Citation
How highly effective professional development school principals utilize research-based leadership practices to lead the school-university partnership

Material Information

Title:
How highly effective professional development school principals utilize research-based leadership practices to lead the school-university partnership
Creator:
Field, Susan Stephenson
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiv, 161 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Laboratory schools ( lcsh )
Educational leadership ( lcsh )
School principals ( lcsh )
Education -- Research ( lcsh )
Education -- Research ( fast )
Educational leadership ( fast )
Laboratory schools ( fast )
School principals ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 155-160).
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Susan Stephenson Field.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
260332389 ( OCLC )
ocn260332389
Classification:
LD1193.E3 2008d F53 ( lcc )

Full Text

/
HOW HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL
PRINCIPALS UTILIZE RESEARCH-BASED LEADERSHIP
PRACTICES TO LEAD THE SCHOOL-UNIVERSITY
PARTNERSHIP
by
Susan Stephenson Field
B.A., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia, 1989
M.A., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia, 1994
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Education
2008
' i Ail


by Susan Stephenson Field
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Susan Stephenson Field
has been approved
Ann Foster
Carol Wilson


Field, Susan Stephenson (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
How Highly Effective Professional Development School Principals Utilize Research-
Based Leadership Practices to Lead the School-University Partnership
Thesis directed by Professor Carole G. Basile
ABSTRACT
Highly effective Professional Development School (PDS) principals were
interviewed to determine how they utilize research-based leadership practices to lead
the school-university partnership. The five researched-based leadership practices are
positively correlated to student achievement and include: shared vision, shared
leadership, high expectations, professional development, and instructional leader.
The five leadership practices were selected based on their alignment with the National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education PDS Standards and the four functions
of a PDS: preparation of pre-service teachers, professional development, inquiry, and
student learning. Highly effective PDS principals were identified and rated by
university and school liaisons. Principals in the study are from four different school-
university partnerships in the United States and elementary, middle, and high school
are all represented. The findings illustrate how PDS principals actualize the
leadership practices and what the school district and university could do to strengthen
the partnership. Recommendations include a need for well-defined systems to


support and operate the PDS and the need to provide rich staff development
opportunities for PDS principals.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I recommend
it for publication.
Signed
Parole G. Basile


DEDICATION
My dissertation is dedicated to my wonderful, supportive family, and my
husband, Rich, who patiently allowed me to spend weekends away writing and
offered unwavering support and encouragement during my 4 years in the program.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My advisor, Dr. Carole Basile, has been there for me every step of the way
through the EDLI program. Thank you for your friendship, support, and guidance.
My committee members, Dr. Ann Foster, Dr. Stevie Townsend, and Dr. Carol
Wilson, thank you for encouraging me through this journey.
Thank you to my dear friend and EDLI colleague, Cindy Gutierrez, who spent
countless weekends away with me writing and rewriting. You are a big part of my
success, and you are next.
My parents, Steve and Sally Stephenson, have always believed in me and have
supported my quest to complete the Ph.D.




TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures..........................................................xiii
Tables...........................................................xiv
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION....................................................1
Problem Statement............................................1
Background/Significance of the Study.........................3
Conceptual Framework.........................................6
Research Question............................................8
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................................9
School Leadership............................................9
Conceptual Framework.....................................9
Shared vision........................................10
Shared leadership....................................15
High expectations for student learning...............17
Professional development.............................18
Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment.21
Professional Development Schools............................22
The Historical Context of Professional Development Schools.......23
vii


School reform
23
Progressive roots........................................24
Teacher education........................................24
Teacher quality..........................................25
Equity...................................................25
The Four Functions of Professional Development Schools......26
Teacher preparation......................................27
Professional development.................................29
Student learning.........................................31
Inquiry..................................................33
Standards for PDSs..........................................35
Background...............................................35
Development..............................................35
Important outcomes.......................................36
Standard I: Learning Community...........................36
Standard II: Accountability and Quality Assurance........37
Standard III: Collaboration..............................37
Standard IV: Diversity and Equity........................38
Standard V: Structures, Resources, and Roles.............38
The PDS Model for This Research.............................39
viii


Principal Leadership in the Professional Development School...39
3. METHODOLOGY.......................................................46
Design of the Study...........................................46
Interview Protocol.........................................46
Sampling Procedures...........................................47
Rating of Principals.......................................47
Data from the Rating of Principals.........................49
Selection of Principals for Study..........................49
Principal Demographics.....................................51
Principal Interviews.......................................51
Data Collection...............................................51
Ethical Issues.............................................51
Data Analysis.................................................53
Coding of Interview Transcripts............................53
Verification Process.......................................54
Reliability................................................54
Check Coding...............................................54
Researcher Bias...............................................55
Contexts for PDS Principals...................................56
4. RESULTS...........................................................59
IX


Research Question.................................................59
Findings in the Five Research-Based Practices.....................59
Shared Vision..................................................68
Shared Leadership..............................................74
High Expectations for Student Learning.........................84
Professional Development.......................................89
Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and
Assessment/Instructional Leadership.......................94
Unexpected Results...............................................101
Principals Sought Out Universities to Partner.................101
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Has Limited How
Schools and Universities Renew Curriculum................103
PDS Principals are Relationship-Oriented Leaders..............104
PDS Principals are Exemplary at Creating Teacher Leaders.....106
PDS Principals Successfully Leverage Resources from
the University...........................................108
PDS Principals Need to Collect Data on PDS Initiatives.......110
Tensions for PDS Principals......................................112
Shared Vision................................................112
Shared Leadership.............................................113
Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment.........114
Professional Development......................................114
x


Summary of Findings
115
5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY.........................117
Discussion of Findings in the Five Research-Based
Leadership Practices..................................123
Shared Vision.........................................123
High Expectations for Student Learning................125
Professional Development..............................126
Shared Leadership.....................................129
Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and
Assessment/Instructional Leader...................131
Why PDS Principals are Essential to the Success of a PDS.133
Findings/Implications for Unexpected Results.............134
Limitations of the Study.................................136
Recommendations for Future Study.........................136
APPENDIX
A. PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL............................139
B. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF PDS PRINCIPAL
INTERVIEWS...............................................142
C. CONTACT INFORMATION MATRIX.................................144
D. INFORMED CONSENT...........................................149
E. DOCUMENT SUMMARY FORM......................................151
xi


F. CONTACT SUMMARY SHEET......................153
REFERENCES.........................................155
xn


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.1. Conceptual framework...................................................7
xm


LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1 Researched-Based Practices............................................11
2.2 Research-Based Practices, Four Functions of a PDS, and NCATE Standards.... 40
3.1 Criteria Scores of PDS Principals.....................................50
3.2 Demographics of PDS Principals Interviewed............................51
4.1 Conceptually Clustered Matrix for Research-Based Practices in the PDS.60
4.2 Evidence of Research-Based Practices in Artifacts.....................75
5.1 Implications/Recommendation Matrix for the Five Research-Based
Practices.........................................................118
xiv


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement
Public schools today are operating in a highly politicized context with
improvement of school achievement as a focus by policymakers, politicians, and the
general public and multiple efforts at school reform continue constantly. School
principals are working in an era of high stakes testing and increased accountability
from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, school boards, and the communities they
serve.
In a review of principal leadership literature and research, a common thread
throughout indicates school principals are critically important to school success and
they have a profound impact on student achievement (Cotton, 2003; Marzano,
McNulty, & Waters, 2005). The current research also identifies specific
responsibilities and practices for school principals that effect student outcomes
(Marzano et al., 2005).
In an era of school choice, is the expectation that principals have the
knowledge and expertise to lead specialized schools, such as International
Baccalaureate, Expeditionary, Magnet, or charter schools. As more school districts
and universities understand the need to partner as P-20 systems, the Professional
1


Development School (PDS) model has taken on an identity of its own. PDSs are real
schools, often in challenging settings, which have been redesigned and restructured to
support their complex mission. PDSs support professional and student learning
through the use of an inquiry-oriented approach to teaching (National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2001). PDSs have been around almost 20 years
and are linchpins in the movement to restructure education (Darling-Hammond,
1994) and as evolutionary responses to reform reports, such as A Nation At Risk of
the early 1980s (Klaumeier, 1990). Many PDSs got their start through the support of
corporations such as Exxon and Ford, so in a sense the PDS movement can be seen as
rooted in this sub-area of school reform (Teitel, 2003). An indicator of growth and
sustainability is the onset of the new PDS professional association that was
established in 2005 and has over 1,000 active participants.
Research about the leadership role of the principal in the PDS is virtually non-
existent. In fact, in a very recent randomized review of 200 pieces of PDS literature
conducted by Rick Breault (2006), only one piece had a focus on principals in PDSs.
The current literature on principal leadership attributes certain responsibilities or
practices to student achievement. What is unknown is how a PDS principal
approaches leadership with a school-university partnership and how the effect of
responsibilities and practice are actualized in a PDS.
2


Background/Significance of the Study
Professional Development Schools (PDS) are innovative types of school-
university partnerships designed to bring about the simultaneous renewal of schools
and teacher education programsrestructuring schools for improved student learning
and revitalizing the preparation and professional development of experienced
educators at the same time (Teitel, 1999). PDSs are fully functioning schools that,
through the partnership, provide a place for school and university faculty to
collaborate to focus on the following four functions: (a) improve K-12 student
learning, (b) prepare preservice teachers, (c) provide ongoing professional
development for practicing educators, and (d) engage in critical inquiry to support
and further the other three functions (Clark, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1994;
Goodlad, 1988; Holmes Group, 1986; Teitel, 2003).
PDSs support the learning of prospective and beginning teachers by creating
settings in which novices enter professional practice by working with expert
practitioners, enabling veteran teachers to renew their own professional
development and assume new roles as mentors, university adjuncts, and
teacher leaders. (Darling-Hammond, 1994, p. 1)
The principals in your PDS need to build community, nurture leadership in a
variety of areas, and support and negotiate the change process (Teitel, 2003, p. 70).
To date, little attention has been paid to the kind of leaders needed to build
Professional Development Schools, or to the nature of effective leadership for
collaborative, restructuring environments. Participants and theorists have paid
too little attention to the role in PDS development of those in formal
organizational leadership positions: deans, school principals, superintendents,
3


union leaders, and other school-based leaders. (Trachtman & Levine, 1997, p.
76).
The literature on principal leadership shows they are crucial to the successful
implementation of change, to building collaborative cultures, to establishing vision,
goals, and high expectations, and creating productive community relationships
(Fullan 2002; Leithwood; 2004, Marzano et al., 2005, Reeves, 2002). The literature
about professional development schools says little about the principals role or the
impact those partnerships may have on their roles (Bowen & Adkison, 1996).
Teitel (2004) discussed that a key aspect of the PDSs is the impact they have
on experienced educators, including classroom teachers, university faculty and
administrators from both institutions. He went on to say that Administrators at both
institutions are, theoretically, gaining professional development, although the fact that
much less is written about them mirrors the lower priority this has in many PDSs (p.
18). Teitel concluded the little evaluation research has been done in this category
(changes in roles) has focused on experienced teachers (more often at the school than
the college, with even less attention paid to administrators at either place) (p. 18).
The researcher has only identified two studies that involve school principals of PDSs.
A 1999 study by Stroble and Luka explored the impact of a PDS on the
professional lives of school-based administrators and university-based administrators.
Through their email survey, the authors found that administrators had, increasing
demands on their time as a result of the PDS partnership and the commitment of time
4


and resources to PDS has been at times significant (p. 130). The authors also noted
that administrators style may not change, but in many cases the scope of leadership
has (p. 131). Based on responses from the survey, the authors present 14 additional
questions for further research, two pertain to this study: (a) What could PDS
administrators learn from each other about how to manage time and resources?, and
(b) Are different skills required to accomplish all of the PDS purposes?
Bowen and Adkison (1996) completed a case study on 7 principals in
professional development schools during the 1994-1995 school year. Their interview
questions were focused on principals perceptions of their roles and responsibilities in
the PDS, and their understanding of the PDS mission, their interactions with
university staff, problems and concerns surrounding the PDS, and changes in their
schools. The authors found that developers of PDSs do not always consider the role
of the principal, yet principals are crucial to successful change. This study suggested
that supports for principals, such as job descriptions, orientation, and staff
development, could increase the likelihood that the PDS will be institutionalized in
their schools.
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
developed standards for PDSs in 2001. NCATE recognized that PDS partnerships
have the potential power to support continuous improvement in both schools and
universities. PDS standards are intended to bring rigor to the concept of PDSs so that
5


its potential will not be lost (NCATE, 2001). In a review of the standards, nine
elements across the five standards reveal implications for principal leadership and
shared leadership within the PDS. In addition, the NCATE standards and elements
are closely aligned to the current leadership research on principal responsibilities and
practices that are positively correlated to student achievement. For example, in
Standard I: Learning Community, mechanisms are in place for PDS partners to
share results and new knowledge with others in the extended learning community (p.
17). Also in Standard I, there is a process for reviewing and revising the shared
vision as the knowledge base of the PDS partnership changes (p. 18). Because both
the public school and the university are standards driven, the PDS standards serve as
a roadmap to support PDS partnerships as they develop.
Conceptual Framework
Decades of research have consistently found positive relationships between
principal behavior and student academic achievement (Cotton, 2003). Research
validates the conclusion that leading a school requires a complex array of skills
(Marzano et al., 2005). The breadth and depth of knowledge needed if leaders are to
make significant contributions to student learning is vast. Principals need to know
where their efforts will have the biggest payoff and they also need a substantial
repertoire of practices or skills to draw on in order to exercise such influence
(Leithwood, 2004).
6


