Citation
Examining the impact of high school prinipals' involvement in school-wide reading achievement using the State of Colorado growth model

Material Information

Title:
Examining the impact of high school prinipals' involvement in school-wide reading achievement using the State of Colorado growth model
Creator:
Zucker, Monica D
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xvii, 237 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
High school principals -- Case studies -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Educational leadership -- Case studies -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Reading (Secondary) -- Case studies -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Academic achievement -- Case studies -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Academic achievement ( fast )
Educational leadership ( fast )
High school principals ( fast )
Reading (Secondary) ( fast )
Colorado ( fast )
Genre:
Case studies. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Case studies ( fast )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 223-237).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Monica D. Zucker.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
707476983 ( OCLC )
ocn707476983
Classification:
LD1193.E3 2010d Z82 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOL-WIDE READING ACHIEVEMENT USING
THE STATE OF COLORADO GROWTH MODEL
by
Monica D. Zucker
B.S., Kearney State College, 1986
B.A., Metropolitan State College, 1993
M.A., Regis University, 2000
Ed.S., University of Colorado Denver, 2004
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation
2010


2010 by Monica D. Zucker
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Monica D. Zucker
has been approved
by
Rodney Muth
Date


Zucker, Monica D. (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
Examining the Impact of High School Principals Involvement in School-wide
Reading Achievement Using the State of Colorado Growth Model
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Nancy Shanklin
ABSTRACT
This study uses the Colorado Growth Model to investigate the role of principal
leadership in improving adolescent literacy for high achieving/high growth, low
achieving/high growth, high achieving/low growth, and low achieving/low growth
high schools. The study involves a survey of 36 high school principal participants
from all four quadrants on their role in adolescent literacy and follow-up
interviews with 10 principals from three of the four quadrants. Simultaneous
discriminant function analysis was also used to determine how well the
combination of minority status, graduation rates, per pupil funding, and school
size predict high or low reading growth on the Colorado Growth Model. Findings
from the survey and from interviews indicate that high school principals who
participated in the study are somewhat involved to highly involved with
adolescent literacy support and practices at their schools, specifically, with
principal leadership, instruction, assessment, professional development,
interventions, and twenty-first century learning. The discriminant function
analysis revealed that school size and African-American enrollment presented the
highest relationship to predicting reading growth; however, the amount of
variance accounted for was small. The study begins to illustrate how the Colorado
Growth Model can be used for research purposes that can lead to improvements in
students learning.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
incy Shanklin


DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my husband, James, whose support and patience during
this process was heartfelt. I am grateful for the encouragement he has given me
throughout this dissertation journey
I would also like to dedicate this work to my parents, Loren and Joyce
Williamson, who instilled in their children the importance of education. I will
always remember the mantra growing up, When you go to college.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
To my Doctoral Committee, Dr. Nancy Shanklin, Dr. Rodney Muth, Dr. Laura
Summers, and Dr. Harry Bull: Thank you for supporting and guiding me through
the doctoral process. Harry, you encouraged me to begin this journey, and you
have supported me in so many ways. Nancy, you have been a role model and a
friend on this long and satisfying road. I look forward to working with you
beyond this dissertation. Because of the gifts and knowledge you all have brought
to this study, I have grown as an individual who now has a better understanding of
what can be done with guidance, hard work, and determination.
To my current Principal, Kurt Wollenweber, thank you for giving me the freedom
to do whatever I needed to finish this dissertation. Without your encouragement
and backing, I would not be where I am today.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures.................................................xvi
Tables..................................................xvii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................1
Purpose of the Study............................2
Statement of the Problem........................3
Achievement Gap.......................6
Dropout Rates.........................7
Literacy Instruction Responsibility...8
Background......................................9
Change...............................12
Significance of the Study......................12
Research Questions.............................13
Research Design................................13
Delimitations and Limitations..................14
Organization of the Study......................14
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..........................16
Adolescent Literacy Needs......................17
Historical Context..........................17
A Nation at Risk.....................17
vii


Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and No Child Left Behind.................18
Literacy Education for All,
Results for the Nation Act..............18
Policy .........................................19
Common Core Standards....................19
Reading Next.............................20
Striving Readers Act.....................20
American Diploma Project.................21
Twenty-first Century Learning............21
College and Workforce Readiness..........23
School-wide Literacy............................23
Educational Leadership..........................25
Instructional Leadership.................27
Transformational Leadership..............28
Principal Literacy Leadership............29
Vygotskian Perspective.............29
School Praxis.....................31
Content Literacy Instruction....................32
Writing..................................35
Teacher Preparation......................35
Assessment .....................................36
Interventions ..................................37
Vlll


Response to Intervention.................39
Professional Development.......................40
Literacy Coaching........................45
Chapter Summary................................46
3. METHODOLOGY...........................................50
Research Design................................51
Instrument.....................................52
Participant Selection and Description..........56
Colorado Growth Model....................56
Data Collection................................60
Research Question 1......................60
Research Question 2......................61
Research Question 3......................61
Data Analysis..................................61
Research Question 1......................62
Research Question 2......................63
Research Question 3......................63
Reliability and Validity.......................64
Research Question 1......................64
Reliability.......................64
Validity..........................66
Research Question 2.....................67
IX


Reliability........................67
Validity...........................68
Chapter Summary.................................69
FINDINGS .................................70
Description of Sample..........................71
Research Question 1.....................71
Survey Participants................71
Research Question 2.....................72
Interview Participants............72
Research Question 3.....................73
Demographic Data of Survey Participants............74
Summary of Demographic Findings
from the Survey Responses...............91
Research Question 1............................93
Descriptive Statistics
for Survey Sub-constructs...............94
Mests ..................................99
Summary of Findings
for Research Question 1.................105
Survey Open-ended
Question Results........................106
Principal Leadership..............107
Instruction.......................108


Assessment...................111
Professional Development.....112
Interventions................117
Summary of Findings...............118
Research Question 2.....................118
Summary of Responses
across Quadrants..................119
Question 1...................119
HAHG...................120
LAHG...................120
HALG...................121
Question 2...................121
HAHG...................121
LAHG...................122
HALG...................123
Question 3...................124
HAHG...................124
LAHG...................125
HALG...................125
Question 4...................126
HAHG...................126
LAHG...................127
xi


HALG
127
Question 5...............128
HAHG................128
LAHG................129
HALG................129
Question 6...............130
HAHG................130
LAHG................130
HALG................131
Question 7...............131
HAHG................132
LAHG................133
HALG................133
Question 8...............134
HAHG................134
LAHG................135
HALG................137
Question 9...............137
HAHG................138
LAHG................138
HALG................139
Question 10...............139
xii


HAHG
140
LAHG.....................140
HALG.....................141
Question 11....................141
HAHG.....................142
LAHG.....................142
HALG.....................143
Question 12....................143
Summary of Findings..................144
Research Question 3 .......................145
Research Question 3 Results..........145
Summary of Findings..................146
5. CONCLUSIONS.........................................148
Purpose and Research Questions.............149
Findings...................................150
Demographic Findings
from the Survey Responses............150
Findings for the Research Questions........153
Research Question 1..................153
Mest Findings..................157
Open-ended Responses
to Survey Questions............157
Research Question 2..................158
xiii


Research Question 3
160
Implications for Practice.....................161
Delimitations.................................165
Limitations...................................165
Recommendations for Future Research...........166
Concluding Remarks ...........................167
APPENDIX
A. Survey Pilot Questionnaire...........................171
B. Colorado Multiple Institutional
Review Board Approval................................172
C. Informed Consent: Participant
Release Agreement....................................174
D. Principal Leadership and
Adolescent Literacy Survey...........................178
E. Interview Request Letter.............................188
F. Interview Request Email..............................189
G. Demographics: Current Enrollment,
School Type, 2008 Graduation Rates...................190
H. Interview Questions..................................195
I. Interview Question 12 Responses......................198
J. Survey Open-ended Responses..........................203
REFERENCES.................................................223
xiv


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
3.1 Colorado Growth Model......................................59
xv


LIST OF TABLES
Table
3.1 Sub-constructs, survey items, and open-ended question.................54
3.2 Principal leadership and adolescent literacy survey
reliability statistics...............................................66
4.1 Participants by quadrant..............................................72
4.2 Interview participants................................................73
4.3 Discriminant function analysis........................................74
4.4 Principal gender by quadrant..........................................75
4.5 Years as a principal..................................................77
4.6 Years as a principal at their current high school.....................79
4.7 Content taught before becoming a principal............................81
4.8 Years in the classroom before becoming a principal....................83
4.9 African-American enrollment percentage................................85
4.10 Latino enrollment percentage..........................................87
4.11 Free and reduced lunch................................................89
4.12 2008 graduation rates.................................................91
4.13 Descriptive statistics representing all four quadrants
survey sub-construct scores..........................................95
4.14 Descriptive statistics representing HAHG
survey sub-construct scores..........................................96
4.15 Descriptive statistics representing LAHG
survey sub-construct scores..........................................97
xvi


4.16 Descriptive statistics representing HALG
survey sub-construct scores........................................98
4.17 Descriptive statistics representing LALG
survey sub-construct scores........................................99
4.18 One sample /-test....................................................101
4.19 Paired samples correlations..........................................102
4.20 Paired samples /-test................................................104
4.21 Independent samples /-test...........................................105
4.22 Principal leadership open-ended question 7...........................108
4.23 Instruction open-ended question 2....................................109
4.24 Instruction open-ended question 20...................................110
4.25 Assessment open-ended question 27....................................Ill
4.26 Professional development open-ended question 4.......................113
4.27 Professional development open-ended question 10......................114
4.28 Professional development open-ended question 22......................115
4.29 Professional development open-ended question 28......................116
4.30 Interventions open-ended question 23.................................117
4.31 Correlations of variables of the discriminant function
and the standardized coefficients...................................146
5.1 Principal literacy involvement recommendations.......................162
6.1 Current enrollment...................................................191
6.2 School type..........................................................192
6.3 Per pupil funding....................................................194
xvii


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 1965), reauthorized
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002),
became the educational charge of the new millennium to ensure that all children
would have equal opportunities to obtain a high-quality education. In 2001, ESEA
was rewritten to focus more on closing the achievement gap by making sure that
all studentsincluding the disadvantagedsucceed academically by gaining
proficiency in reading and math (U.S. Department of Education).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires states to hold schools accountable
for reading, in addition to mathematics and science. The government placed a
significant amount of emphasis on early reading programs by funding Reading
First and Early Reading First to ensure that every student can read at grade level
by the end of third grade. More specifically, legislation in NCLB did not give any
substantial financial support for reading in grades 4 through 12, even though the
legislation requires states, districts, and schools to meet Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) in order to raise achievement levels and to close the achievement gap.
In addition, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores
have remained relatively flat for the past 30 years (Institute of Educational
Sciences, 2009), indicating that students are not advancing their literacy skills.
However, 2008 NAEP reading scores indicate that students made modest gains
1


between 2004 and 2008, but 17-year-old students did not show significant gains
from those students who were tested in 1971 (Institute of Educational Sciences,
2009). Adolescent literacy policy briefs, such as Reading NextA vision for
action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie
Corporation of New York (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004) and A Time to Act: An
Agenda for Advancing Adolescent Literacy for College and Career Success
(Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010) have both brought to
the forefront the need to prioritize adolescent literacy as a political, societal, and
educational agenda.
Because reading is one of the most important skills students develop, it is
important that secondary school principals be knowledgeable about reading
practices in their schools and work with teachers to make schoolwide literacy a
reality (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Irvin, Meltzer, & Dukes, 2007; Ivey & Fisher,
2006; Reeves, 2003).
Purpose of the Study
This study examined the impact of high school principals involvement in
schoolwide reading achievement and growth using the Colorado Growth Model
(Colorado Department of Education, 2009a) as the means for identifying schools
for this study. While the issues in this research study were issues at the national
level, this study focused on these issues in the State of Colorado. The goal of this
study was to describe how Colorado high school principals exert their leadership
to ensure that students experience academic achievement and growth in reading
2


so that they leave high school with the reading skills needed for college and for
work.
Statement of the Problem
Educational organizations, the business sector, and policymakers are
calling for more attention to adolescent literacy. Both colleges and businesses
indicate that students do not possess the literacy skills needed upon entering
college or the workforce. A significant number of students are graduating from
high school without the literacy skills to be successful in college (Plaut, 2008).
The demand for students to possess the skills necessary to enter college upon
graduation is a prevalent concern in todays economic and educational sectors
(Achieve.org, 2007; Kirsch, Braun, Yamamoto, & Sum, 2007; National Center on
Education and the Economy, 2007). ACT (2007b) reported the following
findings:
Nearly three-fourths of new graduates pursue postsecondary
education within two years of leaving high school and more follow
throughout the course of their working lives. Yet, over the past five
years, nearly four out of five ACT-tested high school graduates
were not prepared to succeed in credit-bearing, college-entry
coursework [over all of the four benchmark scores: biology, social
sciences, algebra, and English composition]. In fact, nearly a
quarter of students who start at four-year collegesand nearly half
of those who start at two-year collegesdo not even make it to
their second year because of academic difficulties. (Quality core:
Every student deserves to be ready for college, f 2)
The Colorado Commission on Higher Education (2005) reported that
students requiring remedial college courses increased 24% in writing skills and
3


17% in reading skills from 2003-2004. McCallin (2006) states, roughly one-
third of first-time recent Colorado high school graduates beginning college
require remedial coursework with 18% of those students enrolling at four-year
institutions, and 55% enrolling in community colleges (p. 5). Friedman (2005)
states that because the world has become flattened (p. 183), those that possess
the skills to take on twenty-first century opportunities will be the winners. He
cautions that it cannot be guaranteed that these winners will be Americans or
Western Europeans.
Possessing a post-secondary education is more critical today than ever
before. Nearly two thirds of all job openings will require post-secondary
education by 2018 (Camevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010). Not only will college
graduates be competing for jobs among their peers, they will also be competing
for jobs from college graduates from China and India who speak fluent English
(Friedberg, 2010). Hull suggests, too many young adults enter the workplace or
college under-prepared for the literacy-related tasks required of them (as cited in
Fisher, 2001).
Even though economic predictions are bleak (Kirsch, et al., 2007; National
Center on Education and the Economy, 2007), the good news is that more
students today are attending college (ACT, 2002); however, they are not finishing
with a degree within four years. In fact, a significant percentage of students do not
finish within six years of starting (Carey, 2004) for a variety of reasons.
4


Without literacy skills, students graduating from high school will lag
behind other students from around the world, which will cause the United States
to fall behind other countries economically and politically (Friedman, 2005).
Darling-Hammond (2010) states that more nations focused on education are
moving rapidly ahead of the United States. The ramifications are concerning. An
analysis between education and pay showed that students who do not participate
in post-secondary education or do so in a limited way will generate considerably
less income than individuals who receive a bachelors or masters degree. For
example, the median income of a high school graduate will be $12,638, while
those who finish college or some graduate work will earn a median income of
$59,113 (Swanson, 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2004).
If students do not acquire an education after high school, they will
contribute to a declining standard of living relative to other nations. In Tough
Choices or Tough Times, economists fear that if the gap widens, investors may
conclude that they can get a greater return on their funds elsewhere (National
Center on Education and the Economy, 2007, p. xix). In a study conducted by the
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), researchers
found that if countries were able to raise their Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) scores over the next 20 years, it would increase the
betterment of future generations (2010). This boost in PISA scores could
potentially increase gross domestic product by $40.6 trillion over the lifetime of
the generation bom in 2010.
5


Achievement Gap
A concern that has gained significant attention is the achievement gap,
which is especially visible in urban schools. Payne (2008) asserts that the
problemslow achievement, low graduation rates, teachers and students
demoralizationthat have arisen in urban schools were partly the cause of
globalization, the outmigration of jobs from central cities, the resegregation of
schools in much of the country, the increasing immiseration, criminalization, and
isolation of the worst urban neighborhoods (p. 3). Wide-scale reforms led by
states and large urban school districts have had some successes, but student
achievement for students of color and students of poverty has not increased to the
level to compete with their White and Asian counterparts (Payne).
Based on the reform efforts of Chicago Public Schools, Bryk, Bender
Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010) created a framework for
reforming urban schools. They conducted a research project, in which they
examined data from schools that were performing and those that were not. They
started by developing appropriate outcome indicators such as attendance and
students reading and math test score trends. Their framework includes leadership
as the driver of change with relational trust across the school community as major
aspects of the framework. Professional capacity, school learning climate, the
parent/school connection, community ties, instructional guidance, and the
classroom black box (p. 48) are the essential supports for improvement.
6


