lead with open eyes and pays attention recognizing both opportunities and harbingers of disasters.” Time commitment. Some studies have suggested the lack of women in leadership positions is owed to how much time is involved (Shakeshaft, 1987; Wallin, 1999). Trying to manage work, family, and school responsibilities create challenges for female aspirants seeking leadership positions. Amanda reported: The program is intense! It can also be very demanding. Though the design is fabulous, you have to be dedicated and make a time commitment of a 4045 hour work week and 20–25 hours of class work each week. I must say it prepares you for the world of administration and being a school leader. The job of a school leader is never done and takes much time commitment.

Extended work hours present a challenge. Karstens-Hansen (2002) found that women seeking principalships reported the long hours as

The Experiences of Women Cohort Program   227

the greatest challenge to the position. Paula shared: “The experience of leaving your family behind and trying to be a mother, family person and then the other things that come with having a leadership position can certainly be detracting.” Tracy stated, “The program was a lot of work and time consuming, and I was not prepared for that. I quickly adapted, but the time commitment can be detraction for some.” Often women obtain or seek positions as educational leaders, it is not easy to balance work and family obligations (Coleman, 2001, 2005; Mahitivanichcha & Rorrer, 2008; Moreau, Osgood, & Halsall, 2007; Wrushen & Sherman, 2008). Implications and Discussion Recruiting quality candidates for school leadership roles continues to be a vexing and persistent problem for our nation’s public schools (Tirozzi & Ferrandino, 2005). By many estimates, the quality of candidate pools is low, and current strategies to reverse the trend have not been entirely successful (Levine, 2005). While many have speculated about the source of this alarming condition and experimented with alternative programs intended to attract candidates, there is a descending spiral in the number and quality of candidates for school leadership positions, particularly in some of our nation’s urban and rural settings with the highest needs (Roza, 2003). The findings of this study shed light on the potential for school leadership preparation programs to adequately support the needs of aspiring leaders and to counter the “antiqued and impractical” model that critics such as Levine (2005) have disparaged, thus leading to sustainable leadership preparation programs. The women interviewed in this study lauded the structure of their program, especially the opportunity to complete a full-time internship. Traditionally, students learn strategies and leadership techniques in a classroom setting over the course of their program and complete short internships at the end of the program. The SLP project researched in this study promotes creativity and allowed cohort members to discuss real-time issues and apply theory to daily practice in schools. A number of studies have reported on the benefits of cohorts enriching members’ learning experiences (Barnett & Muse, 1993; Bratlien, Genzer, Hoyle, & Oates, 1992; Lawrence, 2002; Maher, 2001, 2005; Norris & Barnett, 1994; Reynolds & Herbert, 1995; Teitel, 1997; Yerkes, Basom, Barnett, & Norris, 1995). According to Barnett and Muse (1993), cohort students experienced improved academic performance related to enhanced feelings of support and connection, as well as increased exposure to diverse ideas and perspectives. Similarly, Bratlien et al. (1992) noted that among cohort members, camaraderie lent “the support and motivation needed to strive and reach for higher expectations” (p. 87). The cohort experience

228   D. K. Belle and K. L. Sanzo

provides much more than academic content. Students in cohorts have increased opportunities to network. This was evident in the study findings. Participants learned how to surround themselves with people who have different strengths than their own, learn how to discuss sensitive issues, work through group tension, and learn how to create a sense of community with a diverse group of people who may have different values and belief systems. The networking opportunities made available to the women in this study were perceived as being excellent. Participants expressed the benefits of having support from both previous and current members of the program. Having mentors on the school and university level proved to be invaluable resources. All participants agreed that being a member of the cohort gave them added exposure to diverse ideas and perspectives. Many expressed that by being a member of the cohort, they were held at a higher level of esteem within their school district. It has been well documented that at a time when public school leaders are retiring in record numbers, there is a shrinking pool of candidates waiting in line to replace them for a range of reasons (Mitgang, 2003; National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1998; Tirozzi & Ferrandino, 2005). The number of potential female candidates far exceeds the number of available school leadership positions, it is not surprising these women proceed with caution, especially when faced with the realities of the terms and conditions of today’s school leadership roles (Lankford, O’Connell, & Wyckoff, 2003). As a result, the more dire voices in the field of education fear that school leaders are tantamount to an endangered species. If this trend continues, there is no doubt the educational system will suffer from the lack of quality principals who have the ability to significantly affect the success and effectiveness of the schools they lead. Interestingly, the women in this study were eager to enter school leadership roles. The realities of the job did not instill fear because all these women felt thoroughly prepared and supported to face the many challenges that come with being a leader in the public schools. Countless researchers have attempted to quantify the specific characteristics of effective school principals. However, “no magic formula; no replicable pattern or checklist of attributes” (Davis, 1998, p. 7) has been confirmed (Goldberg, 2001). Yet, previous research has indicated the presence of a similar combination of leadership, personality, and gender-related characteristics that contribute to the effectiveness of school principals in varied situations. Aside from possessing extensive knowledge of teaching and learning, effective school leaders, in particular women, tend to possess certain leadership characteristics that include communication, interpersonal, organization, time management, and problem-solving and decision-making skills. In the current study, the participants reported on many of these characteristics. They spoke on the importance of those

The Experiences of Women Cohort Program   229

interpersonal skills and building relationships, especially with students. They recognized that in order to truly impact children, being a role model is essential. Leaders often do not have the opportunity to talk about their work in schools because they are too busy and work in isolation. Participants in this study verbalized their gratitude for having a chance to talk about their work with someone else who understands the role. Networking tools for female leaders could help increase self-reflection as well as decrease feelings of isolation. People often share knowledge with others who are similar to themselves. In this case, aspiring female leaders are more likely to share knowledge with female principals (Rogers, 1995). This knowledge sharing and networking can lead to more support for these beginning principals, which could potentially lead to less burn-out and more effective practices. Additionally, the data from this study found that preparation could positively and directly impact thinking and practice, particularly when the preparation was strategically designed with attention to collaboration, balancing the integration of theory and practice, providing opportunities to safely implement learning, and an emphasis on reflection to produce personalization of the knowledge. There was much that could be taken away from these data as they related to future preparation of school administrators as well as future research on preparation. We found the features that had the greatest impact on thinking and practices were those that allowed the participants to learn from each other as well as from a variety of other key people from the university and from the field. The internship, for example, was noted as a powerful learning opportunity. The overwhelming praise of the experience for the participants, all of whom participated in a full-time internship, was clear. As both former students of administration and as practicing school leaders, the participants in this study were champions for the continuation of a full-time internship mandate during formal preparation. While there is still much debate within the educational community over the best way to grow aspiring principals, the literature has identified certain elements that should be included in a successful principal preparation program: quality mentoring, cohort grouping, networking, and meaningful coursework. Participants in this study perceived their SLP leadership cohort training included all of these elements. It is imperative that school leadership preparation faculty provide aspiring principals with meaningful opportunities to fulfill the new role of instructional leader. In order to effectively do this, faculty must stay connected to the day-to-day complexity of schools. If one is truly looking for exceptional leaders to take on the challenges of school leadership, finding those who are passionate and deeply motivated about making a difference is essential.

230   D. K. Belle and K. L. Sanzo Appendix A Participant Profiles Participant Emily (Previous Participant) (Elementary)

Profile • Between 30 to 39 years old, female, Other • Undergraduate major: Bilingual Education • 11 years of experience in educational field • ESL Specialist and Assistant Principal were occupations held before becoming a principal. • Leadership role on intentional school culture committee.

Martha (Previous Participant) (Central Office)

• 60 years old, female, White • Undergraduate major: Special Education • 20 plus years of experience in educational field • Field Manager for a teacher residency program

Mary (Current Participant) (Elementary)

• Between 30 to 39 years old, female, White • Undergraduate major: Psychology and Physiology • 11 years of experience in education • Spent 4 years in law enforcement prior to pursuing a career in education. • Principal of representation overseeing development and design of new performance evaluations of principals.

Carol (Previous Participant) (Elementary)

• 44 years old, female, White • Undergraduate major: Elementary Education and psychology • 21 years of experience in education • National Educational Consultant

Paula (Current Participant) (Elementary)

• Between 30 and 39 years old, female, White • Undergraduate major: Psychology and Spanish • 10 years of experience in education; held a central office position previously • No time for any leadership activities outside of the internship and SLP

Tracy (Previous Participant) (Middle)

• Between 40 and 49 years old, female, Black • Undergraduate major: Psychology • 12 years of experience in education • Serves as administrative liaison for district committee

Kelly (Current Participant) (Elementary)

• Between 20 and 29 years old, female, Other • Undergraduate major: Psychology • 10 years of experience in education (Appendix continues on next page)

The Experiences of Women Cohort Program   231 Appendix A (Continued) Participant Profiles Participant Cindy (Current Participant) (High) Amanda(Previous Participant) (Central Office)

Profile • Between 30 and 39 years old, female, White • Undergraduate major: Psychology • 13 years of experience in education • Between 30 and 39 years old, female, Hispanic • Undergraduate major: Psychology • 9 years of experience in education

References Adams, K. L., & Hambright, W. G. (2004). Encouraged or discouraged? Women teacher leaders becoming principals. Clearing House, 77(5), 209–211. Barnett, B. G., Basom, M. R., Yerkes, D. M., & Norris, C. J. (2000). Cohorts in educational leadership programs: Benefits, difficulties, and the potential for developing school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 255–282. Barnett, B. G., & Muse, I. D. (1993).Cohort groups in educational administration: Promises and challenges. Journal of School Leadership, 3, 400–415. Basom, M. R., Yerkes, D. M., Norris, C. J., & Barnett, B. G. (1996). Using cohorts as a means for developing transformational leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 6(1), 99–112. Black, A., & Earnest, G. (2009). Measuring the outcomes of leadership development programs. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 16, 184–196. Boesch, K. (2009). Lessons in everyday leadership. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 7(4), 169–174. Bratlien, M. J., Genzer, S. M., Hoyle, J. R., & Oates, A. D. (1992). The professional studies doctorate: Leaders for learning. Journal of School Leadership, 2, 75–89. Brown, F. (2005). Leveling the playing field for new principals. Principal, 84(5), 23–25. Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional development, and capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 468–494. Browne‐Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2006). Leadership mentoring and situated learning: Catalysts in principalship readiness and lifelong mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 14(3), 275‐295. Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2007). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, roleidentity transformation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 468–503. Capasso, R., & Daresh, J. (2001). The school administrator internship handbook: Leading, mentoring, and participating in the internship program. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

232   D. K. Belle and K. L. Sanzo Coleman, M. (2001). Achievement against the odds: The female secondary head teachers in England and Wales. School Leadership & Management, 21(1), 75–100. doi: 10.1080/13632430120033054 Coleman, M. (2005). Gender and secondary school leadership. International Studies in Educational Administration, 33(2), 3–20. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crow, G. M., & Glascock, C. (1995). Socialization to a new conception of the principalship. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(1), 22‐43. Danna, J., & Bourisaw, D. (2006). Women in the superintendency: Discarded leadership. Lantham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield in partnership with American Association of School Administrators. Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M.T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Davis, S. H. (1997). Taking aim at effective leadership. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 28(2), 6–9. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Fennell, H.-A. (2008). Walking a fine balance: The life history of a woman principal. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 6(2), 93–113. Fulmer, C. L. (2009, November 19). The advantages and disadvantages of district-university partnerships for preparing future principals: Multiple perspectives from cohort stakeholders. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the UCEA Annual Convention, Anaheim, CA. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/ p378558_index.html Gardiner, M., Enomoto, E., & Grogan, M. (2000). Coloring outside the lines: Mentoring women into leadership. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Garn, G., & Brown, C. (2008). Women and the superintendency: Perceptions of gender bias. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 6(1), 49–71. Gates, S. M. (2004). Who is leading our schools? An overview of school administrators and their careers. Santa, Monica, CA: RAND Education. Geltner, B. B. (1994). The poser of structural and symbolic redesign: Creating a collaborative learning community in higher education. Ypsilanti: Eastern Michigan University. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED374757) Goldberg, M. F. (2001). Leadership in education: Five commonalities. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(10), 757–761. Goldring, E., & Sims, P. (2005). Modeling creative and courageous school leadership through district-community-university partnerships. Educational Policy, 19(1), 223–249. Griffiths, D. E., Stout, R. T., & Forsyth, P. B. (Eds.). (1998). Leaders for America’s schools: The report and papers of the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Education Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233–256.

The Experiences of Women Cohort Program   233 Growe, R., & Montgomerty, P. (2007). Women and the leadership paradigm: Bridging the gender gap. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 6(4), 23–31. Gutmore, D., Strobert, B., & Femicola, R. (2009). Meeting the needs: A best practice grow your own school leader program. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 6(1), 33–39. Hale, E., & Moorman, H. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy and program innovations. Edwardsville, IL: Illinois Education Research Council. Hill, M. S. (1995). Educational leadership cohort models: Changing the talk to change the walk. Planning and Changing, 26(3/4), 179–189. Hoff, D. L., & Mitchell, S. N. (2008). In search of leaders: Gender factors in school administration. Advancing Women in Leadership. Retrieved from http:// advancingwomen.com/awl/spring08/Hoff.html Horn, R. A., Jr., (2001). Promoting social justice and caring in schools and communities: The unrealized potential of the cohort model. Journal of School Leadership, 11, 313– 335. Hurty, K. (1995). Women principals—Leading with power. In D. Dunlap & P. Schmuck (Eds.), Women leading in education (pp. 48–62). New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Jackson, B., & Kelley C. (2002, April). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 192–211. Jacobson, S. L. (1998). Preparing educational leaders: A basis for partnership. In Transforming schools and schools of education: A new vision for preparing educators (pp. 71–97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Karstens-Hansen, L. M. (2002). Women in secondary educational administration: Barriers or matter of choice? Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3074287). Kelley, C., & Peterson, K. (2000). The work of principals and their preparation: Addressing critical needs for the 21st century. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 112–117. Hampton Wesson, L., Oleson Holman, S., Holman, D., & Cox, D. (1996, April). Cohesion or collusion: Impact of a cohort structure on educational leadership doctoral students. Paper presented at the Annual Meetingof the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED398809) Laboratory for Student Success. (2005, Spring). Preparing and supporting school principals: Early insights and impressions for the School Leadership Community. LSS Field Notes. Retrieved from http://www.temple.edu/lss/pdf/fieldnotes/ FieldNotesSLLC.pdf Lankford, R. H., O’Connell, R. W., & Wyckoff, J. H. (2003). Our next generation: School leadership in New York State. Albany, NY: University at Albany, SUNY. Lawrence, R. L. (2002). A small circle of friends: Cohort groups as learning communities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 95, 83–92. Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: Education Schools Project.