The conceptual framework (Figure 1.1) is developed around five of the
research-based responsibilities or practices of the school leader that positively impact
student achievement. The five practices were selected based on the criteria of
alignment with the four functions of a PDS and alignment with NCATE PDS
standards.
Figure 1.1. Conceptual framework.
The research-based practices are derived from the work of Kathleen Cotton,
Principals and Student Achievement: What the Research Says (2003), Kenneth
Leithwood, Educational Leadership: A Review of the Research (2004), Kenneth
7


Leithwood, Karen Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Wahlstrom, How Leadership
Influences Student Learning (2004), and Robert Marzano, Brian McNulty, and Tim
Waters, Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of Research Tells Us about the Effect
of Leadership on Student Achievement (2003).
Research Question
How do highly effective PDS principals utilize research-based leadership
practices to lead the school-university partnership?
8


CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
School Leadership
Conceptual Framework
Decades of research have consistently found positive relationships between
principal behavior and student academic achievement (Cotton, 2003). Research
validates the conclusion that leading a school requires a complex array of skills
(Marzano et ah, 2005). The breadth and depth of knowledge needed if leaders are to
make significant contributions to student learning is vast. Principals need to know
where their efforts will have the biggest payoff and they also need a substantial
repertoire of practices or skills to draw on in order to exercise such influence
(Leithwood, 2004).
The conceptual framework for this research project was developed from 5 out
of approximately 25 research-based responsibilities or practices, identified by Cotton,
Leithwood, and Marzano, of the school leader that positively impact student
achievement. The five practices are selected based on the criteria of alignment with
the four functions of a PDS and alignment with the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) PDS standards. The conceptual
framework places the PDS principal in the center of the framework with knowledge
9


about how to utilize research-based practices of: shared vision/mission, shared
leadership or distributed leadership, high expectations for student learning,
developing people and professional development, and instructional leadership and
knowledge of curriculum and instruction.
The research-based practices are derived from the work of Cotton, (2003),
Leithwood (2004), Leithwood et al., (2004) and Marzano et al. (2003). Table 2.1
illustrates these researchers constructs and how they overlap in the five key areas
identified in the conceptual framework.
Shared vision. Researchers agree that a shared vision is essential for high
performing schools (Cotton, 2003; Leithwood, 2004; Leithwood et al., 2004;
Marzano et al., 2003). Marzano et al. (2003) described shared vision as
... focus that refers to the extent to which the leader establishes clear goals
and keeps those goals in the forefront of the schools attention. This is done
effectively when the principal safeguards against expending vast amounts of
energy and resources on school improvement initiatives that go nowhere, (p.
50)
Gullatt and Lofton (1996) believed a sense of mission is necessary for all
organizations, but is especially important for schools. Because schools are
institutionalized, it is often assumed that their purpose is known and understood.
However, without a clearly stated mission, a school does not achieve what it should.
Principals must reach out to stakeholders to help shape and support the
schools goals (Cotton, 2003). They engage teachers, parents, students and others to
10


Study and author Shared vision Shared leadership
Cotton, K., (2003), Vision and goals Shared leadership,
Principals and focused on high staff empower-
Student Achievement: levels of student ment, and decision
What the Research Says learning. making.
Leithwood, K., Setting Redesigning the
(2004), Educational Directions: Organization:
Leadership: What Identifying and Creating
the Research Says articulating a collaborative
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K., (Date), How Leadership Influences Student Learning: Executive Summmary vision. cultures.
High expectations for student learning Professional development Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment
High expectations Professional The importance of
for student development instructional
learning. opportunities and resources. leadership.
Setting Directions: Developing Developing
Creating high People: People: Leader
performance Intellectual must have
expectations. stimulation. knowledge of the technical core of learning or instructional leadership.
Table 2.1
Researched-Based Practices


Study and author Shared vision Shared leadership High expectations for student learning Professional development Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment
Marzano, R., Focus: Input: Involves Monitoring & Resources: Knowledge/
McNulty, B., & Establishes clear teachers in the Evaluating: Provides Involvement of
Waters, T., (2003), goals and keeps design and Monitors the teachers with Curriculum,
Balanced Leadership: those goals in implementation of effectiveness of materials and Instruction, and
What 30 Years of the forefront of important decisions school practices professional Assessment:
Research Tells Us About the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement the schools attention. and policies. and their impact on student learning. Focus: Estab- lishes clear goals. Optimizer: Inspires and leads new and challenging innovations. development necessary for the successful execution of their jobs. Is directly involved in the design and implementation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Table 2.1
Continued


share in creating the vision. They encourage them to join efforts to make that vision a
reality (Mendez-Morse, 1991). Leithwood et al. (2004) believed setting directions in
a school account for the largest proportion of a leaders impact. This is aimed at
helping ones colleagues develop shared understandings about the organization and
its activities and goals that under gird a sense of purpose or vision (Hallinger & Heck,
2002). It is the principals responsibility to ensure that goals are widely known and
supported throughout the school community, the school has a clear academic mission
and the mission is communicated to the staff (Hallinger, 2003).
In Leithwoods (2004) review of educational research, he found creating a
shared vision and the importance it places on schools can be traced back to goal-
based theories of human motivation (Bandura, 1986; Ford, 1992; Locke, Latham, &
Erez, 1988).
According to the theory, people are motivated by goals, which they find
personally compelling, as well as challenging, but achievable. Having goals
helps people make sense of their work (Thayer, 1998; Weick, 1995) and
enables them to find a sense of identity for themselves within their work
context (Pittman, 1998). (Leithwood, 2004, p. 12)
Findings of a study of site-based, shared decision making in 24 schools found
that the mission helped coordinate and focus the energies of staff during staff
development, discussions of reform, and planning (Peterson, Gok, & Warren, 1995,
p. 3). They also found in successful schools,
Principals and other school leaders talked enthusiastically and engagingly
about what the school stands for in language that all stakeholders could
13



understand. Staff and administrators regularly talked about the core beliefs
and values of the school to staff and parents and leaders were able to tell
people what they stand for. (p. 3)
In a case study of secondary principals, Bartell (1990) noted, goals grow out of
community interests, meaning that parents are involved in the school and the
principal must listen and respond to their concerns (p. 125). In creating a shared
vision,
It is the principals task to listen and respond to all these inputs and to
establish clearly defined goals that lead to a real vision of what the school can
be and become. The principal must then keep this vision before everyone,
conveying what needs to be communicated to all who have a stake in the
betterment of the school. (Bartell, 1990, p. 125).
In Johnson and Aseras (1999) study of nine high performing, high poverty urban
elementary schools, strategies were identified to improve student academic
achievement and shared vision was one. School leaders identified and pursued an
important, visible, yet attainable first goal. They focused on the attainment of this
first goal, achieved success, and then used their success to move toward more
ambitious goals (p. viii).
Specific behaviors and characteristics associated with shared vision and
identified in Marzanos et al. (2003) meta analysis are: (a) establishing concrete
goals for curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices within the school, (b)
establishing concrete goals for the general functioning of the school, (c) establishing
14


high, concrete goals, and expectations that all students will meet them, and (d)
continually keeping attention on established goals.
Shared leadership. The most successful principals engage their staffs and
constituents in participative decision-making. They ensure everyone involved has the
information and training needed to make this process productive (Cotton, 2003).
Participative management arises out of the heart and out of a personal philosophy
about people.
Everyone has the right and duty to influence decision-making and to
understand the results. Participative management guarantees that decisions
will not be arbitrary, secret, or closed to questioning. Participative
management is not democratic. Having a say differs from having a vote.
(DePree, 1987, p. 24)
Marzano et al. (2003) described shared leadership as input which refers to the
extent which the school leader involves teachers in the design and implementation of
important decisions and policies. It is associated with transformational leadership,
Total Quality Management, and instructional leadership. Leithwood et al. (2004)
suggested that empowering others to make significant decisions is key for leaders
when accountability mechanisms include giving greater voice to community
stakeholders. It is helpful for some leadership functions to be performed at every
level of the organization, stimulating people to think differently about their work.
The notion of shared leadership or distributive leadership has long been in
educational research literature. At its root, the concept of distributed leadership is
15


quite simpleinitiatives or practices used to influence members of the organization
are exercised by more than a single person (Leithwood, 2004). Based on its
theoretical underpinnings, Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2001) framed
distributed leadership as that which involves the identification, acquisition, allocation,
coordination, and use of the social, material, and cultural resources necessary to
establish the conditions for the possibility of teaching and learning. It is the glue of
a common task or goal. Multiple sources of guidance and direction, following the
contours of expertise in an organization, made coherent through a common culture
(Elmore, 2000).
In School Leadership That Works by Marzano et al. (2003), Silins, Mulford,
and Zarins (2002) claimed a schools effectiveness is proportional to the extent to
which teachers participate in all aspects of the schools functioning, including school
policy decisions and review, share a coherent sense of direction, and acknowledge the
wider school community (p. 618). Silins et al. further explained the extent to which
the principal works toward whole-staff consensus in establishing school priorities and
communicates these priorities and goals to students and staff, giving a sense of
overall purpose (p. 620).
Specific behaviors and characteristics associated with shared leadership, as
identified by Marzano et al. (2003) include: (a) providing opportunities for staff to be
16


involved in developing school policies, (b) providing opportunities for staff input on
all important decisions, and (c) using leadership teams in decision making.
High expectations for student learning. The principals expression of high
expectations for students is part of the vision that guides high-achieving schools and
is a critical component in its own right (Cotton, 2003). Optimism, identified by
Marzano et al. (2003) refers to the extent to which the leader inspires others and is the
driving force when implementing a challenging innovation. People are motivated by
goals, which they find personally compelling, as well as challenging but achievable
(Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). High achieving schools are successful in part because
the principals communicate to everyone in the school their expectations of high
performance (Cotton). The leader establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the
forefront of the schools attention (Marzano et al., 2003).
In a research study commissioned in the United Kingdom, Day, Harris, and
Hadfield (2001) set out to identify and examine existing theories of effective
leadership aligned to the practice of successful principals in times of change. Day et
al. determined,
Good leaders are ruthless in their establishment of high expectations, aware of
the need to think strategically so that they can position their school to be one
step ahead of emerging changes and, on occasion, willing to take risks to do
so. High expectations and determination to achieve the highest possible
standards almost always meant that these principals were pushing themselves
and their staff to the limit. Previous practices were rarely good enough, (p.
46)
17