Dropout Rates
Another issue that impacts students is the dropout rate. According to
Laird, Cataldi, KewalRamani, and Chapman (2008), in October 2006,
approximately 3.5 million 16- through 24-year-olds were not enrolled in high
school and had not earned a high school diploma or alternative credential (p. 7).
They also report that males were more likely to drop out of school than were
females. In Understanding High School Graduation Rates in Colorado, the 2008
dropout rates will cost the state almost $4.3 billion in lost wages over their
lifetimes (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009). In contrast, if the Class of
2008 halved its dropout rates from 8,800 to 4,400, new graduates would likely
earn as much as $69 million in combined earnings in the average year compared
to their likely earnings without a diploma (Alliance for Excellent Education,
2010, p. 15). A student who drops out of school can be expected to cost society
over $200,000 over the course of his or her lifetime (National Center for Student
Engagement, 2005). In 2018, only 10 percent of jobs will be open to high school
dropouts, according to Camevale, Smith, and Strohl (2010).
Ehren, Lenz, and Deschler (as cited in Alliance for Excellent Education,
2009) state, For many adolescent students, ongoing difficulties with reading and
writing figure prominently into the decision to drop out of school (p. 2).
Consequently, about two thirds of prison inmates are high school dropouts, and
one third of all juvenile offenders read below the fourth-grade level (Haynes,
2007, as cited in Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009, p. 2). In a study to
7


examine the correlation between high school dropout rates and middle school
reading levels, Fountain (2009) found that White students were more likely to
graduate from high school as compared to their African-American and Latino
counterparts. In a recent report from the Colorado Department of Education
(2010c), graduation rates increased 0.7 points to 74.6 percent from 73.9 percent in
2008. Although graduation rates increased in urban centers from the early 1990s
to the early 2000s, they remain unsatisfactory despite school reform efforts
(Payne, 2008).
Literacy Instruction Responsibility
Literacy traditionally has been isolated or narrowly approached as an
elementary school issue as seen through the Reading First initiative where
students are supposed to possess the reading skills after third grade needed to
progress through the rest of their education (U. S. Department of Education,
2007). However, the need for literacy instruction does not end with the third
grade or even in high school (Snow & Moje, 2010). Students in the primary
grades are learning basic literacy skills such as decoding and knowledge of high-
frequency words that are common in all reading tasks. As they master these basic
aspects of literacy, they add more sophisticated literacy skills including
comprehension strategies, common word meanings, and basic fluency. This
generally occurs by the end of elementary school (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008).
When students reach middle and high school, students begin to master
more complex literacy skills. Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) identify this
8


sophisticated reading level as disciplinary literacy where literacy skills are
specialized in history, science, mathematics, literature, or other subject matter
(p. 44). The responsibility of literacy instruction lies with teachers in both
elementary and secondary settings to teach reading strategies and to teach
students how to interact with difficult texts (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Heller &
Greenleaf, 2007). This issue is important because students who do continue
gaining and strengthening literacy skills will experience more success in school
and throughout life (Fisher, Brozo, Frey, & Ivey, 2007).
Background
Leadership could be considered the single most important aspect of
effective school reform (Marzano, 2003). According to Bryk, et al. (2010),
leadership is the driver of change and more specifically with principals as
catalytic agents for systemic improvement (p. 45). The manner in which a
schoolwide literacy plan is going to occur is through the principals leadership.
The principal should foster a school culture that promotes a supportive
environment for the change process (Fullan, 2001). Bryk et al. purport that
principals should act as instructional leaders and create a culture of learning.
Principals as instructional leaders are expected to be experts in teaching and
learning, to spend the majority of their time in classrooms, and, more generally, to
support improvements in instruction (Bryk et al., p. 47). Saphier and King (as
cited in Barth, 2002) identified the following cultural norms needed to change
culture: collegiality, experimentation, high expectations, trust and confidence,
9


tangible support, reaching out to the knowledge bases, appreciation and
recognition, caring celebration and humor, involvement in decision making,
protection of whats important, traditions, and honest and open communication
(p. 8). Sergiovanni (1992) states that moral leadership is also an important
strategy for improving schools. He emphasizes the idea of the school as a
community that is concerned with relationships, shared values, commitments and
obligations that focus on student learning. Through collegial interactions and open
communication, the principal should build relationships with teachers, parents,
community members, and students. They should motivate all parties to embrace a
schoolwide literacy plan, which will allow all students positive opportunities
beyond high school. Communication will be the key element for implementation
of the plan. The principal will have to communicate the vision to all parties and
allow them to question, counter, and/or support the efforts to create a school of
literacy.
Heller and Greenleaf (2007) provide a framework of the educational
leaders role for creating literacy-rich schools. They outline four areas for
principal involvement: (a) the roles of content teachers must be clear and
consistent, (b) every academic area should define its own essential skills, (c) all
secondary school teachers should receive initial and ongoing professional
development in the literacy of their own content area, (d) and content area
teachers need positive incentives and appropriate tools to provide reading and
writing instruction.
10


Ivey and Fisher (2006) developed a set of Quality Indicators for
Secondary Literacy. They include the following areas and guiding questions for
school leaders: Area 1: English Language Arts Class, Are students reading and
writing development and relevant life experiences used to explore life literacy
concepts? (p. viii); Area 2: Content Area Classes, Do all courses throughout a
students day capitalize on the students literacy and language as a way to learn
new information? (p. xi); Area 3: Sustained Silent Reading/Independent
Reading, Are all students provided with an opportunity to read for learning and
pleasure during the school day? (p. x); Area 4: Intervention and Support for
Struggling Readers, Do the intervention initiatives cause students to read more
and to read better? (p. xi); and Area 5: Leadership and Schoolwide Support, Is
there a schoolwide emphasis on literacy, and does this focus develop teacher
expertise? (p. xii).
In addition to the aforementioned framework and indicators, Irvin et al.
(2007) identify goals and action steps that school leaders must take to implement
an adolescent literacy plan. They believe that literacy leaders must address student
motivation, engagement, and achievement; integrate literacy and learning; sustain
literacy development; implement an action plan; support teachers to improve
instruction; use data to make decisions; build leadership capacity; and allocate
resources.
11


Change
Bain (2007) states, The theory and practice of the self-organizing school
highlights the need to start small, scale carefully, and, in doing so, enable the
many parts and interconnections in a comprehensive reform to work in a self-
reinforcing way (p. 259). Second-order change (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,
2003)which requires leaders to work comprehensively with staff, the
community, and the districtwill have to occur to make a building-wide break
with the past regarding negative attitudes of teaching literacy skills in the content
areas (Artley, 1944, as cited in International Reading Association, 2007).
Both of these ideas are an important lens for meeting the literacy needs of
secondary students. As stated earlier, much of literacy instruction and
interventions have focused on elementary school children with the idea that once
they left elementary school, they would have the skills needed to read skillfully in
future grades. However, this is not the case. Children have a difficult time
transitioning from elementary texts to an array of higher-level content texts they
encounter in middle school and high school (Sturtevant, 2003). It is important that
a high school principal possess leadership skills so that a vision of schoolwide
literacy can be implemented to meet the needs of high school students.
Significance of the Study
This study hopes to contribute to the dearth of empirical research related
to the high school principals literacy involvement and the principals contribution
to student achievement. The researchers intent is to use the findings to inform
12


principals of principal literacy leadership and put into practice the principals role
in creating literacy-rich schools.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this dissertation:
1. Do differences exist in principal involvement on the Principal
Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey, and do those
differences link to where schools are located on the Colorado
Growth Model?
Hypothesis: Schools that possess high achievement and high
growth and schools that possess low achievement and high growth
will have high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy.
2. What leadership actions do principals take to promote school wide
literacy?
3. How well does the combination of minority status, graduation
rates, per pupil funding, and school size predict reading growth?
Research Design
This study examined the practices that high school principals institute
within their schools to promote schoolwide literacy achievement. This study
executed a mixed-methods design. The Principal Leadership and Adolescent
Literacy Survey and follow-up phone interviews provided principals views of
their involvement in schoolwide literacy at their schools. A portrait of a group of
administrators views on what they have in place for schoolwide literacy is
13


provided based on the survey and follow-up phone interviews. A full description
of the study, sampling, data collection, and data analysis techniques are discussed
in Chapter III.
Delimitations and Limitations
The proposed study was delimitated to high school principals in the state
of Colorado using Colorado Growth Model (Colorado Department of Education,
2009a) data to identify principals. Another delimitation was the selection of
principals from high schools with student populations of 750 to 2,800 students.
Principals from other Colorado high schools were excluded.
Limitations to the study may have included respondent bias during the
data-collection process. This was a concern because principals may have wanted
to portray their school in a more positive manner than what may have been the
actual state of the schools literacy focus. In addition, it was difficult to persuade
principals from schools that did not show growth to complete the survey or to
participate in the interviews.
Organization of Study
This dissertation is comprised of five chapters. Chapter I introduces the
problem, the background, the significance of the study, research questions, and
delimitations and limitations of the study. Chapter II reviews the literature
associated with the problem. Chapter III discusses the research methodology
design and processes to collect and analyze data. Chapter IV outlines the findings
14


that address each research question. Chapter V analyzes the findings, discusses
implications for practice, and recommendations for future research.
15


CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The nation is at a critical point for developing twenty-first century literacy
skills. Students need these skills to create a ready workforce. The principal is a
key person in leading this effort and needs to be in charge of helping high schools
achieve this goal. At the same time, educators are encouraged to incorporate
twenty-first century literacy skills into instruction (Metiri Group, 2009;
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009). If literacy at the high school level is not
a priority, one result is increased dropout rates (Ehren, Lenz, & Deschler, as cited
in Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009). It is important for content teacher
readiness to teach literacy skills, and it is important for teachers to receive
professional development opportunities to help students develop twenty-first
century literacy skills (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009) so that students
can participate in society. Colorado and other states have adopted the Common
Core Standards (2010) for reading, writing, and math. Colorado is also writing
post-secondary and workforce readiness standards so that students are able to
make a reasonable economic rise for themselves and for the families they create
as adults.
The literature review will discuss adolescent literacy needs through a
historical context and policy decisions. This section will also review issues around
twenty-first century learning. The next section will explore the emphasis on
educational leadership with a focus on instructional leadership, transformational
16


leadership, and principal literacy leadership. Content literacy instruction,
assessment, interventions, and professional development will also be discussed.
Adolescent Literacy Needs
The capacity to learn by reading, by writing, and by offering individual
perspectives to bridge cultures help cross boundaries of misunderstanding to build
an inclusive society (Sapon-Shevin, 2007). Literacy is a tool for knowledge
building and communication and may be the most important tool of the twenty-
first century. It is also important for participation in a democratic society that has
positive implications for an educated citizenry who strive for the best for their
people. Therefore, literacy skills are important for everyone, even those
individuals who do not pursue college. Students today face more challenges than
students of decades past in times of achieving a viable standard of living that
allowed for a reasonable standard of living and healthcare. Graduating from high
school today and pursuing higher education is a necessity for economic survival.
Historical Context
A Nation at Risk
Public education and a focus on preparing students to be successful
beyond high school was reinforced with A Nation at Risk legislation (1983) that
focused on high school youth. Like today, the government at that time was
concerned with competing with other nations in the realm of commerce, industry,
scientific, and technological innovation. One of the recommendations from A
17


Nation at Risk was for students to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and use what
they read
Elementary and Secondary Education Act and No Child Left Behind
Several years earlier, proponents of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (1965) had believed that education was related to upward mobility
in the United States. In 2002, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) with the title No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
Within NCLB, reading was addressed at the elementary level through its Reading
First, Early Reading First, Even Start, and Improving Literacy through School
Libraries initiatives with no direct reading funding for adolescent literacy.
However, there is a push to address adolescent literacy in the upcoming
reauthorization of NCLB (National Middle School Association, n.d.) that was
sparked by the Striving Readers Act legislation introduced in 2007.
Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation Act
The Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation (LEARN) Act
(Murray, Polis, & Yarmuth, 2009) was introduced in both the Senate and the
House of Representatives in November 2009. The LEARN Act aims to address
reading, writing, and academic achievement in preschool through 12th grade so
that students graduate from high school college- and career-ready. At the time of
the conclusion of this study, it was unknown whether the LEARN Act would pass
in the late fall of 2010 or be folded into the reauthorization of ESEA in 2012.
18


Policy
Common Core Standards
In a position statement from the International Reading Association,
researchers determined that adolescent literacy was not a policy priority or a
priority in schools (Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999) and saw the need to
advocate for adolescent literacy. Currently, in an effort to prepare students for
college and the workforce upon leaving high school, the National Governors
Association and the Council of Chief State School Officials have collaborated
with states to create common core standards in English Language Arts and
mathematics. The Common Core Standards Initiative (2010) came about because
employers and college educators were finding that entry level workers were
lacking the skills to do well, and first-year college students were having high
remediation rates, especially in community colleges (Gewertz, 2010). The core
standards meet the following criteria: (a) aligned with college and work
expectations; (b) include rigorous content; (c) build upon strengths and lessons of
current state standards; (d) are internationally benchmarked, so that all students
are prepared to succeed in a global economy; and (e) are evidence- and/or
research-based (Common Core Standards Initiative, 2010). Eighteen reading
standards, 18 writing standards, and eight speaking and listening standards are
outlined in the document. The Colorado Board of Education adopted these new
standards in the fall of 2010 in the hope of helping America compete on a global
19


level (Marcus, 2010, P). To date, 36 states have adopted the Common Core
Standards.
Reading Next
In addition to Common Core Standards, Biancarosa and Snow (2004) have
outlined 15 elements to improve middle and high school literacy achievement in
the policy brief Reading Next: (a) direct, explicit comprehension instruction;
(b) effective instructional principles embedded in content; (c) motivation and self-
directed learning; (d) text-based collaborative learning; (e) strategic tutoring;
(f) diverse texts; (g) intensive writing; (h) a technology component; (i) ongoing
formative assessment of students; (j) extended time for literacy; (k) professional
development; (1) ongoing summative assessment of students and programs;
(m) teacher teams; (n) leadership; and (o) a comprehensive and coordinated
literacy program. The researchers recommend that practitioners use these
elements in a flexible way, stressing that professional development, formative
assessment, and summative assessment always be present. They encourage
teachers and school leaders to use these elements to act as a foundation for
instructional improvement (p. 5).
Striving Readers Act
The Striving Readers Act was passed in 2007 to help raise literacy
achievement in Title I-eligible schools. The purpose of the bill was to improve
student achievement, raise graduation rates, and increase college success for
secondary students. The means in which these goals are to be achieved is through
20


comprehensive state, district, and school literacy plans; professional development
plans; professional development for teachers to use assessments and literacy
strategies; professional development for school leaders to support teachers; and
reading materials for schools that lack them (Alliance for Excellent Education,
2007).
American Diploma Project
The American Diploma Project Network (Achieve.org, 2010) launched in
2005 is built on the work of the American Diploma Project. Today, the network
includes 35 states that educate nearly 85% of all students in the United States.
Governors, state superintendents of education, business executives, and college
leaders are working to bring value to the high school diploma by raising the rigor
of high school standards, assessments and curriculum, and aligning expectations
with the demands of postsecondary education and careers (Achieve.org, 2010,
H2).
Twenty-first Century Learning
In order to participate socially, economically, and politically with the rest
of the world in the twenty-first century, U.S. students will need to navigate a
variety of texts, embrace ambiguity, and be able to make adjustments in their
thinking. For example, Levine (2007) asserts that students need a cognitive
backpack, that includes skills such as becoming an in-depth comprehender;
acquiring a project mentality; building and sustaining productive, fulfilling
21


relationships; and attaining malleable self-insights that inform self-launching as
they encounter new ideas, technology, and cultures in their lifetimes.
In addition to acquiring astute literacy skills, students and future students
will be exposed to changing technologies and situations that will cause them to
have to navigate a variety of information sources (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004;
Daggert, 2007; Schmoker, 2006). If they have the reading, writing, and thinking
skills acquired by the time they graduate from high school, they will adapt more
readily to new technologies, thus keeping pace with students and workers from
around the world (National Center on Education and the Economy, 2007;
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2005).
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009) also endorses critical
thinking and problem solving, communication and collaboration, and creativity
and innovation in their framework. They believe that information, media, and
technology skills, along with core subjects, twenty-first century themes, and life
and career skills are also important. Only when a school or a district combines
the Framework with 21st century professional development, assessments and
standards, can the American public be sure that high school graduates are
prepared to thrive in todays global economy (f 2).
The Metiri Group (2009) outlines the following skills that students will
need to be college and workforce ready: (a) digital age literacy such as basic,
scientific, and technological literacies, visual and information literacy, and
cultural literacy and global awareness; (b) inventive thinking, which includes
22


adaptability/managing complexity and self-direction, curiosity and risk-taking,
and higher-order thinking and sound reasoning; (c) interactive and
communication skills, such as teaming and collaboration and personal and social
responsibility; and (d) quality state-of-the-art results, such as prioritizing,
planning, and managing for results, effective use of real-world tools, and high
quality results with real-world applications.
Even though Colorado is adopting the Common Core Standards (2009) for
English Language Arts and Math, the Colorado Department of Education has kept
the twenty-first century skills intact. They include critical thinking and reasoning,
information literacy, collaboration, self-direction, and invention (Colorado
Department of Education, 2010b).
College and Workforce Readiness
Reading achievement levels are not adequate for students entering college.
In a recent study, approximately two thirds of high school teachers reported that
more than half of their students are not ready to read at the level needed for
college work in their content areas (ACT, 2007a, p. 2), while college instructors
reported that only one third could read at the college level. The report also stated
that high school teachers and college instructors agreed that reading is one of the
most important skills for students to possess.
Schoolwide Literacy
Cole (1996) states that children are exposed to literacy concepts and are
influenced by language and other cultural artifacts and embodied social rules
23