234   D. K. Belle and K. L. Sanzo Logan, J. P., & Scollay, S. J. (1999). The gender equity role of educational administration preparation programs: Where are we? Where do we want to go?” Journal of School Leadership, 9(2), 97–124. Mahitivanichcha, K., & Rorrer, A. K. (2008). Women’s choices within market constraints: Re-visioning access to and participation in the superintendency. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 483–517. doi:10.1177/0013161X06289962 Maher, M. A. (2001, April). Professional living situations: Cohorts as communities of living and learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED451796). Maher, M. A. (2005). The evolving meaning and influence of cohort membership. Innovative Higher Education, 30(3), 195–211. McPhail, C. J. (2000). Transforming community college leadership preparation: A cohort leadership learning model. Baltimore, MD: Morgan State University. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED449852) Mertz, N. T., & McNeely, S. R. (1998). Women on the job: A study of female high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 36–42. Milstein, M. (1992). Rethinking the clinical aspects in administrative preparation: From theory to practice. In S. L. Jacobson & J. Conway (Eds.), Educational leadership in an age of reform (pp. 220–236). New York, NY: Longman. Milstein, M. M., & Associates. (1993). Changing the way we prepare educational leaders: The Danforth experience. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Milstein, M. M., & Krueger, J. A. (1997). Improving educational administration preparation programs: What we have learned over the past decade. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 100–106. Mitgang, L. (2003). Beyond the pipeline: Getting the principals we need, where they are needed most. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation. Montz, C., & Wanat, C. (2008). Slow path to the superintendency: Women’s social networks and negotiation skills. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 6(1), 29–47. Moreau, M. P., Osgood, J., & Halsall, A. (2007). Making sense of the glass ceiling in schools: An exploration of women teachers’ discourses. Gender and Education, 19(2), 237–253. doi:10.1080/09540250601166092 Murphy, J. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal of Educational Administration, 2(3), 77–89. Murphy, J. (2001). Preparing tomorrow’s school leaders: Alternative designs. University Park, PA: University Council for Educational Administration. Muth, R., & Barnett, B. G. (2001). Making the case for professional preparation: Using research for program improvement and political support. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 13, 109–120. National Association of Elementary School Principals. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An exploratory study. Principal Online, 45(8). Retrieved from http://www.naesp.org/misc/shortage. htm National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2002). Standards for advanced programs in educational leadership for principals. Retrieved from http:// www.npbea.org/ELCC

The Experiences of Women Cohort Program   235 Norris, C. J., & Barnett, B. (1994, February). Cultivating a new leadership paradigm: From cohorts to communities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Philadelphia, PA. Norton, M. S. (1995, October). The status of student cohorts in educational administration preparation programs. Paper presented at the annual convention of the University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Orr, M. T. (2006). Research on leadership education as a reform strategy. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 1(1), 36–39. Orr, M. T., & Barber, M. E. (2006). Collaborative leadership preparation: A comparative study of partnerships and conventional programs and practices. Journal of School Leadership, 16(6), 709‐739. Peel, H. A., Wallace, C., Buckner, K. G., Wrenn, S. L., & Evans, R. (1998). Improving leadership preparation programs through a school, university, and professional organization partnership. NASSP Bulletin, 82(602), 26–34. Reynolds, K., & Hebert, F. T. (1995).Cohort formats and intensive schedules: Added involvement and interaction for continuing higher education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 43(3), 34–42. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Roza, M. (2003). A matter of definition: Is there truly a shortage of school principals? Seattle, WA: Wallace Foundation, University of Washington. Shakeshaft, C. (1987). Women in administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sirotnik, K. A., & Goodlad, J. I. (1988). School–University partnerships for educational renewal: Rationale and concepts. In K. A. Sirotnik & J. I. Goodlad (Eds.), School-University partnerships in action: Concepts, cases, and concerns (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Vintage Books. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stein, S. J. (2006). Transforming leadership programs: Design, pedagogy, and incentives. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 522–524. Szente, J. (2006). Educating the urban child: Special challenges—promising programs. Childhood Education, 82(5), 1–12. Tallerico, M. (2001). The leadership mismatch: An alternative view. School Administrator, 58(10), 23–27. Teitel, L. (1997). Understanding and harnessing the power of the cohort model in preparing educational leaders. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 66–85. Tirozzi, G. N., & Ferrandino, N. (2001). The artistry of leadership. The evolving role of the secondary school principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 34–39. Urick, M. (2009, October). The world cafe: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter [Book review]. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 7(4), 237–240. Wallin, J. (1999). Reflections on Anger: Women and men in a changing society. University of North Carolina Sociology Department. Retrieved from http://www.ecu.edu/ soci/research.html Whitaker, K. (2006). Preparing future principals. Principal Leadership, 7(3), 38–42. Wrushen, B. R., & Sherman, W. H. (2008). Women secondary school principals: Multicultural voices from the field. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 21(5), 457–469. doi:10.1080/09518390802297771

236   D. K. Belle and K. L. Sanzo Yerkes, D. M., Basom, M., Barnett, B., & Norris, C. (1995, Fall). Cohorts today: Considerations of structure, characteristics, and potential effects. Journal of California Association of Professors of Educational Administration, 7, 7–19. Gates, M. D., & McLeod, S. (2001). Flukes, opportunities, and panned interventions: Factors affecting women’s decisions to become school administrators. Educational Administration Quaterly, 37, 462–502. Young, M. D., & McLeod, S. (2006). Flukes, opportunities, and planned interventions: Factors affecting women’s decisions to become school administrators. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 462–502.

Chapter 12

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm in a School Leadership Program R. Scott Blackshire, Barbara H. Gideon, Mark A. Gooden, and Dottie Hall

ABSTRACT This manuscript discusses how student leadership programs, specifically The University of Texas at Austin Principalship Program (UTAPP), nurture professionalism and resiliency in future school leaders. The authors explore Cognitive CoachingSM and how this coaching model supports sustainable leadership development. Cognitive CoachingSM acknowledges the benefits of four support functions: coaching, collaborating, consulting, and evaluating. We discuss Cognitive CoachingSM, offer research and insight into the deployment of Cognitive CoachingSM according to a student leadership program’s theory of action, and how Cognitive CoachingSM supports students during their internship.

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 237–265 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing 237 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

238   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL. Cognitive CoachingSM encouraged me to think about the importance of sense making, planning, and creating realistic successes for myself. Equally, it made me re-think my current practice of taking someone else’s problem to solve. Cognitive CoachingSM has helped me create a more self-sufficient staff because they are solving more of their own problems, while still feeling supported. —UTAPP Student

This chapter examines the implementation of Cognitive CoachingSM as an integral component of The University of Texas at Austin Principalship Program’s Master of Education degree in Educational Administration. The first section offers an overview of Cognitive CoachingSM and related research, as well as insight into the incorporation and deployment of Cognitive CoachingSM according to a student leadership program’s theory of action. The following sections provide information specific to the academic and administrative aspects of The University of Texas at Austin Principalship Program (UTAPP) and how Cognitive CoachingSM supports students during the UTAPP principalship program internship. The chapter ends with sections on the Cognitive CoachingSM process, developing and evaluating a Cognitive CoachingSM training program, the movement from Cognitive CoachingSM theory into practice, and, finally, sustainability considerations. In addition, various quotes about Cognitive CoachingSM from UTAPP students and their coaches are interspersed throughout the chapter. Coach and student quotes illustrate insights and challenges that stem from the integration of Cognitive CoachingSM in a school leadership program. The preparation of educational leaders engages higher education programs across the globe and “governments are investing substantial sums in leadership development because they believe that it will produce better leaders and more effective school systems” (Bush, 2009, p. 382). Research supports the notion that school leaders have an indirect impact on student achievement and, furthermore, that leader effectiveness germinates from a sense of personal efficacy, open-mindedness, flexibility in thinking, and resilience in the pursuit of education for all (Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008). To that end, we ask how do student leadership programs instill in participants the personal efficacy, flexibility, and resiliency needed to overcome challenges faced by schools? And how might systems address a heightened immediacy for results with which every structural realignment is dispensed? In 2009, The University of Texas at Austin Principalship Program (UTAPP) vetted, selected, and incorporated Cognitive CoachingSM into its student internship model in support of the program’s mandate to develop self-directed educational leaders. UTAPP explored coaching resources specific to school leadership programs in order to determine

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   239

how preparation programs adopt, adapt, and develop a coaching model that best supports aspiring school leaders. UTAPP’s expressed intention with regard to selecting a coaching model was to calibrate the internship experience in such a way that all cohort members receive similar support and leadership development opportunities. To achieve this goal, UTAPP sought to enhance the Master of Education experience through a coaching model aligned with the program’s theory of action to enhance the Master of Education experience. UTAPP identified two concerns and used them as guidelines during an initial exploration of possible coaching models (O’Doherty, 2011). First, UTAPP interrogated the efficacy of the mentor model, historically utilized to help student interns navigate the complexity of school leadership (Barnett, 1995). During their internships, UTAPP students interact with a wide variety of supervisors, each with vastly different experiences and skills. For that reason, UTAPP determined mentorship was too dependent on whether the student’s on-site supervisor was a willing, able, and/or capable mentor. Second, UTAPP recognized that some mentors did not guide or nurture the professional development of interns. On the contrary, some mentors merely distributed “wisdom” or simply told the student intern what to do (O’Doherty, 2011; Barnett, 1995). The mentor support model does not activate an intern’s cognition or lead an intern toward self-directedness, nor does the mentor model alone support UTAPP’s commitment to develop collaborative, data-savvy, and reflective instructional leaders (O’Doherty, 2011). UTAPP required a coaching model that not only met university program needs, but also clearly defined and differentiated the roles and activities of the student’s internship support triad of university advisor, on-site supervisor (generally, a principal mentor), and coach. The Cognitive CoachingSM model has been instrumental for me in my profession. Rather than directly tell an employee what they need to do or should do, I’m able to question in ways that start thinking so that they arrive at individual conclusions. I also love the opportunity to work with beginning administrators. —UTAPP Cognitive Coach

Overview of Cognitive CoachingSM and Related Research Research identifies coaching and/or mentoring in general as standard components of any exemplary principal preparation program (DarlingHammond, Meyerson, LaPointe, & Orr, 2010; Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). In Cognitive CoachingSM, Effective School Leadership: Developing Principals through Cognitive CoachingSM (Ellison & Hayes, 2006), the cognitive coach serves solely to mediate thinking.

240   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL.

Still, Cognitive CoachingSM resembles coaching systems designed over the past 25 years to support teachers and serves as the subject of numerous studies (Edwards, 2010; Knight, 2009). Cognitive CoachingSM adapts teacher models for developing leadership in order “to produce selfdirected persons with the cognitive capacity for high performance both independently and as members of a community” (Costa & Garmston, 2002, p. 16). However, unlike a mentor-coach, the cognitive coach does not advise, consult, instruct, direct, or judge. The person being coached, called the coachee, provides all content for the coaching conversation, sets individual and unique goals, and determines specific follow through (Costa & Garmston, 2002). In short, the cognitive coach mediates a coachee’s thinking in support of the coachee’s self-determined actions. The Cognitive CoachingSM model also differentiates strongly between four executive professional support functions: coaching, collaborating, consulting, and evaluating (Costa & Garmston, 2002). Cognitive CoachingSM training supports coaching as one’s default professional function, while also recognizing that educational leaders are tasked with responsibilities that often fall under the three other support functions. Costa and Garmston (2002) offer coaching as “just one of the [many] job duties of a principal, teacher advisor, mentor, peer coach, staff developer, director, or superintendent” (p. 278). In such instances where collaborating, consulting, and/or evaluating is required, the educational leader trained in Cognitive CoachingSM maneuvers between support functions, as needed. Ultimately, the support function selected is not dependent on the educational leader’s title. Leaders use all four professional support functions daily. In fact, regardless of the support function deployed, the educational leader trained in Cognitive CoachingSM aims to engage the coachee’s thinking, and develop her self-directedness by crafting deliberately mediative questions based on conversation content. In other words, whether intentionally evaluating, consulting, or collaborating, a cognitive coach or leader trained in Cognitive CoachingSM defaults to Cognitive CoachingSM for the activation of thinking about new learning acquired during a coachee’s (or employee’s or staff member’s) evaluation, consultation, or collaboration. “Preservice programs have a shared purpose to develop individuals’ abilities to function effectively as educational leaders” (Osterman & Hafner, 2009, p. 304) who navigate constantly among the professional support functions, noted above. Coaching, indeed, supports the development of aspiring leader practices, but it lacks a preponderance of supporting evidence at this time. As Bloom, Castagna, Moir, and Warren (2005) have lamented, “coaching is all the rage, yet it enjoys no common definition, and little research has been done on its efficacy” (p. 3). According to O’Doherty (2011), a search of peer-reviewed literature in the EBSCO Information Service (EBSCO) database using terms such as leadership preparation,

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   241

principals, and coaching returned less than 30 articles. These include only a few empirical research studies on coaching principals, and no studies on coaching aspiring leaders. Early examples of educational coaching focus on principals coaching teachers, or teachers coaching other teachers through instructional coaching, peer coaching, literacy coaching, or other content-focused models (Knight, 2009). In the past several years, coaching models specifically designed for school principals have emerged (Bloom et al., 2005; Ellison & Hayes, 2006; Reiss, 2007; Robertson, 2008). Many coaching models address organizational change and include structured goal setting with progress reviews and accountability for results (Bloom et al., 2005; Ellison & Hayes, 2006; Reiss, 2007; Robertson, 2008). Some coaching models also strongly support the notion that all conversation content come from the person being coached (Ellison & Hayes, 2006; Robertson, 2008). Further research, though, is needed to determine what effect, if any, structured coaching has on the practice and/or dispositions of aspiring educational leaders and of their navigation of the four professional support functions— coaching, evaluating, consulting, or collaborating. Leadership coaching, often associated with mentorship in general, is a promising practice and one that experienced significant growth and support over the past decade. The International Coaching Federation (ICF), established in 1995, has 17,000 international members, and defines coaching as “partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential” (International Coach Federation, 2010). The previous description is succinct, yet, education and business sources reveal a profusion of divergent coaching models with great variation in purpose, process, and design (Smith, 2001; Strong & Baron, 2003). Many styles of coaching and mentorship—spanning a continuum from directive-driven (this is how you do it!) mentorship to resource-developing (how might you do it?) coaching conversations—are available to educational leaders (Hammack & Wise, 2011; Rowley, 2006). UTAPP leadership understands Cognitive CoachingSM supports effective school leaders through guided conversations constructed to illuminate the student intern’s internal and external professional resources. Cognitive CoachingSM offers consistent, structured planning and/or reflection, which increases the efficacy in practice, flexibility in thinking, and resilient leadership future campus administrators need to be successful. Cognitive CoachingSM develops self-directed leaders (Ellison & Hayes, 2006; Robertson, 2008), improves student achievement (Bloom et al., 2005), enacts change (Reiss, 2007), and develops self-efficacy and agency (Robertson, 2008). Cognitive CoachingSM does not deploy coaching strategies to manipulate short-term thinking or to influence only immediate behaviors. Instead, Cognitive CoachingSM encourages both immediate thoughtful

242   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL.

action and long-term transformative results. Cognitive CoachingSM allows for the coachee’s (re)discovery of internal resources and self-directed solutions that work now and in the future, opposed to adopting mentor-driven solutions offered without consideration of the coachee’s overall leadership development. To that end, Cognitive CoachingSM does not mandate measureable goals, let alone objectives that originate from the coach. However, this is not to imply that goals are not developed. Goals originate from the coachee, or in the form of district mandates, or gleaned from a teacher improvement plan. Cognitive CoachingSM does not require prior Cognitive CoachingSM or education experience (Ellison & Hayes, 2006; Reiss, 2007). Cognitive coaches, whether coaching a colleague-in-education or not, do not require prior institutional knowledge, similar leadership skills, or congruent educational experiences to cognitively coach another person. In short, a cognitive coach does not require expertise in a coachee’s given field. A cognitive coach does, however, require expertise (or, at a minimum, certification) in Cognitive CoachingSM. This expertise comes via the Cognitive CoachingSM Foundation Series (CCFS) training and certification process. Certification is granted to individuals who successfully complete the 8-day foundation series training. Over the course of weeks or months, depending on the training schedule, coaches-in-training apply Cognitive CoachingSM tools and theories to their professional conversational practices. Training as a cognitive coach focuses on the overall development and embodiment of the coach’s identity as a mediator of thinking (Costa & Garmston, 2002). Costa and Garmston (2002) define a mediator of thinking to be one whose intentions are “always present [and] as a result of [their interactions], the other person will become more capable of solving the problem herself, and will have the capacity to solve future problems with greater efficacy” (p. 68). Openness and transparency in praxis with regard to Cognitive CoachingSM and its outcomes, provides many layered opportunities for participants to coach and to be coached through peer-to-peer Cognitive CoachingSM between principals, between teacher colleagues, and between teachers and students (Kuijpers, Houtveen, & Wubbels, 2010; Ross & Bruce, 2007). As noted by Ellison and Hayes (2006), cognitive coaches as mediators of thinking set aside professional opinions, and allow the coachee to set the pace for personally developing and implementing individual goals and, subsequently, making meaning of results. As such, coachees develop resources that support self-directedness. However, that does not hold true if the cognitive coach moves out of the Cognitive CoachingSM function and into the noncoaching support function of collaborator, consultant, or evaluator, where outcomes might be desired, specified, or mandated. Cognitive CoachingSM training stresses the disadvantages of advising or consulting,

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   243

which do not increase one’s self-directedness. Coaches-in-training work to resist the urge to mentor (or to advise or to consult). Cognitive CoachingSM listening set-asides support the coach as she focuses attention on the coachee and his thinking; she resists listening autobiographically, inquisitively, or to provide a solution (Costa & Garmston, 2002, p. 65). Cognitive coaches also are mindful to “set aside their own need for closure, comfort, or comprehension” (Costa & Garmston, 2002, p. 213) both during a coaching conversation and after it ends. A cognitive coach holds the positive presupposition that all coachees come to professional conversations with skill sets and abilities they might apply to any given issue. In holding this belief, the coach forgoes the desire to mentor and maintains a focus on coaching, mediating thinking, and increasing the coachee’s connection to his internal resources, skills, and abilities (Costa & Garmston, 2002). Regardless of the differences between many coaching models, most generally agree as to what coaching “is not.” Coaching is not a remedial process reserved for the leadership deficient. Any leader, and all leaders, benefit from a coaching relationship (Bloom et al., 2005; Ellison & Hayes, 2006; Hargrove, 2008; ISLLC, 1996; Reeves & Allison, 2009; Reiss, 2007; Robertson, 1997, 2008). Coaching is not a one-time event. Coaching requires ongoing, personalized, one-on-one conversations with a committed coach (Bloom et al., 2005; Ellison & Hayes, 2006; Reiss, 2007; Robertson, 2008). Coaching is not synonymous with mentoring (Bloom, et al., 2005; Ellison & Hayes, 2006; Reiss, 2007; Robertson, 2008). While many mentors may coach, and coaches may serve in some mentor roles, typical mentor models assume that a more experienced leader supports a newer-to-the-field leader (Gross, 2009) by providing insight and advice; not through coaching conversations alone (Rowley, 2006). Although UTAPP student interns embody leadership potential, they may not necessarily have leadership experience. Cognitive CoachingSM fosters novice student leaders as they develop leadership skills and resources in fulfillment of UTAPP’s theory of action. Cognitive CoachingSM was most helpful in training us to be active listeners and to be mindful about not providing solutions to other person’s problems. It helped us to understand other people’s state of mind when confronted with a difficult situation, and to activate the person’s own capabilities to find their own solutions. —UTAPP Cognitive Coach The impact of Cognitive CoachingSM is that you do not need to have closure.