Butler (1997), a principal that turned a low achieving, predominately minority
school where over 30% of students were on free and reduced lunch to a high
achieving school, believed that an aggressive, tightly focused approach to the single
goal of increasing student achievement was the key to the schools success. High
expectations were established for all learners, and Butler believed, there is nothing
that will improve a students self esteem better than academic success (p. 3).
Bartells 1990 study on secondary principals revealed high achieving schools
have clearly established goals. She went on to say,
Everyone works together to achieve these goals. There is frequent monitoring
and feedback to help keep everyone on task, involved, and informed. The
school is dynamic and changing, constantly striving to do better. High but
reasonable expectations are set for all students, (p. 126)
Marzano et al. (2003), identified specific behaviors and characteristics
associated with high expectations (focus) (a) establishing concrete goals for
curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices within the school, (b) establishing
concrete goals for the general functioning of the school, (c) establishing high,
concrete goals, and expectations that all students will meet them, and (d) continually
keeping attention on established goals.
Professional development. Heavy investments in highly targeted professional
development for teachers and principals in the fundamentals of strong classroom
instruction are critical to the success of a school (Elmore, 2000). Principals of high-
achieving schools offer more, and more varied professional development activities
18


than those in lower achieving schools. They are creative in securing the resources--
financial, human, time, materials, and facilities the school needs to improve (Cotton,
2003). Leaders set the direction of the professional development agenda (Reeves,
2006). Reeves (2006) suggested that schools focus on a few things:
What to teach, how to teach it, how to meet the needs of individual students,
and how to build internal capacity. With an emphasis on internal capacity, the
leadership of professional development efforts comes from the faculty itself,
and a large part of professional education takes place in the classroom in the
context of authentic teaching, (p. 86)
Johnson and Asera (1999) found in their urban school study that school
leaders created opportunities for teachers to work, plan, and learn together around
instructional issues. Time was structured to ensure that collaboration around
instructional issues became an important part of the school day and the school week.
In their synthesis of school effectiveness research, Teddlie and Reynolds (2000),
recommended
... a close synchronization of school developmental priorities with the site
based developmental activities, and the generation of a staff culture which
involves mutual learning, monitoring, and commitment to collaboration are all
likely to be important, (p. 150)
In the meta-analyses completed by Marzano et al. (2003), the responsibility of
resources refers to the extent to which the leader provides teachers with materials and
professional development necessary for the successful execution of their duties.
Specific behaviors associated with this responsibility include: (a) ensuring that
teachers have the necessary materials and equipment and (b) ensuring that teachers
19


have the necessary staff development opportunities to directly enhance their teaching.
Successful educational leaders develop their districts and schools as effective
organizations that support and sustain the performance of administrators, teachers,
and students (Leithwood, 2004).
Resources are to a complex organization what food is to the body (Marzano et
al., 2003). Deering, Dilts, and Russell (2003) identified nine principles of leadership
for organizations. Freeing up resources is identified as essential for leaders to be
successful. They (leaders) need to create organizations fluid enough to respond
quickly to new circumstances. This involves the alignment of several levels of
resources necessary to analyze, plan, and take action in response to opportunities and
threats that the future brings.
The principal should foster a learning community where individuals are
responsible for their own intellectual growth (Collins, 2000). A learning community
talks with colleagues about the act of teaching, spends time observing each other, and
reflects individually and as a group. Staff members work collaboratively on projects
and collectively solve issues they perceive as barriers to student achievement. As a
school grows into a true professional learning community, a climate of collegiality
and support enables all educators to build optimal learning experiences (Nunnelley,
Whaley, Mull, & Hott, 2003). Organizational learning is more likely to occur in
schools where staff are looking out for opportunities to increase knowledge and
20


improve skills and are provided with sufficient resources and time to develop
professionally (Silins, Mulford, & Zarins, 2002).
Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. A key difference
between highly effective and less effective principals is that the former are actively
involved in the curricular and instructional life of their schools (Cotton, 2003).
Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment addresses the extent to which
the leader is aware of best practices in these domains (Marzano et al., 2003). In
Leithwood (2004), it is believed a leader must have knowledge of the technical core
of schooling or what is required to improve the quality of teaching and learning
often invoked by the term instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2003; Sheppard,
1996).
Instructional leadership means different things for superintendents and
principals, and takes different forms in different districts (National Institute on
Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking, & Management, 1999). In the
synthesis of a policy forum sponsored by the National Institute on Educational
Governance, Finance, Policymaking, & Management that included superintendents,
principals, teachers, policymakers, and politicians, most participants agreed that the
number one characteristic of an effective leader is the ability to provide instructional
leadership. This means that leaders will provide teachers with informed feedback,
guidance, support, and professional development that will help them do their jobs
21


better. Elmore (2002) believed instructional leaders need to know and model the
knowledge and skills needed to improve schools. This includes knowledge about
performance, knowledge about development in content areas, knowledge about the
improvement of instruction.
In Bartells (1990) case study on secondary principals instructional
leadership experience, principals understood instructional leadership to mean
knowing about teaching and learning. We are teachers first. When principals
were asked where they would like additional education or training, they most often
indicated it would be in the areas of supervision, curriculum, or instructional
methodologies.
Professional Development Schools
Professional development schools are innovative institutions formed through
partnerships between professional education programs and P-12 schools. They have a
fourfold mission: the preparation of new teachers, faculty development, inquiry
directed at the improvement of practice, and enhanced student achievement. Some
believe that PDSs are potentially the most powerful innovation in teacher education.
(Levine, 2004, xiii).
22


The Historical Context of Professional Development Schools
In Teitels (2003) Professional Development Schools Handbook, the author
outlined the historical context for PDSs. The outline that follows is adapted from
Teitels (2003) work.
School reform. During the mid 1980s, a wave of school reform reports called
for dramatic improvements in the preparation of teachers as a foundation for other
school reforms (Darling-Hammond, 1994). The Holmes Groups (1990)
recommendation for PDSs recognized that efforts to reform teacher education must
also be accompanied by efforts to make schools better places for teachers to work
and to learn (p. 4). In A Place Called School, Goodlad (1984), recommended the
creation of key schools where schools should be linked to universities and to one
another in a communicating, collaborating network. The PDS movement can be seen
as growing out of several other strands of collaboration, reform, and renewal (Teitel,
2003).
Public schools and universities have worked together in the past. Laboratory
schools and curriculum reform of the 1960s brought the two institutions together.
The PDS, however, departs from the past in two directions. First, the PDS is
an effort to invent an institutional coalition that will bring all the required
forces togetheruniversities, schools of education, and public schools. And
second, it promises to work on the problems of teaching over the long haul.
(The Holmes Group, 1990, p. 2)
23


Progressive roots. PDSs have utilized the teaching hospital model, shaped by
Abraham Flexner, as the primary design. Flexner was influenced by John Deweys
progressive philosophy. The importance of teaching and learning in clinical settings
and the importance of the relationship between research and practice derive from
Deweys conception of the role of knowledge, experience, and practice in the
development of the thinking individual (Levine, 1992). The principles at the heart
of the progressive movement, an abiding commitment to universal education and a
profound faith in the average classroom teacher (Cremin, 1961, p. 299) are
embedded in todays efforts to restructure schools (Levine, 1992). The context in
which we are to implement them is different however. Darling-Hammond (1994)
believed
In the bureaucratic view of teaching that has evolved since the late 19th
century, the key to educational improvement is the correct definition of
procedures for teachers to follow rather than the development of teachers
capacities to make complex judgments based on deep understandings of
students and subjects, (p. 5)
Teacher education. For teacher education, PDSs provide an opportunity to
create a venue for literal praxis, the development of teaching skill and practice in
context. PDSs bridge the gap between the abstract and the authentic in the
preparation and development of teachers and other educators (Teitel, 2003). PDSs
have also grown in response to states alternative licensure movements (Dixon &
Ishler, 1992), which are a result of the publics lack of confidence in teacher
24


preparation programs (Frazier, 1994). PDSs represent a proactive response that
teacher preparation programs can take to avoid a reactive response to increased
regulation from legislatures (Williams, as cited in Teitel, 2003).
Teacher quality. The report of the National Commission on Teaching and
Americas Future (NCTAF, 1996) makes a compelling case (Teitel, 2003). NCTAF
proposed within a decade, by the year 2006, we will provide every student in
America with what should be his or her educational birthright: access to competent,
caring, qualified teaching in schools organized for success (p. 1). The goal goes on
to say, American students are entitled to teachers who know their subjects,
understand their students and what they need, and have developed the skills required
to make learning come alive (p. 3).
NCTAFs goals were lofty, and the Commission realized there were a number
of barriers to achieve their goal. The Commission did offer five major recommen-
dations to address the barriers and reach their goal: (a) get serious about standards,
for both students and teachers, (b) reinvent teacher preparation and professional
development, (c) fix teacher recruitment and put qualified teachers in every
classroom, (d) encourage and reward teacher knowledge and skill, and (e) create
schools that organized for student and teacher success.
Equity. The Holmes Groups Tomorrows Schools (1990) and the vision
statement of the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching
25


(NCREST, 1993) called for a commitment to use PDSs to increase equity in United
States society. Murrell (1998) argued that without the involvement of parents and
community members, the PDS model could actually make matters worse by
strengthening the connection between school and university partners to the exclusion
of others (Teitel, 2003, p. 5).
Professional development schools are places for responsible, enduring
innovation in education. And they are not simply places for restructuring schools
fixing them so we get them right this time. Rather, they are places of ongoing
invention and discovery; places where school and university faculty together carry on
the applied study and demonstration of the good practice and policy the profession
needs to improve learning for young students and prospective educators (Lanier-
Taack, 1993, foreword).
The Four Functions of Professional Development Schools
The National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER), the Holmes
Partnership, the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching
(NCREST); and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE) agree that professional development schools must accomplish four basic
goals.
Although the wording used by each organization varies, they concur that such
schools provide a clinical setting for preservice education, engage in
professional development for practitioners, promote and conduct inquiry that
advances the knowledge of schooling, and provide an exemplary education for
26


a segment of P-12 students (preschool through twelfth grade; Clark, 1999, p.
9).
Teacher preparation. A primary function of a PDS is the preparation of new
teachers. Underlying this function is a definition of learning that embraces the notion
that there are many different ways of knowing and that learning is essentially an
active process (Levine, 1992). A school built on these assumptions defines roles, for
both students and teachers, different from those in traditional schools (Levine, 1992).
The preparation of new teachers in a PDS looks much different than the traditional
model of the cooperating teacher imparting all their wisdom to the student teacher. In
Partner Schools: Centers for Educational Renewal by Osguthorpe, Harris, Harris,
and Black (1995) an early literacy intervention program example is shared to
illustrate how teacher preparation looks in a PDS.
A summer school classroom for inner-city first graders that consists of 30
children from the lowest 5% of their regular classes has two teachers, two preservice
teachers, and one high school honors student who is interested in education. The
intensive literacy instruction is based on a Reading Recovery program. If an observer
were to walk into this classroom they would observe the most experienced teacher
writing a story on large paper with one group of students. One teacher is working
with three boys who are silently reading different books. The boys take turns reading
aloud to the teacher, and he makes written notes about their performances. Another
teacher is helping three children compose and write sentences in their journals. A
27


third teacher is reading to a group of about ten students from a big book. A teenager
helps a small group of students read and recite nursery rhymes. The senior teacher,
who designed the program, serves in a double leadership role, as the leader of the
teachers and also as an adjunct university faculty member in charge of guiding the
preservice teachers through their participation. A university professor has adapted a
group of language arts, reading, and teaching skills courses into the program so that
the participating high school student and teachers can receive university credit
(Osguthorpe et al., 1995).
When schools colleges work in partnership, programs like early literacy
intervention are succeeding in bringing together the innovative professional
knowledge of the university, the grass-roots experience of public school
personnel, and the energy and enthusiasm of preservice teachers and
prospective future education students in order to meet the needs of children in
the community. Preservice teachers then benefit from the strengths of all
these participating groups, including their peers. The integrated classroom
experience prepares them realistically for the best classroom situations that the
profession has to offer, while they are supported by the continual availability
of mentors from both the school and universitymentors who enhance rather
than struggle against each others efforts. (Osguthorpe et al., p. 52-53)
To support student learning, the professional practice school (PDS) must be
structured in a way that supports professional teaching practice (Levine, 1992).
Indicators or characteristics of such a commitment include the following, but are not
limited to: (a) collegially developed and agreed-upon standards of professional
practice, (b) a shared decision-making process, (c) collegiality as a norm, supported
by providing time and flexibility in scheduling to encourage frequent and ongoing
28


communication, observation, and feedback among members, (e) joint planning and
peer teaching among faculty members, (e) support for creating linkages to university
faculty, (f) support for continuous examination of practice, (g) support of choice by
providing the opportunity for individuals to choose to participate, and (h) access to
materials and journals to support continuous improvement of practice (Levine, 1992).
Professional development. In PDSs, veteran teachers find themselves learning
more about both the theory and practice of teaching as they teach novices. As
classroom teachers become teacher educators, they find their own knowledge base
deepening and their teaching becoming more thoughtful (Darling-Hammond, 1994).
The philosophical roots of teacher professional development in the PDS are the twin
beliefs that teachers are the key to educational renewal and that continuous inquiry
into practice is the key to successful teacher development and growth (Teitel, 2003).
For school-based faculty, professional development follows from a great expansion of
roles, a stretching in new teaching methods, and a broader conceptualization of the
role and definition of teachers (Teitel, 2003).
Darling-Hammond (1994) illustrated an exemplary example of professional
development collaboration within a PDS. It is summarized as follows.
An intermediate PDS school in New York City, in partnership with Columbia
Universitys Teacher College, engaged in a unique program called the January
Experience. Directly involved were over 300 students, 17 school faculty and 1 intern,
29