(p. 285). He contends that children are not blank slates when they come to the
classroom. In order to address this, a schoolwide literacy plan will be essential to
meet the needs of learners and address their literacy learning needs when they
enter the classroom. Students who are exposed to different literacy skills in the
many disciplines of secondary schools will have the opportunity to enrich their
literacy learning through different types of activities. They will also use different
artifacts and engage in social interactions to leam literacy. When the principal
implements a schoolwide literacy plan, he or she is creating a community of
learners who legitimately participate in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger
1991) and who work together to increase student literacy skills.
The 90/90/90 (Reeves, 2003) study urges the collective work of teachers,
students, parents, and leaders in a comprehensive and coordinated literacy
program (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004), while also maintaining constructive, holistic
accountability systems (Reeves, 2003). Ivey and Fisher (2006) encourage a school
that possesses a culture of collaboration and peer coaching, while (Irvin et al.,
2007) suggest encouraging educators to motivate students so that it leads to
engagement and achievement, increases writing across the content area, solicits
district support, and builds leadership capacity. All of these researchers believe
that it is important for administrators and teachers to work together to implement
and sustain a schoolwide literacy initiative. These studies encourage a
collaborative effort so that the focus of literacy is a school goal that discourages
teachers from working in isolation.
24


Researchers suggest that student achievement information in the form of
graphs, tables, and charts and other data sources are available, along with
doubling periods for literacy. The Alliance for Excellent Education (2007) urges
educators to demystify language and symbols for learners not aware of content.
They also recommend that teachers be provided with positive incentives and
literacy tools for their content. Ivey and Fisher (2006) want districts and school
administrators to allocate human resources dedicated to a schoolwide literacy
plan.
Reeves (2003) outlines the following ideas that can transform the cultural
organization of a school to promote schoolwide literacy: literacy interventions,
curriculum heavy in reading writing, and alignment of teacher assignments with
teacher preparation. The Alliance for Excellent Education (2007) emphasizes
reading and writing strategies and stresses mining cognitive, social, and personal
strengths students bring from home to help them make connections with content.
Finally, Irvin et al. (2007) believe that promoting social collaboration, making
connections to students lives, having students interact with text and with others
about texts, involving parents and the community, and supporting teachers to
improve instruction are all important social elements to support adolescent
literacy learning.
Educational Leadership
The emphasis on strong school leadership and positive student outcomes
has been widely recognized (Fullan, 2003; Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson,
25


& Wahlstrom, 2004). Understanding what makes an effective principal is
important:
Growing consensus on the attributes of effective school principals
shows that successful school leaders influence student achievement
through two important pathways: the support and development of
effective teachers and the implementation of effective
organizational processes. (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPoint, &
Meyerson, p. 8, 2005)
In a paper prepared for the AERA Division A Task Force on Developing
Research in Educational Leadership, Leithwood and Riehl (2003) outline six
defensible claims about school leadership:
1. Successful school leadership makes important contributions to the
improvement of student learning.
2. The primary sources of successful leadership in schools are
principals and teachers.
3. In addition to principals and teachers, leadership is and ought to be
distributed to others in the school and school community.
4. A core set of basic leadership practices are valuable in almost all
contexts.
5. In addition to engaging in a core set of leadership practices,
successful leaders must act in ways that acknowledge the
accountability-oriented policy context in which almost all work.
26


6. Many successful leaders in schools serving highly diverse student
populations enact practices to promote school quality, equity, and
social justice.
With these tenets in mind, it is apparent that school leadership matters. The role of
the principal is highly important for student learning, while the changing needs
of educational systems can be met at least in part by improvements in leadership
capacity and practice (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003, p. 6). Even though large-scale
reforms through federal and state mandates have prompted new knowledge of
curriculum, pedagogy, and organization improvement, the problems of the
system are the problems of the smallest unit (Elmore, 2004, p. 3). This suggests
that what happens in the classroom is the schools challenge. In order to meet
these challenges, educators will need to provide students with academic support
and provide teachers with the skills and resources to accomplish this task.
Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership emerged from the effective schools movement and
the research done in the 1980s (Hallinger & Murphy, 1986) around this subject.
Since then, other models of leadership have emerged that moved away from the
instructional leadership model in which many believed focused too much on the
principal as the centre of expertise, power, and authority (Hallinger, p. 330,
2003).
27


Transformational Leadership
One leadership model that shares leadership and changes organizations
from the inside out is transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus,
1985). Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) created a model based on Bass (1985) work
so that it is applicable to educational settings (Hallinger, 2003). Unlike
instructional leadership, which is transactional, the transformational leadership
approach works in the following ways where leaders (a) set out to empower
followers and nurture them in change, (b) become strong role models for their
followers, (c) create a vision, and (d) act as change agents who initiate and
implement new directions within organizations. It also requires leaders to become
social architects (Northouse, 2004, pp. 182-183).
Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) outline six transformational leadership
dimensions: building school vision and goals; providing intellectual stimulation;
offering individualized support; symbolizing professional practices and values;
demonstrating high performance expectations; and developing structures to foster
participation in school decisions (p. 454). Four managerial dimensions were also
cited: staffing, instructional support, monitoring school activities, and
community focus (p. 454). Leaders who follow the transactional approach
possess the potential to create second-order change (Waters et al., 2003) in which
the organization is changed with the collective efforts of the leader and the
followers.
28


Because principals fulfill other rolesmanager, politician, human
resource expert, instructor, symbolic reference (Bolman & Deal, 2003)-
Hallinger (2003) warns that principals must not rely on a single role to improve
student performance. He suggests that integrating instructional leadership and
transformational leadership approaches would have principals focus on
(a) creating a shared sense of purpose in the school; (b) focus[ing] on developing
a climate of high expectations and a school culture focused on the improvement
of teaching and learning; (c) shaping the reward structure of the school to reflect
the goals set for staff and students; organis[ing]and providing] a wide range of
activities aimed at intellectual stimulation and development for staff; and (d)
being a visible presence in the school, modeling the values that are being fostered
in the school.
Principal Literacy Leadership
Vygotskian Perspective
Lee and Smagorinsky (2000) outline Vygotskys core principles for
activity theory that can be transferred to incorporating schoolwide literacy in
secondary schools. First, learning is mediated first on the interpsychological
plane between a person and other people and their cultural artifacts, and then
appropriated by individuals on the intrapsychological plane (p. 2). What this
means for schoolwide literacy is that educators must work together using cultural
artifacts to unify literacy instruction. In doing so, literacy in secondary schools
will become inherent with individuals reaching the intrapsychological plane.
29


Second, meaning is constructed through joint activity rather than being
transmitted from teacher to learner (p. 2). Teachers working together instead of
being handed a literacy program from their administrator or their district will be
more effective in implementing schoolwide literacy.
In addition, students benefit by working jointly with teachers and other
students to learn to read and write effectively. Third, the concepts, content
knowledge, strategies, and technologiesthe mediating tools or artifactsthat
are drawn on in the act of meaning construction, are constructed historically and
culturally (p. 2). Educators will be able to address each learners literacy needs
and provide the tools students will need to increase their literacy achievement. For
example, materials, best practices, and, most importantlylanguagewill help
students create meaning. Finally, Lee and Smagorinsky (2000) suggest,
the potential for learning is an ever-shifting range of possibilities
that are dependent on what the cultural novice already knows, the
nature of the problem to be solved or the task to be learned, the
activity structures in which learning takes place, and the quality of
this persons interaction with others. Context and capacity are
intertwined, (p. 2)
Teachers and administrators will be able to examine data, observe
students, and talk with parents to see what sort of literacy instruction is needed.
By examining the multifaceted aspects that are linked, educators will have a better
perspective of how to reach all learners.
30


School Praxis
Principals have the responsibility of ensuring that students are engaged in
challenging literacy instruction that crosses disciplines. Consequently, students
will gain a multitude of literacy skills that will allow them to navigate complex
texts and tasks after they leave high school. It is suggested that the principal
provide teachers with professional development and resources to provide students
with the literacy skills they will need to enter post-secondary opportunities and
finish successfully (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; Irvin et
al., 2007; Taylor & Collins, 2003).
In schools, it is paramount that principals work with teachers and coaches
to identify schoolwide and individual student literacy needs. Examining student
reading and writing data, using formative and summative assessments, embedding
professional development for teachers to meet the needs of learners will result in
reform for schools that are struggling with student literacy needs (Schmoker,
1999; Taylor & Collins, 2003). In a recent study to add to the knowledge base on
principal leadership behaviors that advance literacy reform in schools, Elliott
(2007) found that leadership was co-constructed adaptively as an active process of
sensemaking between leaders and followers. The most significant change will be
through changing attitudes about literacy instruction in content areas.
It is critical that a principal assumes the role of an instructional leader
who demonstrates commitment and participates in the school community
(Biancarosa & Snow, 2004, p. 21). This includes principals learning about
31


adolescents struggles with reading and writing and the principal attending
professional development sessions with teachers (2006). A focus on literacy while
the principal leads teachers, staff, and community will increase student
achievement, resulting in better-prepared students who can successfully complete
post-secondary education and face the challenges of the twenty-first century. It is
suggested that principals communicate a vision for content literacy and work with
teachers to implement a schoolwide literacy vision (Irvin et al., 2007) so that
teachers expose students to a multitude of texts, writing experiences, and thinking
activities. In addition, principals ought to communicate a commitment and
passion for schoolwide literacy reform. The vision has to be shared with,
engaged in by, and communicated broadly to students, teachers, parents, and the
community. If high school principals want students to be motivated and engaged,
they need to engage teachers and the community on their behalf (Meltzer, as
cited by the Ohio Resource Center for Mathematics, Science, and Reading, 2007,
P- 7).
Content Literacy Instruction
Moje (2006) asserts that every content area has a different discourse.
Producing knowledge in a discipline requires fluency in making and
interrogating knowledge claims, which in turn requires fluency in a wide range of
ways of constructing and communicating knowledge (p. 2). Instead of having
students memorize facts and crunch numbers, the goal of content-area instruction
is instead to introduce students to the ways in which experts in the core academic
32


disciplines look at the world, investigate it, and communicate to one another about
what they see and learn (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007, p. 11). The result of going
from content-area literacy to deeper disciplinary knowledge (Snow, 2008) may
allow students the freedom to chart their own course in life, whether that is in
post-secondary education or in the workplace. Daggert (2007) states that in order
for students to achieve high levels of Blooms Taxonomy or what he calls the
Knowledge Taxonomy, a second continuum is important for students to be
twenty-first century skilled in content areas: (a) knowledge in one discipline, (b)
apply knowledge in discipline, (c) apply knowledge across disciplines (d) apply
knowledge to real-world, predictable situations, and (e) apply knowledge to real-
world, unpredictable situations. Teachers who expose students to cross-
disciplinary skills in schools will be able to achieve numbers 3 through 5 on his
continuum. The Common Core Standards State Initiative (2010) states that,
Just as students must learn to read, write, speak, listen, and use
language effectively in a variety of content areas, so too must the
Standards specify the literacy skills and understandings required
for college and career readiness in multiple disciplines. (f5)
Fisher and Ivey (2005) purport that students can learn more deeply
through literacy experiences that focus on big ideas (p. 9), placing everything in
a larger perspective. Possessing the ability to integrate knowledge and skills
among content will be an asset for students to be ready to face the challenges they
will encounter beyond high school. Holistically, each discipline has the potential
to open up students to cultures and opportunities not yet experienced. In addition,
33


students not connected to school may find something engaging in different
disciplines that prevents them from dropping out or from not performing to their
potential.
Through their content courses, teachers can expose students to a wide
breadth of reading and writing experiences (Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Graham
& Perin, 2007; Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; National Council of Teachers of
English, 1985; Vacca & Vacca, 1996). Teachers who are using literacy strategies
in their classrooms to enhance comprehension of their content will be engaging in
a schoolwide literacy plan.
Not only is it important to learn the strategies, but it is also
extremely important to understand how to effectively use literacy
strategies to help students read and comprehend the tough
expository text of the social studies, science, and math books,
while also understanding the narrative text of literature books.
(Phillips, as cited by the Ohio Resource Center for Mathematics,
Science, and Reading, 2007, p. 12)
Snow and Moje (2010) concur. They believe that the comprehension strategies
that students learn in English classes are useful, but they arent sufficient to help
students study math, science, history, or literature (p. 67). Content-area teachers
should understand reading and writing rules and processes in their disciplines and
use them to teach students (Snow & Moje).
34


Writing
Writing can also improve how students comprehend content-area texts
(Graham & Hebert, 2010). The Writing to Read researchers outline three major
areas for students to strengthen their reading and writing skills:
1. Students should write about the texts that they read to comprehend
science, social studies, and language arts texts.
2. Teachers should teach students writing skills and processes that go
into creating text.
3. Teachers should increase the time that students write, which will
help students increase their reading comprehension.
Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle
and High Schools (Graham & Perin, 2007) recommends 11 key elements of
effective adolescent writing instruction. They include writing strategies,
summarization, collaborative writing, specific product goals, word processing,
sentence combining, prewriting, inquiry activities, process writing approach,
study of models, and writing for content learning.
Teacher Preparation
All classes have the potential for textual interactions. Consequently, state
regulatory certifications require that pre-service teachers take a content reading
course to assist learners in their content areas. However, after they leave their
teacher training, literacy instruction has not occurred consistently in secondary
classrooms because content teachers have not been given the resources needed to
35


capitalize on reading and writing in their content areas (Fisher & Ivey, 2005). One
of the problems of infusing content literacy is that teachers may be resistant due to
contextual reasons. For example, OBrien, Stewart, and Moje (1995) assert that
there is a disconnection that exists between teachers pre-service content literacy
education and how it is applied in the classroom.
While literature is an important aspect to a students learning experience
and development, the type of reading typically done in English or language arts
classes is different from what students would see in their other classes. For
example, students in a high school English course would most likely be reading a
novel. Teachers would expect students to identify literary terms and their effects
on characters or the plot. In contrast, students in a science class would probably
be reading a non-fiction textbook or a lab report, which requires different reading
strategies to tackle the content and differing text structures (Heller & Greenleaf,
2007). Even though high school and college mathematics and science teachers
agree that reading is an important skill, they do not spend time teaching content
reading strategies to their students (ACT, 2009). Therefore, it is important for all
teachers in content classes to teach and reinforce literacy skills (Daniels &
Zemelman, 2004).
Assessment
Student progress should be analyzed in the form of ongoing formative
assessments, common assessments, written assessments, or principal assessment
of student work (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Ivey & Fisher, 2006; Reeves, 2003).
36


Teachers should create assignments that are similar to college or workforce
reading and writing (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007) and then conduct
action research to see if what they are doing is having an impact on literacy
achievement (Reeves, 2003). Schools are encouraged to put in place constructive,
holistic accountability systems (Reeves, 2003) for teachers and for students to
show literacy improvement. All of these ideas together strengthen the chance of
striving readers to graduate from high school with the skills to enter college or the
workplace (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). The Alliance for Excellent Education
(2007) purports that literacy proficiency grows through developmental processes
that continue over a lifetime.
Reeves (2003) suggests frequent feedback and active coaching from
teachers that are based on weekly assessments, collaborative scoring of student
papers and determination of proficiency, constructive data analysis, distributed
professional development, and emphasis that every adult role is important for
schoolwide literacy.
Interventions
Some students will require more intense reading and writing interventions
to advance their literacy skills, which educators will address on an individual
basis; however, there will be students who enter high school with most of the
reading skills they need to be academically successful. It is important to support
the call to engage in focused and sustained literacy interventions for the full range
of adolescent readers and writers (Snow & Moje, 2010). For these students the
37


principal must implement a schoolwide literacy plan to build on their established
literacy skills, while also strengthening weaknesses so that they can read a variety
of texts and write about them using different modes of writing. Literacy
specialists who identify students as below proficient from data sources should
implement appropriate literacy interventions (Beers, 2003; Biancarosa & Snow,
2004) to provide those students the necessary means to become proficient readers
and writers by the time they graduate from high school.
Meltzer (2007) examined several schools that focused on literacy across
the content areas and used strategic interventions typically saw gains in their
reading scores. In a formative experiment study to improve literacy achievement
at a high school in the western United States, Fisher, Frey, and Lapp (2009) found
that by identifying interventions to meet a specific student populations needs and
providing professional development for teachers, the school met AYP and
graduation rates increased after two and a half years of the formative experiment.
The Reading Next researchers (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004) urge teachers to
use effective instructional practices embedded in content to reach all learners.
Literacy interventions, such as more time allocated for reading and writing
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007; Ivey & Fisher, 2006) and direct, explicit
comprehension instruction and intensive writing (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004) were
also stressed. Other recommendations include defining a disciplines own
essential literacy skills (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007); incorporating
open-ended and analytic writing assessments; providing motivation and self-
38


directed learning (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Irvin et al., 2007); extending time
for literacy (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007; Biancarosa & Snow, 2004);
systemically aligning curriculum standards; supporting planning for use of time
within different bell schedules; reading and writing in every class; providing
opportunities for self-expression; creating safe and responsive classrooms; and
implementing school policies, structures, and culture for supporting literacy
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007; Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Fisher &
Ivey, 2006; Irvin et al, 2007; Reeves, 2008).
Response to Intervention
Response to Intervention (Rtl) was first presented in the reauthorization of
the Individuals with Disabilities Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Although Rtl has been mainly implemented in elementary grades, it is beginning
to gain attention in secondary schools (Muoneke & Shankland, 2009; Shanklin,
2008). The use of Rtl at the high school level has shown to decrease dropout rates
and the number of special education referrals (Duffy, 2007). Secondary schools
across the nation are creating and using their own three-tiered methods for
instructional interventions (Brozo, 2010); however, they are more than likely not
scientifically-based (Cobb, Sample, Alwell, & Johns, 2005). Research findings for
using Rtl for adolescent literacy have been identified (Torgesen et al., 2007) that
suggest interventions for learners with a variety of reading backgrounds.
Rtl is a multi-tiered intervention system with progress monitoring to
improve student achievement and improve graduation rates. Universal
39


interventions in the first tier are used for all students targeting instructional
practices and services available that are usually provided at the classroom level.
The level two tier is used to target small groups of students who need extra
assistance, while tier three is for intensive interventions for targeted students on a
one-to-one basis who did not respond to the second tier interventions. According
to Brozo (2010), the first tier is the weakest tier at the secondary level. If content
teachers fail to offer responsive literacy instruction to benefit every student and
differentiated assistance for those in need of extra help, then the preventative
potential of Rtl is lost (p. 280).
Professional Development
One issue that dominates the success or failure of a schoolwide literacy
plan is professional development to equip teachers with the knowledge, materials,
and support they need to assist students. The plan requires focused and
accountable professional development (Fisher, 2001). In addition, Meltzer and
Ziemba (2006) urge school leaders to, develop a three-year professional
development plan that sequences professional development in meaningful ways,
aligns with other schoolwide initiatives, and provides time for teachers to share
their implementation practices (p. 23).
Traditionally, administrators or an outside source were the purveyors of
teacher professional development designed to provide teachers information to use
in their classrooms. They usually came in the form of workshops, seminars, and
conferences. Because of this design, teachers left professional development
40


sessions with information but seldom discussed or put it into practice what they
learned because of lack of collaborative activities (Burbank & Kauchak, 2003).
Professional developmentincluding work in professional learning
communities and literacy coachingwill be some of the means of educating
teachers of all disciplines to explore and put into practice literacy skills that are
going to enhance their content and help students become better readers and
writers. In the report Reading at Risk (2006), the National Association of State
Boards of Education recommended that teachers must have considerable
knowledge to use research-based literacy strategies in content-area instruction
and ensure that content teachers know about the textual demands of their
subjects and have the ongoing supports to build literacy skills appropriate to the
requirements of the discipline (p. 6). Professional development should be
constant. Ongoing teacher professional development is key to a literacy
improvement initiative (Meltzer, as cited by the Ohio Resource Center for
Mathematics, Science, and Reading, 2007, p. 9). As teachers do with their
students, principals and professional developers must also teach, model with
follow-up coaching and authentic feedback for continuous improvement (Taylor,
2007). Professional development will also include finding ways for teachers to
use culturally-responsive pedagogy and materials that are leveled for reading
ability and materials that are engaging to reach all students (Au, 2000; Callins,
2006; Nieto, 1999).
41