It allows the individual to discover a solution for himself. —UTAPP Student

244   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL.

Cognitive CoachingSM and Theory of Action Before selecting or developing a coaching model, leadership preparation programs must first consider the articulation of a theory of action aligned to the school leader preparation program’s purpose and goals. This design approach (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) clarifies student participants’ future knowledge and abilities as a result of program curriculum and, in the case of UTAPP, through Cognitive CoachingSM conversations. The University of Texas at Austin Principalship Program (UTAPP) adheres to a curriculum and instruction theory of action that states: If we commit to developing collaborative, data-savvy, reflective instructional leaders who are focused on increasing student achievement of all children, especially those who have been marginalized because of race, culture, class, language, gender, sexual orientation, religion and/or ability, then we will prepare teacher leaders to become transformational building leaders who embrace principles of anti-racist leadership as a starting point for developing a lens of social justice for the purpose of taking action. (UT Principalship, 2014)

Articulating a theory of action guides the development of all program components that influence the leadership development of student participants. With regard to choosing a coaching model, the theory of action establishes what—the purpose of the coaching model; identifies for whom— the design of the coaching model; and clarifies by whom—the delivery mode for the coaching model. After establishing the theory of action, as well as subsequent purposes and parameters, the coaching model selected for student development should fully address the student leadership program’s aims and objectives. Currently, multiple models of coaching support a variety of school leadership programs (Hammack & Wise, 2011; Kuijpers et al., 2010). Programs interested in selecting an established coaching model may benefit by reading summaries of various education models included in Knight’s Coaching: Approaches and Perspectives (2009). Lennard (2010) explores theories that undergird coaching in both broad and specific senses, and offers suggestions for creating a unique model. He also provides information relevant to the development and implementation of processes for school leadership preparation programs interested in Cognitive CoachingSM. This includes information on the articulation of a theory of action, the selection or development of a model, the development of coaches, the introduction of coaches to student/interns, the integration of three layers of student intern support, and the development of a Cognitive CoachingSM evaluation plan.

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   245

For context, UTAPP and The University of Texas Collaborative Urban Leadership Project (UTCULP), funded by a grant from the US Department of Education School Leadership Program, develop cohorts of secondary educational leaders in alignment with a theory of action and three critical actions: (1) increase the number of qualified principals and place them in leadership positions in high-need secondary schools; (2) support and retain effective principals of high-need secondary schools; and (3) develop and implement a retention and capacity building plan for each partner district to ensure long-term leadership sustainability. UTAPP accomplishes these critical actions by meeting five UTCULP grant goals: (1) identify unique partner district needs; (2) recruit, select, and prepare principalship candidates from partner districts each grant participation year; (3) conduct formative and annual summative evaluations of individual participant’s growth, as well as overall program effectiveness; (4) collaboratively recruit, train, and develop certified cognitive coaches in each partner district; and (5) develop and implement a retention and capacity building plan for each partner district (The University of Texas at Austin, Principalship Program, 2014). Cognitive CoachingSM supports and enhances UTCULP’s critical actions and goals (specifically, Goal 2, Goal 3, and Goal 4) via the Cognitive CoachingSM strategies, tools, and techniques offered through training to UTAPP cohort members and area leaders in education. The grant’s principal investigator and the UTCULP project director evaluate data related to the Cognitive CoachingSM component in order to determine its overall effectiveness. UCTULP finds that Cognitive CoachingSM, through a focus on transforming individual cognition and promoting self-directedness, strengthens the link between leadership preparation and student success (Young, O’Doherty, Gooden, & Goodnow, 2009). For developing educational leaders, “metacognition can provide students with knowledge and confidence that enables [sic] them to manage their own learning and empowers [sic] them to be inquisitive and persistent in their pursuits” (Paris & Winograd, 1990, p. 9). Cognitive CoachingSM facilitates deep reflection and metacognition, targeting five specific areas of leadership resources (also called states of mind): efficacy, interdependence, craftsmanship, flexibility, and consciousness (Costa & Garmston, 2002). As a result, students not only hone leadership skills, but also develop the longterm self-directedness required to implement those skills over the course of their career. My cognitive coach is like a critical friend who, instead of pointing out the deficits, helps you find them yourself. This makes for great life-learning experiences that can help you in more than just education, but in your personal life, as well. —UTAPP Student

246   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL.

The University of Texas at Austin Principalship Program (UTAPP) The UTAPP Master of Education program is attractive to prospective students in part because of its commitment to develop secondary educational leaders in alignment with three critical actions, previously mentioned. To that end, prospective Master of Education candidates engage in a rigorous application, evaluation, and selection process in order to matriculate into the UT Principalship Program (Orr, 2010). The first step is to selfnominate or secure a nomination from one’s current principal, supervisor, or district school leader—often a graduate of The University of Texas at Austin Principalship Program. Next, prospective cohort members apply for admission to The University of Texas at Austin Graduate School, while at the same time they complete a principalship program-specific application for consideration separately from the UT Graduate School application. Applicants submit three items to the College of Education’s Department of Educational Administration: (1) a statement of purpose; (2) a resume formatted to highlight current leadership experiences; and (3) three letters of recommendation (one of which must be from the applicant’s current supervisor or principal). UTAPP leadership score internal application materials according to a rubric designed to target which prospective students might continue the application process and participate in the UTAPP assessment center. The assessment center—the third step in the UTAPP application process—is a structured half-day exercise that gages leadership readiness and potential through three specific, adjudicated exercises: (1) a structured leadership interview; (2) a teacher observation/principal conference role-play; and (3) an Any School data set presentation. For the last activity, candidates receive a masked data set in the assessment center invitation, along with a prompt to analyze the data set through the lens of a new principal. Invited candidates, based on their interpretation of the data set, prepare a 15-minute PowerPoint presentation that offers a 30-, 60-, and 90-day campus commencement plan. During the assessment center, candidates receive individual scores from multiple assessors for each of the three activities. After the candidates complete all three activities, the assessment center culminates with assessors discussing the total scores for, and the performance of, each candidate. The holistic consideration of a prospective student’s assessment center performance yields insights, which are discussed within the context of the program’s theory of action. Assessor team consensus provides an overall candidate score that is weighted according to the team’s final recommendation: Yes, definitely; Yes, with reservations; Not at this time (which implies, please apply again in the future); and No. Data collected over the course

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   247

of the grant indicate that the UTAPP program-level application process and assessment center, as aligned with the UTAPP theory of action, accurately identifies prospective students who embody leadership potential and whose professional belief systems reflect the UTAPP theory of action (Orr, 2010). Candidates are informed approximately two weeks after the assessment center whether they have been accepted into the program, typically with the caveat that UTAPP matriculation is contingent on university acceptance through the UT Graduate School. Each UTAPP cohort begins a collective journey with an intensive summer immersion into the Foundations of Educational Administration (FEA) where, within the context of emerging leaders, they engage in both individual reflection and large group work. The new principalship cohort digs deeply into a secondary campus research project, as a means to operationalize explorations and learning. As a group, the cohort conducts an equity audit of a traditionally underserved school based on the work of Scheurich, Skrla, Garcia, and Nolly (2004). The final report is presented to the study school’s principal, faculty, and staff. The report offers professional perspectives that include: (1) analysis of data collected via district documents, staff, and faculty interviews and focus groups; (2) areas of inequity that surface based on data analysis; (3) possible interventions to mitigate the inequity; and (4) a comprehensive literature review. Through the research study, students learn to work as a group, employ scholarly research techniques, grapple with the challenges of secondary urban school leadership, and focus on leadership actions to improve student achievement. In other FEA courses, students explore issues of race, culture, class, language, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ability. Students recognize and name the influences and biases in their own lives, and reflect on previously unexamined ways of knowing and being. The school equity audit provides the principalship students a structured opportunity to evaluate and plan school improvement efforts, based on their collective research. As a result of individual and group reflection on social and personal issues related to the school research project, students grow more aware of their research and their personal biases. Following the initial, intensive first summer experience, students take traditional classes that build on the foundation established in FEA. During the second summer of the program, teams of students engage in Powerful Learning Experiences (PLE), designed to construct meaning from the previous semesters’ study, by creating genuine artifacts for which principals are traditionally responsible. Through an analysis of a masked data set and any-campus narrative, students access developing principal identities and hypothesize the roles and activities of a new leadership team—an exercise similar to the assessment center presentation. However, this activity iteration not only requires analysis of a campus data set, but also the

248   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL.

development of specific plans and artifacts for implementation in the new school year. Students create vision and mission statements, improvement plans, budgets, staffing plans, master schedules, professional development plans, and other documents. Throughout the process, cohort members research and employ professional strategies that support individual and unique professional choices. As students move from whole-group research to smaller team collaboration, they wrestle with the greater challenges of campus plan implementation. The second year of the 2-year UTAPP Master of Education program encourages the transition of cohort members out of the classroom into campus administrative positions. Typically, between the first and second years of the program, principalship students seek and obtain assistant principal positions for the internship year. Some students remain as teachers in the classroom or in faculty leadership positions, such as department chairs or academic coaches. Regardless, all students work to advance their leadership skills in whatever capacity they hold during the final year of study. The UTAPP internship tests the student’s application of theoretical leadership to day-to-day practice, through the design and implementation of a Participatory Action Research (PAR) project which analyzes an area of campus inequity and offers a theoretical or pragmatic, collaborative intervention. Over the course of the UTAPP Master of Education program, three major projects (the cohort-driven school study, a small-group powerful learning experiences, and an individual participatory action research initiative) link educational leadership theory to practice. This overarching curriculum design supports students in such a way that they move from an identity of a classroom teacher, with typically low degrees of campus efficacy, into one of an educational leader, who exhibits greater degrees of autonomy and complexity of thinking both on and off campus. In the final year of the UTAPP program, each student’s Participatory Action Research (PAR) project addresses campus planning, faculty collaboration, and implementing recommendations. Final student projects—created and deployed typically on a home campus—support students’ action growth. In other words, the UTAPP program moves students from being talented teachers, who excel in their own classrooms, to being campus leaders with both the skills and disposition to transform schools. I think my intern learned that you don’t need a title to be a leader on a campus. —UTAPP Cognitive Coach Both interns grew in their confidence in their abilities, their time management skills, and one, in particular grew leaps and bounds in her ability to coach the teachers she worked with. —UTAPP Cognitive Coach

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   249

Cognitive CoachingSM in A School Leadership Program Internship University programs in partnership with school districts provide multiple layers of internship support, according to predetermined and well delineated, yet sometimes, overlapping roles (Barnett, Copland, & Shoho, 2009). In fact, UTAPP cohort members receive three distinct modes of support during development of the PAR project in the internship year. UTAPP interns (typically serving as assistant principals) engage with a support triad composed of (1) the UTAPP faculty advisor (or university advisor); (2) the on-site internship supervisor (or mentor), more often a supervising principal; and (3) the certified cognitive coach, who neither evaluates, nor supervises the intern. The university advisor directs the internship, according to university and departmental policies and objectives, and nurtures the academic growth of each student. The university advisor establishes key program expectations, based on the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELLC) standards and state licensure requirements, schedules class sessions to meet group needs, and observes, consults with, and evaluates interns individually. The university advisor also teaches in the program, and is knowledgeable of the theory of action that undergirds the coursework. The university advisor not only understands the unique experiences students need to further develop capacity and become transformational school leaders, but also communicates those needs to the student’s campus supervisor or principal mentor. The university advisor utilizes formal agreements to establish the roles of both the campus mentor and the certified cognitive coach, and outlines expectations for their unique support roles during a student’s internship. At the beginning of the internship year, meetings are scheduled during which the intern, principal mentor, and university advisor review and sign documents describing the internship process. Contracting provides clear expectations and supports both the student and the principal mentor in their quest to develop a productive professional relationship. The meeting, as well as the design of the contract, serves as a foundation for the internship, and establishes what types of leadership experiences the intern will seek from the principal mentor. The contract also describes the participatory action research process, which informs the principal-mentor that the intern-employee will organize, lead, and utilize a team of campus colleagues to analyze and address a real campus problem. The principalmentor provides day-to-day support and guidance to the intern. Moreover, the university advisor invites and encourages principal-mentors to include interns in decision-making processes and to offer opportunities to lead school administrative tasks. The principal-mentor provides the intern with

250   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL.

real experiences upon which the intern applies the principles and skills developed throughout coursework. The principal-mentor teaches campus and district-specific ways of doing, and gives specific advice and guidance through the sharing of personal, experiential anecdotes. The cognitive coach supports the intern by creating a nonevaluative environment for professional conversation. Through a structured conversation the cognitive coach provides opportunities for the coachee to think, reflect, plan, or resolve issues that arise throughout the student internship. The coaching relationship is personal and requires a high degree of trust and confidentiality (Strong & Baron, 2004). As such, participants should be involved in selecting who will serve as one’s coach (Ellison & Hayes, 2006; Reiss, 2007; Robertson, 2008). To accomplish this, UTAPP hosts an introductory meeting with multiple goals on the agenda for interns and the pool of potential cognitive coaches. At the meeting, students (some of whom have and others who may not have been through Cognitive CoachingSM training) observe a Cognitive CoachingSM conversation. In addition, interns learn more about the basics of Cognitive CoachingSM and how interactions with the coaches will be structured; and finally engage with the coaches in small group conversation, where they are encouraged to ask whatever lingering questions remain about Cognitive CoachingSM and how it will support the internship. Afterwards, interns submit the names of three, unranked coaches to the UTAPP university advisor. Choices might be based on an array of student preferences ranging from the physical location of the coach, to number of years of experience, to personality. After the meeting, the university advisor ensures each intern is matched to one of the three choices. When interns meet with their coaches, all content of the Cognitive CoachingSM conversation comes from the student (Costa & Garmston, 2002). Coaching topics, as determined by the coachee, may range from challenges in the school environment, to personal issues that may arise in the context of changing roles, to selection and logistics in developing and implementing the Participatory Action Research project. Interns establish coaching conversation topics to help plan an event in the future, to reflect on successes or challenges in the past, or resolve immediate tensions inhibiting one’s ability to focus. Then, the coach guides cognition according to specific regions of the conversation maps based on where the coachee “goes” with thinking. Coaches memorize the regions of the three conversation maps and use the regions as a guide for understanding, but not to steer, the conversation. Through the process of Cognitive CoachingSM, time and space allow the intern to think deeply and reflect openly. A dialogic environment of safety—not to be misconstrued with placid agreement— positions the intern to explore any professional (or personal) issues from multiple perspectives.