3 school administrators, 14 student teachers, and 1 college faculty member. The
college people were at the school, all day, every day, for the duration of the project.
The student teachers were grouped into four teams in which each member represented
a different disciplineEnglish, science, math, and social studies. Each of these teams
was placed with, and combined with, a team of teachers from the intermediate school.
The four teacher teams were asked simply to invent, enact, and reflect on an inter-
disciplinary unit of study for their students during month of January. The design
features are the combination of interdisciplinary curriculum, multidisciplinary
teaming, in-class team teaching with cooperating and student teachers, and a change
from old modes of assessment as work on interdisciplinary projects span several class
periods. One of the teams chose the Bridges of New York theme. Several key
experiences for students included: building bridges, taking field trips to bridges, role
playing mock hearings about whether or not to build the Brooklyn Bridge and
investigating the map of Manhattan and discovering why bridges were built they way
they were.
In the end, cooperating teachers felt that they owned their programs and felt
comfortable including student teachers in all phases of planning and implementing
and entrusting them with as much responsibility as was feasible. Both groups felt
secure in taking the kinds of professional risks so essential to this kind of innovative
program. The faculty at Columbia Universitys Teachers College felt confident that
30


they were allied with capable school professionals who shared the basic philosophy of
fulfilling the educational needs of students. Finally, student teachers were involved in
an empowering experience. They were working side-by-side as full, albeit novice,
participants to invent, enact, and reflect on child-centered instruction.
Student learning. School failure is not acceptable. Student learning must be
renewed and renewal is the fundamental concern of professional development schools
(Howick, Kimball, LaRosa, & Swap, 1995). The purpose of professional
development schools is to promote student learning (Teitel, 2003). The basic
assumptions that underlie the professional practice school have to do with a vision of
learning, a view of professional teaching, and the responsibilities of public education.
The primary goal of schools is to support student academic and social learning
(Levine, 1992). The unifying goal of a PDS is developing and transmitting
knowledge in ways that lead to practice that is both responsible, i.e., based on
profession-wide knowledge, and responsive, i.e., sensitive to the needs and concerns
of individual students (Darling-Hammond, 1994). Merging these two bases for
professional practice requires the perspectives and wisdom of both partners.
Levine (1992) identified characteristics that PDSs must embellish in order to
promote student learning: (a) a shared vision of learning among faculty,
administration, school board, parents, and students, (b) flexibility in organization of
instruction to permit teachers to get to know students well, (c) accountability
31


measures that are appropriate to the goals for student learning, (d) clearly articulated
and high standards, (e) management focused on achievement results rather than
delivery of programs and, (f) problem-solving and consultation activities that focus
on the students collective and individual needs. Given the wide gap in achievement
among students of differing racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds in the United
States, PDSs have a special interest in promoting the learning of all students and
reducing the achievement gap (Teitel, 2003).
An exemplary example of student learning in a PDS can be found in
classroom teaching teams. Kimball, Swap, LaRosa, and Howick (1995), in Partner
Schools: Centers for Educational Renewal, described the direct impact of interns and
experienced teachers working and learning together. In this particular example an
intern and 25 year veteran high school science teacher work together to implement
learning models the intern has studied in the required university courses. Kimball et
al. explained
Dan and Bills joint work on integrating learning theory and models into the
classroom created positive learning environment for the students. Their
integrative work was exemplified in their use of cooperative learning,
specifically the expert jigsaw model, (p. 29)
Bill and Dan also reconsidered the ways in which the students were assessed.
They opted for tests that enabled students to demonstrate higher-level thinking and
writing skills which, in enabled them to plan instructionally. Bill and Dan also
worked with students in small groups and gave more individual attention to each
32


student. Their team teaching affected both Dans and Bills thinking about teaching
and learning. Ultimately, their relationship is an example of how the varied ideas,
perspectives, and contributions of the members of a team can positively influence
their students learning environment (Kimball et al., 1995, p. 30).
Inquiry. Central to the notion of the PDS is the concept of inquiry as part of
professional development and as part of the definition of teaching (Teitel, 2003).
They allow school and university educators to engage jointly in research and
rethinking of practice, thus creating an opportunity for the profession to expand its
knowledge base by putting research into practiceand practice into research (Darling-
Hammond, 1994). The concept of the school as a center of inquiry for both students
and teachers is central to the professional development school. Students are engaged
in active learning; teachers are engaged in inquiry-base practice (Levine, 1992).
Professional development schools participate jointly in all parts of inquiry:
asking the questions, formulating the design, implementing the process, analyzing the
data, and disseminating the results (Hunkins, Wiseman, & Williams, 1995). In
Hunkins et al., the authors traced the roots of inquiry in PDSs is in the tradition of the
inquiry advocated by Keislar (1980), Schon (1983), and Senge (1990). Schon
described inquiry as a reflective practice where the teacher is researcher. He
described practice as beginning with a knowledge base but then becoming an active
process involving inquiry, creativity, analysis, and evaluation.
33


Inquiry is driven by an organizations need to examine its goals and purposes;
to decide on programs, curricula, and instructional practices that will advance
its ability to realize its examined goals and purposes; and to evaluate whether
or not it has been successful in achieving its goals. (Hunkins et al., 1995, p.
105)
The Holmes Group (1990) recommended that PDSs agree on a common
agenda of inquiry not just capitalizing on the existing specialized knowledge of
individual university and school faculty. All stakeholders involved in the PDS will
grow and expand if people see the PDS as places where they can work at the outer
edges of their existing knowledge, develop new capacities, and work with others on a
variety of new and interesting problems.
Clark (1999) illustrated an example of inquiry in practice at a middle school
on the west coast. The educators from the school and faculty from the university did
research that indicated that 40% of the schools students did not have a significant
adult with whom they had a close relationship. Information was used to build
strategies to personalize their students schooling. Preservice teachers along with
practicing educators were assigned to student teams, thereby enriching the adult-
student ratio. Preservice teachers also were worked into extracurricular activities of
the school and perform service-learning projects, which also help establish direct
adult-student linkages.
The NCATE Standard that is aligned with the function of inquiry is The
Learning Community Standard. It is the heart of the professional development
34


school. The standard represents the improved approaches to teaching, learning, and
leadership that make professional development schools important innovations in
schooling and teacher preparation (Teitel, 2003). During NCATEs 6 year standards
development, standards were field tested for a 3 year period and through self studies
and team visitations inquiry was the most important work of a PDS. It was
determined that inquiry is also the most overlooked part of the PDS mission (Levine,
2004).
Standards for PDSs
Background. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE) recognized that PDS partnerships have the potential power to support
continuous improvement in both schools and universities (NCATE, 2001, p. 2).
PDS standards are intended to bring rigor to the concept of PDSs, so that its
potential will not be lost. The standards are meant to support PDS
partnerships as they develop and for developing leadership with partnership
itself. The standards are designed to be used as an assessment process and
provide feedback to PDS partners about their work. Policy makers at the
national, state, and local levels who want to create incentives and supports for
PDSs may also use the standards, which provide guidance about what is of
most importance in these partnerships. Finally, the standards provide a
critical framework for conducting and evaluating research that addresses the
question of what outcomes are associated with PDS partnerships. (NCATE,
2001, p. 2)
Development. Between 1995 and 2001, NCATE worked with hundreds of
practitioners and teacher educators to design and field-test standards for PDSs. Draft
standards were developed and piloted for 3 years by 16 diverse PDS partnerships The
35


goal was to create standards that would strengthen and support PDSs, as well as be
used to assess their progress (Levine, 2001, p. xiii).
Important outcomes. A consensus emerged among educators about the
definition and mission of a PDS. During the field test, knowledge was refined and
revised of how PDSs function to achieve their mission and how PDS work blends the
skills and knowledge of all partners and simultaneously supports professional and
student learning. Self studies and visiting team assessments uncovered the central
role of student achievement in the PDS and the important role of inquiry. The PDS
standards have been broadly accepted in the community and endorsed by NCATE.
The standards are utilized by both institutions and states to measure PDS partnership
initiatives (Levine, 2003).
Standard I: Learning Community. The PDS is a learning-centered
community that supports the integrated learning and development of P-12 students,
candidates, and PDS partners through inquiry-based practice, PDS partners share a
common vision of teaching and learning grounded in research and practitioner
knowledge. They believe adults and children learn best in the context of practice.
Learning supported by this community results in change and improvement in
individual practice and in the policies and practices of the partnering institutions.
The PDS partnership includes principal and supporting institutions and
individuals. The principal PDS partners are members of the P-12 schools and
36


professional preparation programs who agree to collaborate. The supporting PDS
partner institutions include the university, the school district, and the teacher union or
professional education association (s). Arts and sciences faculty, other interested
school and university faculty, family members, community members, and other
affiliated schools are important PDS participants in the extended learning community
(NCATE, 2001).
Standard II: Accountability and Quality Assurance. PDS partners are
accountable to themselves and to the public for upholding professional standards for
teaching and learning. They define clear criteria at the institutional and individual
levels for participation. PDS partners collaboratively develop assessments, collect
information, and use results to systematically examine their practices and establish
outcome goals for all P-12 students, candidates, faculty, and other professionals. The
PDS partnership demonstrates impact the local, state, and national level on policies
and practices affecting its work (NCATE, 2001).
Standard III: Collaboration. PDS partners and partner institutions
systematically move from independent and interdependent practice by committing
themselves and committing to each other to engage in joint work focused on
implementing the PDS mission. They collaboratively design roles and structures to
support the PDS work and individual and institutional parity. PDS partners use their
shared work to improve outcomes for P-12 students, candidates, faculty, and other
37


professionals. The PDS partnership systematically recognizes and celebrates their
joint work and the contributions of each partner (NCATE, 2001).
Standard IV: Diversity and Equity. PDS partners and candidates develop and
demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions resulting in learning for all P-12
students. PDS partners ensure that the policies and practices of the PDS partner
institutions result in equitable learning outcomes for all PDS participants. PDS
partners include diverse participants and diverse learning communities for PDS work
(NCATE, 2001).
Standard V: Structures, Resources, and Roles. The PDS partnership uses its
authority and resources to articulate its mission and establish governing structures
that support the learning and development of P-12 students, candidates, faculty, and
other professionals. The partner institutions ensure that structures, programs, and
resource decisions support the partnerships mission. They create new roles and
modify existing roles for P-12 students, candidates, faculty, and other professionals,
to achieve the PDS mission. The partnership effectively uses communication for
coordination and linkage with the school district, university, and other constituencies
and to inform the public, policy makers, and professional audiences of its work
(NCATE, 2001).
The NCATE standards do not specifically address the role of the principal, but
address leadership roles in general.
38


The PDS Model for This Research
The primary investigator will conduct research in schools that utilize the four
functions of a PDS as outlined in the NCATE PDS Standards and the early work of
the NNER, The Holmes Group, NCREST, AFT, and NEA. The four functions
include: inquiry, preservice education, professional development, and student
learning.
Principal Leadership in the Professional Development School
The purpose of this study was to explore and detail the complex leadership
demands on PDS principals. This study looked at what it takes to be a PDS principal
in terms of what PDS principals actually do to lead the school-university partnership.
The conceptual framework was selected from the current research on principal
leadership and aligned with the four functions of a PDS and the NCATE standards
(Table 2.2).
In the school leadership literature, creating a shared vision and mission is
essential for a high performing school (Cotton, 2003). A principal must lead staff in
establishing clear goals and keeping those goals in the forefront of the schools
attention (Marzano et al., 2003). PDSs have distinct characteristics. They are a
learning environment that supports candidate and faculty development within the
context of meeting all childrens needs. PDS partners, according to NCATE
standards, are guided by a common vision of teaching and learning, which is
39