The Alliance for Excellent Education (2007) endorses reading, writing,
and discussing academic content, meaningful, and compelling issues and the
implementation of intensive and ongoing professional development for content-
area literacy. Biancarosa and Snow (2004) encourage text-based collaborative
learning, strategic tutoring, long-term and ongoing professional development,
teacher teams, and strong leadership. Ivey and Fisher (2006) purport that
professional development is important for building teachers knowledge and
expertise.
Individuals who use reform types of professional development such as
study groups, networking, mentoring, coaching and regular school day meetings
that may occur during the process of classroom instruction or planning time
(Lee, 2005) help teachers to gain more knowledge and skills for student learning.
In addition, professional learning practices could include identifying student
needs and tailoring professional development activities to meet those needs.
Working within professional learning communities, teachers would examine
students reading and writing data to glean information that would help them
target specific skills, build lessons, assess students for learning, scrutinize student
work in a non-threatening manner, re-examine data, and adjust instruction.
However, Nichols and his colleagues (2007) state that there are no current
mandates to provide direction on how districts or schools should conduct
professional development for effective teaching. The result of no mandates is that
school leaders have to define the best professional development plan for their
42


building based on data and available resources that results in the improved
learning of students. They can, however, reference professional development
context, process, and content standards outlined by the NSDC (National Staff
Development Council, 2008b).
Professional development should be at the forefront of leadership so that
all personnel can develop new skills to adapt to student learning needs (Birman,
Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000). Skillful leaders establish policies and
organizational structures that support ongoing professional learning and
continuous improvement (National Staff Development Council, 2008a). Youngs
and King (2002) examined the extent and the ways in which principal leadership
for professional development can be used to increase organizational capacity and
are as follows: (a) Principals sustain high levels of capacity by establishing trust;
and (b) Principals create structures that promote teacher learning. Guskey (as
cited in International Reading Association, 2006) outlines four common elements
found in most successful professional development initiatives: A clear focus on
learning and learners, an emphasis on individual and organizational change, small
changes guided by a grand vision, and ongoing professional development that is
procedurally embedded (p. 43).
A principal cannot do it alone. A principal will need to distribute
leadership either with a specified literacy team comprised of a representative
group of teachers or with department coordinators to keep the plan focused.
Sharing leadership allows the principal to incorporate the talents and energy of
43


other administrators, literacy coaches, reading specialists, curriculum
coordinators, and teachers (Irvin, et al., 2007, p. 180). In a study about
collaborative actions educators took to implement school reform around literacy
improvement, Ylimaki (2001) concluded that highly collaborative actions
contribute to the change process. She identified five democratic attributes that had
positive effects on reform implementation: shared power, cultures of trust, diverse
and equitable participation, authentic involvement, and developing priorities for
the common good. Most importantly, a principal must appoint teachers and help
to build their capacity to take on leadership roles in professional development
activities (Drago-Severson, 2007; Salsberry & Wetig, 2004). The principals will
need to ensure that accountability systems are in place to monitor and adjust when
needed and evaluate the effectiveness of professional development at different
levels (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
Part of the professional development process is providing teachers with
the content standards set forth for literacy coaches in math, science, social studies,
and English (International Reading Association, 2006). Professional developers
will make adjustments in professional development activities in order for teachers
to be most effective with students. The principal and a literacy team will track
student achievement through CSAP, PLAN, and ACT data to observe whether
students are making the progress towards being college or workforce ready when
they graduate. Over the course of time, the use of remediation data from Colorado
44


higher education institutions will also be an indicator of the schoolwide literacy
plans success.
In a recent study on the sustainability of a schoolwide literacy reform
project, LeFave (2005) found that the learning community was engaged in the
instructional changes that began in the professional development that focused on
research-based reading instructional practices and ongoing training in leadership
for the principal and reading coach. However, there were factors that impeded
instructional improvement, such as resistance, conflicts in cultural norms,
development of factions within the school, low teacher efficacy, and time
constraints. The overall way of evaluating the success of the professional
development plan will show through teacher efficacy and increased student
achievement.
Literacy Coaching
In order to ensure that professional development is ongoing and supported,
a coaching component should be part of a schoolwide literacy plan (Phillips, as
cited by the Ohio Resource Center for Mathematics, Science, and Reading, 2007).
Literacy coaching provides teacher professional learning that builds teachers
capacities to offer quality literacy instruction to students and, in turn, to increase
students literacy achievement (Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse, 2007). The
International Reading Association states that a literacy coach should possess the
following traits: (a) be skillful collaborators, (b) be skillful job-embedded
coaches, (c) be skillful evaluators of literacy needs, and (d) be skillful
45


instructional strategists (2006). Buly, Coskie, Robinson, and Egawa (2004) define
the coach as one who trains intensively by instruction, demonstration, and
practice (p. 61).
In a study to discover the strengths of a current professional development
coaching program, Sheldahl (2007) found that high school coaches have
experienced success both at the schoolwide and individual teacher levels due to
administrative support, being veteran teachers, having staffs that were open to
learning, and attending district professional development to hone their skills.
Principal involvement and support is important for the success of a literacy
coaching initiative in their schools. Principals can achieve this by supporting
change, setting a vision, actively participate in the change process, building
relational trust, and modeling collaboration (Cronin Krai, n.d.). In addition,
principals can help literacy coaches succeed by providing a clear job description;
developing a school literacy team; providing assistance in using time, managing
projects, and documenting their work; assisting coaches in the organization of
study groups and planning effective professional development activities; helping
coaches to assist teachers in analyzing data; and providing instructional resources
and professional development activities (Shanklin, n.d.).
Chapter Summary
A discussion of the case for principal involvement and schoolwide literacy
began with research of adolescent literacy needs that included the historical
context and policies implemented currently and in the past. Education reform
46


policy began to take foot with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) of 1965 because education was related to upward mobility in the United
States. A position statement from the International Reading Association (Moore,
Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999) was put forth to advocate for adolescent
literacy to be included in policy. However, when ESEA was reauthorized in 2002
as NCLB, it did not include any language about adolescent literacy. At the time of
the conclusion of this study, NCLB had not been reauthorized, which had the
possibility of providing direct funding for adolescent literacy (National Middle
School Association, n.d.). At the same time, the Act (LEARN) had not passed,
which addressed reading, writing, and academic achievement from preschool
through 12th grade. Thirty-six states had adopted the Common Core Standards
(2010) at this time.
The emphasis on strong leadership was recognized through the literature.
Instructional leadership has been less influential as a model for implementing
school reform. Hallinger (2003), states that the principalas an instructional
leaderpossesses too much power and authority to make institutional changes.
However, principals who exhibit transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Bennis
& Nanus, 1985) empower others in the school to contribute to those changes. Like
transformational leadership, principals can use Vygotskys core principles to
transform schools from the inside out as teachers learn to work with other
teachers and their cultural artifacts to unify literacy practices and instruction (Lee
& Smagorinsky, 2000).
47


In this literature review, it is important for all high school teachers to teach
literacy strategies that are relevant to their content areas (Alvermann & Moore,
1991; Graham & Perin, 2007, Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; National Council of
Teachers of English, 1998; Vacca & Vacca, 1996). In addition to reading
strategies, writing strategies must also be implemented (Graham & Hebert, 2010;
Graham & Perin, 2007). Teacher preparation programs need to close the gap
between pre-service content literacy education and how it is then applied to the
high school classroom (OBrien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995).
Assessments in the form of ongoing formative assessments, common
assessments, written assessments, or principal assessment of student work were
stressed (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Ivey & Fisher, 2006; Reeves, 2003). The
Alliance for Excellent Education (2007) states that literacy proficiency grows
through developmental processes that continue over a lifetime.
Universal, targeted, and intensive interventionsthat are outlined in
Response to Interventionwere stressed in this literature review. Snow and Moje
(2010) contend that principals need to implement interventions for the lull range
of adolescent readers and writers. Before readers and writers experience a need
for targeted or intensive interventions, teachers should be embedding effective
instructional practices in content (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004).
Principals have the responsibility of implementing professional
development plans for their teachers that should be developed over time (Ziemba,
2006). Professional development can take on many forms including work in
48


professional learning communities (Dufour & Eaker, 1998) and through literacy
coaching (Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse, 2007).
49


CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology and procedures used to examine
the practices that high school principals institute within their schools to promote
reading achievement and growth. This study implemented a mixed-methods
design utilizing The Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey and
follow-up phone interviews to provide principals views of their involvement in
schoolwide literacy at their schools. A portrait of a group of high school
principals views on what they have in place for schoolwide literacy will be
provided based on the survey and follow-up phone interviews. The purpose for
mixing quantitative and qualitative data is to obtain the most reliable and
authentic data possible to best address the research questions. The study asked
three research questions:
1. Do differences exist in principal involvement on the Principal
Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey, and do those differences
link to where schools are located on the Colorado Growth Model?
Hypothesis: Schools that possess high achievement and high growth
and schools that possess low achievement and high growth will have
high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy.
2. What leadership actions do principals take to promote schoolwide
literacy?
50


3. How well does the combination of minority status, graduation rates,
per pupil funding, and school size predict reading growth?
This chapter provides information on the research design, participant
selection, data collection, and data analysis procedures.
Research Design
This research explores what principals are doing to increase students
reading achievement and growth and to close the achievement gap. The design of
this mixed methods research study is based on Research Question 1, Research
Question 2, and Research Question 3. An exploratory design (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2007) was used that consisted of two phases: a quantitative measure
followed by a qualitative measure: QUAN > qual. High school principals were
surveyed electronically, and interviews of selected principals followed. The
purpose for this approach was that the first phase is quantitative [which is
emphasized], the second phase was connected to the results of the first phase, and
the intent was to explain these results using qualitative data as a follow-up (p.
85). The design also provided a general understanding of the research problem in
the quantitative phase, while the qualitative data and analysis refined and
explained those statistical results by exploring participants views in more depth
(Rossman & Wilson, 1985; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Creswell, 2003, as cited
in Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). The quantitative phase also included
demographic questions about the principals and about their schools.
51


The rationale for using such a design was for significance enhancement,
participant enrichment, and instrument fidelity (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Sutton,
2006). In terms of significance enhancement, this design expanded the
interpretation of both the quantitative and qualitative results in that the findings
from one method helped inform the other method. This approach also expanded
the breadth and range of inquiry by using multiple methods for different inquiry
components. Participant enrichment was achieved by mixing the methods
optimizing the sample through inclusion of a variety of participants that better
represented the targeted population. Additionally, it gave principals a voice in the
interpretation of literacy practices that may influence policy decisions. The
intention, then, of mixing quantitative and qualitative data is to obtain the most
reliable and authentic data possible to best address the research questions.
Instrument
The purpose of the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Survey (see
Appendix D) was to survey 106 Colorado high school principals from schools
with enrollments between 750 and 2,800 students. In addition, the purpose was to
examine their involvement in increasing student reading achievement and growth.
The electronic survey consisted of 30 closed-ended questions related to principal
literacy involvement to increase student achievement and growth in reading. The
survey also included eight open-ended questions. A 12-item section measured
demographics. The instrument was developed by me based on a review of the
52


literature that represented the content of the subject matter the test intended to
cover (Krathwohl, 2004), which established content validity.
The surveys main construct was the high school principals involvement
with student reading achievement and growth. Sub-constructs were identified
through the literature: Principal Leadership, Professional Development,
Instruction, Assessment, Interventions, and Twenty-first Century Learning. Each
of the 30 questions was rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale. The scale included
strongly disagree, slightly disagree, disagree, agree, slightly agree, and
strongly agree. Questions for each sub-construct and the open-ended questions
can be found in Table 3.1.
53


Table 3.1
Sub-constructs, survey items, and open-ended questions
Principal Leadership
1. I am clear about my vision for schoolwide literacy.
7. I solicit funding from the district, state, or federal government to support literacy in my school. Open-ended question: What percentage of funding do you provide for literacy?
13. 19. 25. I hold all teachers accountable for reading instruction. I conduct walkthroughs (learning walks) to observe reading practices. I ensure that reading is embedded in each content areas school improvement plan.
Instruction 2. I encourage teachers to teach reading strategies to help students develop high-level reading skills. Open-ended question: Please describe these strategies.
8. I am aware of reading strategies that teachers should use in their content areas.
14. 20. I am knowledgeable of reading instruction. I provide technology supports for reading instruction. Open-ended question: Please list the technology supports you provide.
26. I encourage intensive writing related to student reading tasks.
Assessment 3. 9. 15. 21. 27. I stress the value of student self-assessment in reading. I am knowledgeable of reading assessment and data analysis. I use reading data to make instructional decisions. I see frequent use of formative literacy assessments in the classroom. I expect teachers to use literacy data to make instructional decisions. Open-ended question: What kinds of data?
54


Table 3.1 (Cont) Sub-constructs, survey items, and open-ended questions
Professional Development
4. I provide funding for literacy coach(es).
Open-ended question: How much? Is there one or more coaches? Are
they full time or teach? Are they assigned other duties?
10. As an administrator, I receive professional development in literacy.
Open-ended question: Please describe your professional development
activities.
16. I provide funding for reading specialist(s).
22. I provide time for teachers to participate in teacher teams to work on
literacy practices.
Open-ended question: How much time? Is it structured or on their own?
28. I have a schoolwide, professional development model that addresses
literacy.
Open-ended question: Please describe what that looks like.
Interventions
5. I possess a set of reading expectations for all learners.
11. I use the Response to Intervention (Rtl) model for reading interventions.
17. I expect teachers to differentiate instruction to assist all readers and
writers.
23. I have built reading classes into the master schedule.
Open-ended question: How many classes? What kinds of classes?
29. I work with teachers on the literacy development of students with special
needs and with English language learners.
Twenty-first Century Learning
6. I encourage teachers to create literacy lessons that allow students to
apply knowledge to real-world, unpredictable situations.
12. I support collaborative learning in classrooms to enhance literacy
development.
18. I promote critical thinking and problem-solving skills through literacy
practices.
24. I support creativity and innovation in students reading and writing
assignments.
30. I encourage teachers to provide students the skills to read and write
independently.
55


In the demographic section of the survey, participants were asked to
provide information on the following: gender, years as a principal, years as the
principal at his or her current school, content taught before becoming a high
school principal, years in the classroom before becoming a principal, current
enrollment, African-American enrollment, Latino enrollment, free and reduced
lunch, school type, per pupil funding, and 2008 graduation rates.
Participant Selection and Description
Using the Colorado Department of Education Growth Model (2009a)a
measure of student progress from one year to the next in the context of a students
academic peersa non-probability-based, purposeful sample to achieve
representativeness or comparability sampling design (Teddlie & Yu, 2007) was
used to identify high schools in the state with enrollments of 750 to 2,800
students. The purpose of this range is that these schools were comprised of a large
number of students that reflect a significant number of schools.
Colorado Growth Model
The Colorado Growth Model was signed into legislation in 2007 (HB 07-
1048) as a way to measure each students growth over time. What followed was
the passing of SB 09-163, the 2009 Education Accountability Act. This bill
expanded the set of performance indicators for states, districts, and schools.
Instead of ranking schools by achievement levels only, this legislation added
growth as indicated by the Colorado Growth Model, achievement gaps indicated
by income and ethnicity, and post-secondary readiness as measured by the ACT.
56