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   251

The students design PAR projects to benefit their current school or work setting and, to that end, engage colleagues in the professional inquiry with the approval and support of the campus principal. Such an endeavor requires multiple layers of support, each of which are developed within the UTAPP Master of Education program and echoed in the four support functions taught in Cognitive CoachingSM training. During the internship, the UT faculty advisor and the on-site principal/mentor—using terminology that reflects Cognitive CoachingSM provide collaboration, consultation and evaluation. The cognitive coach only offers coaching support. The university advisor evaluates and consults with students on challenges associated with their leadership development and on-site project. The university advisor schedules campus site visits to observe and gather data, ultimately shared with the intern in an evaluation and/or consultation. The UT advisor also engages with the student’s on-site supervisor or principal in order to manage tensions or conflicts through direct advisement. The principal-mentor consults and collaborates with the student, as she takes on more and more campus responsibility, and as the PAR project evolves and grows. The student intern’s on-site supervisor offers dayto-day guidance, assigns meaningful leadership opportunities, brokers district relationships, and completes job-related evaluations at the request of the university faculty. Campus colleagues also serve as collaborators and consultants for the interns. Finally, students work with the cognitive coach —specifically, to reflect and cogitate on all of the collaborative work, consultative advice, and evaluative mandates provided by other stakeholders. The cognitive coach’s sole purpose is to mediate the developing leader’s thought processes, about internship issues and research project development, through biweekly conversations. Thus, the UTAPP cognitive coach serves an extremely important role—as a student’s confidential, external, nonsupervisory support, and mediator of thinking. PAR projects allow principalship students to collaborate with others, to resolve problems using limited resources, and to overcome obstacles that inhibit enacting a campus plan. Students develop and construct unique leadership identities through their work as PAR project researchers. In this capacity, they demonstrate the ability to lead, facilitate, and collaborate, as well as to identify areas of need, collect and explore data, review relevant research, generate and analyze additional data, prepare proposals, implement programs, evaluate results, and reflect on outcomes and processes. A successfully engaged PAR process requires using skills developed and nurtured during the student’s first semester school study and latter PLE activities. The UT Principalship Program PAR requirement mandates that students lead, facilitate, and collaborate with others in a real school setting, in order to develop an action plan, devise formative measurements of progress, implement the action plan, measure and evaluate results, and report

252   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL.

on findings, insights gained, and next steps. PAR projects culminate in late spring with a public presentation, called Leadership in Action. At this event, students highlight their research and outcomes for an audience of accomplished district and university leaders, as well as immediate supervisors, campus colleagues, former cohort members, family, and friends. Leadership in Action honors the growth and development of the emerging leaders, and provides an opportunity to present research formally in a public arena. Sometimes I can’t talk to my principal about certain things, especially if the conversation is about him, and colleagues don’t always provide the appropriate amount of support. Having someone you trust and can call on is huge, and the Cognitive CoachingSM experience allowed that to happen for me. —UTAPP Student The intern often just needed an opportunity to think through their thoughts verbally. … my coachee stated that he recognized in himself the readiness to make the full jump into campus leadership. UTAPP Cognitive Coach

The Cognitive CoachingSM Process Cognitive CoachingSM derives specifically from a decades-long development embracing influences from education [like] Vygotsky’s social constructivism, Dewey’s constructivism, teacher cognition, and self-directed learning. Other influences include Bandura’s peak performance, Koestler’s holonomy, Jung’s individualism, Maslow and Roger’s humanistic psychology, linguistics, neurolinguistics, mediation, neuroscience, and neuropsychology. (Maskey, 2009, p. 64)

Still, Cognitive CoachingSM continues to evolve (Dolcemascolo, Ellison, Hayes, & McKanders, 2014). The metacognitive focus of Cognitive CoachingSM highlights the implementation of a specific, yet flexible, mode of professional conversation (Costa & Garmston, 2002). The intention of Cognitive CoachingSM, unlike other modes of coaching, is to produce self-directedness in the individuals being coached. Moreover, Cognitive CoachingSM training develops coaches to actively self-identify as a mediator of thinking, not as an advice-giving mentor. Cognitive CoachingSM lessens the distance between a student’s leadership potential and independent problem-solving performance via self-mediated coaching (Costa & Garmston, 2002; Matsumura, Sartoris, Bickel, & Garnier, 2009).

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   253

In early research on coaching, Paris and Winograd (1990) describe how “metacognition helps learners become active participants in their own performance, rather than passive recipients of instruction and imposed experiences” (p. 7). Cognitive CoachingSM engages cognition for the coachee and offers metacognition for the coach (Costa & Garmston, 2002). Cognitive CoachingSM, as a long-term strategy for developing selfdirectedness through metacognition, surfaces and “represents the kind of knowledge and executive abilities that develop with experience. It is both a product and producer of cognitive development” (Paris & Winograd, 1990, p. 8). Successful Cognitive CoachingSM relies on skillful maneuvering among three conversation maps: planning, reflecting and problem resolving (Costa & Garmston, 2002). The coachee’s statements drive the conversation and indicate to the coach in which region of the conversation map immediate cognition lives. Understanding one’s goals through reflection and planning engages higher performance at all strata of leadership (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). Through a Cognitive CoachingSM relationship the coachee gains confidence and self-directedness, as well as an automatic and internal metacognitive approach for accessing one’s repertoire of leadership skills and internal resources. From a noncoaching perspective, competent mentors work to remove support gradually as the mentee’s competence increases, to question and probe to promote self-reflection and problem solving skills, and to provide feedback and counsel (Lave, 1991). Thus, the primary role of the cognitive coach is to guide the coachee through thinking that elevates internal and external resources necessary to resolve professional issues (Costa & Garmston, 2002). The cognitive coach’s skill level directly affects the efficacy of each Cognitive CoachingSM exchange (Costa & Garmston, 2002). As the cognitive coach’s skills and capabilities increase, the coaching conversation becomes deeper and more meaningful for the coachee. Throughout the coaching conversation, the coach remains vigilant about maintaining rapport, setting aside unproductive patterns of listening, and determining the coachee’s level of internal resources as they relate to the five states of mind—or individually consciousness, craftsmanship, efficacy, flexibility, and interdependence. The more a coach skillfully deploys the aforementioned (and other) coaching tools, the better able to mediate the coachee’s thought. Beyond planning, reflecting, and problem-resolving competencies, Cognitive CoachingSM provides for the application of new learning, develops individual capacity, and invites self-directedness (Costa & Garmston, 2002). Ultimately, cognitive coaches strive to create a professionally neutral environment for structured reflecting, planning, or problem-resolving conversations through which any educational leader might examine any issue (Costa & Garmston, 2002). For example, in a reflecting conversation the

254   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL.

coach navigates among five regions: (1) summarization and organization of recollections as data points; (2) analysis of causal factors; (3) construction of new learning; (4) adherence of learning to future applications; and (5) reflection about the conversation. Planning conversations focus on: (1) defining a goal; (2) predicting indicators of success; (3) accessing and considering the strategies and decisions required to implement a plan; (4) identifying personal traits that might hinder or support a goal; and (5) a reflection about the conversation. The problem resolving conversation does not provide resolutions to an issue, but instead aims to resolve nonlinear issues—a valuable lesson and skill for school leaders. The problem resolving conversation provides a template for naming an emotion or honoring an existing state, followed by offering a proposed desired state. In this way, coaches acknowledge the coachee’s (or employee’s, or student’s, or parent’s) distress or other emotion, offer the possibility of eustress by naming a desired state, and subsequently craft and pose mediative questions with the goal of increasing another’s awareness of internal resources (Costa & Garmston, 2002) leading to self-directedness. Certified cognitive coaches are trained to navigate the conversation maps according to a quick and nimble assessment of the coachee’s verbal and nonverbal language. For this reason, UTAPP only employs certified cognitive coaches to work with principalship students. In Cognitive CoachingSM conversations, the coach focuses rapt attention on clues and signals offered through the coachee’s physical, verbal, and cognitive responses which, for the coachee, creates rapport and trust (Costa & Garmston, 2002). This focus decodes the coachee’s verbal statements and body language; concomitantly, the coach links coachee language and physicality to high or low levels of internal professional resources or leadership capacities, referred to previously as states of mind. As Cognitive CoachingSM commences, the cognitive coach sets aside personal experience and judgment; the coach offers neither answers nor solutions to issues or questions. Instead, based on verbal and nonverbal communication, the coach tracks a coachee’s train of thought as she speaks about an issue. The coach crafts and poses questions (according to states of mind clues) with the purpose either to focus or expand the coachee’s thinking. As a rule the cognitive coach listens to the coachee, offers a conversational paraphrase, allows the coachee to consider the paraphrase, then poses specific mediative questions that are crafted with the intention to spark a coachee’s cognition. This rote process or Cognitive CoachingSM tool, referred to as pausing-paraphrasing-pausing-posing questions, is not influenced by the coach’s curiosity, nor does the coach pepper conversations with examples from an expert’s perspective. Cognitive CoachingSM conversations unfold according to a combination of factors directed primarily by the

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   255

coachee’s content vis-à-vis the coach’s assessment of the five specific leadership capacities noted above (Costa & Garmston, 2002). At each step of the Cognitive CoachingSM conversation, the coach looks to the coachee for signs of agreement—or clarification or even correction, if needed— for every paraphrase or mediative question posed. In other words, the coach frequently pauses to allow time and space for the coachee to think, offer a sign-off, give the final word, or issue a statement of agreement or disagreement, before the conversation continues. Ultimately, the coach never offers advice despite gleaning information that typically would make consultation easy. The cognitive coach does not make determinations or judgments, but instead refers to the regions of the conversation map in order to understand where a person “goes” with thinking. As noted earlier, coaches memorize the regions of the three conversation maps as a guide for, not to steer, the conversation. When a coachee is in need of direct advice or seeks collaboration, the cognitive coach navigates with intention to another professional support function—and with equal intention returns to coaching in order to mediate the coachee’s thinking about new learning. According to Costa and Garmston (2002), coaches may observe a coachee and afterward provide nonjudgmental data only for the coachee to interpret, and from which a reflecting (or planning) coaching conversation is based. The coach never analyzes or interprets conversation content for possible meaning or action. Conversation details, issue specifics, and information about third parties are irrelevant to the cognitive coach’s work. Conversation details surface for purposeful and direct analysis by the coachee only. Details summarized in a coach’s paraphrase are put forth, again, only for consideration by the coachee. In other words, details are not fuel to blaze a casual, conversational fire. A coach’s interpretation of conversation content is irrelevant to and, most importantly, unsupportive of the coachee’s thinking process. According to the Cognitive CoachingSM structure, per Costa and Garmston (2002), as issues of concern are deconstructed, analyzed, and reconstructed, all solutions, goals, and answers emanate solely from the coachee. Typically, Cognitive CoachingSM sessions culminate with a coachee reflection as to how the Cognitive CoachingSM conversation has moved, influenced, or changed one’s thought processes. Sometimes, depending on conversation circumstances, the cognitive coach may forego engaging in a reflective summation of the conversation and, instead, offer a walk away mediative question. Walk away questions are held internally and create incongruence within the coachee. This unsettled feeling, also called the Zeigarnek Effect (Ellison & Dolcemascolo, 2013, p. 8) in turn, generates issue-specific cognition for the coachee, well past the end of the formal Cognitive CoachingSM conversation.

256   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL. I really valued the reflection. There were times when I was alone and could think of what my coach might ask me and got me thinking without the prompting question. —UTAPP Student The dynamic of an aspiring principal one-on-one with a principal, assistant principal, or former principal is prone to consultation. I frequently was solicited for advice or opinions and had to reorient the conversation to coaching. —UTAPP Cognitive Coach

Cognitive CoachingSM Theory and Practice Moving Cognitive CoachingSM theory into administrative practice is a multifaceted process. The skills and mindset required to train in Cognitive CoachingSM, as well as to cognitively coach, are not the same skills and mindset one typically ascribes to educational leaders. Decisiveness is one quality emerging leaders (and many career administrators) often deem necessary for success. On the other hand, cognitive coaches must embody patience in their practice. Emerging leaders learn they must quickly make decisions, decide what to do, and figure out how tasks are completed and by whom. Theoretically, leadership decisions are made swiftly and with no second-guessing. Decision making is a powerful skill for leaders to embody. Yet, the ability not only to make decisions, but also to make the best available decision, strengthens leaders through the confidence such decisiveness instills in followers. However, for students in the UTAPP school leadership program, considering practice through the lens of social justice or antiracist leadership trumps decisiveness. Decisiveness without prior experience is a flawed protocol that negates deep and critical thought in the moment. For student leadership programs like UTAPP, patience and reflection are more highly regarded in professional practice than immediacy and decisiveness. The patience required to cognitively coach (and, sometimes, to be cognitively coached) often clashes with a (developing) leader’s need for immediate answers that lead to proven results. Accordingly, the power of Cognitive CoachingSM oftentimes is not trusted or believed completely. For most coaches-in-training, many consider coaching to be a side dish to a main course of mentoring. Cognitive CoachingSM training dispels this notion, clearly offering the knowledge that the more one is coached, the greater capacity one holds for making thoughtful and resourceful, inthe-moment decisions. Thus, for many trainees, Cognitive CoachingSM challenges current mental models and represents a much-needed, new way of communicating.

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   257

Educational leaders who seek training as cognitive coaches, typically, are skilled and confident principals, central office personnel, education consultants, and academic leaders. Most who step forward and commit to Cognitive CoachingSM training and certification, already possess strong leadership skill sets. In the process of Cognitive CoachingSM training, seasoned leaders interrogate outdated modes of leadership and learn anew how to support emerging leaders. Coaches-in-training put aside preconceived and long-lived notions of coaching, and differentiate the goals of Cognitive CoachingSM from those of mentoring. Transformative power results from Cognitive CoachingSM and, as such, UTAPP recognizes that the strength of a leader lives not in the swiftness or boldness of decisiveness, but in the depth of reflection and thoughtfulness. In order to bridge Cognitive CoachingSM theory and practice, training is layered for a constructivist learning of Cognitive CoachingSM tools and competencies. Data regarding cognition and self-directedness is offered in training to mitigate doubts about the efficacy of Cognitive CoachingSM. Clarity in training addresses the intentionality of one’s chosen support function, and ensures that coaches only coach, not advise. Still for some, despite a commitment to develop new leaders through coaching, the directive to ignore “giving advice” is too difficult to follow. Pushback in training on this issue, requires consistent and firm reminders of the long-term benefits of Cognitive CoachingSM, despite the almost inevitable, short-term tensions and frustrations some people experience. UTAPP separates the roles of mentor and coach—and strongly believes Cognitive CoachingSM is the mode of professional coaching that best supports developing leaders. To that end, UTAPP/UTCULP trains and hires certified cognitive coaches who demonstrate clarity of practice. I appreciated the reflective nature of Cognitive CoachingSM. There were times when it felt awkward in that I was sharing but my coach wasn’t. My coach wasn’t supposed to share, but it might have felt more natural if there were more natural conversation built into the coaching. —UTAPP Student I’ve become a more reflective practitioner as a result of Cognitive CoachingSM training. I’ve had to adjust my think and process time to help me become less of a problem solver and more of a coach. —UTAPP Cognitive Coach

Cognitive CoachingSM Training and Evaluation Only after training and receiving certification are UTCULP cognitive coaches allowed to support student interns through individual Cognitive

258   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL.

CoachingSM sessions. Training and certifying skilled cognitive coaches requires a commitment to a strong theory of action and focused program. In order to achieve transformational results in a student leadership program, committed individuals are needed to train for Cognitive CoachingSM certification and serve as cognitive coaches. Cognitive CoachingSM training stresses that it is not necessary to have expertise in the same area as the coachee. However, UTAPP recognizes a certain comfort level often exists between current and former cohort members. Whenever possible UTAPP intentionally selects former graduates to train and serve as coaches. While not necessary for a fruitful coaching relationship, shared experiences provide some with common ground, mitigate feelings of discomfort, and increase the potential for deeper rapport (Costa & Garmston, 2002). To become a UTAPP cognitive coach one must successfully complete training and receive Cognitive CoachingSM certification via the 8-day foundation training designed by Thinking Collaborative. Michele DeBellis, EdD, and Lucila Garza, Cognitive CoachingSM Training Associates through Thinking Collaborative (formerly the Center for Cognitive CoachingSM) and Scott Blackshire, UT Agency Trainer for Cognitive CoachingSM, lead certification trainings that meet the unique needs the UTAPP program. Coordination with Thinking Collaborative ensures the integrity of the Cognitive CoachingSM training, while making certain it also meets UTAPP project, state, and national guidelines. Cognitive CoachingSM certification is granted to persons who successfully complete seven of the eight training days, which must include the final training day. Texts and workbooks used for Cognitive CoachingSM training are Cognitive CoachingSM: A Foundation for Renaissance Schools, Arthur L. Costa and Robert J. Garmston, and Cognitive CoachingSM Foundation Seminar—Learning Guide, Arthur L. Costa and Robert J. Garmston (ed. Jane Ellison and Carolee Hayes). To date six cycles of Cognitive CoachingSM foundation training commenced over the course of the UTCULP grant—three in Austin, two in Dallas, and one in Houston. Each of the 8-day trainings engaged UTAPP cohort members, UTCULP partner districts and central office leaders, as well as principals and educational leaders from across the central Texas region. Principals and educational leaders, who successfully complete training and receive certification, then enter the pool from which UTAPP hires coaches to support cohort members during their internships. UTAPP implements a systematic process to train, certify, recruit, interview, vet, and hire individuals who stepped forward to work with students. As noted earlier, the UTAPP cognitive coaches and principal-mentors, whose roles and responsibilities sit on opposite ends of the student leadership support spectrum, sign distinct contracts that define the parameters as to how each will support the UTAPP student during the internship.