Preparation of new teachers Professional development Inquiry Student learning
Shared Vision Defines roles for students and teachers, different from traditional schools (Levine, 1992) PDS partners share a common vision of teaching and learning grounded in research and practitioner knowledge (NCATE standard 1) Support for continuous examination of practice (Levine, 1992) PDS agree on a common agenda of inquiry (Holmes Group, 1990) Collegially developed and agreed upon standards of professional practice (Levine, 1992)
Shared Leadership o PDS partners take active roles as teachers and learners in each others partnering institutions; candidates assume appropriate responsibilities in schools (NCATE) Partners must use resources differently blending, reallocating, restructuring, and integrating their funds, time, personnel, and knowledge (NCATE standards) PDSs allow school and university educators to engage jointly in research and rethinking practice (Darling- Hammond, 1994) Shared decision-making process (Levine, 1992)
High Expectations Field experiences and clinical practice in the PDS provide candidates with opportunities for full immersion in the learning community (NCATE standard 1). Veteran teachers are learning about both the theory and practice of teaching as they teach novices (Darling- Hammond, 1994) The notion of school as center of inquiry for both students and teachers is central to PDS (Levine, 1992) Student learning must be renewed and renewal is the fundamental concern of PDS (Howick, et al, 1995) Through the process of asking and answering questions, partners examine whether and how much the PDS increases learning for all (NCATE standard 2).
Table 2.2
Research-Based Practices, Four Functions of a PDS, and NCATE Standards


Preparation of new teachers Professional development Inquiry Student learning
Professional University faculty share Stretching in new Continuous inquiry into PDS partners use their
Development their expertise, skills, and knowledge to support school improvement through direct and active participation in the PDS (NCATE standard 1). teaching methods and broader conceptualization of role and definition of teachers (Teitel, 2003) In response to the needs demonstrated by P-12 students, PDS partners collaboratively design staff development initiatives and undertake improvement-oriented inquires (NCATE standard 3) practice (Teitel, 2003) shared work to improve outcomes for P-12 students, candidates, faculty, and others (NCATE standard 3)
Knowledge A definition of learning Inquiry as reflective Practice that is both
of in the PDS that practice where the responsible and
Curriculum, embraces the notion teacher is researcher responsive to student
Instruction, that there are many (Schon, 1983). needs (Darling-
and Assessment different ways of knowing and that learning is an active process (Levine, 1992 Inquiry-based practice in the PDS sits at the intersection of professional education reform and school improvement (NCATE standard 1). Hammond, 1994).
Table 2.2
Continued


grounded in research and practitioner knowledge (NCATE Standards, 2001, p. 1).
Therefore, creating a vision in a PDS should involve many stakeholders outside the
school setting. Guidelines set forth by the Holmes Group (1990) recommended that
PDSs agree on a common agenda of inquiry and support the notion of continuous
examination of practice (Levine, 1992).
A large and growing volume of research repeatedly finds that, when principals
empower their staffs through sharing leadership and decision-making authority with
them, everyone benefits including students (Cotton, 2003). Leithwood et al. (2004)
shared findings of the power in creating collaborative cultures, which ultimately
impact student learning. In a PDS, partners share responsibility for professionals
and students; they blend their expertise and resources to meet their shared goals
(NCATE, 2001, p. 1). In order to accomplish their goals, PDS partners create new
roles, responsibilities, and structures; they utilize their resources differently. Levine
(1992) believed shared decision-making process is essential, and Darling-Hammond
(1994) wrote about PDSs allowing the school and university to engage jointly in
research and thinking. With this said, the principal of a PDS must be a collaborative
thinker who can empower others around them to make decisions that effect
candidates, faculty, and students. For the purposes of this project, the researcher
sought to determine how the principal of the PDS shares leadership with a university
42


professor, school-based site coordinator, and teacher candidates. How does the
principal intentionally think about the resources of the partnership and manage them?
Researchers have consistently found that high achieving schools (including
poor and minority schools) are successful in part because the principals communicate
to everyone their expectations of high performance (Cotton, 2003). Leadership
involves purposes and direction. Leaders know the ends toward which they are
striving. They pursue goals with clarity and tenacity, and are accountable for their
accomplishments (Leithwood and Riehl, 2003). In a PDS, there are expectations and
demands placed on teachers and others who support the partnership. Candidates are
provided learning opportunities with a full immersion in the learning community
(NCATE, 2001), and veteran teachers are learning about both the theory and practice
of teaching as they teach novices (Darling-Hammond, 1994). The PDS expectation
that the school be a center of inquiry for both students and teachers could place
additional pressure on the teachers and principal. PDS partners hold themselves
accountable, and they are accountable to the public for maintaining high standards for
P-12 students, candidates, faculty, and other professionals (NCATE).
High quality, targeted professional development for teachers and principals in
the fundamentals of strong classroom instruction is essential (Elmore, 2000).
Marzano et al. (2003) believed the principal is responsible for providing teachers with
materials and professional development necessary for the successful execution of
43


their jobs. The research attributes much of a principals success to the professional
development opportunities that they provide their staff members (Cotton, 2003). In
response to the needs demonstrated by P-12 students, PDS partners collaboratively
design staff development initiatives and undertake improvement-oriented inquires
(NCATE Standard 3). University faculty share their expertise, skills, and knowledge
to support school improvement through direct and active participation in the PDS
(NCATE Standard 1).
How does the principal of the PDS orchestrate professional development with
the university and teacher candidates? What new layers or dimensions are there for
the principal to pay attention to and manage?
Since the beginning of research about principals impact on student results,
studies have shown that principals who are knowledgeable about and actively
involved with their schools instructional program have higher-achieving students
(Cotton, 2003). Involvement in curriculum, instruction, and assessment is considered
critical to the concept of instructional leadership (Marzano et al., 2005). Marzano et
al. believed principals must be directly involved in helping teachers design curricular
activities, address assessment issues, and support teachers with instructional issues.
The school-university partnership can enhance the renewal of curriculum through
inquiry. Schon (1983) defined inquiry as reflective practice where the teacher is
researcher. A definition of learning, in the PDS, is one that embraces the notion that
44


there are many different ways of knowing and that learning is an active process
(Levine, 1992). Darling-Hammond (1994) believed practice in a PDS should be
responsible and responsive to student needs.
How does the PDS principal partner with the university and teacher
candidates to renew curriculum and learn about new instructional strategies? What
systems are in place to support curriculum development and engage teachers and
preservice teachers in collegial conversations about instruction?
The four functions of a PDS and the five principal responsibilities chosen in
the conceptual framework are aligned and overlap in many places. What is not
known is how a highly effective PDS principal utilizes the five research-based
practices to lead the PDS. There is a gap in the literature about how a PDS principal
leads with the mission of a PDS and the demands of the school district.
45


CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Design of the Study
Reflection on the literature, from leading researchers on highly effective
school leadership and professional development schools, shaped the conceptual
framework and research question. The conceptual framework was developed around
five of the research-based responsibilities or practices of the school leader that
positively impact student achievement. The five practices were selected based on the
criteria of their alignment with the four functions of a Professional Development
School (PDS) and alignment with the National Council of Accreditation Teacher
Education (NCATE) PDS standards. How do highly effective PDS principals utilize
research-based leadership practices to lead the school-university partnership?
Interview Protocol
A qualitative research design was utilized to address the research question. A
semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix A) was utilized and artifacts and
documents were collected to support the interview data of the 7 principals
interviewed. Krathwohl (1998) defined semi-structured as the questions and order of
presentation that are determined in the interview protocol. Questions have open ends,
and the interviewer records the essence of each response. Krathwohl also believed
46


more structure is appropriate for a preplanned research problem than an emergent
one.
The researcher utilized prior instrumentation to allow for internal validity.
Instrumentation comprises specific methods for collecting data, and they may be
focused on qualitative or quantitatively organized information, and may be loosely to
tightly structured (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Prior instrumentation emphasizes
internal validity and generalizability. Content validity of the interview protocol was
assessed by Dr. Carole Basile, Dr. Connie Fulmer, Dr. Stephanie Townsend, and Dr.
Carol Wilson prior to beginning the interviews. Content validity attempts to answer
the question, to what extent does the content of the test (including specific items or
tasks and their formats) represent the content domain (Goodwin, 2002). The unit of
analysis for this study was the experiences of 7 highly effective PDS principals.
Sampling Procedures
Rating of Principals
Principals for study were selected from a pool of PDS principals that were
highly recommended by directors of teacher education programs from various
universities in the United States. The sampling strategy that was utilized was
snowball or chain, which identifies cases of interest from people who know people
and can identify what cases are information rich (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Criterion sampling was also utilized in selecting PDS principals. Criterion sampling
47


is defined as all cases that meet some criterion; useful for quality assurance (Miles &
Huberman). In this study, the criteria to be identified as highly effective, is derived
from the conceptual framework.
The Executive Director for the National Network for Educational Renewal in
Seattle, Washington, provided contact names and information of universities actively
engaged in the PDS model. Initial contact was made with the directors via email
seeking highly effective principals in their school-university partnerships. The
universities that were contacted included: Brigham Young University, Colorado
State University, Fairmont State University, Harvard University, Montclair State
University, Towson State University, University of Colorado at Denver, University of
Southern Maine, University of Texas at El Paso, and West Virginia University. Upon
receiving principal names from teacher education directors, contact information for
university liaisons and site liaisons was requested to enable the researcher to contact
the liaisons and rate the principals according to the established criteria (Appendix B)
that is aligned with the conceptual framework. A school or university liaison, or both
in many cases, rated principals on a scale of 1-10, one being the principal never
exhibits this behavior to 10 being the principal consistently and successfully exhibits
this behavior. A contact information matrix (Appendix C) was utilized to collect
liaisons contact information, the principals contact information, and the criteria
48


score. The researcher utilized a criteria-scoring sheet for each liaison contacted and
recorded additional notes and recommendations.
Data from the Rating of Principals
Directors of teacher education programs, university liaisons, and school
personnel from thirteen school-university partnerships were contacted. Twenty three
highly effective PDS principals were identified and rated using the criteria (Table
3.1).
Selection of Principals for Study
Initially, a random purposeful sample was utilized to select PDS principals for
the study. The subjects were selected for the interview pool by high criteria scores of
86 or better. The principals that were interviewed had scores of 101,100, 95, 93, 93,
86, and 86 respectively. Four of the 7 principals were elementary school principals, 1
was a middle school principal, 1 was a K-8 principal, and 1 was a high school
principal. The principals were contacted by phone to participate in the study. Ten
principals were contacted, and 7 participated fully in the study. The researcher had
considerable difficulty contacting high school PDS principals to participate in the
study. As a result, a convenience sample was utilized to obtain a high school PDS
principal. Upon agreeing to participate in the study, principals were emailed the
informed consent (Appendix D) document to read, sign, and return. All informed
consent forms, with signatures, were returned to the researcher.
49


Table 3.1
Criteria Scores of PDS Principals
Principal School level Criteria score (out of 100)
A Elementary 101
B Elementary 100
C Elementary 93
D Elementary 95
E K-8 86
F Middle 93
G High school 86
H High school 95
I Elementary 99
H Elementary 79
K High school 62
L Elementary 90
M Elementary 77
N Middle 77
0 Elementary 82
P Elementary 75
Q Elementary 93
R Elementary 87
S High school 88
T Elementary 88
U Elementary 79
V High school 88
w Elementary 88
50


Principal Demographics
Table 3.2
Demographics of PDS Principals Interviewed
Principal Level School size Title I FRL% Years as PDS principal Total years as principal
A Elem 750 Yes 86% 9 10
B Elem 800 Yes 85% 5 5
C Elem 629 Yes 5 5
D Elem 422 Yes 9 18
E K-8 400 No 65% 2 3
F Middle 1,156 No 8% 4 11
G High 2,340 Yes 80% 3 29
Principal Interviews
The interviews took place between February 2007 and September 2007. Two
of the interviews were completed in the principals office, and 5 were completed via
telephone.
Data Collection
Ethical Issues
In order to provide a confidential research environment, the following
procedures were used, as approved by the Universitys Human Subject Review
Committee. Pseudonyms were used for the principals and key informants.
51