The Colorado Growth Model (Colorado Department of Education, 2009a)
served as the means to identify high school principals to potentially survey and to
later interview. After students take the Colorado Student Assessment Program
(CS AP) test, the model is used to assist parents, teachers, schools, and school
districts to identify students who need additional assistance and to close learning
gaps. The growth model is comprised of four quadrants: high achievement/high
growth (HAHG), low achievement/high growth (LAHG), high achievement/low
growth (HALG), and low achievement/low growth (LALG). The Colorado
Growth Model has been adopted by other states (Colorado Department of
Education, 2010a). For this reason, this is not only an important issue in the state
of Colorado, but it is also an important issue for other states that adopt this model.
The growth model is comprised of two levels of measurement:
achievement and growth. Achievement is the level of achievement in percentages:
advanced, proficient, partially proficient, and unsatisfactory. For example a high
achievement school may possess an achievement level of 80%, meaning that
80% of the students were proficient or above in CSAP reading. This number
needs to exceed the state average in order to be above proficiency.
In addition to achievement level, the growth model is based on percentiles
that compare a students rate of growth to a group of grade level peers from the
State of Colorado who started at the same place on the CSAP scale. Each school
earns a median growth percentile for reading, writing, and math based on scores.
School median percentiles are the average growth percentile for all the students in
57


a subject area within the school. For example, if all 9th and 10th grade students in a
school were lined up from the highest to the lowest growth percentile, then the
growth percentile of the student in the middle is the median growth percentile for
the school. If the school median percentile is 50 or higher, it indicates that on
average, students in that school show above average growth in that subject area. If
the school median percentile is less than 50, students in that school demonstrate
less than average growth (Colorado Department of Education, 2009a).
School growth is then charted on a four-quadrant graph to show where
schools lie (see Figure 3.1). Schools will get a rating in reading, writing, and math
based on their growth percentile and their achievement level on CSAP. If a school
has a median growth percentile of 50 or higher, it will be labeled as high growth.
If the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced is higher than the
state average for that subject area (collapsed across 9 and 10 grades), then the
school is in the high achievement category. Schools showing high growth and
high achievement will be located in the upper right quadrant. Those with below
average growth and high achievement are positioned in the upper left quadrant.
Those with high growth, but low achievement are located in the lower right
quadrant. Schools with low growth and low achievement are displayed in the
lower left quadrant.
58


High
/
Achievement Level
\ t
Low
Low
50th Percentile
High High
Achievement Achievement
Low Growth High Growth
Low Low
Achievement Achievement
Low Growth High Growth
Longitudinal
Growth
>
High
Figure 3.1 The Colorado Growth Model
The 2009 Colorado Growth Model for reading was used to identify high
school principals whose schools represented each quadrant. Student enrollment
between 750 to 2,800 students was also an inclusion factor (N= 106). The
breakdown of principals is as follows: High Achievement High Growth (HAHG)
(n = 37), High Achievement Low Growth (HALG) (n = 36), Low Achievement
High Growth (LAHG) (n = 16), and Low Achievement Low Growth (LALG)
(n = 17).
The Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy surveys were sent to
principals represented by each quadrant. The same survey was sent separately to
59


principals in each quadrant for tracking principal responses by quadrant for data
analysis purposes. Three email addresses were unusable because of electronic
delivery problems or due to schools blocking the unrecognizable university email
address used for Survey Monkey (SurveyMonkey.com, 2009) purposes.
Data Collection
The Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board approved the study in
November 2009 and an amendment was approved in February 2010 (see
Appendix B).
Research Question 1
Because responses were tracked by where schools landed on the Colorado
Growth Model, four identical Principal Leadership and Adolescent Surveys were
sent separately. Specifically, the survey was sent to high achievement high growth
(HAHG) principals; a survey was sent to low achievement high growth (LAHG)
principals; a survey was sent to high achievement low growth (HALG) principals;
and a survey was sent to low achievement low growth (LALG) principals.
The Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy surveys were sent to
principals on Nov. 22,2009 through Survey Monkey (SurveyMonkey.com, 2009)
to 106 high school principals in the state of Colorado. The first page of the survey
included an explanation of the study, its purpose, and the right to voluntary
participation. Participants were given the option of identifying their schools for
the purpose of sending follow-up communication. In order to protect their
anonymity, the list of principals who identified their schools was kept confidential
60


and will be destroyed one year after the study is completed. A follow-up request
for participation and the link to the survey was sent December 11, 2009 to
increase the response rate.
Research Question 2
Participants were asked in the survey if they would consent to an
interview. Two electronic requests for participation yielded 10 responses from
principals represented by three of the four quadrants. Participation rates from each
quadrant included the following: HAHG (n = 5), LAHG (n = 3), HALG (n = 2),
and LALG (n = 0). In-depth interviews were conducted over the phone using a set
of questions that were based on data from the quantitative phase and from the
literature (see Appendix H). During the interview, I used the list of questions with
room to write notes, while also using a digital recorder to record the interview
session.
Research Question 3
Schools were identified by student enrollment: 750 to 2,800 students.
From this list acquired through the Colorado Growth Model Schoolview page
(Colorado Department of Education, 2009a), schools were chosen that met that
criterion. In addition to school size, minority statusincluding African-American
and Latino studentsgraduation rates and per pupil funding data were gathered
through the Colorado Department of Education website.
Data Analysis
The study used mixed methods research. The following research questions
61


guided this study:
1. Do differences exist in principal involvement on the Principal
Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey, and do those differences
link to where schools are located on the Colorado Growth Model?
Hypothesis: Schools that possess high achievement and high
growth and schools that possess low achievement and high growth
will have high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy.
2. What leadership actions do principals take to promote schoolwide
literacy?
3. How well does the combination of minority status, graduation rates,
per pupil funding, and school size predict reading growth?
Research Question l
All quantitative survey responses were coded, entered, and analyzed using
SPSS Version 17.0. First, Research Question 1 was measured by collapsing the
Likert-type Agree answers and the Disagree answers to create Agree and
Disagree dichotomous responses. Percentages of both Agree and Disagree
were reported to assess the proportion of participants that belonged to each
category. The means and standard deviations were also examined. Next, the
research question was measured using a one-sample t-test, a paired samples t-test,
and an independent samples t-test with original ordinal scores to assess whether
these differences were statistically significant by high or low growth status as
defined by the Colorado Growth Model.
62


Research Question 2
To gain a more in-depth understanding of principals involvement in
schoolwide literacy that contributes to student achievement and growth, Research
Question 2 was addressed through phone interviews. The interviews were
transcribed using voice recognition software Dragon Naturally Speaking, version
10.0. The data were transcribed using the digital recording of the interview, which
was typed into a document. All of the participants answers were listed under each
question. The data were coded to identify emerging themes by question and
underlining key ideas of each theme. By coding the raw data with this initial set, a
list of tentative themes were identified. The data were examined for generalities,
general perceptions or perspectives, actions, situations, and strategies (Miles &
Huberman, 1994) related to principal actions and their involvement in schoolwide
literacy. A second reading of the data was conducted to examine responses from
principals represented by each quadrant.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was measured using Discriminant Function Analysis
(DFA). The purpose of this statistic was to develop a weighted linear composite
to predict membership in two or more groups (Cooley & Lohnes, 1971, as cited
in Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino 2006, p. 255). DFA is similar to multiple regression
analysis in that it assumes inclusion of all important predictor variables and
exclusion of extraneous variables (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino 2006). While
multiple regression is used to predict, DFA has two purposes: (a) prediction,
63


referred to as predictive discriminant analysis, and (b) explanation, referred to as
descriptive discrimanant analysis (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino 2006, p 257). The
groups included high growth and low growth as represented on the Colorado
Growth Model. The DFA was used to examine whether minority status, per pupil
funding, graduation rates, and/or school size would predict high growth or low
growth on the growth model either in isolation or in a combination.
All assumptions of DFA such as multivariate normality, equal
covariances, lack of outliers, and multicollinearity were assessed prior to analysis.
Reliability and Validity
Since this study uses a mixed methods approach, I was able to expand the
breadth and range of inquiry by using multiple methods for different inquiry
components (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Sutton, 2006). Content literacy was also
checked through the pilot survey of middle school principals and secondary
reading specialists. The Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey and
the interview questions were created based on the literature, thus establishing
content validity.
Research Question 1
Reliability
Because the survey was designed by mebased on the literature that was
presented in Chapter IIand has only been used once, the replication of
administration over time yielding the same results has not occurred (Golafshani,
2003). However, internal consistency reliability, measured through Cronbachs
64


alpha, was conducted on the six sub-constructs of principal involvement: principal
leadership, instruction, assessment, professional development, interventions,
twenty-first century learning, and the scale collectively. The scale as a whole
indicated a reliability coefficient of .956. The a coefficients ranged from .60
(professional development) to .89 (twenty-first century learning) (see Table 3.2).
Although it is considered a liberal standard of internal consistency reliability
(Nunnally, & Bernstein, 1994), an a coefficient of .70 or greater is an indication
of a reliable measure. However, in most survey research literature, a coefficients
within a range of .70 to .80 is prominent. Thus, according to standard (Nunnally,
& Bernstein, 1994), the professional development sub-construct would not be
considered internally consistent. It is important to note that the professional
development sub-construct with a coefficient of .609 is considered questionable
(Gliem & Gliem, 2003). The implications and ramifications of this issue will be
further discussed in Chapter V.
65


Table 3.2
Principal leadership and adolescent literacy survey reliability statistics
Sub-construct n Cronbachs alpha
Principal Leadership 5 .798
Instruction 5 .766
Assessment 5 .773
Professional Development 5 .609
Interventions 5 .759
Twenty-first Century Learning 5 .890
Validity
A survey pilot was electronically administered to a Colorado suburban
districts secondary reading specialists and middle school principals in November
2009 to test for content validity. They were sent an attachment in an email (see
Appendix A) to respond to the clarity and relevance of the instrument. Seven
reading specialists and eight middle school principals responded. The 1999
standard of evidence based on response processes was used to answer the
following question: To what extent does the type of performances or responses
in which examinees engage fit the intended construct? (Goodwin, 2002, p. 102).
No changes were needed based on the positive responses made by the reading
specialists and middle school principals, thus establishing content validity of the
66


instrument. The doctoral committee approved the instrument, and the Colorado
Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) examined and approved the
instrument as well.
Research Question 2
Qualitative research requires a different approach to reliability and
validity. Instead of arriving at a level of significance, Lincoln and Guba (1985)
purport, while the terms Reliability and Validity are essential criterion for quality in
quantitative paradigms, in qualitative paradigms the terms Credibility, Neutrality or
Confirmability, Consistency or Dependability, and Applicability or Transferability
are to be the essential criteria for quality (Golafshani, 2003, p. 601).
Reliability
In order to realize reliability, dependability, and auditability, Miles and
Huberman (1994), contend, the underlying issue is whether the process of the
study is consistent, reasonably stable over time, and across researchers and
methods (p. 278). They provide a list of relevant queries related to qualitative
research reliability. Miles and Huberman ask if the questions are clear, while the
study design is congruent with the research questions. The interview procedures
were consistent and did not deviate from the interview protocol for each
interview. Reliability was also assessed with a quality check from a peer
researcher who interpreted the data (Golafshani, 2003). Coding checks were made
that showed adequate agreement between the researcher and the third party.
67


Validity
Internal and external validity were assessed during the entire process. To
arrive at true value of internal validity, Miles and Huberman (1994) ask if the
findings of the study make sense and if they are credible to the people that are
studied and to the readers. In addition, they offer other relevant queries to test for
internal validity. Such questions include asking how context-rich and meaningful
the descriptions are. Does the account ring true, make sense, seem convincing or
plausible, and enable a vicarious presence for the reader? Is the account rendered
a comprehensive one, respecting the configuration and temporal arrangement of
elements in the local context? (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 279). Based on the
literature and the responses from principals, the data from the principals were
credible, meaningful, and comprehensive. In addition, reliability was checked
through triangulation. Data was collected through different sources that included
the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy SurveyLikert-type items and
open-response itemsand through interviews.
External validity tests the transferability and generalizability of the
conclusions of the study, according to Miles and Huberman (1994). Erickson
(1986) states that a reader can choose to reconstruct the knowledge learned from
one context to another situation based on her or his own personal meanings they
give to a situation. The reader decides what information is useful. Eisner (1991)
explains that data from a specific context or case can be used as a prototype for
other cases, which creates a base for external validity.
68


Chapter Summary
In Chapter III, the mixed methods research design, the instrument,
participant selection and description, the Colorado Growth Model, data collection,
data analysis, reliability, and validity were discussed. Chapter IV will discuss the
findings from the survey, the interviews, and the Discriminant Function Analysis
that address each of the survey questions.
69


CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
This study examined the impact of high school principals involvement in
schoolwide reading achievement and growth. While the issues in this study were
issues at the national level, this study focused on these issues in the State of
Colorado. The goal was to suggest implications and recommendations of how
Colorado principals, coaches, and teachers can work together to ensure that every
student leaves high school with the reading skills needed for college and for work.
Three questions guided the research:
1. Do differences exist in principal involvement on the Principal
Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey, and do those differences
link to where schools are located on the Colorado Growth Model?
Hypothesis: Schools that possess high achievement and high growth
and schools that possess low achievement and high growth will have
high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy.
2. What leadership actions do principals take to promote schoolwide
literacy?
3. How well does the combination of minority status, graduation rates,
per pupil funding, and school size predict reading growth?
Colorado high school principals were asked about their involvement
around literacy in an electronic survey designed and distributed by the researcher.
Ten participants agreed to participate in a phone interview to provide additional
70


information to add to the robustness of the study. Discriminant Function Analysis
was run to address Research Question 3.
This chapter begins with a description of the sample with demographic
findings following. Findings from the three research questions will guide the
remainder of the chapter. A discussion of the results of this study is provided in
Chapter V.
Description of the Sample
Research Question 1
Survey Participants
Participants solicited to take the Principal Leadership and Adolescent
Literacy Survey was generated from a population of 106 Colorado high school
principals with an enrollment range of 750 to 2,800 students. From that
population, data were collected from 36 high school principals, providing a 34%
return rate. A 40% response return rate for an email-generated survey is
considered average, while a 50% and 60% response rate are considered good
and very good, respectively (Instructional Assessment Resources, 2010). The
initial email with the SurveyMonkey link to the survey asking principals to
participate was sent November 22, 2009. A second email request with the same
SurveyMonkey link was sent December 11, 2009 to increase response rates. The
second request yielded eight more participants. The number of participants from
the Colorado Growth Model quadrants who responded follows: HAHG (n = 16),
71


LAHG (n = 4), HALG (n = 10), and LALG ( = 6). These are displayed in Table
4.1.
Table 4.1
Participants by quadrant
Quadrant n P
HAHG 16 44.4
LAHG 4 11.1
HALG 10 27.8
LALG 6 16.7
Research Question 2
Interview Participants
Ten principals agreed to be interviewed. They represented three of the four
quadrants from the Colorado Growth Model, which included HAHG (n = 5),
LAHG (n = 3), and HALG (n = 2). See Table 4.2.
72


Table 4.2
Interview participants
Quadrant n P
HAHG 5 50.0
LAHG 3 30.0
HALG 2 20.0
LALG 0 0.0
Research Question 3
Schools with enrollments of 750 to 2,800 students (N= 106) were used in
a Discriminant Function Analysis to assess whether minority status, graduation
rates, per pupil funding, and/or school size predicted where schools were
identified on the Colorado Growth Model. See Table 4.3.
73


Table 4.3
Discriminant function analysis sample
Quadrant n P
HAHG 39 37.0
LAHG 19 18.0
HALG 34 32.0
LALG 17 16.0
Demographic Data of Survey Participants
Personal, professional, and school demographic data were collected from
high school administrators who responded to the Principal Leadership and
Adolescent Literacy Survey. The demographics researched included gender, years
as a principal, years as a principal at their current school, content taught before
becoming a principal, years in the classroom before becoming a principal, current
enrollment, African-American enrollment, Latino enrollment, free and reduced
lunch, school type, per pupil funding, and 2008 graduation rates.
Table 4.4 displays the frequency and percentage of high school principal
gender responses. Of the 36 principals, 36 responded to the question of their
gender. Ten principals (27.8%) were female, while 26 principals (72.2%) were
male. Principals from HAHG schools reported that three principals were female
(18.8%), and 13 were male (81.3%). LAHG principals reported that there were
74


two female principals (50%) and two male (50%) principals. Principals from
HALG indicated that there were four female principals (30%), while seven
principals (70%) were male. LALG principals reported that there were two female
principals (33.3%) and four male principals (66.7).
Table 4.4
Principal gender by quadrant
Female Male
Quadrant n P n P
All Quadrants 10 27.8 26 72.2
HAHG 3 18.8 13 81.3
LAHG 2 50.0 2 50.0
HALG 3 30.0 7 70.0
LALG 2 33.3 4 66.7
Table 4.5 presents the data on years as a principal. The overall data
showed that principals have been in their positions for one to three years (n = 8)
22%, four to six years (n = 5) 13.9%, seven to 10 years (n= 13) 36.1%, 11 to 15
years (n = 9) 25.1%, 16 to 20 years (n = 1) 2.8%, and 20-plus years (n = 0).
HAHG principals ( = 16) reported the following years as principal: one
to three years (n = 2) 12.5%, four to six years (n = 3) 18.8%, seven to 10 years
75