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   259

Through engagement with Thinking Collaborative and the subsequent Cognitive CoachingSM foundation series trainings supported by the US Department of Education, UTAPP secured highly trained and motivated certified cognitive coaches to work with students. Over the course of the grant, UTCULP trained nearly 250 individuals in Cognitive CoachingSM, with almost 200 earning certification. After 5 years of investing UTCULP grant funds into Cognitive CoachingSM training, UTAPP recognizes the distinct impact on students through the acquisition of leadership strategies and self-mediated thinking that are core to Cognitive CoachingSM. Cognitive coaches, too, benefit from participation in a community of practice that meets regularly to discuss issues related to coaching (Bloom et al., 2005; Ellison & Hayes, 2006; Reiss, 2007; Robertson, 2008). UTAPP cognitive coaches are scheduled to meet at least twice a semester in metacoach triads (Costa, Garmston, Ellison, & Hayes, 2010), to discuss their practice and to hone skills. During these sessions, UTAPP coaches take turns being coached on their individual coaching practice (a metacoaching), observing and gathering data in order to activate personal reflection, sharpen skills, and more deeply internalize the Cognitive CoachingSM process. In addition to the metacoaching meetings, UTAPP coaches also are invited to attend any Cognitive CoachingSM foundation sessions for additional training. UTAPP believes ongoing evaluations ensure the selected coaching model meets goals aligned with the theory of action, and that participants receive the internship support as outlined. Evaluation of UTAPP Cognitive CoachingSM occurs in multiple ways. Internal formative and summative evaluations, in the form of surveys and reflections, yield data that, when analyzed, provide evidence of students’ programmatic growth. External evaluation of the UTAPP Cognitive CoachingSM program triangulates data from coaches and student interns with data in the field to assess efficacy, satisfaction with, and levels of influence. UTAPP interns and their cognitive coaches complete separate monthly coaching logs, and rate the effectiveness of each Cognitive CoachingSM conversation without divulging confidential content. In addition, at the end of the yearlong internship, students and their cognitive coaches complete an anonymous survey (and may volunteer to participate in focus groups and/or interviews) with an external grant evaluator. Finally, a longitudinal study designed by UTAPP will follow graduates over a period of three years to identify whether or not Cognitive CoachingSM has had an impact on individual leadership practice. I learned how to be a better communicator and to reserve judgment and let others take a more active role in resolving their own issues. The ability to demonstrate genuine empathy without taking on someone else’s issues resonated most with me. Learning to let go and navigating the different maps stretched me the most. —UTAPP Cognitive Coach

260   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL. Time is always a challenge. However the coachee realized the benefit of our sessions. When the coachee had also experienced the training, it seemed to be of more benefit. —UTAPP Cognitive Coach

Sustainability of Cognitive CoachingSM The University of Texas at Austin Principalship Program (UTAPP) recognizes that structured professional conversations, as defined by Cognitive CoachingSM, bridge the divide between theory and practice, not only in university coursework, but moreover during the student’s administrative internship. As a critical structure in the training of future principals, Cognitive CoachingSM engenders the reflective and introspective cognition required to balance tensions between theory and practice (Barnett, 1995; Costa & Garmston, 2002). Emerging student leaders appreciate an “unambiguous, purposeful educational vision” which nurtures “a strong sense of personal direction that can be enriched in collaboration with other stakeholders” across campuses, communities, and districts (Scott & Webber, 2008, p. 764). Cognitive CoachingSM training and implementation supports such outcomes through the work of certified cognitive coaches, with expertise to mediate the thinking of students who, in turn, work to meld leadership theory and practice. The sustainability of Cognitive CoachingSM in a school leadership program, however, lives on two planes. The first plane supports those who deploy Cognitive CoachingSM skills in classrooms, on campuses with staff and colleagues, and in central offices across districts and states. Programmatic and implementation issues live on the second plane. Cognitive CoachingSM training underscores one’s identity as a mediator of thinking, as the most powerful and transformative of professional support functions to be offered to an emerging leader—or anyone who requires a shift in cognition (Costa & Garmston, 2002). The cognitive coach’s (or educational leader’s) ability to support and engage transformational thought in the coachee (or in staff or teachers—or students) is the most sustainable aspect voiced by UTAPP students and area leader participants. For classroom leaders, Cognitive CoachingSM enhances student engagement and challenges teachers to mediate group cognition in order to elevate and transform learning outcomes. Teachers trained in Cognitive CoachingSM incorporate coaching capabilities and skills into their teaching, whether or not they formally coach (Lemahieu, Roy, & Foss, 1997). They also report a higher awareness of their students’ needs because of a deeper understanding of human thought and cognitive processes. In addition, wait times increase in classrooms aligned with Cognitive CoachingSM, while questions are posed more thoughtfully and are cognitively charged.

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   261

In doing so, teachers model Cognitive CoachingSM for the class and, subsequently, students similarly adopt and model the new mode of interaction for each other. A cognitive coach makes the distinction that Cognitive CoachingSM is the most transformative mode with which to structure a professional conversation (Costa & Garmston, 2002). Unlike the transformative nature of Cognitive CoachingSM, collaboration, consultation, and evaluation are best described, respectively, as merely reformative, informative, and conformative. The sustainability of Cognitive CoachingSM comes from the fact that the deployment of mediative questions undoubtedly offers the most supportive, final word in any professional collaboration, consultation, or evaluation. The sharing of one’s identity as a cognitive coach, or even its transference to another person, sustains Cognitive CoachingSM practice far after training ends. Beyond the walls of the training site, Cognitive CoachingSM is defined by a coachee’s self-directedness and the coach’s embodiment of a personal identity as a mediator of thinking. “If metacognition is knowledge about thinking that can be shared among people, then individuals can report it to others, use it to direct another’s performance, or use it to analyze and manage their own thinking” (Paris & Woods, 1990, p. 10). These tenets of being are undeniably transferred between people and within systems. Knowing this, UTAPP supports training cohort members and as many staff, faculty, and educational leaders as possible. The second plane of Cognitive CoachingSM sustainability—programmatic implementation—presents more clearly than the theoretical transference of Cognitive CoachingSM tenets into classrooms and campuses. Support for future UTAPP cohorts requires providing cognitive coaches to coach future internships, as well as sponsoring additional Cognitive CoachingSM trainings. The next consideration for sustainability requires an examination of the administrative support required to implement and manage such a program. Management of the UTAPP Cognitive CoachingSM component includes: marketing the 8-day training series to local and regional leaders in education; registering and invoicing participants; securing training space and materials; contracting with the Cognitive CoachingSM trainer and processing fees; maintaining training records for certification verification; advertising for certified coaches interested in coaching interns; vetting and hiring coaches and monitoring internship progress; managing coaches over the course of the 9-month student internships and processing payments, accordingly. UTAPP leveraged resources and training opportunities for staff that surpasses foundation certification and resulted in the certification of a UTCULP staff member as a Cognitive CoachingSM agency trainer. Agency trainers complete a rigorous training and multiyear evaluation process to become credentialed by Thinking Collaborative and able to train cognitive coaches in cohorts up to forty people within their home

262   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL.

system. Thinking Collaborative encourages systems to develop Cognitive CoachingSM capacity on as many levels as possible, and works with clients to leverage fiscal and human capital to yield the maximum number of coaches and potential agency trainers. But is this enough? UTAPP is committed to Cognitive CoachingSM in practice, and allocates resources to research activities that analyze and document the benefits of Cognitive CoachingSM in a school leadership program. Research is useful, not only for educators in the field, but also for making the case within the College of Education to continue on this course. Through a commitment to sustain Cognitive CoachingSM, UTAPP ensures the integrity of future Cognitive CoachingSM trainings leading to certification within the school leadership program’s home institution, in this case, The University of Texas at Austin. I think some of the challenges were staying in coaching mode. We were paired with such experienced educators that there were times I just wanted them to provide me with an answer. —UTAPP Student What resonated most with me about Cognitive CoachingSM was the fact that instead of finding solutions for other people’s problems, Cognitive CoachingSM is about empowering people to use their set of experiences and knowledge to come out with their own solutions. —UTAPP Student

Conclusion Transformational results in a school leadership program require committed individuals on all levels to contribute collaborative time, energy, and expertise. Cognitive CoachingSM offers a conversational structure that leads to self-directedness, and aims to transform the thinking of those being coached. However, it takes time and patience to fully engage and adopt, as well as see the results of, any new mode of thinking or communicating. Educational scholar Linda Roberts (2013) offers prescient thoughts on patience that connect to the essence of Cognitive CoachingSM. Similar to UTAPP’s mission to teach Cognitive CoachingSM, Roberts advocates the consideration of teaching patience as a strategy. Granted—patience might be a pretty hard sell as an educational deliverable. But I would argue that [today] patience becomes an active and positive cognitive state. Where patience once indicated a lack of control, now it is a form of control over the tempo of contemporary life that otherwise controls us. Patience no longer connotes disempowerment—perhaps now patience is power.

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   263

As student leadership program participants patiently strive to embody the personal efficacy, flexibility, and resilience needed to overcome diverse challenges faced by today’s school leaders, Cognitive CoachingSM serves as a powerful catalyst in their work. Through a Cognitive CoachingSM relationship, the principalship student embraces confidence and self-directedness, as well as a metacognitive approach for accessing a broad repertoire of continually evolving leadership resources and newly surfacing skills—all of which are linked to the program’s theory of action. Cognitive CoachingSM aligns with the purposes and goals of The University of Texas at Austin Principalship Program, and supports the development of excellent educational leaders. In the words of a current cohort member, I believe Cognitive CoachingSM will be beneficial when I gain an administrative position … I can see the great benefits of using Cognitive CoachingSM such as developing rapport, actively listening to be able to give accurate paraphrasing and then asking appropriate questions to allow the coachee to reflect on her own thought process. All of these elements are just the beginnings of Cognitive CoachingSM. As I continue to train I feel coaching will be challenging, but that it will also be one of the most powerful tools I will use as an administrator. —UTAPP Student

References Barnett, B. (1995). Developing reflection and expertise: Can mentors make the difference? Journal of Educational Administration, 33(5), 45–59. Barnett, B. G., Copland, M. A., & Shoho, A. R. (2009). The use of internships in preparing school leaders. In M. D. Young, G. M. Crow, J. Murphy & R. T. Ogwa (Eds.), Handbook of research on education of school leaders. New York, NY: Routledge. Bloom, G., Castagna, C., Moir, E., & Warren, B. (2005). Blended coaching: Skills and strategies to support principal development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bush, T. (2009). Leadership development and school improvement: Contemporary issues in leadership development. Educational Review, 61(4), 375–389. Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 537–550. Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive Coaching : A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Costa, A. L., Garmston, R., Ellison, J., & Hayes, C. (2010). Cognitive Coaching foundation seminar learning guide (8th ed.). Highlands Ranch, CO: Center for Cognitive Coaching. Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., LaPointe, M., & Orr, M. T. (2010). Preparing principals for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

264   R. Scott Blackshire ET AL. Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals (pp. 1–30). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Educational Leadership Institute. Dolcemascolo, M., Ellison, J., Hayes, C., & McKanders, C. (2014). Teaching paraphrasing: An evolution. Thinking Collaborative: Cognitive Coaching Symposium. Denver, CO. Edwards, J. L. (2010). Cognitive Coaching : A synthesis of the research Retrieved November 19, 2010, from http://www.cognitivecoaching.com/bibliogr.htm Ellison, J., & Dolcemascolo, M. (2013) Thinking Collaborative Cognitive Coaching Seminars: Foundation Seminar Trainer’s Guide for Day 8. Highlands Ranch, CO: Thinking Collaborative. Ellison, J., & Hayes, C. (2006). Effective school leadership: Developing principals through Cognitive Coaching. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Gross, S. J. (2009). Establishing meaninful leadership mentoring in school settings: Transcending simplistic rhetoric, self-congratulation and claims of panacea. In M. D. Young, G. M. Crow, J. Murphy, & R. T. Ogwa (Eds.), Handbook of research on education of school leaders. New York, NY: Routledge. Hammack, M., & Wise, D. (2011). Leadership coaching: coaching competencies and best practices. Journal of School Leadership, 21(3), 449+. Hargrove, R. (2008). Masterful coaching (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. International Coach Federation. (2010). International Coach Federation Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.coachfederation.org/ ISLLC. (1996). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Knight, J. (Ed.). (2009). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kuijpers, J. M., Houtveen, A. A. M., & Wubbels, T. (2008). An integrated professional development model for effective teaching. Teaching and Theacher Education, 26, 1687–1694. Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lemahieu, P. G., Roy, P. A., & Foss, H. K. (1997). Through a lens clearly: A model to guide the instructional leadership of principals. Urban Education, 31(5), 582–608. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27–42. Lennard, D. (2010). Coaching models: A cultural perspective: A guide to model development for practioners and students of coaching. New York, NY: Routledge. Maskey, C. L. (2009). Cognitive coaching has an exciting place in nursing education. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 4(2), 63–65. Matsumura, L. C., Sartoris, M., Bickel, D. D., & Garnier, H. E. (2009). Leadership for literacy coaching: The principal’s role in launching a new coaching program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 655–693. O’Doherty, A. (2011). Incorporating coaching into a principal preparation program. UCEA Review. Retrieved from www.ucea.org (n.b. Portions of this article are reprinted herein with permission.)

Certified Cognitive Coachingsm   265 Orr, T. (2010). The University of Texas Collaborative Urban Leadership ProjectUS DoE School Leadership Program Grant, External Evaluation Report. Academic Year 2009–2010. Osterman, K. F., & Hafner, M. M. (2009). Curriculum in leadership preparation: Understanding where we have been in order to know where we might go. In M. D. Young, G. M. Crow, J. Murphy & R. T. Ogwa (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders. New York, NY: Routledge. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting Metacognition and Motivation of Exceptional Children. Remedial and Special Education, 11(6), 7–15. Reeves, D. B., & Allison, E. (2009). Renewal coaching; Sustainable change for indiduals and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Joeey-Bass. Reiss, K. (2007). Leadership coaching for educators: Bringing out the best in school administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Robertson, J. (1997, March). The praxis of educational leadership versus the cult of managerialism: Developing a model for the professional development of school leaders during the initial years of tomorrow's schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL. Robertson, J. (2008). Coaching educational leadership: Building leadership capacity through partnership. London, England: Sage. Roberts, J. L. (2013). The power of patience: Teaching students the value of decleration and immersive attention. Harvardmagazine.com. Retrieved from http:// harvardmagazine.com/2013/11/the-power-of-patience Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facilitating professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 146–159. Rowley, J. B. (2006). Becoming a high performance mentor: A guide to reflection and action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Scott, S., & C. F. Webber. (2008). Evidence-based leadership development: the 4L framework. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(6), 762–776. Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 133 Smith, P. A. C. (2001). Action learning and reflective practice in project environments that are related to leadership development. Management Learning, 32(1), 31–48. Strong, M., & Baron, W. (2004). An analysis of mentoring conversations with beginning teachers: suggestions and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 47–57. The University of Texas at Austin, Principalship Program. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.edb.utexas.edu/education/departments/eda/psel/prinipalship/ Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Young, M. D., O’Doherty, A., Gooden, M., & Goodnow, E. (2009). Changing Perspectives through Purposeful Immersion into Collaborative Process. Presentation at the Annnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA

Chapter 13

SUSTAINING A RENEWAL MODEL FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT Patricia Reeves, Louann Bierlein Palmer, Dennis McCrumb, and Jianping Shen

Abstract This chapter reviews  findings from  a study conducted by the authors regarding to what extent and how school principals and their staffs sustained school renewal activities eight months after having participated in a 30-month Learning-Centered Leadership Development Program. The study also attempted to identify facilitators and barriers for high fidelity implementation and sustainability. Twenty-two of the 25 practicing or aspiring principals were surveyed and 16 (or 72.2%) returned the questionnaire. A case study was conducted with one of the school principals to contextualize the findings. Findings in this study suggest that the majority of the schools sustained renewal work at moderate to high levels in each of the seven learning centered leadership dimensions  despite changes in personnel, school configuration, and district leadership. Additionally, respondents reported a strong level of influence on sustainability from the grant project, especially in the areas of deciding improvement strategies based on student and school

From Policy to Practice: Sustainable Innovations in School Leadership Preparation and Development, pp. 267–292 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing 267 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

268   P. Reeves et al. data; engaging in improvement focused discussions among principal, teachers, and other stakeholders; and monitoring progress of school improvement initiatives and adjusting accordingly. Reported barriers to sustainability of renewal activities included influences at the district level, staff commitment, time to focus on renewal work, and leadership or staff turnover. This chapter discusses implications of the findings in relation to the literature on high fidelity implementation and sustainability.