A semi-structured interview protocol was utilized to interview 7 PDS
principals. Interview questions were structured from the conceptual framework,
which identified five research-based leadership practices that are aligned with the
four functions of a PDS and the NCATE PDS Standards.
All interviews were tape recorded and subsequently transcribed by an on-line
transcription service. During the interviews, the researcher requested school
improvement plans and mission/vision statements from each principal. Six of the 7
principals submitted school improvement plans and the schools mission/vision
statement and a document summary form (Appendix E) was utilized for clarification
and summarizing. After each interview, a contact summary sheet was completed. A
contact summary is a single sheet (Appendix F) with focusing and/or summarizing
questions about a particular field contact. It captures thoughtful impressions and
reflections and pulls together the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In this instance,
the researcher briefly reflected on the interview by responding to the following
questions: (a) what were the main issues that struck you in this contact, (b)
summarize the information you got (or failed to get) on each of the five research-
based practices of: shared vision, shared leadership, high expectations, professional
development, and curriculum and instruction renewal, (c) anything else that struck
you as salient, interesting, illuminating, or important in this contact, and (d) what new
(or remaining) target questions do you have in considering the text contact with this
52


site. The use of the contact summary sheet enabled the researcher to reorient herself
to the contact when returning to the data analysis over a span of eight months.
The digital recordings of the interviews were electronically sent to an on-line
transcription service that transcribed the data and emailed it back to the researcher as
a Word document.
Data Analysis
Coding of Interview Transcripts
While coding, the researcher utilized voice data and the written transcripts.
Coding was completed by hand and deductive coding was utilized as the researcher
coded transcripts with the five research-based strategies in mind. Inductive coding
was also utilized after the initial coding and yielded additional themes and findings.
A partially ordered display was utilized to organize the data and themes within
the five research-based practices of highly effective principals. A partially ordered
display aims to uncover and describe what is happening in a local setting (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). The researcher chose the conceptually clustered matrix to
organize and analyze PDS principal data (Table 4.1). Miles and Huberman described
the conceptually clustered matrix as a matrix that has its rows and columns arranged
to bring together items that belong together. The analyst may have some a priori
ideas about items that derive from the same theory or relate to the same overarching
theme. In addition to coding, analysis of a word was utilized as an analytic tool. This
53


technique is especially valuable because it enables the analyst to raise questions about
possible meanings, whether assumed or intended (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Completing analysis of a word, phrase, or sentence consists of scanning the
document, or at least a couple pages of it, and then returning to focus on a word or
phrase that strikes the analyst as being significant and analytically interesting (Strauss
& Corbin).
Verification Process
In order to improve the trustworthiness and authenticity of the findings, the
following verification procedures were used in this study as suggested by Creswell
(1998).
Reliability
Triangulation was used by collecting data from multiple sources and using
multiple methods to examine the evidence from different perspectives. Miles and
Huberman (1994) recommended identifying triangulation sources that have different
biases and different strengths, so they can complement each other.
Check Coding
Prior to data analysis of the interview transcripts and documents, the
researcher engaged a doctoral student and committee member, from the University of
Colorado Denver, in check-coding as a reliability and bias check. Definitions become
sharper when two researchers code the same data set and discuss their initial
54


difficulties. A disagreement shows that a definition has to be explained or otherwise
amended (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The doctoral student participated in April 2007
in coding of interview data. The coder was given the same interview to code as the
researcher and committee member and constant comparison analysis (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998) was utilized. The steps the doctoral student followed in the coding of
the interview were: (a) read through the entire interview transcript, (b) chunked the
data into small parts, (c) labeled each chunk with a descriptive code, (d) compared
each new chunk of data with previous codes, so that similar chunks were labeled with
the same code, (e) grouped codes by similarity, and (f) identified and documented a
theme based on each grouping. Upon completion of the coding, the researcher met
with the doctoral student and inter-coder reliability was established. The researcher
spoke by telephone with the committee member to establish inter-coder reliability.
Researcher Bias
In the tradition of qualitative research, the researchers assumptions were
examined early in the study as part of verification that occurs throughout the data
collection and analysis (Creswell, 1998). The researcher is a former PDS principal of
5 years and co-facilitated the Partner Principal Institute for PDS principals for 3
years. The researcher brings insider information to the research study.
55


Contexts for PDS Principals
The 7 PDS principals that participated in the study are from four university-
school partner settings in the United States. Three of the PDS principals (principal B,
E, and G) are part of a large state university system that sits in an urban setting with
an urban mission. The 3 PDS principals are in three different urban school districts,
within the same metro area and have like demographics in their free and reduced
lunch status, mobility rates, and English Language Learner populations. The
structure of the school-university partnership is formal in that there is a university site
professor allocated to each partner school and the school district funds a site
coordinator to work closely with the university site professor. The university requires
its students to complete four different internships during the course of the teacher
education program, and they are spent in the same partner school. The schools
understand the outcomes of each of the four different levels within the internship and
how to support, coach, and mentor teacher candidates at each level.
Two of the PDS principals (Principal C and D) operate in a rural county
within an economically deprived state. These schools are two of the 27 PDSs in a
large five-county partnership with a large state university. The university and its five
partner school districts have established a Collaborative that has a governance
structure that allows all stakeholders in the PDS to have a voice. For example, the
five superintendents from each of the county based school districts regularly meet, the
56


27 PDS principals from the Collaborative regularly meet, and all of the site
coordinators and professors meet together to discuss initiatives. The Collaborative
also has legislative funding from the state and has created a 5 year strategic plan.
Both PDSs in the study have like demographics: 25-30% mobility rate, Title I status,
and diverse student populations. The structure of the school-university partnership is
formal. Each PDS funds a Teacher Education Coordinator to work closely with
teacher candidates and their cooperating teachers and the university provides a liaison
that works as a professor in the schools supporting teacher candidates and the
cooperating teachers. Teacher candidates have three levels of internships. They
begin as Tutors their first year, become Participants their second, and the final year is
when student teaching is completed and they are formally called Interns. All three
levels of the internship are completed within the same PDS. The university provides
$1,000 per Intern to each school to use for professional development and 8 substitute
days to cover cooperating teachers classrooms so they may participate in
professional development.
One of the PDS principals (Principal F) is located in a large county-based
school district that draws from a wide variety of backgrounds and communities. This
particular PDS is also a magnet school for an applied engineering program,
environmental science program, a mass communications program, and a visual and
graphic arts program. These magnet programs have enabled the school to diversify
57


the student population, which prior to the magnet programs was 99% White and now
is only 80% White. The university-school partnership is a formal relationship. The
university has PDSs in 12 counties, in a large metropolitan city, that surround the
large state university. Each PDS is provided a university liaison that supports teacher
candidates and cooperating teachers. The PDS has a site coordinator that is a stipend
position from the hosting school district. The school-university partnership is part of
a large PDS Network that has collaborative governing bodies for each PDS to make
decisions regarding activities and fiscal requests.
One of the PDS principals (Principal A) is located in a small, rural school
district that is a partner with a large state university that is located near the United
States-Mexico border. The PDS has been in existence for 9 years and averages 20
teacher candidates per semester at varying stages of their practicum. The school is a
Title I school with a free and reduced lunch rate at 86%. Over 90% of the students
speak Spanish as their first language. The teacher education program at the university
has a bicultural and binational focus that the PDS embraces. The school and
university have worked together to create professional development opportunities for
teacher candidates and cooperating teachers alike.
58


CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Research Question
How do highly effective Professional Development School principals utilize
research-based practices to lead the school-university partnership? The conceptual
framework was developed around five of the research-based responsibilities or
practices of the school leader that positively impact student achievement. The five
practices were selected based on the criteria of alignment with the four functions of a
PDS and alignment with NCATE PDS standards.
Findings in the Five Research-Based Practices
The researcher utilized a conceptually clustered matrix to display evidence
that was produced during the interviews. The conceptual framework of shared vision,
high expectations, professional development, shared leadership, and knowledge of
curriculum, instruction, and assessment are located on the left-hand side of Table 4.1,
and the principals are identified with letters horizontally across the top. The evidence
was derived from the coded interview transcripts and have page numbers associated
with the documentation.
59


Table 4.1
Conceptually Clustered Matrix for Research-Based Practices in the PDS
Principal A
Shared Vision Vision looks different p. 4 Work side by side with university p. 4 Committee process p. 5 Work through ideas in committees p. 5 Conversations in grade levels p. 5 Vision is an on-going process p. 5 70% of staff here over 9 years p. 6 PDS became part of life here p. 6
High Expectations/ Monitor/ Evaluate Teachers work side by side with interns p. 4 Strong hiring practices p. 11 Start with the end in mind p. 11 Consistent walk-throughs/observations p. 11 Implement best instructional models p. 14 These kids are unstoppable p. 15
Shared Leadership Gives example p. 6-7 Work in committees and teams p. 5 Make decisions by consensus p. 7 Committee members serve as leaders p. 9 Collaborate with university p. 9
Professional Development Texas requires teachers to self-report p. 15 Teachers generate 3 areas of growth p. 15 Constructs matrix of Prof Dev for year p. 15 Utilizes Educ Service Center for PD p. 15 Interns can attend PD with clinical teachers p. 16
Knowledge of C, I & AJ Instructional Leadership Weak in curr., inst., and assessment p. 16 Texas mandates curriculum p. 16 District aligned curriculum into 3 week segments p. 16 State assessments narrow the curriculum p. 17 University no work with curr renewal p. 18 Provide academic freedom for how to teach the state mandated curriculums p. 17
60


Table 4.1
Continued
Principal B
Shared Vision
High Expectations/
Monitor/
Evaluate
Shared Leadership
Professional
Development
Knowledge of C, I & A/
Instructional Leadership
Took on the IB vision p. 4
Increases the number of stakeholders p. 4
TCs are included in everything p. 4
Utilize banner from univ. to advertise PDS p. 5
TCs exposed to and a part of new programs, procedures, and
awards p. 5
Has conversations about TCs regularly p. 14
The norm is collaboration/team teaching p. 14
TCs given responsibilities by grade levels p. 14
TCs are part of the family & expected to be here evening parent
inservices p. 18
Building Leadership Team, site professor is a member p. 7
Created four curriculum committees, all TCs joined a
committee p. 8
Accreditation team writes the school improvement plan p. 8
Site professor assisted grade level teams/TCs in writing
curriculum units p. 8
Do a needs assessment p. 17
TCs considered like any other staff member and attend all staff
development p. 17
Has utilized the past site professor for PD p. 18
Dont really use the university for PD p. 20
Just received Districts K-12 Curriculum guides p. 20
Provides articulation meetings, TCs cover classes while
teachers attend p. 21
Site professor assisted the school when they went IB by writing
curriculum planners p. 21
61


Table 4.1
Continued
Principal C
Shared Vision Done in many ways p. 5 We create vision as Benedum Collaborative p. 5 Were all learners p. 5 Strategic Planning Committee assists p. 5 Look at vision yearly p. 5 Because PDS look at vision differently p. 7 We wrote common goals with univ. p. 7 There is sustainability, common goals p. 7 Vision articulated through faculty senate p. 7 All PDS stakeholders have a voice in vision p. 8 If youre here, this (PDS) is what we do p. 29
High Expectations/ Monitor/ Evaluate Models, as principal, were all learners p. 5 I dont just tell teachers, I show them p. 6 Meet w/ TCs share expectations p. 11 Teacher leaders assume important leadership responsibilities p. 16 Monitors instruction with walk throughs p. 16
Shared Leadership We believe every teacher a leader, every leader a teacher p. 9 Give many opportunities for teacher leaders p. 9 TCs give back to school w/ inservices p. 9 We encourage empowerment at all levels p. 10 Teacher leaders in charge of grade levels p. 13 Teacher leaders work with colleagues and are engaged in collegial conversations p. 16 Principal monitors teacher leader with colleagues & provides feedback p. 16
62


Table 4.1
Continued
Professional Development PD plan starts in Strategic Planning Committee which includes PDS people p. 21 Develop focus p. 21 Survey staff p. 21 University provides anything I need in PD p. 22 Receives IK per intern for PD p. 22 Univ. provides us 8 sub days per intern for staff development p. 23 Write grants with the university p. 23 Interns attend all PD p. 24 Interns provide PD for staff/intems p 24
Knowledge of C, I & A/ Instructional Leadership School district requires curriculum mapping on-line p. 25 School improvement plan drives everything p. 25
Principal D
Shared Vision Vision is shared leadership p. 3 Picks teachers to serve on leadership team p. 3 Leadership team works on vision p. 3 Vision is discussed at grade level mtgs p. 4 Vision reports back to faculty senate p. 4 Vision is different in a PDS, doing different levels of work p. 5 Created a shared vision w/ all PDS in county/university partnership p. 5 PTO/School Imp. Comm, have a say in vision p. 7 Articulated & communicated at all levels p. 7
High Expectations/ Monitor/ Evaluate Makes sure the school sticks to their goals p. 11 Meet weekly with interns and clinical teachers. Use the rubric to constantly evaluate interns p. 13 Intern and TC must engage in co-teaching p. 14 I expect to see all teachers/intems engaged with students p. 14
63