(n 5) 31.3%, 11 to 15 years (n = 5) 31.3%, 16 to 20 years (n = 1) 6.3%, and 20+
years (n = 0).
LAHG principals (n 4) described their years as principal as one to three
years (n = 2) 50%, four to six years (n = 0), seven to 10 years (n = 2) 50%, 11 to
15 years (n = 2) 33.3%, 16 to 20 years (n = 0) and 20+ years (n = 0).
Principals from HALG schools (n= 10) who reported their years as
principal were one to three years (n = 3) 30%, four to six years (n = 0), seven to
10 years (n = 5) 50%, 11-15 years (n 2) 20%, 16-20 years (n = 0), and 20+
years (n = 0).
LALG principals (n = 6) provided years as principal as one to three years
(n = 1) 16.7%, four to six years (n = 2) 33.3%, seven to 10 years (n = 1) 16.7%,
11 to 15 years (n = 2) 33.3%, 16 to 20 years (n = 0), and 20+ years (n = 0).
76


Table 4.5
Years as a principal
Quadrant n P 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 16-20 20+
All Quadrants 8 5 13 9 1 0
22.2 13.9 36.1 25.1 2.8 0.0
HAHG 2 3 5 5 1 0
12.5 18.8 31.3 31.3 6.3 0.0
LAHG 2 0 2 0 0 0
50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
HALG 3 0 5 2 0 0
30.0 0.0 50.0 20.0 0.0 0.0
LALG 1 2 1 2 0 0
16.7 33.3 16.7 33.3 0.0 0.0
Table 4.6 presents years as principal at their current high school. Out of 36
principals who responded to this question, 18 (50%) reported they had been
principal in their current high school one to three years, 11 principals (30.6%)
said they had been principal at their school for four to six years, 5 (13.9%)
reported they had been principal at their school seven to 10 years, 2 (5.6%) stated
they had been principal for 11 to 15 years, and no principals reported that they
had been principal in their school for more than 15 years.
77


HAHG principals reported that they had been the principal at their school
one to three years (n = 6) 37.5%, four to six years (n = 5) 31.3%, seven to 10
years (n = 3) 18.8%, 11 to 15 years (n = 2) 12.5%, 16 to 20 years ( = 0), and 20+
years (n 0).
LAHG principals said they had been the principal in their school one to
three years (n = 2) 50%, four to six years (n = 0), seven to 10 years (n 2) 50%,
11 to 15 years (n = 0), 16 to 20 years (n = 0), and 20+ years (n = 0).
HALG principals stated they have been principals in their schools one to
three years (n = 6) 60%, four to six years (n = 2) 20%, seven to 10 years (n = 2)
20%, 11 to 15 years (n = 0), 16 to 20 years (n = 0), 20+ years (n = 0).
LALG principals reported that they had been the principal at their school
one to three years (n = 3) 50%, four to six years (n = 3) 50%, seven to 10 years
(n = 0), 11 to 15 years (n = 0), 16 to 20 years (n = 0), 20+ years (n = 0).
78


Table 4.6
Years as a principal at their current high school
Quadrant n P 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 16-20 20+
All 18 11 5 2 0 0
50.0 30.6 13.9 5.6 0.0 0.0
HAHG 6 5 3 2 0 0
37.5 31.3 18.8 12.5 0.0 0.0
LAHG 1 2 1 2 0 0
16.7 33.3 16.7 33.3 0.0 0.0
HALG 6 2 2 0 0 0
60.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LALG 3 3 0 0 0 0
50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
79


Table 4.7 displays the content principals taught before becoming a
principal. Principals from all four quadrants (n 36) combined reported the
following contents taught: English (rt 4) 11.1%, math (n = 4) 11.1%, science
(n = 5) 13.9%, social studies (n = 9) 25%, world languages (n = 1) 2.8%, physical
education (rt 2) 5.6%, business (n = 4) 11.1%, art (n = 0), technology ( = 1)
2.8%, library sciences (n = 0), and other (n = 6) 16.7%.
HAHG principals stated that they taught English (n = 1) 6.3%, math
(n = 2) 12.5%, science (n = 2) 12.5%, social studies (n = 4) 25%, world languages
(n = 0), physical education (n = 1) 6.3%, business (n = 2) 12.5%, art (n = 0),
technology (n 1) 6.3%, library sciences (rt = 0), and other (n = 3) 18.8%.
LAHG principals reported they taught English (n = 0), math {n = 1) 25%,
science (n = 0), social studies (n = 1) 25%, world languages (n = 1) 25%, physical
education (n = 0), business (n = 0), art (n = 0), technology (n 0), library sciences
(n = 0), and other {n = 1) 25%.
HALG principals stated they taught English (n = 2) 20%, math (n = 1)
10%, science (n 1) 10%, social studies (n 3) 30%, world languages (n = 0),
physical education (n = 1) 10%, business (n = 1) 10%, art (n = 0), technology
(n = 0), library sciences (n = 0), and other (n = 1) 10%.
LALG principals reported they taught English (n = 1) 16.7%, math
(n = 0), science (n = 2) 33.3%, social studies (n = 1) 16.7%, world languages
(n = 0), physical education (n = 0), business ( = 1) 16.7%, art (n = 0), technology
(n = 0), library sciences (n = 0), and other (n = 1) 16.7%.
80


Table 4.7
Content taught before becoming a principal
Quadrant n P All HAHG LAHG HALG LAD
English 4 1 0 2 1
11.1 6.3 0.0 20.0 16.7
Math 4 2 1 1 0
11.1 12.5 25.0 10.0 0.0
Science 5 2 0 1 2
13.9 12.5 0.0 10.0 33.3
Social Studies 9 4 1 3 1
25.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 16.7
World Lang. 1 0 1 0 0
2.8 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0
Physical Educ. 2 1 0 1 0
5.6 6.3 0.0 10.0 0.0
Business 4 2 0 1 1
11.1 12.5 0.0 10.0 16.7
Art 0 0 0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Technology 1 0 0 0 0
2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Library Sciences 0 0 0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 6 3 1 1 1
16.7 18.8 25.0 10.0 16.7
81


Table 4.8 describes the principals years in the classroom before becoming
a principal. Principals (n = 36) reported they had been in classroom before
becoming a principal: one to three years (n = 0), four to six years (n = 1) 2.8%,
seven to 10 years (n = 9) 25%, 11 to 15 years (n = 18) 50%, 16 to 20 years (n 4)
11.1%, and 20+ years (n = 4) 11.1%.
HAHG principals reported that they had been in the classroom before
becoming a principal one to three years (n = 0), four to six years (n = 0), seven to
10 years (n = 3) 18.8%, 11 to 15 years (n = 11) 68.8%, 16 to 20 years (n = 1)
6.3%, and 20+ years {n = 1) 6.3%.
LAHG principals said they had been in the classroom before becoming a
principal one to three years (n = 0), four to six years (n = 0), seven to 10 years
(n = 2) 50%, 11 to 15 years (n = 2) 50%, 16 to 20 years (n = 0), and 20+ years
in = 0).
HALG principals stated they have been in the classroom before becoming
a principal one to three years (n = 0), four to six years (n = 0), seven to 10 years
(n = 3) 30%, 11 to 15 years (n = 3) 30%, 16 to 20 years (n = 2) 20%, and 20+
years (n = 2) 20%.
LALG principals reported that they had been in the classroom before
becoming a principal one to three years (n = 0), four to six years (n = 1) 16.7%,
seven to 10 years (n = 1) 16.7%, 11 to 15 years (n = 2) 33.3%, 16 to 20 years
(n = 1) 16.7%, and 20+ years (n = 1) 16.7%.
82


Table 4.8
Years in the classroom before becoming a principal
Quadrant. n P 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 16-20 20+
All 0 1 9 18 4 4
0.0 2.8 25.0 50.0 11.1 11.1
HAHG 0 0 3 11 1 1
0.0 0.0 18.8 68.8 6.3 6.3
LAHG 0 0 2 2 0 0
0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
HALG 0 0 3 3 2 2
0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0
LALG 0 1 1 2 1 1
0.0 16.7 16.7 33.3 16.7 16.7
83


Full Text

PAGE 1

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS' INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOLWIDE READING ACHIEVEMENT USING THE STATE OF COLORADO GROWTH MODEL by Monica D. Zucker B.S., Kearney State College, 1986 B.A., Metropolitan State College, 1993 M.A., Regis University, 2000 Ed.S., University of Colorado Denver, 2004 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Educational Leadership and Innovation 2010

PAGE 2

by Monica D. Zucker All rights reserved.

PAGE 3

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Monica D. Zucker has been approved by Rodney Muth I .2 I().) /.z 0 I Date

PAGE 4

Zucker, Monica D. (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation) Examining the Impact of High School Principals' Involvement in School-wide Reading Achievement Using the State of Colorado Growth Model Thesis directed by Associate Professor Nancy Shanklin ABSTRACT This study uses the Colorado Growth Model to investigate the role of principal leadership in improving adolescent literacy for high achieving/high growth, low achieving/high growth, high achieving/low growth, and low achieving/low growth high schools. The study involves a survey of 36 high school principal participants from all four quadrants on their role in adolescent literacy and follow-up interviews with 10 principals from three of the four quadrants. Simultaneous discriminant function analysis was also used to determine how well the combination of minority status, graduation rates, per pupil funding, and school size predict high or low reading growth on the Colorado Growth Model. Findings from the survey and from interviews indicate that high school principals who participated in the study are somewhat involved to highly involved with adolescent literacy support and practices at their schools, specifically, with principal leadership, instruction, assessment, professional development, interventions, and twenty-first century learning. The discriminant function analysis revealed that school size and African-American enrollment presented the highest relationship to predicting reading growth; however, the amount of variance accounted for was small. The study begins to illustrate how the Colorado Growth Model can be used for research purposes that can lead to improvements in students' learning. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. Signed

PAGE 5

DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my husband, James, whose support and patience during this process was heartfelt. I am grateful for the encouragement he has given me throughout this dissertation journey I would also like to dedicate this work to my parents, Loren and Joyce Williamson, who instilled in their children the importance of education. I will always remember the mantra growing up, "When you go to college."

PAGE 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT To my Doctoral Committee, Dr. Nancy Shanklin, Dr. Rodney Muth, Dr. Laura Summers, and Dr. Harry Bull: Thank you for supporting and guiding me through the doctoral process. Harry, you encouraged me to begin this journey, and you have supported me in so many ways. Nancy, you have been a role model and a friend on this long and satisfying road. I look forward to working with you beyond this dissertation. Because of the gifts and knowledge you all have brought to this study, I have grown as an individual who now has a better understanding of what can be done with guidance, hard work, and determination. To my current Principal, Kurt Wollenweber, thank you for giving me the freedom to do whatever I needed to finish this dissertation. Without your encouragement and backing, I would not be where I am today

PAGE 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS Figures ................................................................................................ xvi Tables ................................................................................................ xvii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 Purpose of the Study ........................................................ 2 Statement of the Problem ............ ................................... .3 Achievement Gap ........................................... 6 Dropout Rates ........................ ....................... 7 Literacy Instruction Responsibility ................ 8 Background ...................................................................... 9 Change ........................................................... 12 Significance of the Study ................................................. 12 Research Questions .......................................................... 13 Research Design ............................................................... 13 Delimitations and Limitations .......................................... 14 Organization ofthe Study ........... .................................... 14 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................... .16 Adolescent Literacy Needs .............................................. 1 7 Historical Context ..... ....... ................. ... ...................... 17 A Nation at Risk. ............................................ 1 7 Vll

PAGE 8

Elementary and Secondary Education Act and No Child Left Behind ............................. 18 Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation Act.. ........................... 18 Policy ....................................................................... 19 Common Core Standards .............................. 19 Reading Next ................................................. 20 Striving Readers Act ........ ............................ 20 American Diploma Project ............................ 21 Twenty-first Century Learning ..................... 21 College and Workforce Readiness ................ 23 School-wide Literacy ................................................ 23 Educational Leadership ............................................. 25 Instructional Leadership ................................ 27 Transformational Leadership ........................ 28 Principal Literacy Leadership ....................... 29 Vygotsk.ian Perspective ..................... 29 School Praxis ..................................... 31 Content Literacy Instruction ..................................... 32 Writing .......................................................... 35 Teacher Preparation ...................................... 35 Assessment .............................. ............................ 36 Interventions ........................................................... 3 7 Vlll

PAGE 9

Response to Intervention ................................ 39 Professional Development ........................................ .40 Literacy Coaching ......................................... .45 Chapter Summary ...................................................... 46 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 50 Research Design ......................................................... 51 Instrument .................................................................. 52 Participant Selection and Description ........................ 56 Colorado Growth Model ................................ 56 Data Collection .......................................................... 60 Research Question 1 ...................................... 60 Research Question 2 ...................................... 61 Research Question 3 ...................................... 61 Data Analysis ............................................................ 61 Research Question 1 ...................................... 62 Research Question 2 ...................................... 63 Research Question 3 ...................................... 63 Reliability and Validity .............................................. 64 Research Question 1 ...................................... 64 Reliability ...................... ... .................. 64 Validity .............................................. 66 Research Question 2 ...................................... 67 IX

PAGE 10

Reliability ....... ................................... 67 Validity .................. .................. .......... 68 Chapter Summary ...................................................... 69 4. FINDINGS ......... .... ........................................................... 70 Description of Sample ................................................ 71 Research Question 1 ...................................... 71 Survey Participants .......... ................ 71 Research Question 2 ...................................... 72 Interview Participants ........................ 72 Research Question 3 ...................................... 73 Demographic Data of Survey Participants ....................... 74 Summary of Demographic Findings from the Survey Responses ............................ 91 Research Question 1 .................................................. 93 Descriptive Statistics for Survey Sub-constructs ....................... ... .... 94 t-tests ...................................... ................ ..... 99 Summary of Findings for Research Question 1 ............................... .1 05 Survey Open-ended Question Results ............................................ 1 06 Principal Leadership ................... ...... 1 07 Instruction ....... ................... ............... 1 08 X

PAGE 11

Assessment. ........................................ 111 Professional Development ................. 112 Interventions ...................................... 11 7 Summary ofFindings .................................... .l18 Research Question 2 ................................................. .118 Summary of Responses across Quadrants ........................................ ... .119 Question 1 .......................................... 119 HAHG .................................... 120 LAHG .................................... 120 HALG .................................... 121 Question 2 .......................................... 121 HAHG .................................... 121 LAHG .................................... 122 HALG .................................... 123 Question 3 .......................................... 124 HAHG .................................... 124 LAHG .................................... 125 HALG .................................... 125 Question 4 .......................................... 126 HAHG .................................... 126 LAHG .................................... 127 xi

PAGE 12

HALG .................................... 127 Question 5 .......................................... 128 HAHG .................................... 128 LAHG .................................... 129 HALG .................................... 129 Question 6 .......................................... 13 0 HAHG .................................... l30 LAHG .................................... 130 HALG .................................... 131 Question 7 .......................................... 131 HAHG .................................... 132 LAHG .................................... 133 HALG .................................... 133 Question 8 .......................................... 134 HAHG .................................... 134 LAHG .................................... 135 HALG .................................... 137 Question 9 .......................................... 13 7 HAHG .................................... 138 LAHG .................................... 138 HALG .................................... 139 Question 10 ........................................ 139 Xll

PAGE 13

HAH0 .................................... 140 LAHO .................................... 140 HALO .................................... 141 Question 11 ........................................ 141 HAH0 .................................... 142 LAH0 .................................... 142 HALO .................................... 143 Question 12 ........................................ 143 Summary ofFindings ..................................... 144 Research Question 3 ................................................ 145 Research Question 3 Results .......................... 145 Summary ofFindings ..................................... 146 5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... 148 Purpose and Research Questions ............................... 149 Findings ...................................................................... 150 Demographic Findings from the Survey Responses ........................... .! 50 Findings for the Research Questions ......................... 153 Research Question 1 ...................................... 153 t-test Findings ..................................... 157 Open-ended Responses to Survey Questions ........................... 157 Research Question 2 ..................................... .158 Xlll

PAGE 14

Research Question 3 ...................... ............... 160 Implications for Practice ........................................ .... 161 Delimitations ............................................................. 165 Limitations ... .............................................................. 165 Recommendations for Future Research ..................... 166 Concluding Remarks ................................................ 167 APPENDIX A. Survey Pilot Questionnaire .................................................... 171 B. Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board Approval ........................................................ 172 C. Informed Consent: Participant Release Agreement ................................................................ 17 4 D. Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey ................................................... 178 E. Interview Request Letter ........................................................ 188 F. Interview Request Email.. ...................................................... 189 G. Demographics: Current Enrollment, School Type, 2008 Graduation Rates ............ ....................... 190 H. Interview Questions ............................................................... 195 I. Interview Question 12 Responses .......................................... 198 J. Survey Open-ended Responses .............................................. 203 REFERENCES ............................... ........... ................................... ... 223 XlV

PAGE 15

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Colorado Growth Model ................................................ 59 XV