Introduction In his 2004 book, Failure Is Not An Option, Alan Blankstein discusses the meaning of sustainability through the lens of capacity building over time. He makes three essential arguments about sustainability at a school level. First, “sustainable improvement is enduring, not fleeting” (Blankstein, 2004, p. 200). By this, Blankstein (2004) means improvement or change that becomes integral to the way the school works is not a process of creating “models” or pockets of change initiative; rather, it is a process of changing the school through investments in the growth of everyone in the school, relationship building, and avoidance of “fickle infatuations.” Second, he argues sustainable change works within the ability of school resources and does not rely upon nonrenewable resource support. Further, sustainable change does not pull resources away from other critical functions of the school or put the school in competition with others for resources. Finally, Blankstein asserts leaders of sustainable change “enable people to adapt to and prosper in their increasingly complex environment” (p. 201). In other words, leaders create sustainable change by avoiding over simplified answers to school challenges. They work with others to examine problems thoroughly and develop integrated solutions that address the nuances of the problem. A School Renewal Project Blankstein’s (2004) three points provide an instructive frame for understanding the work of 25 school-based principal and teacher teams who participated in a 3-year project focusing on collaborative school renewal activities and processes through a federally funded program titled, Learning Centered Leadership (LCL) Development Program for Practicing and Aspiring Principals. Through this project, a team of faculty from Western Michigan University worked with 25 schools from Michigan districts with specific demographic characteristics including poverty rates at or above

Sustaining a Renewal Model for School Improvement   269

20%. The project’s goal was to utilize a frame of seven principal leadership dimensions, empirically associated with school improvement and student achievement (Shen, 2012), to support the principal, an aspiring principal and two teacher leaders from each school in developing an integrated plan for school renewal. For 2½ years, the grant project faculty team worked with each school team to develop an understanding on how to examine their school processes and systems through the critical elements of these seven dimensions. From there, the project faculty team assisted the school teams with their design and implementation of school renewal activities that tapped into these seven dimensions to address growth and improvement in ways responsive to each school’s unique context. Critical features of the process used by the grant project faculty team in working with the principals and their school teams included: 1. Identifying and recruiting (in year 1) a teacher in each school who aspired to share school leadership roles, and potentially aspiring to the school principalship. 2. Identifying and recruiting (in year 2) two additional teachers in each school who aspired to share school leadership roles. 3. Providing the principal and aspiring principal a series of workshops (in year 1) on each of the seven dimensions, with members of the grant team sharing their expertise and experience in each of the dimensions. 4. Eliciting the knowledge and experience of each principal and school team to build shared understandings and insights about the seven dimensions and the process of school renewal. 5. Bringing the school teams from all 25 schools together several times per year for shared learning and collaborative sharing. 6. Providing each school team with a “matrix” tool for developing school renewal activities through a systemic process. The project provided the school teams with time to meet and learn with and from other school teams. Each school team also had time to delve deeply into the work of school renewal, and explore ways to apply what they learned from the project faculty team and the other school teams to their own school renewal activities. Finally, we encouraged school teams to plan how they would expand the ownership of the work back in their respective schools. After 2½ years of working together, the grant project hosted a culminating event to highlight the work of each team and celebrate their progress with school-based renewal activities. At this culminating event, each principal and school team shared a completed matrix of school renewal activities. The LCL project faculty team designed the matrix to foster data-informed examination of school conditions, identification of

270   P. Reeves et al.

priority areas for school renewal, selection of high-impact strategies to address the priority areas, and systemic processes for implementing those strategies (See Table 13.2 for an example of the Renewal Matrix). The LCL project approach to working with principals and teacher leader teams places emphasis on capacity building for long-term impact. Specifically, the LCL project attempts to equip principals and teacher leaders with the understandings, tools, and dispositions for sustainable change that leads to improved student results. As a follow-up to working with the first cohort of schools participating in the project, the LCL project team collected data from principals and aspiring principals who were still with their school (in some cases, a reorganized school) 6 months after the conclusion of their active involvement in the project. The goal of the follow-up data collection was to identify where and how these individuals report continuation of their school renewal activities as developed by their school team during their active involvement in the project. This chapter looks at the findings from this follow-up survey data and how those findings illustrate some of the characteristics of sustainability found in the literature on school level change and improvement. Relevant Findings From the Literature Sustainability can be examined in the literature through studies that focus on both the process of implementation and the extension of that process toward fully integrated and sustainable school change. In their synthesis of the literature on implementation, Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, and Wallace (2005) concluded there are five stages of implementation: Exploration and Adoption; Program Installation; Full Operation; Innovation; and Sustainability. The authors further identified a key role in the matriculation through these five stages—the role of purveyor. They define purveyors as, “an individual or group of individuals representing a program or practice who actively work to implement that practice or program with fidelity and good effect” (p. 14). These conclusions by Fixsen et al. suggest full implementation that actually reaches the point of sustainability requires sustained leadership, advocacy, and ownership. Study after study reviewed by Fixsen’s team confirmed what Hargreaves and Goodsen found in their 2006 study of high school reform initiatives: traditional practices and norms pull schools back toward standardized or conforming practices and away from innovative, change-oriented practices. This occurs to a lesser extent, however, where there is an activist orientation from leadership or a group of core leaders and where there is an active professional learning community process through which activist leaders can promote change.

Sustaining a Renewal Model for School Improvement   271

In a similar vein, Copland (2003) found, in a study of 16 schools with the most developed and sustained reform processes among the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC), the crucial role of the principal was to address key personnel issues (including the development and enlistment of others to share the work of leadership), raise and answer framing questions, and support a rigorous inquiry process. The author further concluded this was the work principals use to infuse continuous inquiry into school-wide practices, foster collective decision making, and distribute leadership. Murakami and Orr (2012) found one of the greatest threats to achieving sustainable school improvement initiatives was the strong pull of competing priorities and principals countered this threat by setting priorities to align with the improvement initiative. Confirming the importance of setting priorities, Breitner and Light (2006) found that data systems were most effective in supporting and sustaining school improvement when those data systems were developed from a deep understanding of the level of need that teachers encounter when addressing student learning challenges. Breitner and Light further found that understanding the level of need begins with accessing and honoring teacher’s tacit knowledge. In other words, Breitner and Light’s study confirmed the teachers, themselves, as a critical source of the understandings that are essential in driving successful school change. Fullan (2005) calls the act of ensuring the participation of the people with the problem and engaging them in deep learning through data informed, collaborative inquiry processes. In her in-depth case study of creating and sustaining teacher learning communities, Klein (2008) reaffirmed the power of professional communities of practice for building teacher capacity, and adds to the body of evidence that teacher capacity is an essential resource in school reform and renewal and school leaders who set a high priority for developing teacher capacity have a greater likelihood of leading a school through sustainable implementation of school improvement initiatives. In Asking the Right Questions: A Leader’s Guide to Systems Thinking About School Improvement (2000), the Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) group start the conversation about sustainable school improvement and high fidelity implementation by reminding readers that schools are systems and, as such, operate under tacit understandings of institutional purpose, goals, and principles. From their meta-analysis of the research on high fidelity and reliability schools, Eck, Bellamy, Stringfield, Schaffer, and Reynolds (2011) conclude a school’s purpose and goals must be grounded in a culture of high expectations and a growth mindset supported by highly developed data-driven and inquiry processes. This is illustrated by Suiter’s (2009) study of sustainability among New York secondary school reform projects. Suiter isolated the importance of col-

272   P. Reeves et al.

laborative work by teacher teams with the principal “calling the group back to its values and original commitment” and taking on controversial issues in an “honest and open manner” (p. 8). McLaughlin and Talbert (2006) examined the process of developing professional learning communities and distilled the following from the literature: Professional communities of practice are one important strategy in building capacity, particularly in developing content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (Borko, 2004). McLaughlin and Talbert (2006) define professional communities of practice as places where teachers “work collaboratively to reflect on their practice, examine evidence about the relationship between practice and student outcomes, and make changes that improve teaching and learning for the particular students in their classes” (p. 4). In their book Building School-Based Teacher Learning Communities, Milbrey W. McLaughlin and Joan Talbert (2006) have identified the following practices of professional communities: building and managing knowledge to improve practice; creating shared language, vision, and standards for practice; and sustaining school culture. (p. 36)

From these descriptors culled from the literature, McLaughlin and Talbert (2006) affirm there is more to providing the leadership needed to develop and support professional communities of practice than just putting teachers into teams and directing them to use the teams to solve school and classroom level problems. For the principal, the quote illustrates how research has isolated specific characteristics of effective collaborative teams that give guidance to the work of leadership in developing those teams. At the heart of these characteristics is the focus on student learning and the process of making changes to school and classroom practices with the potential to influence student learning in positive ways. To expand on the importance of principal leadership, Klingner, Arguelles, Hughes and Vaughn (2001) found the principal fosters continuity of school improvement initiatives through personal follow-through, efforts to broaden teacher acceptance, and reconnecting people with the value of the initiative and their commitment to the initiative. In a study of a decade of middle school reform initiatives in Florida, Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey, and Liebert (2006) found three factors that work against sustainability of change initiatives: leadership change, teacher turnover, and policy or priority changes at the local district or state level. When the researchers looked closer at schools that resisted these factors that undermine sustainability, they found high levels of shared decision making, internal and external collaboration, and teaming. They also found that the role of the principal in developing all three is of high importance.

Sustaining a Renewal Model for School Improvement   273

This examination of the literature reinforces six important factors this chapter will examine more closely in reviewing the feedback of respondents from the first cohort of the LCL project. These factors are: 1. The principal’s role in selecting, cultivating, and supporting teachers to share in the work of school leadership and decision making. 2. The importance of a unified, coherent, and aligned vision of the school renewal and change work (i.e., a systems approach). 3. The need for highly developed and responsive data-informed inquiry processes and progress monitoring. 4. The value of tapping into teachers’ tacit knowledge and engaging them in solving the problems they encounter in seeking to achieve improved student outcomes. 5. The importance of leadership focus and clarity about priorities. 6. The focus on developing high yield collaborative teaming processes. In a follow-up survey three years into the implementation of school renewal plans developed through the LCL project, the researchers were concerned with the degree to which and how schools participating in the first cohort of the project were actually sustaining the renewal activities. The feedback from principals or aspiring principals on the survey provided an opportunity to look at sustainability of renewal work in the LCL schools after the conclusion of their active involvement in the project. Since the LCL project offered participants an opportunity to engage in specific type of school improvement process, it is useful to examine the grounding for the model used to frame the process for project participants. Models of School Improvement The Dichotomy Between the Content and the Process School improvement has been a perennial topic in educational literature and practice. With the accountability movement, the research and practice related to school improvement has intensified. In the literature, there are studies on the “content” of school improvement, such as the success and failure of a specific curriculum (e.g., Hirsch & Reys, 2009), instructional methods (e.g., Newmann, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001), discipline programs (e.g., Osher, Bear, Sprague, & Doyle, 2010), or the whole school improvement with many connected content areas (e.g., Harris, 2000). There are also studies on the “process” of school improvement, with a focus on the

274   P. Reeves et al.

how school improvement process should proceed (e.g., Dunaway, Bird, Wang, & Hancock, 2013; Scribner, Cockrell, Cockrell, & Valentine, 1999). The literature seems to suggest “content”—an effective program, curriculum or instructional method—is important as well as how to engage in school improvement—the “process.” For example, Cohen’s (1990) classic study titled “A Revolution in One Classroom: The Case of Mrs. Oublier” indicated Mrs. Oublier was fluent in the new language of a math program that moved from mathematical memorization to understanding. However, her practice was, essentially, not consistent with the tenets of the new math curriculum. Moving to a school level example, the study by Borman et al. (2000) suggests the outcome of approaches to school improvement (with a focus on process) is still subject to the implementation process. Borman et al. studied Title 1 schools that employed various processes of school improvement: (a) the grassroots site-based reform model; (b) locally mandated reconstitution; (c) the whole school reform; and (d) partnership with a local external partner. They also found “at least one school engaged in each of the four processes showed improvement in several areas, while the others remained stagnant or declined” (p. v). Given the nature of the complexity in implementing educational initiatives, researchers have been studying how to implement an improvement program previously successful in another setting in such a way that it will be successful in the new setting. McDonald, Keesler, Kauffman, and Schneider (2006) suggested the study of implementation of effective programs in various contexts be conducted in three states: moving from (a) investigating whether an intervention leads to improvement in certain environmental settings, to (b) conducting a series of studies to produce more evidence of effectiveness in different contexts, to (c) conducting on-going evaluation to ensure the effectiveness of the intervention. McDonald et al. emphasized it is very important to pay attention to key contextual variables because the effectiveness of interventions vary in different contexts. Their hierarchical linear modeling analysis indicated the importance of context by demonstrating that a large proportion of variance in student achievement is explained by contextual variables. Therefore, the process of ‘implementation” at the contextual level is extremely important. The “Renewal” Model As mentioned in the foregoing, for the LCL project, the content and process lead to renewal activities in each school. Goodlad (1987, 1994, 2010), the leading advocate for the notion of renewal, distinguishes between the Research, Development, Dissemination, and Evaluation (RDDE) model and what he called the Dialogue, Decision, Action and Evaluation (DDAE). The major differences can be seen in Table 13.1. The RDDE model takes a top-down approach, and the term reform is associated with the RDDE

Sustaining a Renewal Model for School Improvement   275

model. Reform has the connotation of imposing an alternative. The DDAE model is associated with renewal which has the connotation that change is a continuous, non-linear, and only vaguely goal-oriented approach to explore the possibilities of alternatives. “Goodlad argues that, for renewal to occur, there must be some combination of internal responsiveness and external stimulation; for renewal to continue, there must be some continual, productive, and creative tension between the internal and external” (Shen & Cooley, 2012, p. 124).

Table 13.1.  A Comparison Between the RDDE and DDAE Models RDDE

DDAE

Top-down

A creative tension between the external and internal influences

Linear

Nonlinear

Strictly goal-oriented

vaguely goal-oriented

Implementers as receivers

Implementers as active developers

The “reform” model

The “renewal” model

The LCL Project The LCL project is designed around Goodlad’s notion of renewal rather than the typical notion of reform. The project provides a general content framework of seven principal leadership dimensions associated with student achievement. The project utilizes this framework to engage the principal and other stakeholders in examining their schools’ unique context, identifying renewal priorities, and developing renewal activities within the general framework of the seven dimensions and the DDAE process. We call the improvement efforts in each school “renewal activities.” Although the general framework of the seven dimensions is the same for all schools, the DDAE process leads to different renewal activities for participating schools. A Framework for Renewal Activities As the model for renewal work in the Learning-Centered Leadership (LCL) project is based on the DDAE process, the grant team knew the traditional school improvement framework school teams typically follow might fall short of engendering activities emerging from dialogue, shared decision-making, collaborative action and evaluation, that is, DDAE. Through their involvement in the grant workshops, the school teams

276   P. Reeves et al.

had the opportunity to reflect on the practices associated with improved student results as they engaged with each of the seven dimensions of school leadership. The grant faculty team worked with each of the school teams to debrief the initiatives and activities already in progress through the established school improvement process and assess where those activities and initiatives linked to the practices associated with the seven dimensions, where there was opportunity to renew the work with even stronger evidencebased practices, and where there was a need to get to deeper levels of implementation of promising practices or initiatives already in play. Through this facilitated process of reflective dialogue, each of the teams identified areas of their overall school improvement process where they could shift their mindset to a focus on renewal by reframing, replacing, recommitting, and refitting their efforts with evidence-based strategies adapted to evidence-based understandings of their particular school context. This resulted in each school team identifying a set of renewal activities for their school to carry out over both short-term and longer term renewal actions focused on achieving stronger student results in targeted areas. The grant faculty team defined renewal activities as theory-to-best-practice, job-embedded actions. Renewal activities must address one or more of the identified barriers to learning in each building. Principals, aspiring principals, and school improvement members (teams) use the DDAE model to develop one renewal activity for each of the seven dimensions. The renewal activities should enhance the on-going school improvement process and, wherever possible, connect with each other so that a system of improvement efforts is developed so the school’s renewal efforts will enhance each other. To facilitate the process, we developed the Planning Activity Matrix and provided time for the school teams to think and dialogue their way through a very interactive process (first, at the workshops with the core team; then, back in their schools with their full staff) of examining each of the points and questions along the vertical column of “Implementation Steps” provided in the matrix (Table 13.2)—each of those steps in the matrix being aligned with the renewal model. As the school teams work with the matrix, they are guided to think of both the content of the change they wish to effect and the process by which change can take hold and flourish in their schools. We firmly believe both content and process are important for the success of educational change efforts. The framework of seven dimensions of principal leadership is the content, and DDAE is the process. The combination of the content and process are the essence of the renewal model. For our LCL faculty team, the intent was also to increase the likelihood that the school teams would implement their renewal activities with success and sustain them long enough to evaluate the impact.

277

Identify stakeholders or significant others that need to be involved.

How will renewal activities increase student achievement?

Connection to school improvement plan

Gaps in current practice – what can be done to improve?

Current practices in this area. What is being done now at the school or district level?

Proposed renewal activity(s) (list new activity(s) beyond the current practice

Implementation Steps

Passion and Commitment for School Renewal Data Informed Decision Making

 

Safe and Orderly School Operation

High, Cohesive, and Culturally Relevant Expectations for Students Distributive and Empowering Leadership

Table 13.2. Renewal Activity Matrix

Coherent Curricular Programs

DataInformed DecisionMaking

(Table continues on next page)

Real-Time Embedded Assessments

278

       

Forces for and against change

Requires technical assistance

Timeline for implementation

What measures will be used to determine if renewal activities are successful?