Table 4.1
Continued
Shared Leadership Emerging leader on team leaders p. 10 Teachers sit on multiple committees where decisions are made and shared out p. 10 Site professor sits in on brainstorming sessions, assists us in finding resources at the University p. 18
Professional Development All school level committees discuss PD plan p. 17 The Benedum Collaborative discusses PD p. 17 We look at state initiatives in PD p. 17 We review curriculum guides & mapping p. 17 The staff is surveyed on specific needs p. 17 Come to consensus on PD/prioritize p. 17 University provides us PD and we provide them PD p. 18 Pull 3 or 4 resources together to fund PD p. 20 The schools, collaborative, & university follow the same PD initiatives p. 22
Knowledge of C, I & A/ Instructional Leadership Im the instructional leader of the school p. 21 Involved in all curriculum alignment & maps p. 21 Access and read all teachers curriculum maps p. 21 Serves as the buildings assessment coordinator p. 22 C, I, & A hasnt changed as a result of PDS, it has enhanced it p. 23 We have a wide network of experts in a PDS p. 23
Principal E
Shared Vision Opened new school as a PDS p. 7 Entire faculty involved in creating vision p. 7 University people in/out of vision process p. 8 A PDS means looking different at school, it is another layer to plan for p. 8 Embed the PDS in all aspects of school p. 9 It is communicated and very clear we have partnerships with universities p. 9 Principal knew what type of school she wanted to create, it was a PDS, p. 4-5
64


Table 4.1
Continued
High Expectations/
Monitor/
Evaluate
Shared Leadership
Professional
Development
Knowledge of C, I & A/
Instructional Leadership
In vision writing, I wanted all staff members thinking to be
transparent p. 10
High standards set in instruction p. 13
I keep us very focused p. 14
Im very clear with teachers what I need to see p. 18
Bottom line for us is we make a years growth p. 19
Teachers submit lesson plans, I provide feedback p. 17
As a new school, all decisions and policies were done whole
group p. 12
Only created 2 communities a year, I want us to focus p. 14
Try to flatten the leadership p. 14
Teachers choose 1 of 3 PD areas to serve on task force (guided
reading, ESL, differentiation) p. 14
University liaison serves on each curriculum task force p. 25
T.S. work in intervention program p. 29
The PD plan is driven by the school imp plan Tuesday seminar
on curriculum every week p. 13
T.S. attend Tuesday seminar p. 13
Building level focus on guided reading, ESL strategies, and
differentiation p. 24
Send PD plan to university partners for feedback p. 14
Seeking PD support from university partners (especially in
interventions) p. 24
Receive PD monies from school district p. 26
We set clear learning targets w/ assessment tasks p. 13
Make instruction adjustments right away p. 13
Use Marzanos work to create assessment rubrics p. 13
Led summer institute for staff in curriculum alignment p. 15
Created student intervention teams that look at strategies to
support academics and behavior p. 16
Monitor to ensure that curriculum maps and common formative
assessments are used p. 28
I make sure instruction and assessment is very explicit to T.S. p.
28
65


Table 4.1
Continued
Principal F
Shared Vision
High Expectations/
Monitor/
Evaluate
Shared Leadership
Professional
Development
Principal shares core beliefs p. 10
Teachers share core beliefs p. 10
Those beliefs determine what were all about as a school pg. 11
We use our beliefs to write the vision p. 11
T.S. involved in vision setting p. 11
Talk about beliefs and what it means for PDS p. 11
Principal wanted the PDS after attending Harvard Principal
Academy p. 4
Uses formal appraisal process p. 17
Informal visitations to monitor p. 18
Keeps informal visitation log p. 18
An admin always in classroom p. 19
Dept chairs visit classrooms p. 19
Principal expects dept chairs in classes observing p. 19
Expect T.S. to invite principal in to observe p. 19
Principal encourage experimentation with teaching p. 20
Social studies/English chair are site coor p. 7
Believes in collective decision-making p. 14
Make decisions together 95% of time p. 14
We have a number of groups that make decisions p. 15
Has leadership council, team ldrs/dept chair p. 15
Interns not on leadership council p. 15
Univ liaison on leadership council p. 16
Site base management team identifies needs p. 22
No one size fits all approach p. 23
Staff become experts in area and present p. 23
Univ offers PD in our building p. 24
Univ offers Masters and PD in building p. 24
We need to include univ liaison in PD planning
Use school budget for PD/Univ helps with grants p. 26
Pays for T.S. to attend PD p. 27
66


Table 4.1
Continued
Knowledge of C, I & A/ Instructional Leadership Balt. County has curriculum guides p. 27 Principal has little to do with curriculum p. 28 Uses department chairs, theyre experts p. 28
Principal G
Shared Vision Created/restructured into 4 PD departs. TCs join a dept p. 5 Communication better w/ 4 PDs vs 17 p. 5 Being a PDS, we havent looked differently at vision, they are just part of our school p. 6 We much use the school districts vision, not create our own p. 7 We had our own vision, superintendent as us to align with districts p. 7
High Expectations/ Monitor/ Evaluate Teachers at our school have to better, trained in best practices to teach at our school p. 8 If you can be a great teacher here, you can be a great teacher anywhere p. 7 T.S. and clinical teachers must co-teach and co plan p. 10 & 15 I believe what gets checked gets done p. 13 Each AP must complete 14 observations w/ follow up for teachers p. 13 Looks for engagement and rigor in classroom p. 23
Shared Leadership PDS emphasizes the importance of partnerships p. 7 T.S. have a voice in the Prof. Dev. Teams in which they belong P-9 Assistant principals assume much of the day-to-day responsibility of running the school p. 10 Dont want to know about 85% of what youre doing, 15% well discuss, 5% check with me before you make a decision. Whole building structured like this p. 10 Instructional leadership team makes decisions p. 11 Teachers do a majority of the prof development p. 12 T.S. dont do too many special projects p. 12 T.S. have to rush off after school to campus p. 17
67


Table 4.1
Continued
Professional Development University not involved in PD p. 18 Top-down district imposed PD p. 18 PD is truly teacher driven P. 19 Instructional leadership team plans for PD p. 19 Superintendent brought in a high profile univ (not PDS univ) for PD in common assessments p. 20
Knowledge of C, I & A/ Instructional Leadership I observe teachers to support T.S. and APs p. 14 Each week my APs, deans, and teacher leaders discuss individual teachers and establish next steps for their grown p. 14 While the TC is solo teaching, the principal takes the teacher to visit other classrooms and discuss inst. p. 15 The principal shares what he sees in classroom w/ the T.S. p. 16 Principal has no direct involvement in writing curriculum, does ask questions p. 21 Helps teachers identify essential learnings p. 22 We have pacing charges. My school and the one down the street within 1-2 days of each other p. 23
Shared Vision
Researchers agree that a shared vision is essential for high performing schools
(Cotton, 2003; Leithwood, 2004; Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano et al., 2003).
Marzano et al. (2003) described shared vision as focus that refers to the extent to
which the leader establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the forefront of the
schools attention. The NACTE (2001) PDS Standards also recognized the value of
shared vision. In Standard I: Learning Community, the PDS partners share a
common vision of teaching and learning grounded in research and practitioner
knowledge (p. 18).
68


All but one of the PDS principals in the study believed being a PDS allowed
them to look differently at the schools vision. The principals discussed how the PDS
is a professional responsibility to produce teachers wed want teaching our kids, to
do different levels of work, to collaborate with other institutions, and that it
increases the number of stakeholders. A principal explained how the partnership
changes the way she looked at the schools vision:
When Im thinking about a staff development day, for instance, Im thinking
about all the teacher candidates that are in our building at that time. Theyre
participating in everything that my teachers participate in, whether it be a trip
to Barnes and Noble for a field trip where they get to spend $30 or whether it
be something around Lindamood-Bell reading strategies. I want them to be
exposed to and part of our staff as we are implementing new programs and
procedures and receiving awards too, and for motivation. (February, 2007)
Another principal described her approach to the vision and mission:
In my mind, its another layer of learning that needs to intentionally be taking
place. It is another layer of experiences that you have to intentionally plan
for. And, on the flip side, its another layer of support that you have more
adults in the building. So looking at what the needs of the building are, what
the role or what the standards for a PDS are and then sort of trying to embed
all these opportunities into all of that for pre-service teachers. (March, 2007)
Six of the 7 principals sought out the partnership and had a vision of what a
school-university partnership would look like prior to becoming a PDS. An
elementary school principal explained his dream,
Im the one thats driven this from the very beginning. It was my dream from
the very beginning to connect with the university. To find a way to engage
them on whatever level we could. All the literature and all that I understood
told me that it would be a very significant relationship if I could establish.
(March, 2007)
69


A middle school principal shared an experience he had one summer during a
trip to Harvard Universitys Principals Center:
I realized that Harvard has such close ties to the Cambridge School Districts
principals and teachers. It made me realize how important the link between
public school and the university is and I wanted that for my school and
students. (April, 2007)
A K-8 principal whose school district completely redesigned into small
learning environments shared a conversation she had with her superintendent.
I have this vision of a school where theres learning at all levels and the
teachers are learning and the kids are learning and everybodys growing and
we could support new teachers. (April, 2007)
For 2 elementary school principals, the school district had an established
partnership with the local university and was a member of a five-county PDS
Collaborative. In our county, when you apply for a principalship, youre hoping in
your interview that the school is a PDS.
When the researcher asked the high school principal how he led his staff to
create a shared vision, he replied:
The way I attempt to lead the staff we have restructured our school to four
professional development departments and the university teacher candidates
have to participate in the professional development, which is weekly. Weve
gone from 17 departments to 4 departments partially to put expertise within
these, partially because its much easier to supervise. (September, 2007)
When asked if the PDS has caused him to look differently at the schools vision, he
replied no. We just say they have to take part in this if they want to be part of our
school. Additionally, the high school principal informed the researcher that all
70


schools in his school district were required to use the new superintendents
vision/mission. There was no school in the school district that had created a shared
vision/mission with their staff and community. The principal explained:
We just copy the districts vision. We had our own, but the new superin-
tendent told us all (schools) we have to align. The vision is, graduate every
student with choice to attend college without remediation. (May, 2007)
In most cases, PDS principals engaged entire staffs and university personnel
in the process of creating the schools shared vision. The K-8 principal did not utilize
the university liaisons consistently because they were a brand new school and had to
move quickly on many things. All principals worked through building leadership
teams and/or grade level teams to share beliefs and ideas and drafts were produced
and shared back at faculty meetings. Many schools included the school improvement
committee and Parent/Teacher Associations in the sharing of the vision as well. All
schools appeared to have a solid foundation in the underlying purposes of a PDS and
thus creating a shared vision was not difficult. All principals agreed being a PDS is
not one more thing to do. The PDS is embedded in everything they do and is a big
part of their culture and identity. Its another layer of learning that needs to
intentionally be taking place. Another layer of experiences that you have to
intentionally plan for.
When asked if the vision looks different because you are a PDS, most
principals responded yes.
71


I believe that it does look different in a sense that I have a very firm belief that
as educators we have a professional responsibility to insure that the interns
that come work with us are working with us side by side. That we engage in
helping them to grow and to develop so that they become the kind of quality
teacher that we would like to have as a partner working side-by-side, good
enough to teach our child. (February, 2007)
The two principals who are in a five-county collaborative with the local university
absolutely saw the vision differently and on many levels:
This year, weve reviewed the Strategic Plan that they (collaborative) have
and a lot of the goals go along with what we do here, but I think having some
common goals really helps because the collaboration is there, the professional
development, the sustainability. (March, 2007)
A 9-year veteran PDS principal explained:
When the PDS structure covers five counties, you have this network and
connections with folks from a wide area; it does cause you to look at things a
little differently. We look at the Collaboratives goals and me being a
member of the State Teacher Quality Assurance Group gives me ideas and
things from the state level -1 know where the partnership is headed. (March,
2007)
A middle school principal began each school year by meeting with teacher
candidates and sharing his beliefs about education. He engaged the teacher
candidates in a discussion about their beliefs and utilized their feedback in the
schools vision and mission. Teacher candidates are treated exactly like staff. They
are not one more thing to do; teacher candidates are an opportunity to learn
ourselves.
How the schools vision is articulated and communicated to the broader
school community varied. An elementary school that had recently been authorized as
72


an International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme and had adopted IBs
mission, had a very large banner hanging in the lobby that announced the schools
affiliation with the university. In addition to the banner, the principal wrote articles
for the school newsletter each month highlighting the PDS and teacher candidates.
The partnership has been here 14 years, its embedded in our culture.
An elementary school principal articulated the vision to the community
through the schools handbook and usually during open house. They have a state
mandated local school improvement council where the PDS and vision are shared.
We go over the goals and our vision and what different projects and things were
going to use to implement what were doing. Parents have a say in all that.
The K-8 principal shared their school vision and mission is all over the place.
Its very clear that we have partnerships with the universities to impact student
achievement. In a short discussion about marketing the school as a school of choice,
the principal added, the community, at first, thought that this was a school for kids
who struggled educationally because we were marketing ourselves as having more
adult support. In order to quell the communitys initial concerns, the principal
believed it was just a matter of saying, All kids will benefit from the additional
support we have. It just allows us to individualize even more. So whether your kid is
above grade level academically, below grade level, at grade level, its just additional
support.
73