PAGE 16

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Sub-constructs, survey items, and open-ended question ......................... 54 3.2 Principal leadership and adolescent literacy survey reliability statistics ................................................................................... 66 4.1 Participants by quadrant.. ......................................................................... 72 4.2 Interview participants ............................................................................. .. 73 4.3 Discriminant function analysis ................................................................ 74 4.4 Principal gender by quadrant ................................................................... 75 4.5 Years as a principal ............ ........................................................... ......... 77 4.6 Years as a principal at their current high school.. ........... ........ ............... 79 4. 7 Content taught before becoming a principal ............................................ 81 4.8 Years in the classroom before becoming a principal ............................... 83 4.9 African-American enrollment percentage ................................................ 85 4.10 Latino enrollment percentage .................................................................. 87 4.11 Free and reduced lunch ............................................................................ 89 4.12 2008 graduation rates ............................................................................. 91 4.13 Descriptive statistics representing all four quadrants' survey sub-construct scores ......................................................... ........... 95 4.14 Descriptive statistics representing HAHG survey sub-construct scores ..................................................................... 96 4.15 Descriptive statistics representing LAHG survey sub-construct scores ..................................................................... 97 xvi

PAGE 17

4.16 Descriptive statistics representing HALO survey sub-construct scores ..................................................................... 98 4.17 Descriptive statistics representing LALG survey sub-construct scores ..................................................................... 99 4.18 One sample t-test. ..................................................................................... 101 4.19 Paired samples correlations ...................................................................... 1 02 4.20 Paired samples t-test ................................................................................ 1 04 4.21 Independent samples t-test ...................................................................... 1 05 4.22 Principal leadership open-ended question 7 ............................................ 1 08 4.23 Instruction open-ended question 2 ........................................................... 1 09 4.24 Instruction open-ended question 20 ......................................................... 11 0 4.25 Assessment open-ended question 27 ....................................................... 111 4.26 Professional development open-ended question 4 .................................. .113 4.27 Professional development open-ended question 10 ................................. 114 4.28 Professional development open-ended question 22 ................................. 115 4.29 Professional development open-ended question 28 ................................ .116 4.30 Interventions open-ended question 23 ..................................................... 117 4.31 Correlations of variables of the discriminant function and the standardized coefficients ............................................................. 146 5.1 Principal literacy involvement recommendations .................................... l62 6.1 Current enrollment ................................................................................... 191 6.2 School type ............................................................................................... 192 6.3 Per pupil funding ...................................................................................... 194 xvii

PAGE 18

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 1965), reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002), became the educational charge of the new millennium to ensure that all children would have equal opportunities to obtain a high-quality education. In 2001, ESEA was rewritten to focus more on closing the achievement gap by making sure that all students-including the disadvantaged-succeed academically by gaining proficiency in reading and math (U.S. Department of Education). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires states to hold schools accountable for reading, in addition to mathematics and science. The government placed a significant amount of emphasis on early reading programs by funding Reading First and Early Reading First to ensure that every student can read at grade level by the end of third grade. More specifically, legislation in NCLB did not give any substantial financial support for reading in grades 4 through 12, even though the legislation requires states, districts, and schools to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (A YP) in order to raise achievement levels and to close the achievement gap. In addition, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores have remained relatively flat for the past 30 years (Institute of Educational Sciences, 2009), indicating that students are not advancing their literacy skills. However, 2008 NAEP reading scores indicate that students made modest gains 1

PAGE 19

between 2004 and 2008, but 17-year-old students did not show significant gains from those students who were tested in 1971 (Institute of Educational Sciences, 2009). Adolescent literacy policy briefs, such as Reading Next-A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004) and A Time to Act: An Agenda for Advancing Adolescent Literacy for College and Career Success (Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010) have both brought to the forefront the need to prioritize adolescent literacy as a political, societal, and educational agenda. Because reading is one of the most important skills students develop, it is important that secondary school principals be knowledgeable about reading practices in their schools and work with teachers to make schoolwide literacy a reality (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Irvin, Meltzer, & Dukes, 2007; lvey & Fisher, 2006; Reeves, 2003). Purpose of the Study This study examined the impact ofhigh school principals' involvement in schoolwide reading achievement and growth using the Colorado Growth Model (Colorado Department of Education, 2009a) as the means for identifying schools for this study. While the issues in this research study were issues at the national level, this study focused on these issues in the State of Colorado. The goal of this study was to describe how Colorado high school principals exert their leadership to ensure that students experience academic achievement and growth in reading 2

PAGE 20

so that they leave high school with the reading skills needed for college and for work. Statement of the Problem Educational organizations, the business sector, and policymakers are calling for more attention to adolescent literacy. Both colleges and businesses indicate that students do not possess the literacy skills needed upon entering college or the workforce. A significant number of students are graduating from high school without the literacy skills to be successful in college (Plaut, 2008). The demand for students to possess the skills necessary to enter college upon graduation is a prevalent concern in today's economic and educational sectors (Achieve.org, 2007; Kirsch, Braun, Yamamoto, & Sum, 2007; National Center on Education and the Economy, 2007). ACT (2007b) reported the following findings: Nearly three-fourths of new graduates pursue postsecondary education within two years ofleaving high school and more follow throughout the course of their working lives. Yet, over the past five years, nearly four out of five ACT -tested high school graduates were not prepared to succeed in credit-bearing, college-entry coursework [over all of the four benchmark scores: biology, social sciences, algebra, and English composition]. In fact, nearly a quarter of students who start at four-year colleges-and nearly half of those who start at two-year colleges--do not even make it to their second year because of academic difficulties. (Quality core: Every student deserves to be ready for college, 2) The Colorado Commission on Higher Education (2005) reported that students requiring remedial college courses increased "24% in writing skills and 3

PAGE 21

17% in reading skills from 2003-2004." McCallin (2006) states, "roughly one third of first-time recent Colorado high school graduates beginning college require remedial coursework with 18% ofthose students enrolling at four-year institutions, and 55% enrolling in community colleges" (p. 5). Friedman (2005) states that because "the world has become flattened" (p. 183), those that possess the skills to take on twenty-first century opportunities will be the winners. He cautions that it cannot be guaranteed that these winners will be Americans or Western Europeans. Possessing a post-secondary education is more critical today than ever before. Nearly two thirds of all job openings will require post-secondary education by 2018 (Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010). Not only will college graduates be competing for jobs among their peers, they will also be competing for jobs from college graduates from China and India who speak fluent English (Friedberg, 2010). Hull suggests, "too many young adults enter the workplace or college under-prepared for the literacy-related tasks required of them" (as cited in Fisher, 2001 ). Even though economic predictions are bleak (Kirsch, et al., 2007; National Center on Education and the Economy, 2007), the good news is that more students today are attending college (ACT, 2002); however, they are not finishing with a degree within four years. In fact, a significant percentage of students do not finish within six years of starting (Carey, 2004) for a variety of reasons. 4

PAGE 22

Without literacy skills, students graduating from high school will lag behind other students from around the world, which will cause the United States to fall behind other countries economically and politically (Friedman, 2005). Darling-Hammond (2010) states that more nations focused on education are moving rapidly ahead of the United States. The ramifications are concerning. An analysis between education and pay showed that students who do not participate in post-secondary education or do so in a limited way will generate considerably less income than individuals who receive a bachelor's or master's degree. For example, the median income of a high school graduate will be $12,63 8, while those who finish college or some graduate work will earn a median income of $59,113 (Swanson, 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). If students do not acquire an education after high school, they will contribute to a declining standard of living relative to other nations. In Tough Choices or Tough Times, economists fear that if the gap widens, investors may "conclude that they can get a greater return on their funds elsewhere" (National Center on Education and the Economy, 2007, p. xix). In a study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), researchers found that if countries were able to raise their Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores over the next 20 years, it would increase the betterment of future generations (2010). This boost in PISA scores could potentially increase gross domestic product by $40.6 trillion over the lifetime of the generation born in 2010. 5

PAGE 23

Achievement Gap A concern that has gained significant attention is the achievement gap, which is especially visible in urban schools. Payne (2008) asserts that the problems-low achievement, low graduation rates, teachers' and students' demoralization-that have arisen in urban schools were partly the cause of "globalization, the outmigration of jobs from central cities, the resegregation of schools in much of the country, the increasing immiseration, criminalization, and isolation of the worst urban neighborhoods" (p. 3). Wide-scale reforms led by states and large urban school districts have had some successes, but student achievement for students of color and students of poverty has not increased to the level to compete with their White and Asian counterparts (Payne). Based on the reform efforts of Chicago Public Schools, Bryk, Bender Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010) created a framework for reforming urban schools. They conducted a research project, in which they examined data from schools that were performing and those that were not. They started by developing appropriate outcome indicators such as attendance and students' reading and math test score trends. Their framework includes leadership as the driver of change with relational trust across the school community as major aspects of the framework. Professional capacity, school learning climate, the parent/school connection, community ties, instructional guidance, and the classroom "black box" (p. 48) are the essential supports for improvement. 6

PAGE 24

Dropout Rates Another issue that impacts students is the dropout rate. According to Laird, Cataldi, KewalRamani, and Chapman (2008), "in October 2006, approximately 3.5 million 16through 24-year-olds were not enrolled in high school and had not earned a high school diploma or alternative credential" (p. 7). They also report that males were more likely to drop out of school than were females. In Understanding High School Graduation Rates in Colorado, the 2008 dropout rates will cost the state "almost $4.3 billion in lost wages over their lifetimes" (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009). In contrast, if the Class of 2008 halved its dropout rates from 8,800 to 4,400, "new graduates would likely earn as much as $69 million in combined earnings in the average year compared to their likely earnings without a diploma" (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2010, p. 15). A student who drops out of school can be expected to cost society over $200,000 over the course of his or her lifetime (National Center for Student Engagement, 2005). In 2018, only 10 percent of jobs will be open to high school dropouts, according to Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl (2010). Ehren, Lenz, and Deschler (as cited in Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009) state, "For many adolescent students, ongoing difficulties with reading and writing figure prominently into the decision to drop out of school" (p. 2). Consequently, "about two thirds of prison inmates are high school dropouts, and one third of all juvenile offenders read below the fourth-grade level" (Haynes, 2007, as cited in Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009, p. 2). In a study to 7

PAGE 25

examine the correlation between high school dropout rates and middle school reading levels, Fountain (2009) found that White students were more likely to graduate from high school as compared to their African-American and Latino counterparts. In a recent report from the Colorado Department of Education (2010c), graduation rates increased 0.7 points to 74.6 percent from 73.9 percent in 2008. Although graduation rates increased in urban centers from the early 1990s to the early 2000s, they remain unsatisfactory despite school reform efforts (Payne, 2008). Literacy Instruction Responsibility Literacy traditionally has been isolated or narrowly approached as an elementary school issue as seen through the Reading First initiative where students are supposed to possess the reading skills after third grade needed to progress through the rest of their education (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). However, "the need for literacy instruction does not end with the third grade or even in high school" (Snow & Moje, 201 0). Students in the primary grades are learning basic literacy skills such as decoding and knowledge of high frequency words that are common in all reading tasks. As they master these basic aspects ofliteracy, they add more sophisticated literacy skills including comprehension strategies, common word meanings, and basic fluency. This generally occurs by the end of elementary school (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). When students reach middle and high school, students begin to master more complex literacy skills. Shanahan and Shanahan (2008) identify this 8

PAGE 26

sophisticated reading level as "'disciplinary literacy' where literacy skills are specialized in history, science, mathematics, literature, or other subject matter'' (p. 44). The responsibility ofliteracy instruction lies with teachers in both elementary and secondary settings to teach reading strategies and to teach students how to interact with difficult texts (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Heller & Greenleaf, 2007). This issue is important because students who do continue gaining and strengthening literacy skills will experience more success in school and throughout life (Fisher, Brozo, Frey, & Ivey, 2007). Background Leadership could be considered the single most important aspect of effective school reform (Marzano, 2003). According to Bryk, et al. (2010), leadership is the driver of change and "more specifically with principals as catalytic agents for systemic improvement" (p. 45). The manner in which a schoolwide literacy plan is going to occur is through the principal's leadership. The principal should foster a school culture that promotes a supportive environment for the change process (Pullan, 2001). Bryk et al. purport that principals should act as instructional leaders and create a culture of learning. "Principals as instructional leaders' are expected to be experts in teaching and learning, to spend the majority of their time in classrooms, and, more generally, to support improvements in instruction" (Bryk et al., p. 47). Saphier and King (as cited in Barth, 2002) identified the following cultural norms needed to change culture: "collegiality, experimentation, high expectations, trust and confidence, 9

PAGE 27

tangible support, reaching out to the knowledge bases, appreciation and recognition, caring celebration and humor, involvement in decision making, protection of what's important, traditions, and honest and open communication" (p. 8). Sergiovanni (1992) states that moral leadership is also an important strategy for improving schools. He emphasizes the idea of the school as a community that is concerned with relationships, shared values, commitments and obligations that focus on student learning. Through collegial interactions and open communication, the principal should build relationships with teachers, parents, community members, and students. They should motivate all parties to embrace a schoolwide literacy plan, which will allow all students positive opportunities beyond high school. Communication will be the key element for implementation of the plan. The principal will have to communicate the vision to all parties and allow them to question, counter, and/or support the efforts to create a school of literacy. Heller and Greenleaf (2007) provide a framework of the educational leader's role for creating literacy-rich schools. They outline four areas for principal involvement: (a) the roles of content teachers must be clear and consistent, (b) every academic area should define its own essential skills, (c) all secondary school teachers should receive initial and ongoing professional development in the literacy of their own content area, (d) and content area teachers need positive incentives and appropriate tools to provide reading and writing instruction. 10

PAGE 28

Ivey and Fisher (2006) developed a set of Quality Indicators for Secondary Literacy. They include the following areas and guiding questions for school leaders: Area 1: English Language Arts Class, "Are students' reading and writing development and relevant life experiences used to explore life literacy concepts?" (p. viii); Area 2: Content Area Classes, "Do all courses throughout a student's day capitalize on the student's literacy and language as a way to learn new information?" (p. xi); Area 3: Sustained Silent Reading/Independent Reading, "Are all students provided with an opportunity to read for learning and pleasure during the school day?" (p. x); Area 4: Intervention and Support for Struggling Readers, "Do the intervention initiatives cause students to read more and to read better?" (p. xi); and Area 5: Leadership and Schoolwide Support, "Is there a schoolwide emphasis on literacy, and does this focus develop teacher expertise?" (p. xii). In addition to the aforementioned framework and indicators, Irvin et al. (2007) identify goals and action steps that school leaders must take to implement an adolescent literacy plan. They believe that literacy leaders must address student motivation, engagement, and achievement; integrate literacy and learning; sustain literacy development; implement an action plan; support teachers to improve instruction; use data to make decisions; build leadership capacity; and allocate resources. 11

PAGE 29

Change Bain (2007) states, "The theory and practice of the self-organizing school highlights the need to start small, scale carefully, and, in doing so, enable the many parts and interconnections in a comprehensive reform to work in a self reinforcing way" (p. 259). Second-order change (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003)--which requires leaders to work comprehensively with staff, the community, and the district-will have to occur to make a building-wide break with the past regarding negative attitudes of teaching literacy skills in the content areas (Artley, 1944, as cited in International Reading Association, 2007). Both of these ideas are an important lens for meeting the literacy needs of secondary students. As stated earlier, much of literacy instruction and interventions have focused on elementary school children with the idea that once they left elementary school, they would have the skills needed to read skillfully in future grades. However, this is not the case. Children have a difficult time transitioning from elementary texts to an array of higher-level content texts they encounter in middle school and high school (Sturtevant, 2003). It is important that a high school principal possess leadership skills so that a vision of school wide literacy can be implemented to meet the needs of high school students. Significance of the Study This study hopes to contribute to the dearth of empirical research related to the high school principal's literacy involvement and the principal's contribution to student achievement. The researcher's intent is to use the findings to inform 12

PAGE 30

principals of principal literacy leadership and put into practice the principal's role in creating literacy-rich schools. Research Questions The following research questions guided this dissertation: 1. Do differences exist in principal involvement on the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey, and do those differences link to where schools are located on the Colorado Growth Model? Hypothesis: Schools that possess high achievement and high growth and schools that possess low achievement and high growth will have high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy. 2. What leadership actions do principals take to promote schoolwide literacy? 3. How well does the combination of minority status, graduation rates, per pupil funding, and school size predict reading growth? Research Design This study examined the practices that high school principals institute within their schools to promote schoolwide literacy achievement. This study executed a mixed-methods design. The Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey and follow-up phone interviews provided principals' views of their involvement in school wide literacy at their schools. A portrait of a group of administrators' views on what they have in place for schoolwide literacy is 13

PAGE 31

provided based on the survey and follow-up phone interviews. A full description of the study, sampling, data collection, and data analysis techniques are discussed in Chapter III. Delimitations and Limitations The proposed study was delimitated to high school principals in the state of Colorado using Colorado Growth Model (Colorado Department of Education, 2009a) data to identify principals. Another delimitation was the selection of principals from high schools with student populations of750 to 2,800 students. Principals from other Colorado high schools were excluded. Limitations to the study may have included respondent bias during the data-collection process. This was a concern because principals may have wanted to portray their school in a more positive manner than what may have been the actual state of the school's literacy focus. In addition, it was difficult to persuade principals from schools that did not show growth to complete the survey or to participate in the interviews. Organization of Study This dissertation is comprised of five chapters. Chapter I introduces the problem, the background, the significance of the study, research questions, and delimitations and limitations of the study. Chapter II reviews the literature associated with the problem. Chapter III discusses the research methodology design and processes to collect and analyze data. Chapter IV outlines the findings 14

PAGE 32

that address each research question. Chapter V analyzes the findings, discusses implications for practice, and recommendations for future research. 15