Implementation Steps

Passion and Commitment for School Renewal Data Informed Decision Making

Safe and Orderly School Operation

High, Cohesive, and Culturally Relevant Expectations for Students Distributive and Empowering Leadership

Table 13.2.  (Continued)

Coherent Curricular Programs

Real-Time Embedded Assessments

DataInformed DecisionMaking

Sustaining a Renewal Model for School Improvement   279

While the requirements of the grant did not include follow-up studies on sustainability and grant funds did not provide for external evaluation of sustainability, our grant faculty team decided to undertake our own followup study to examine the status of Cohort A schools’ renewal months out from the conclusion of the grant sponsored cohort activities. As we were gearing up to start the process all over again with a new cohort (Cohort B) of schools, we wanted to know (a) if, and at what levels, the Cohort A schools were continuing to carry out the renewal activities they planned with us, and (b) what influences either assisted or inhibited the continuation of those renewal activities. Study Methods 20 principals within the first cohort of the LCL Project were sent an on-line survey, of which 15 responded in order to capture data on sustainability. After several reminders, the survey was then sent to the aspiring principals in the schools where the principal had not responded. In total, 15 principals and one aspiring principal responded, representing 16 of the original 20 cohort A schools. Respondents were either connected with the school that participated in the project or a reorganized school in the same district. Data was collected through an online survey constructed to look at the level of sustained implementation for elements of the school’s renewal activities across all seven of the Principal Leadership Dimensions (Shen, 2012). These seven dimensions served as the framework for the LCL project. The survey also provided open-ended questions designed to elicit understandings about the levels of sustained implementation and factors that influenced them. Data from the survey items is presented here in descriptive form along with a qualitative distillation of key responses from the open-ended items. One respondent was purposely selected as an exemplar to engage in an in-depth interview to provide contextualized insights on sustainability. Findings about Sustaining the School Renewal Model The survey results were decidedly favorable. Six months after completing the active aspect of the LCL Project, or 3 years since starting the grant, 14 principals and one aspiring principal who responded are still engaged in the continuation of renewal activities in most or all of the seven dimensions of school leadership (see Table 13.3): (a) Data-informed decision-making processes and (b) Safe and orderly school operations had the highest levels

280   P. Reeves et al.

of reported continuation at an average of 4.33 on a 5-point scale, followed by (c) Coherent curricular programs, (d) Real-time and embedded instructional assessment, and (e) Distributive and empowering leadership, all at an average of 4.0; while (f) High, cohesive, and culturally relevant expectations and (g) Passion and commitment for school renewal had the lowest average of 3.95 and 3.87 respectively. These averages indicate the respondents have been able to sustain the renewal activities developed by their LCL project school teams at high enough levels to infer continued commitment to the renewal activities and continued impact of the renewal process experienced as part of the LCL project Cohort A work. What is also noteworthy in these responses is that a number of the responding principals experienced changes in personnel, changes in school configuration, and changes in district leadership either during or since the completion of their active involvement in the LCL project.

Table 13.3.  Extent Renewal Activities Sustained During Year Following Completion of Grant (1) Not at all n (%)

(2) Very little n (%)

(3) Some what n (%)

(4) Most of it n (%)

(5) All of it n (%)

Data-informed decision-making

1 (6.7)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

6 (40.0)

Safe and orderly school operations

1 (6.7)

0 (0.0)

1 (6.7)

Coherent curricular programs

1 (6.7)

0 (0.0)

Real-time & embedded instruct. assessment

1 (6.7)

Distributive & empowering leadership

N

Mean

SD

8 (53.3)

15

4.33

1.05

4 (26.7)

9 (60.0)

15

4.33

1.11

3 (20.0)

5 (33.3)

6 (40.0)

15

4.00

1.13

0 (0.0)

3 (20.0)

5 (33.3)

6 (40.0)

15

4.00

1.13

1 (6.7)

0 (0.0)

2 (13.3)

7 (46.7)

5 (33.3)

15

4.00

1.07

High, cohesive, & culturally relevant expectations

1 (6.7)

0 (0.0)

2 (13.3)

8 (53.3)

4 (26.7)

15

3.95

1.03

Passion & commitment for school renewal

1 (6.7)

1 (6.7)

1 (6.7)

8 (53.3)

4 (26.7)

15

3.87

1.13

Sustaining a Renewal Model for School Improvement   281

Table 13.4 looks at the degree of school improvement process change that has occurred in the respondents’ schools, and the relationship between that change and the respondents’ involvement in the LCL project. The data shows the listed change processes are occurring with, at least moderate levels from the perspective of all but one of the respondents, and many of the processes are “largely” occurring according to 9–13 of the respondents with the highest levels of “largely occurring” reported for the processes of (a) deciding school improvement strategies on the basis of data; (b) deciding school improvement goals on the basis of data; (c) school improvement initiatives building on previous efforts; and (d) engaging in school improvement discussions between principal, staff, and stakeholders —all at 60% or better reporting rate. When examining how respondents perceived the influence of the grant project on the level of occurrence for each of the renewal focused school improvement processes, 60–73.4% reported that the grant helped them either implement or sustain the renewal processes. The highest levels of impact from the grant project on the renewal processes was reported for deciding improvement strategies based on student and school data (71.4%); engaging in discussions among principal, teachers, and other stakeholders to decide how to improve the school; and monitoring progress of school improvement initiatives and adjusting accordingly (73.3%). Reporting rates for all the other renewal processes were at either a 66.6 or 66.7% level with only having a process in place to ensure that school improvement work is continuous falling to the low of 60%. By comparison, where respondents reported a renewal process occurring at either a moderate or large level, only 20 to 33% reported that the grant did not help instill this process in the school. This finding suggests that some of the renewal processes were already in place for either the respondent or for the school or both. How to Ensure Sustainability The finding in the previous section indicated the renewal model was sustained. However, this finding does not mean sustainability was easy. Rather, many (13) of the respondents of the study cited barriers they encountered while implementing and sustaining their renewal process. These barriers centered around four basic issues: district level factors, staff commitment, time availability, and leadership and staff changes. Two of the respondents, however, perceived no barriers to the sustainability of the renewal process. Below are descriptions of the barriers as cited by the respondents. Barriers and facilitators for sustainability are the two sides of the same coin. Overcoming these barriers facilitated sustainability of the project features.

282

1 (7.1)

1 (6.7)

1 (6.7)

1 (6.7)

1 (6.7)

We now decide our school improvement goals based on student and school data

We now engage in discussions among the principal, teachers, and other stakeholders to decide how to improve our school.

Our school improvement process is now guided by the goal of improving student achievement.

Our school improvement strategies are now coordinated and aligned with one another.

n (%)

We now decide our school improvement strategies based on student and school data

(1) Not yet Occurring n (%)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

(2) Moderately occurring, but Grant did not help that much n (%)

4 (26.7)

4 (26.7)

3 (20.0)

4 (26.7)

3 (21.4)

(4) Largely occurring, but Grant did not help much n (%)

7 (46.7)

8 (53.3)

9 (60.0)

9 (60.0)

9 (64.3)

(5) Largely occurring & Grant helped us

15

15

15

15

14

N

SD

1.16

1.15

1.16

1.11

1.15

(Table continues on next page)

4.07

4.27

4.27

4.33

4.36

Mean

Table 13.4.  Extent Current School Improvement Processes are Occurring and Whether or Not Participation in the LCL Grant Project Helped

283

1 (6.7)

1 (6.7)

1 (6.7)

1 (6.7)

Our school improvement process now builds upon previous efforts, rather than starting from the scratch each time.

We now have a process in place to ensure that our school improvement work is continuous.

The impetus for improving our school now comes from both our teachers wanting such changes and the external pressure to improve.

We now monitor the progress of our school improvement initiatives and adjust accordingly.

n (%)

(1) Not yet Occurring n (%)

0 (0.0)

2 (13.3)

0 (0.0)

2 (13.3)

(2) Moderately occurring, but Grant did not help that much n (%)

3 (20.0)

2 (13.3)

5 (33.3)

2 (13.3)

(4) Largely occurring, but Grant did not help much n (%)

6 (40.0)

8 (53.3)

6 (40.0)

9 (60.0)

(5) Largely occurring & Grant helped us

Table 13.5.  (Continued)

15

15

15

15

N

3.87

3.93

4.93

4.07

Mean

1.19

1.39

1.13

1.39

SD

284   P. Reeves et al.

District Level Factors Lack of resources played a major role with many of the districts including reductions in both financial and staff support. Lack of financial support prevented some schools from either implementing or sustaining some aspects of the renewal plans as intended in the original renewal matrix completed by the school’s LCL the team. In some cases, respondents indicated the funding was not there to support key staff positions or provide needed supplies and technology to support the renewal plans. As one respondent stated: “Our district did not fund building based decisions using Title I funds. Schools no longer have ability to meet school improvement goals because of district interference.” Another stated: “our district blocked some of our efforts by micromanaging the stipends and not allowing the necessary release time.” Because of district financial issues, staff reductions have become a barrier to sustaining the renewal processes for some respondents. In such cases, reduced staff implies more duties for remaining staff and activities tend towards more immediate school issues rather than focusing on the renewal plans. While many teachers were supportive of the planned projects, the reduced staff was an issue that either distracted from the commitment or the time to fully implement the renewal activities. Staff Commitment Respondents were open about “not all staff are on board.” One of the major reasons for this lack of teacher commitment, according to the respondents, is the lack of district support both financially and philosophically. Districts are facing many other issues such as lack of financial resources, state demands including changes in the tenure law and other district issues. Some respondents reported these district level issues have filtered down to the school level in ways that reduce the passion in many teachers towards the renewal activities. In some cases, other priorities have expanded the number of tasks principals and teachers must address, thus, diminishing commitment to the tasks that are embedded in the renewal plans for the school. As one respondent stated, “the staff continues to attempt to be committed, however the district struggles affect the commitment.” Time Availability Not having sufficient time to work on the renewal activities coincides closely with the first two barriers. Several reasons were provided as causing

Sustaining a Renewal Model for School Improvement   285

this lack of time available to work on the renewal activities. One respondent stated that other school-initiated projects compete with the time and attention needed to further develop and implement the renewal activities. Another offered the following drains on their or their staff ’s time, “changes in the reporting process as mandated by the state; additional compliance requirements that take away from the process of instructional development.” A third respondent suggested, “state and federal mandates get in the way of focusing on teaching and learning.” Another issue discussed as a drain on time and a detractor from attention to the renewal activities was all the required assessments of student achievement. These assessments reduce the amount of instructional time available, increasing teacher stress over simply meeting all the curriculum expectations for the year. With so much of teacher time and attention focused on preparing for assessments, some respondents saw a correlation to reduced energy for and time to address the renewal activities. Leadership and Staff Changes Changes in the teaching staff and building leadership were a common theme. A couple of the respondents reported a new principal to the building lacked the renewal activity knowledge of the previous principal, thus creating a different or competing school improvement or change focus. Because of a change in principal and/or staff, one respondent stated, “it seems as though we are doing some of the same things, but we do not ever talk of the renewal project.” In some districts a lack of leadership was a problem. In at least one district the principal did not implement any of the renewal activity and did not attend the training sessions. Reportedly, the principal was overwhelmed with other basic duties and was unwilling to take on new ones. In summation, most of the respondents reported barriers to the implementation and continuation of the renewal activities. Sustainability of renewal activities and processes were inhibited by lack of time, district level interference or support, competing priorities and demands on time, lack of commitment on the part of staff members, and the change in building principals and teaching staff. Overcoming these barriers was the manifestation of the facilitators for sustainability. The data shows that the majority of the districts have successfully implemented and sustained the renewal activities over all seven domains at meaningful levels.

286   P. Reeves et al.

Additional Findings From Follow-up Interview One respondent was purposely selected, as an exemplar of strong leadership for school renewal, for a follow-up interview to explore in-depth and contextualized insights beyond those captured through the survey/questionnaire data. This principal offered detailed examples of many of the points highlighted in the discussion of results from the survey and openended questions. Her specific examples amplified some of the nuances of high fidelity implementation and sustainability and bring context to the work. The following are some of the highlights from this interview: 1. The principal described the importance of integrating all parts of a school renewal initiative and/or all renewal strategies into a unified whole, that is, into one package. 2. Teachers working in data teams is the form of shared inquiry that this school implemented. The principal stressed the importance of providing the teams with protocols and processes for the work they are expected to accomplishment. 3. Regarding continuity, the principal described the need to revisit, reframe, and retrain staff on the key elements of the renewal activities, stressing that a one-time shot is not sufficient to sustain the change work. She also described the need for a plan to orient and train new staff and integrate them into the work. 4. On the issue of the potential barrier of insufficient time, this principal described how the district supports the work with early student release time to provide blocks of time for teacher teaming and collaborative inquiry processes that support the renewal activities. When asked about integrating work in each of the seven dimensions to achieve an aligned, systemic plan, the principal described how renewal activities in two areas—data-informed processes and safe and orderly environment—became the focal point for strategies in all the other areas, thus, creating a systemic process to support each of the two primary initiatives. Implications of the Findings The findings from this follow-up study of sustainability for school renewal activities and the renewal process developed within the LCL project align in various ways to the conclusions discussed in the review of the literature. To examine that alignment, we will look at the findings in light of each of the six conditions for sustaining school change distilled from the literature.

Sustaining a Renewal Model for School Improvement   287

The Principal’s Role The data suggests that, for the majority of the schools responding to the follow-up study, the principal continues to be involved with both the implementation of the renewal activities developed through the LCL project and the use of renewal processes learned through the LCL project. Responses indicate the strongest areas of continuation by principals might be datainformed processes and collaborative inquiry processes. It also appears that principals have been able to overcome, to some extent, the negative influences of competing priorities, staff and leadership turnover, and reductions to financial and time resources (Klingner, Arguelles, Hughes, & Vaughn 2001). The interview with the selected principal provided an illustration of the principal’s role in sustaining school renewal through the way she expressed her commitment to the renewal activities and process, and emphasized her conviction about the importance of that work. To illustrate, she offered, “If it is important, that is where we sustain our support through time and resources.” Unified, Coherent, and Aligned School Renewal (i.e., a Systems Approach) The renewal matrix completed by each LCL project school team fosters alignment, coherence, and an overall systems approach. The data collected on the level of continuation for renewal activities in each of the seven dimensions was pretty even across all seven dimensions, suggesting that the renewal plan was holding together to some extent as a unified whole. Additionally, the data on implementation of the renewal processes was quite strong for the survey items which indicate how well the renewal activities are aligned, coordinated and build upon previous efforts. This suggests that the respondents feel that they have been able to establish and maintain some level of an aligned and systemic approach to school renewal. As illustrated by the interviewed principal, many of the participating schools selected one or two renewal activities to drive the overall renewal process of the school, with strategies in each of the seven dimensions to support those priority initiatives. Highly Developed and Responsive Data-Informed Inquiry Processes While the data collected in this follow-up study does not address the developmental level of the school’s data-informed and inquiry processes,

288   P. Reeves et al.

they do show that this area is among the strongest of the seven dimensions of renewal activities sustained and the strongest of the renewal processes sustained. Of concern, however, is the potential for the school’s data-informed inquiry processes to result in identifying and sustaining high-yield school renewal activities in the future given the reported constraints of time and resources and competing priorities. The interviewed principal also demonstrated how high quality inquiry processes require shared routines and protocols to guide the teams in achieving high impact results with their work. Among her examples, she included several instances of identifying benchmarks for progress and using data from those benchmarks for progress monitoring, continued learning, and brainstorming alternatives to achieve desired results—a characteristic of high reliability schools (Eck et al., 2011). Engaging Teachers’ Tacit Knowledge to Achieve Improved Student Results The data suggest that the leaders and teachers in the responding schools have a firmly established focus on improved student results. The respondents were not asked directly to comment on the development of teacher leaders, but the strong responses to shared decision-making, collaborative processes, and data-informed inquiry processes suggest, also, the ingredients are present in the school’s work to continue developing the capacity for teachers to engage with and contribute to the school renewal activities (Fullan, 2005). The one detractor from this optimistic picture was the data that suggests teachers are finding it difficult to engage fully in renewal activities due to competing priorities and demands on their time and energies. Leadership Focus and Clarity About Priorities The data did not directly reveal how respondents (15 of whom are principals) are maintaining their leadership focus and clarity about priorities. However, the high percentages of respondents reporting continuation of the renewal activities and renewal processes they developed through the LCL project would suggest that, despite distractions, these leaders are managing to stay focused on the work (Fixsen et al., 2005). At the same time, the data revealed that maintaining this focus is a challenge due to limitations in resources to support the work, competing state and district level priorities, and competing demands on time. On this issue, the interviewed principal was most emphatic, stating leaders must find ways to

Sustaining a Renewal Model for School Improvement   289

support the renewal activities through their own time investments and resources. Her words and tone asserted to do otherwise is unacceptable. Developing High-Yield, Collaborative Teaming Processes While the data suggests that the responding participants in the LCL project have been able to continue collaborative teaming processes, especially in the area of data-informed inquiry processes (Eck et al., 2011), there was mixed evidence of support at a district level for this work. In fact, with the strong level of concern expressed by the respondents about barriers relating to resources, it might be difficult for some of the schools to sustain the collaborative inquiry processes into the future. The interviewed principal reinforced the development of effective teams and team processes as an essential part of her work, however, and did not seem to accept the idea that she is without influence on the system or without options even when the system is not fully supportive. Final Lessons Learned As the first cohort of participants completed active involvement in the LCL project and shared their full matrix of renewal work in progress with the faculty team and the other members of their cohort, it was evident that they were: (a) demonstrating enthusiasm for the process of renewal; (b) appreciating and applying the knowledge and ideas gained from the project faculty, from their own school team, and from the other school teams; (c) applying many of the concepts developed around the seven dimensions of school leadership through the project; (d) making the renewal activities their own and fitting it to their unique school contexts; and (e) using the renewal matrix to create coherence, alignment, and systemic responses to school needs. The question was how much of this would be sustained even half a year out from completing the program. Answering this question was the focus of the follow-up study. When examining the results of this study through the lens of the six conditions for sustaining school change distilled from the literature for this chapter, there are some distinct lessons or conclusions we can offer. First, turnover in leadership at the school and district level is unavoidable. There are many forces that lead to a rate of turnover that is less than optimal for sustaining school renewal and change, so schools can benefit from a deliberate effort to cultivate and develop leadership. We believe one of the most impactful characteristics of the LCL project is that it targets the development of leadership capacity, not only for the principal, but for