During the interview process, the researcher requested school vision or
mission statements, school improvement plans, and professional development plans
from principals to determine the level at which the PDS was embedded (Table 4.2).
Approximately one third of schools had the PDS explicitly stated in the vision or
mission statement. Two of the mission statements are as follows:
As a Professional Development School, our mission is to provide an equal
opportunity for all students to be successful learners. Students will be
empowered by having access to all mediums of instructional material,
technology, and an environment of mutual respect. By promoting continual
renewal of curriculum and instruction, students growth will be enhanced.
The staff will communicate and work cooperatively with colleagues, students,
and the community. Our Elementary will strive to provide a quality
education, which is rigorous, meaningful, and appropriate.
ABC Elementary School, a student-centered, diverse, and innovative
community that embraces multiple levels of learning and is passionately
committed to maximizing student achievement through instruction grounded
in research and practitioner knowledge, guarantees that each student has a
solid academic foundation, love of learning, and self-understanding necessary
to embrace choices in his or her educational system characterized by: strong
partnerships with university teacher preparation programs to: enhance student
learning, bridge the gap between research and instructional practice, provide
lower student-teacher ratio in classrooms, provide equitable learning
opportunities for all, and prepare pre-service teachers and faculty to meet the
needs of diverse student populations.
Shared Leadership
The most successful principals engaged their staffs and constituents in
participative decision-making. They ensured everyone involved had the information
and training needed to make this process productive (Cotton, 2003). Shared
74


School Vision/Mission School Improvement Plan Professional Development Plan m h <. o* ££ r r g *
Principal A The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives University interns written in an improvement goal to run Parent Power Nights for families in the area of math and scents to close the gender gaps. Provide staff opportunities to participate in lesson student and debrief with university faculty on the impact of instruction. ri k> o -+> r C/5 a e 0 cr 1 00
University interns will have the opportunity to extend professional growth by hiring them as tutors in the after school/extended day program. n> d. *-o CO o n a S'
The school will cultivate its relationship with the university as a PDS > a (K w o Xfl
Principal B To improve writing scores in grades 3, 4, and 5, TCs will facilitate small group writing instruction.
To improve 5th grade reading scores TCs will facilitate targeted small group reading instruction.
Standards-based learning calendars created by TCs are given to each family.


School Vision/Mission
School Improvement
Plan
Professional Development
Plan
Principal C
as
Principal D
As a professional development
school, the mission is to provide
an equal opportunity for all
students to being successful
learners. Students will be
empowered by having access to
all mediums of instructional
material, technology, and an
environment of mutual respect.
By promoting continual review
of curriculum and instructions,
students growth will be
enhanced.
To maintain programs for the
education of new teachers.
TCs run parent nights with
focus areas in problem solving,
hands-on math and science.
Participation in a PDS gives us
the means to plan for changes
and innovations, to do research,
and implement high quality
improve-ments that have been
developed. This partnership
allows our staff to be risk takers,
problems solvers, and
instructional planners. All of
these are essential for education
improvements.
Table 4.2
Continued


School Vision/Mission
School Improvement
Plan
Professional Development
Plan
Principal E
Principal F
-j
Strong partnerships with
university preparation
programs: enhance student
learning, bridge research and
practice, lower student/teacher
ratio, provide equitable learning
opportunities, and prepare pre-
service teachers and faculty to
meet the needs of diverse
student populations
We will provide a quality
education for all students that
will prepare them for the rigors
of high school. We pledge to
provide quality instruction every
day in a safe and secure learning
environment.
We will improve our use of
co-teaching models to ensure
the highest level of leaning for
each student.
Encourage tenured teachers to
expand the schools PDS
partnership with the university.
Work with university partners
to improve guided reading
instruction.
Participate in lesson study w/
university partners to improve
differentiation and scaffolding
of instruction. Coaching will
be provided from university
partners.
PDS liaisons will provide
teachers, paras, and TCs with
additional skills and
knowledge about
differentiation as we address
AYP in special education
reading.
Table 4.2
Continued


Encourage teachers, paras, and TCs to participate in cohort partnerships with the university.
School Vision/Mission School Improvement Professional Development Plan Plan
00 Encourage teachers, paras, and TCs to participate in systemwide PD. Schedule month seminars for interns and student teachers based on their needs. Partner with the local university to design and implement a PD model for MS math teachers that focuses on content, conceptual understanding, problem solving, pedagogy, and how children learn mathematics.
Principal G Graduate every student with the
choice to attend college without
remediation.
Table 4.2
Continued


leadership was embedded in most of the NCATE PDS Standards. The principal
PDS partners are members of the P-12 schools and professional preparation programs
who agree to collaborate. The supporting PDS partner institutions include the
university, the school district, and the teacher union or professional education
association (NCATE, 2001, p. 17 Standard I). In NCATE PDS Standard II:
They collaboratively design roles and structures to support the PDS work and
individual and institutional parity. PDS partners use their shared work to
improve outcomes for P-12 students, candidates, faculty, and other
professionals. The PDS partnership systematically recognizes and celebrates
their joint work and the contributions of each partner, (p. 20)
The PDS principals all shared leadership with teachers and university
personnel on multiple levels within the PDS. Every PDS principal utilized a
university site professor/liaison in some capacity on the building leadership team
and/or school improvement team. An elementary principal described,
It is really important that the site professor be a member of the building
leadership team. We (the building leadership team) talk about a lot of the
professional development work we are doing in the school and where were
moving instructionally. Sometimes the site professor can help us over the
hump or through some muddy waters or give us a different perspective on
things. The building leadership team revisits the accreditation plan weekly.
(March, 2007)
A middle school principal who, believes in the collaborative decision making
model, utilized the university liaison.
Shes a part of us. Shes been to leadership council when needed. There are
some things that shes notit is not necessary to have her participate in.
Weve had her come to other meetings as well. Like days Ive had her come
to the PTA Executive board meetings. She wants to be involved, and that
79


piece of it because her personality, thats very easily done. I mean shes one
of us. (April, 2007)
When asked how the PDS has changed your perspective of leadership in the
building, an elementary principal responded, We believe that every leader a teacher,
and every teacher a leader. The principal went on to explain, I just try to give any
opportunities I can for teacher leaders, we encourage empowerment at all levels.
Another PDS principal who was involved with PDSs on the state and national
level described how his teachers teach and grade up to 12 hours of teacher candidates
coursework.
Between our PDS folks and the university folks, there really isnt a difference
between uswere all university faculty. We use a rubric we created together.
We participate on all levels. The funding for the new Director in our
Collaborative is coming from the university and all five counties with PDSs.
Im on the committee to interview the new Director. (March, 2007)
A K-8 principal shared how she, in a new school, shared the leadership,
We have PDS committee and school-based intervention team. Those are the
two committees. I try to keep us very focused. Another way that we
distribute leadership is just by working on things very collaboratively. Trying
to flatten the leadership. (March, 2007)
A high school principal, with a highly impacted student body, believed being a PDS
had not changed his perspective on leadership:
I think what the PDS does is emphasize the importance of the partnerships we
need in education. This is just one of 70 different partnerships I have. This
PDS partnership is imperative for schools like the one Im in because lots of
teachers will not apply to work here because they have a misperception of
what it is. You have to be a better teacher to be successful here. If you can be
a great teacher here, you can be a great teacher anywhere. (September, 2007)
80


When asked how you make important decisions or policies in your building
and how the PDS people involved, an elementary principal gave an example:
I began by sharing some state assessment data with the staff and PDS folks.
We looked at the situation to try to determine how we could bring some
change about. We needed to strengthen practices, differentiate instruction,
and work on formative assessment. I met with grade levels and in small
groups and we approached the university. We formed a team that would take
a graduate course focused specifically on this issue. I worked with specific
university people to create the syllabus for our teachers. We took the class
and reported back to staff and then we continued as a committee. Next we
focused on lesson study. A team of four university professors came down and
worked with us on lesson study with a focus on math and science. We work
and collaborate with the university people in a very specific way that along
the way people are generating research and articles off the work were doing.
(February, 2007)
A majority of the PDS principals reported utilizing a grade/department level
team that had a leader that reports back to a building level leadership team. In
addition to grade/department level teams, principals utilized many committees
ranging from discipline and school climate to instruction to get work done and
provide opportunities for teachers to share ideas, concerns, and feedback. Teacher
candidates were able to attend building leadership teams if their clinical teacher was a
member. A middle school principal explained:
We have incorporated interns into that process (school-based management
team). So theyre welcome to attend and be involved and sometimes they are-
-usually that happens when one of the staff members that are involved
happens to have an intern. (April, 2007)
A K-8 principal discussed how she monitored the shared leadership and committee
work:
81


Im in there when the committees are meeting and we share out from each
committee at the end of the session. So if were looking at committee work,
we actually have three of those school-based intervention teams going at once
and one PDS. (March, 2007)
An elementary principal described the four instructional committees she created,
I created a literacy team, a math team, a science team, and a child study team,
which is now our Response to Intervention team. I then gave each one of
those teams a charge for example; the literacy team will write a rubric and
identify editing marks common to the entire school. The four committees
meet weekly and report to the Building Leadership Team. Teacher candidates
pick a committee to join. (February, 2007)
Two elementary principals from the same school district shared how they
selected an emerging leader from each grade level to serve on the building leadership
team. Our teacher leaders are in charge of their grade levels and it changes every
year. The principal went on to say, theyre the cheerleaders, organizers, if theres
something that I need to get out immediately, I have my teacher leaders come in and
they disseminate it.
The high school principal shared leadership not only with his teachers, but
with his four assistant principals and three deans. The principal explained:
My assistant principals, I tell them I dont want to know about 85% of what
youre doing, 15% we talk about and 5% you check with me before you make
a decision. My whole building is structured that way. My lead teachers serve
on the instructional leadership team. They make decisions or lots of the
decisions that my administrative teams would have made before. Our
instructional leadership team has your 17 traditional department chairs plus
others. (September, 2007)
82


When asked what specific duties/charges the instructional leadership team had, the
principal responded:
We read research articles, we talk about what should and should not go in next
months faculty meeting, we look at student work and then say, okay, you,
you, you, and you are going to go present if next Thursday morning at the
Professional Development at the four groups, regardless of which one youre
in. (September, 2007)
The principal went on to explain how the instructional leadership team had evolved:
The first two years it was pretty much administratively led and wed have an
outside expert that wed bring in to the Professional Development teams.
Now we try to have the teachers do the majority of the presentations.
The final question on shared leadership was about how teacher candidates
shared instructional leadership. I have five teacher candidates, but again Im trying
to take these away from them and give it to other teachers now to build up capacity.
PDS principals across the study shared leadership with the university interns
in a variety of ways. Four schools in the study had interns create and present parent
nights focused on instruction or safety/discipline. As evidenced in a school
improvement plan, an objective stated: Provide opportunities for families in the
areas of math and science to close gender gaps. Schedule parent power nights to be
developed by university interns. Another school improvement plan listed the
responsibility of the PDS liaisons to Provide teachers, paraprofessionals, and student
teachers with additional skills and knowledge about differentiation as we address our
Adequate Yearly Progress in special education reading. A third school utilized
83


teacher interns for family nights: Reading Detectives Family Fun Night and Math
and Science All Around Us. In the same elementary school, to support the goal that
parents will continue to be updated around learning at each grade level, an objective
stated, Standards-based learning calendars will provided in every home, created by
university interns.
High Expectations for Student Learning
The principals expression of high expectations for students is part of the
vision that guides high-achieving schools and is a critical component in its own right
(Cotton, 2003). High achieving schools are successful in part because the principals
communicate to everyone in the school their expectations of high performance
(Cotton). The leader establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the forefront of
the schools attention (Marzano et al., 2003). High expectations are embedded
throughout the NCATE PDS Standards. In Standard II: Accountability and Quality
Assurance, PDS partners are accountable to themselves and to the public for
upholding professional standards for teaching and learning. They define clear criteria
at the institutional and individual levels for participation (NCATE, 2001, p. 20).
The PDS principals interviewed in this study all utilized a form of walk
through to monitor instruction in their building. Several had specific learning targets
and look fors as they visited classrooms and many documented visits in notebooks,
logs, or palm pilots. Principals also required teacher leaders and department chairs to
84