290   P. Reeves et al.

teacher leaders who might aspire to the principalship and other teacher leaders as well. In addition, the LCL project forms leadership teams for school renewal and then places those teams in direct collaboration with teams from other schools, thus developing the purveyors (Fixsen et al., 2005) of school renewal and building coalitions for change (Fullan, 2005). Another strategy applied in the LCL project is providing school leadership teams an organizing tool for both conducting an in-depth inquiry process into current school conditions and outcomes and developing a coherent, aligned, and systems focused renewal plan. We call the tool the Renewal Matrix (featured in Table 13.2) because it fosters interdependent understandings of the school conditions that impact student success. Many of the teams participating in Cohort A of the LCL project started out using the Renewal Matrix simply as an organizing device for the team of four from their school. From there, however, the tool became a communication device for engaging the whole school and enlisting commitment and involvement from other staff. The tool also became a monitoring device for tracking implementation and identifying mid-course changes. The use of the renewal matrix may have impact the strong reported levels of sustained implementation for strategies in each of the seven dimensions, as well as for principals and their teams developing a more systemic and unified sense of school renewal processes. The follow-up study reaffirmed the importance of principals focusing attention, directing resources, developing capacity, and monitoring results. The study also brought to light some of the many challenges that principals face as they attempt to implement and sustain renewal activities that will result in improved student results. Many of those challenges can be attributed to forces beyond a principal’s control (e.g., finances, competing district and state priorities, constraints on time), but this study also affirmed the influence of the principal on school level factors that influence sustainability. This is especially true in the area of capacity building through leadership cultivation and development, shared decision-making, collaborative inquiry processes, and data-informed decision-making processes. The data from this follow-up study suggest that effort invested in these areas can increase the odds of high fidelity implementation and sustainability, and, to some extent, and counter the detracting influence of barriers imposed by forces outside the control and influence of school level leadership. Perhaps the most compelling lesson to be learned comes from the principal selected for the in-depth interview as part of this follow-up study. When asked her advice on how to implement and sustain meaningful and impactful school renewal activities, her response was simple but profound: “Keep focus; give it time; give it resources; continue learning about it; and let it evolve as we learn.”

Sustaining a Renewal Model for School Improvement   291

References Borman, G. D., Rachuba, L., Datnow, A., Alberg, M., MacIver, M., Stringfield, S., & Ross, S. (2000). Four models of school improvement: Successes and challenges in reforming low-performing, high-poverty Title I schools. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University and University of Memphis: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Breiter, A., & Light, D. (2006). Data for school improvement: Factors for designing effective information systems to support decision-making in schools. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 206-217. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311–329. Retrieved from http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/1164355 Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Journal of Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 375–395. Retreived from http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737025004375 Dunaway, D. M., Bird, J. J., Wang, C., & Hancock, D. (2013). Superintendents’ perceptions of the school improvement planning process in the Southeastern USA.  Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–14. doi:10.1177/1741143213502186 Eck, J., Bellamy, T., Stringfield, S., Schaffer, E., & Reynolds, D. (2011). Towards highly reliable high quality public schooling. In, J. Eck (Ed.), Noteworthy Perspectives: High Reliability Organizations in Education (pp. 6–23). Denver, CO: McREL. Fixsen, D., Naoom, S., Blasé, K., Friedman, R., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Network (FMHI Publication #231). Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin Press. Goodlad, J. I. (Ed.). (1987). The ecology of school renewal. The 86th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study for Education (Part I). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodlad, J. I. (2010). How to help our schools. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/john-goodlad/goodlad-howto-help-our-school.html Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 3–41. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X05277975 Harris, A. (2000). What works in school improvement? Lessons from the field and future directions. Educational Research, 42, 1-11. Retrieved from http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/001318800363872

292   P. Reeves et al. Hirsch, C. R., & Reys, B. J. (2009). Mathematics curriculum: A vehicle for school improvement. ZDM, 41, 749-761. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11858-009-0218-0 Klein, E. J. (2008). Learning, unlearning, and relearning: Lessons from one school’s approach to creating and sustaining learning communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 79–97. Retrieved from eric.gov/fulltext/EJ810659.pdf Klingner, J. K., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Vaughn, S. (2001). Examining the school wide “spread” of research-based practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 221–234. McDonald, S. K., Keesler, V. A., Kauffman, N. J., & Schneider, B. (2006). Scaling-up exemplary interventions. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 15–24. Retrieved from http:dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035003015 McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. (2000). Asking the right questions: A leader’s guide to systems thinking about school improvement. Aurora, CO: Author. Murakami, E., & Orr, M. (2012). International successful school principal project: Cases of improvement and sustainability in north American schools. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(3), 3–6. Retrieved from http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1555458912447795 Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 297–321. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/016523737023004297 Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can we improve school discipline?. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48-58. Retrieved from http:// dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357618 Scribner, J. P., Cockrell, K. S., Cockrell, D. H., & Valentine, J. W. (1999). Creating professional communities in schools through organizational learning: An evaluation of a school improvement process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 130-160. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00131619921968491 Shen, J., & Cooley, V. E. (2012). Learning-centered leadership development program for practicing and aspiring principals. In K. L. Sanzo, S. Myran, & A. H. Nomoore (Eds.), Successful school leadership preparation and development: Lessons learned from US DoE school leadership program grants (pp. 113–135). London, England: Emerald Group. Shen, J. (Ed.) (2012). Tools for improving principals’ work. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Sindelar, P. T., Shearer, D. K., Yendol-Hoppey, D., & Liebert, T. W. (2006). The sustainability of inclusive school reform. Exceptional Children, 72, 317–331. Suiter, D. (2009). Sustaining change: The struggle to maintain identity at Central Park East Secondary School. Horace, 25(2), 11. Retrieved from eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/EJ868301.pdf

About the Authors Darra Belle currently serves as a testing specialist in Virginia Beach City public schools. In addition, she serves as an adjunct professor within the Educational Foundations and Leadership Department at Old Dominion University. Having served in both public and higher education over the past 10 years, she understands the necessity of building great leadership capacity. She lives by the quote “Before you are a leader, success is all about growing yourself. When you become a leader, success is all about growing others.”—Jack Welch R. Scott Blackshire is the agency trainer for Cognitive CoachingSM at The University of Texas at Austin. He also serves as project director for the UT Collaborative Urban Leadership Project (UTCULP) and the Fund for Improving Post Secondary Education (FIPSE) U.S. Department of Education SLP grants. In addition to his work in the UT College of Education, Blackshire is pursuing a PhD in fine arts (anticipated May 2015). His dissertation “First-Year Fine Arts Majors—What Are They Thinking?” engages undergraduate fine arts majors at The University of Texas at Austin to consider their education outcomes and career expectations. Allison M. Borden is associate professor of educational leadership at the University of New Mexico. During the 25 years prior to her work in higher education, she served as a K–12 teacher and principal in the United States and Honduras. She has consulted on education reform projects in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Paraguay. Her research agenda focuses



293

294  About the Authors

on leadership preparation and professional development for principals in the United States and Latin America. David F. Bower, EdD, is a faculty member in the Educational Leadership Program at the University of New Mexico. His career in education includes positions as an English and drama teacher, middle school principal, and faculty member at three universities. In addition to teaching, David supervises school-based internships for aspiring principals, and assists with coordination of a federally funded APS/UNM partnership for principal preparation. Arnold B. Danzig is professor of educational leadership and policy studies and founding director of the Educational Leadership Doctoral Program at San José State University. He is also professor emeritus at Arizona State University. His research in educational leadership offers humanistic narratives of leadership for schools with deep and practical commitments to individual and community betterment. Tricia Browne-Ferrigno, PhD, is a professor of educational leadership studies at the University of Kentucky. Her long-term research agenda centers on leadership preparation and development—specifically the experiences of program participants, program features and their impact on participant learning, and program evaluation. Her other research interests include school improvement, teacher leadership, professional mentoring and doctoral education. Walter L. Burt is associate professor of educational leadership in the Department of Educational Leadership, Research & Technology at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. His research interest is in the area of educational leadership, with particular emphasis on leadership development of practicing and aspiring administrators in urban school settings. Jennifer Clayton serves as assistant professor of educational leadership at The George Washington University. Dr. Clayton is a lifelong educator holding myriad prior positions in K–12 teaching and leadership, as well as a faculty position at Old Dominion University. Her research interests focus on leadership identification, preparation, and induction. Fran Cowart has a degree in political science from Furman University. She serves as the coordinator of assessment at the Southern Regional Education Board and specializes in survey development, research, evaluation, and project management.

About the Authors   295

Stephen Davis is a professor of educational leadership and director of the Great Leaders for Great Schools Academy at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He has held faculty positions at the Stanford University a Graduate School of Education and at the Gladys Benerd School of Education at the University of the Pacific. Dr. Davis is a former school district superintendent, personnel director, high school principal, high school dean, and high school teacher. His doctorate is in administration and policy analysis from Stanford University. Barbara Driver is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University. Dr. Driver earned her PhD in educational policy, planning, and leadership from The College of William and Mary. She served as a teacher and administrator in New York and Virginia for over 20 years and is currently working with assistant principals to better understand their leadership development needs.  Paula Egelson has worked as a community organizer, classroom teacher, professional developer and director of a school improvement center. Currently she is the director of research at the Southern Regional Education Board in Atlanta. Miriam Fultz is a senior consultant and president of Desertfrost Consulting Group, Inc., a consultancy specializing in postsecondary program evaluation. Currently, Dr. Fultz serves as an external evaluator on several federally-funded grants, including the Great Leaders for Great Schools Academy. Among others, the focus of her consulting engagements include teacher preparation, administrator and faculty professional development, transfer student success, student retention, and campus diversity enhancement. Barbara H. Gideon, EdD, is a learner foremost; she has served as a teacher, principal and district leader for curriculum and instruction. She works with school teams to foster school improvement, serves as a cognitive coach, and is a researcher/writer regarding school improvement. She teaches in the principal preparation programs at The University of Texas at Austin and Texas State University. She presents on cultivating a culture of learning for both adults and children and school leadership. She holds a Doctorate in Educational Administration from Texas A&M University. Mark A. Gooden, PhD, serves as an associate professor in the Educational Administration Department at the University of Texas at Austin. He is also Director of The University of Texas at Austin Principalship Program (UTAPP). His research interests include the principalship, antiracist lead-

296  About the Authors

ership, urban educational leadership and legal issues in education. His research has appeared in Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, Education and Urban Society, The Journal of Negro Education, Educational Administration Quarterly, The Sage Handbook of African-American Education and The Principal’s Legal Handbook. Dottie L. Hall is a clinical assistant professor in the Principalship Program in the Department of Educational Administration at The University of Texas at Austin. She has also served in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction working with pre-service teachers. Dr. Hall’s research has focused on ethical campus leadership and what is required of a campus administrator to be an effective leader of teachers and staff, students, parents, and the community. Before joining the faculty, she was a classroom teacher and administrator in the Austin Independent School District and served as principal at three AISD campuses. She has also served on the adjunct faculty of Texas State University and St. Edwards University and was an AISD mentor principal. Irma Harper is an associate vice chancellor in the Office of Academic Affairs at The Texas A&M University System in College Station. Dr. Harper’s responsibilities include, grant acquisitions, distance education and educational initiatives. She has worked closely with the U.S. Department of Education and the Texas Education Agency in bringing electronic mentoring support for teachers, administrators and teacher candidates. Gary Kiltz currently serves as assistant superintendent for curriculum and learning in the School District of Menomonee Falls in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. He has worked as a building or district administrator for 17 years in both Wisconsin and Arizona. Gary received his PhD from Arizona State University where he also served as coordinator of the LearnerCentered Leadership program. Antonia Issa Lahera currently works as an assistant professor at CSU Dominguez Hills in the School Leadership Program. During her nearly 30 years in the field she has worked in urban settings as a teacher, staff developer and site principal. She has worked in highly innovative settings as the leader of a reconstituted school and also a school ending the social promotion of students to high school. Dr. Issa Lahera received her doctorate from the University of Southern California in 2003 in urban leadership. Robert Leneway is an associate professor and the program coordinator for the Educational Technology Program at Western Michigan University. He is a recognized Adobe Educational Leader and co-moderator of the In-

About the Authors   297

ternational Forum for the use of Acrobat in education. He also is the chief administrator for EditU, a national online learning support center for students with disabilities, In 2005 was he was named Outstanding Technology Using Educator of Year by the Michigan Association of Computer Users in Technology (MACUL). Current research interests include technology to enhance school leadership. Anthony H. Normore holds a PhD from University of Toronto. He is currently a professor of educational leadership and chair of special needs at California State University Dominguez Hills. His research focusses on the preparation, growth, and development of urban school leaders in the context of ethics and social justice. Dr. Normore serves as the book series editor of Advances in Educational Administration with Emerald Group Publishing. Dennis McCrumb, EdD, served 21 years as a K–12 school administrator including 16 as superintendent. Currently, Dr. McCrumb is a faculty specialist II at Western Michigan University with a specialty area in school finance. Sharon Olguin is the director of the Alliance for Leading and Learning Program in the Albuquerque Public Schools, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Ms. Olguin has been an educator for 34 years. She graduated from the University of New Mexico with a bachelor of arts degree in early childhood education and a master’s of arts degree in education administration. She served as a faculty member at the University of New Mexico as the director of a teacher licensure with masters degree program for postbaccalaureate students. Following her work in adult education, she served as an elementary school principal. Currently, she provides mentoring support and professional development to the districts new principals and assistant principals. In addition, she is a member of the associate superintendents leadership team and designs professional development for all district principals. Louann Bierlein Palmer is a professor of educational leadership at Western Michigan University, and the program coordinator for their doctoral program. Her research focuses on educational reform and social policy issues, and she spent nearly two decades working with state and national policy leaders prior to entering academia. Linda M. Paul, EdD, is the founding executive director of the NM School Leadership Institute. She has served as a teacher, principal and superintendent in diverse communities in the southwest.

298  About the Authors

J. Mark Rainey, EdD, is currently a grant administrator for Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators. He was the former executive director for the Kalamazoo Regional Educational Service Agency Leadership Institute. He served as an elementary school principal and as a central office administrator in the Saginaw City School District, Saginaw, Michigan. He was listed in the 1995 edition of Who’s Who in American Education. He received the 1991 AECT Richard B. Lewis Memorial Award for the Outstanding K–12 Media and Instructional Technology Center, and the 1974 Outstanding Secondary Educator of America Award. Patricia Reeves is a former K–12 teacher and school leader with 20 years of central office and superintendent experience. She currently serves as associate professor of educational leadership and research at Western Michigan University, specializing in leadership development, performance, and credentialing and qualitative research methods. Kerry Robinson is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee. Prior to her move to UTK, she was the research director for Project ALL at Virginia Commonwealth University. Karen L. Sanzo is associate professor and program coordinator for PK–12 educational leadership, in the Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership at Old Dominion University. She is the director of the School Leadership Preparation and Development Network. Her research focuses on leadership preparation and development, university-district partnerships, and the use of data for school improvement. Jianping Shen is the John E. Sandberg professor of education and currently the Gwen Frostic Endowed Chair in Research and Innovation, in the Department of Educational Leadership, Research and Technology, Western Michigan University. He publishes widely in the area of educational leadership, policy analysis, and research methods. Charol Shakeshaft is professor of educational leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research focuses on leadership preparation, gender and race issues in schools and leadership, and student safety.  Michele Skinner is the coordinator of education initiatives in the Office of Academic Affairs at the Texas A&M University System in College Station. Mrs. Skinner has worked on a school leadership grant through the Department of Education for the past 5 years. She works on projects in-

About the Authors   299

cluding teacher preparation and educational leadership. Her background is in K–12 education as a teacher and administrator. John Uhn graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology with a bachelor’s and master’s degree of science in public policy. He has been a researcher at Southern Regional Education Board for 8 years; his quantitative research focuses on various components of career-technical education. Ms. Wilkerson, MEd, has a master’s degree in educational leadership from Virginia Commonwealth University. She has over 10 years of project management experience, including 5 years as project manager for Project ALL, a $5 million USDOE School Leadership Program grant. Arlie Woodrum is associate professor of educational leadership at the University of New Mexico. He is an organizational sociologist whose research explores the experience of racial and cultural minorities in social service organizations.