PAGE 33

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The nation is at a critical point for developing twenty-first century literacy skills. Students need these skills to create a ready workforce. The principal is a key person in leading this effort and needs to be in charge of helping high schools achieve this goal. At the same time, educators are encouraged to incorporate twenty-first century literacy skills into instruction (Metiri Group, 2009; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009). If literacy at the high school level is not a priority, one result is increased dropout rates (Ehren, Lenz, & Deschler, as cited in Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009). It is important for content teacher readiness to teach literacy skills, and it is important for teachers to receive professional development opportunities to help students develop twenty-first century literacy skills (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009) so that students can participate in society. Colorado and other states have adopted the Common Core Standards (2010) for reading, writing, and math. Colorado is also writing post-secondary and workforce readiness standards so that students are able to make a reasonable economic rise for themselves and for the families they create as adults. The literature review will discuss adolescent literacy needs through a historical context and policy decisions. This section will also review issues around twenty-first century learning. The next section will explore the emphasis on educational leadership with a focus on instructional leadership, transformational 16

PAGE 34

leadership, and principal literacy leadership Content literacy instruction, assessment, interventions, and professional development will also be discussed. Adolescent Literacy Needs The capacity to learn by reading, by writing, and by offering individual perspectives to bridge cultures help cross boundaries of misunderstanding to build an inclusive society (Sapon-Shevin, 2007). Literacy is a tool for knowledge building and communication and may be the most important tool of the twenty first century. It is also important for participation in a democratic society that has positive implications for an educated citizenry who strive for the best for their people. Therefore, literacy skills are important for everyone, even those individuals who do not pursue college. Students today face more challenges than students of decades past in times of achieving a viable standard ofliving that allowed for a reasonable standard of living and healthcare. Graduating from high school today and pursuing higher education is a necessity for economic survival. Historical Context A Nation at Risk Public education and a focus on preparing students to be successful beyond high school was reinforced with A Nation at Risk legislation (1983) that focused on high school youth. Like today, the government at that time was concerned with competing with other nations in the realm of commerce, industry, scientific, and technological innovation. One of the recommendations from A 17

PAGE 35

Nation at Risk was for students to "comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and use what they read" Elementary and Secondary Education Act and No Child Left Behind Several years earlier, proponents of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) had believed that education was related to upward mobility in the United States. In 2002, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) with the title No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Within NCLB, reading was addressed at the elementary level through its Reading First, Early Reading First, Even Start, and Improving Literacy through School Libraries initiatives with no direct reading funding for adolescent literacy. However, there is a push to address adolescent literacy in the upcoming reauthorization ofNCLB (National Middle School Association, n.d.) that was sparked by the Striving Readers Act legislation introduced in 2007. Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation Act The Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation (LEARN) Act (Murray, Polis, & Y armuth, 2009) was introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in November 2009. The LEARN Act aims to address reading, writing, and academic achievement in preschool through 12th grade so that students graduate from high school college-and career-ready. At the time of the conclusion of this study, it was unknown whether the LEARN Act would pass in the late fall of2010 or be folded into the reauthorization ofESEA in 2012. 18

PAGE 36

Policy Common Core Standards In a position statement from the International Reading Association, researchers determined that adolescent literacy was not a policy priority or a priority in schools (Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999) and saw the need to advocate for adolescent literacy. Currently, in an effort to prepare students for college and the workforce upon leaving high school, the National Governors' Association and the Council of Chief State School Officials have collaborated with states to create common core standards in English Language Arts and mathematics. The Common Core Standards Initiative (2010) came about because employers and college educators were finding that entry level workers were lacking the skills to do well, and first-year college students were having high remediation rates, especially in community colleges (Gewertz, 201 0). The core standards meet the following criteria: (a) aligned with college and work expectations; (b) include rigorous content; (c) build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards; (d) are internationally benchmarked, so that all students are prepared to succeed in a global economy; and (e) are evidenceand/or research-based (Common Core Standards Initiative, 2010). Eighteen reading standards, 18 writing standards, and eight speaking and listening standards are outlined in the document. The Colorado Board of Education adopted these new standards in the fall of2010 in the hope of"helping America compete on a global 19

PAGE 37

level" (Marcus, 2010, To date, 36 states have adopted the Common Core Standards. Reading Next In addition to Common Core Standards, Biancarosa and Snow (2004) have outlined 15 elements to improve middle and high school literacy achievement in the policy brief Reading Next: (a) direct, explicit comprehension instruction; (b) effective instructional principles embedded in content; (c) motivation and self directed learning; (d) text-based collaborative learning; (e) strategic tutoring; (f) diverse texts; (g) intensive writing; (h) a technology component; (i) ongoing formative assessment of students; (j) extended time for literacy; (k) professional development; (1) ongoing summative assessment of students and programs; (m) teacher teams; (n) leadership; and ( o) a comprehensive and coordinated literacy program. The researchers recommend that practitioners use these elements in a flexible way, stressing that professional development, formative assessment, and summative assessment always be present. They encourage teachers and school leaders to use these elements to "act as a foundation for instructional improvement" (p. 5). Striving Readers Act The Striving Readers Act was passed in 2007 to help raise literacy achievement in Title !-eligible schools. The purpose ofthe bill was to improve student achievement, raise graduation rates, and increase college success for secondary students. The means in which these goals are to be achieved is through 20

PAGE 38

comprehensive state, district, and school literacy plans; professional development plans; professional development for teachers to use assessments and literacy strategies; professional development for school leaders to support teachers; and reading materials for schools that lack them (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007). American Diploma Project The American Diploma Project Network (Achieve.org, 2010) launched in 2005 is built on the work of the American Diploma Project. Today, the network includes 35 states that educate nearly 85% of all students in the United States. "Governors, state superintendents of education, business executives, and college leaders are working to bring value to the high school diploma by raising the rigor ofhigh school standards, assessments and curriculum, and aligning expectations with the demands of postsecondary education and careers" (Achieve.org, 2010, -,r2). Twenty-first Century Learning In order to participate socially, economically, and politically with the rest of the world in the twenty-first century, U.S. students will need to navigate a variety of texts, embrace ambiguity, and be able to make adjustments in their thinking. For example, Levine (2007) asserts that students need a "cognitive backpack," that includes skills such as becoming an "in-depth comprehender; acquiring a project mentality; building and sustaining productive, fulfilling 21

PAGE 39

relationships; and attaining malleable self-insights that inform self-launching" as they encounter new ideas, technology, and cultures in their lifetimes. In addition to acquiring astute literacy skills, students and future students will be exposed to changing technologies and situations that will cause them to have to navigate a variety of information sources (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Daggert, 2007; Schmoker, 2006). If they have the reading, writing, and thinking skills acquired by the time they graduate from high school, they will adapt more readily to new technologies, thus keeping pace with students and workers from around the world (National Center on Education and the Economy, 2007; National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices, 2005). The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009) also endorses critical thinking and problem solving, communication and collaboration, and creativity and innovation in their framework. They believe that information, media, and technology skills, along with core subjects, twenty-first century themes, and life and career skills are also important. "Only when a school or a district combines the Framework with 21st century professional development, assessments and standards, can the American public be sure that high school graduates are prepared to thrive in today' s global economy" (, 2). The Metiri Group (2009) outlines the following skills that students will need to be college and workforce ready: (a) digital age literacy such as basic, scientific, and technologicalliteracies, visual and information literacy, and cultural literacy and global awareness; (b) inventive thinking, which includes 22

PAGE 40

adaptability/managing complexity and self-direction, curiosity and risk-taking, and higher-order thinking and sound reasoning; (c) interactive and communication skills, such as teaming and collaboration and personal and social responsibility; and (d) quality state-of-the-art results, such as prioritizing, planning, and managing for results, effective use of real-world tools, and high quality results with real-world applications. Even though Colorado is adopting the Common Core Standards (2009) for English Language Arts and Math, the Colorado Department of Education has kept the twenty-first century skills intact. They include critical thinking and reasoning, information literacy, collaboration, self-direction, and invention (Colorado Department of Education, 2010b). College and Worliforce Readiness Reading achievement levels are not adequate for students entering college. In a recent study, "approximately two thirds of high school teachers reported that more than half of their students are not ready to read at the level needed for college work in their content areas" (ACT, 2007a, p. 2), while college instructors reported that only one third could read at the college level. The report also stated that high school teachers and college instructors agreed that reading is one of the most important skills for students to possess. Schoolwide Literacy Cole (1996) states that children are exposed to literacy concepts and are influenced by "language and other cultural artifacts and embodied social rules" 23

PAGE 41

(p. 285). He contends that children are not "blank slates" when they come to the classroom. In order to address this, a schoolwide literacy plan will be essential to meet the needs of learners and address their literacy learning needs when they enter the classroom. Students who are exposed to different literacy skills in the many disciplines of secondary schools will have the opportunity to enrich their literacy learning through different types of activities. They will also use different artifacts and engage in social interactions to learn literacy. When the principal implements a schoolwide literacy plan, he or she is creating a community of learners who legitimately participate in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991) and who work together to increase student literacy skills. The 90/90/90 (Reeves, 2003) study urges the collective work of teachers, students, parents, and leaders in a comprehensive and coordinated literacy program (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004), while also maintaining constructive, holistic accountability systems (Reeves, 2003). Ivey and Fisher (2006) encourage a school that possesses a culture of collaboration and peer coaching, while (Irvin et al., 2007) suggest encouraging educators to motivate students so that it leads to engagement and achievement, increases writing across the content area, solicits district support, and builds leadership capacity. All of these researchers believe that it is important for administrators and teachers to work together to implement and sustain a schoolwide literacy initiative. These studies encourage a collaborative effort so that the focus of literacy is a school goal that discourages teachers from working in isolation. 24

PAGE 42

Researchers suggest that student achievement information in the form of graphs, tables, and charts and other data sources are available, along with doubling periods for literacy. The Alliance for Excellent Education (2007) urges educators to demystify language and symbols for learners not aware of content. They also recommend that teachers be provided with positive incentives and literacy tools for their content. Ivey and Fisher (2006) want districts and school administrators to allocate human resources dedicated to a schoolwide literacy plan. Reeves (2003) outlines the following ideas that can transform the cultural organization of a school to promote school wide literacy: literacy interventions, curriculum heavy in reading writing, and alignment of teacher assignments with teacher preparation. The Alliance for Excellent Education (2007) emphasizes reading and writing strategies and stresses mining cognitive, social, and personal strengths students bring from home to help them make connections with content. Finally, Irvin et al. (2007) believe that promoting social collaboration, making connections to students' lives, having students interact with text and with others about texts, involving parents and the community, and supporting teachers to improve instruction are all important social elements to support adolescent literacy learning. Educational Leadership The emphasis on strong school leadership and positive student outcomes has been widely recognized (Fullan, 2003; Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, 25

PAGE 43

& Wahlstrom, 2004). Understanding what makes an effective principal is important: Growing consensus on the attributes of effective school principals shows that successful school leaders influence student achievement through two important pathways: the support and development of effective teachers and the implementation of effective organizational processes. (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPoint, & Meyerson, p. 8, 2005) In a paper prepared for the AERA Division A Task Force on Developing Research in Educational Leadership, Leithwood and Riehl (2003) outline six defensible claims about school leadership: 1. Successful school leadership makes important contributions to the improvement of student learning. 2. The primary sources of successful leadership in schools are principals and teachers. 3. In addition to principals and teachers, leadership is and ought to be distributed to others in the school and school community. 4 A core set of "basic" leadership practices are valuable in almost all contexts. 5. In addition to engaging in a core set ofleadership practices, successful leaders must act in ways that acknowledge the accountability-oriented policy context in which almost all work. 26

PAGE 44

6. Many successful leaders in schools serving highly diverse student populations enact practices to promote school quality, equity, and social justice. With these tenets in mind, it is apparent that school leadership matters. The role of the principal is highly important for student learning, while "the changing needs of educational systems can be met at least in part by improvements in leadership capacity and practice" (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003, p. 6). Even though large-scale reforms through federal and state mandates have prompted new knowledge of curriculum, pedagogy, and organization improvement, "the problems of the system are the problems of the smallest unit" (Elmore, 2004, p. 3). This suggests that what happens in the classro
PAGE 45

Transformational Leadership One leadership model that shares leadership and changes organizations from the inside out is transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985). Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) created a model based on Bass' (1985) work so that it is applicable to educational settings (Hallinger 2003). Unlike instructional leadership, which is transactional, the transformational leadership approach works in the following ways where leaders (a) set out to empower followers and nurture them in change, (b) become strong role models for their followers, (c) create a vision, and (d) act as change agents who initiate and implement new directions within organizations. It also requires leaders to become social architects (Northouse, 2004, pp. 182-183 ). Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) outline six transformational leadership dimensions: "building school vision and goals; providing intellectual stimulation; offering individualized support; symbolizing professional practices and values; demonstrating high performance expectations; and developing structures to foster participation in school decisions" (p. 454). Four managerial dimensions were also cited: "staffing, instructional support, monitoring school activities, and community focus" (p. 454). Leaders who follow the transactional approach possess the potential to create second-order change (Waters et al., 2003) in which the organization is changed with the collective efforts of the leader and the followers. 28

PAGE 46

Because principals fulfill other roles-manager, politician, human resource expert, instructor, symbolic reference (Bolman & Deal, 2003)Hallinger (2003) warns that principals must not rely on a single role to improve student performance. He suggests that integrating instructional leadership and transformational leadership approaches would have principals focus on (a) creating a shared sense of purpose in the school; (b) focus[ing] on developing a climate of high expectations and a school culture focused on the improvement of teaching and learning; (c) shaping the reward structure of the school to reflect the goals set for staff and students; organis[ing]and provid[ing] a wide range of activities aimed at intellectual stimulation and development for staff; and (d) being a visible presence in the school, modeling the values that are being fostered in the school. Principal Literacy Leadership Vygotskian Perspective Lee and Smagorinsky (2000) outline Vygotsky's core principles for activity theory that can be transferred to incorporating schoolwide literacy in secondary schools. First, "learning is mediated first on the interpsychological plane between a person and other people and their cultural artifacts, and then appropriated by individuals on the intrapsychological plane" (p. 2). What this means for schoolwide literacy is that educators must work together using cultural artifacts to unify literacy instruction. In doing so, literacy in secondary schools will become inherent with individuals reaching the intrapsychological plane. 29

PAGE 47

Second, "meaning is constructed through joint activity rather than being transmitted from teacher to learner" (p. 2). Teachers working together instead of being handed a literacy program from their administrator or their district will be more effective in implementing schoolwide literacy. In addition, students benefit by working jointly with teachers and other students to learn to read and write effectively. Third, "the concepts, content knowledge, strategies, and technologies-the mediating tools or artifacts-that are drawn on in the act of meaning construction, are constructed historically and culturally" (p. 2). Educators will be able to address each learner's literacy needs and provide the tools students will need to increase their literacy achievement. For example, materials, best practices, and, most importantly-language-will help students create meaning. Finally, Lee and Smagorinsky (2000) suggest, the potential for learning is an ever-shifting range of possibilities that are dependent on what the cultural novice already knows, the nature of the problem to be solved or the task to be learned, the activity structures in which learning takes place, and the quality of this person's interaction with others. Context and capacity are intertwined. (p. 2) Teachers and administrators will be able to examine data, observe students, and talk with parents to see what sort of literacy instruction is needed. By examining the multifaceted aspects that are linked, educators will have a better perspective ofhow to reach all learners. 30

PAGE 48

School Praxis Principals have the responsibility of ensuring that students are engaged in challenging literacy instruction that crosses disciplines. Consequently, students will gain a multitude of literacy skills that will allow them to navigate complex texts and tasks after they leave high school. It is suggested that the principal provide teachers with professional development and resources to provide students with the literacy skills they will need to enter post-secondary opportunities and finish successfully (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; Irvin et al., 2007; Taylor & Collins, 2003). In schools, it is paramount that principals work with teachers and coaches to identify school wide and individual student literacy needs. Examining student reading and writing data, using formative and summative assessments, embedding professional development for teachers to meet the needs of learners will result in reform for schools that are struggling with student literacy needs (Schmoker, 1999; Taylor & Collins, 2003). In a recent study to add to the knowledge base on principal leadership behaviors that advance literacy reform in schools, Elliott (2007) found that leadership was co-constructed adaptively as an active process of sensemaking between leaders and followers. The most significant change will be through changing attitudes about literacy instruction in content areas. "It is critical that a principal assumes the role of an instructional leader who demonstrates commitment and participates in the school community" (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004, p. 21 ). This includes principals learning about 31

PAGE 49

adolescents' struggles with reading and writing and the principal attending professional development sessions with teachers (2006). A focus on literacy while the principal leads teachers, staff, and community will increase student achievement, resulting in better-prepared students who can successfully complete post-secondary education and face the challenges of the twenty-first century. It is suggested that principals communicate a vision for content literacy and work with teachers to implement a schoolwide literacy vision (Irvin et al., 2007) so that teachers expose students to a multitude of texts, writing experiences, and thinking activities. In addition, principals ought to communicate a commitment and passion for schoolwide literacy reform. "The vision has to be shared with, engaged in by, and communicated broadly to students, teachers, parents, and the community. If high school principals want students to be motivated and engaged, they need to engage teachers and the community on their behalf' (Meltzer, as cited by the Ohio Resource Center for Mathematics, Science, and Reading, 2007, p. 7). Content Literacy Instruction Moje (2006) asserts that every content area has a different discourse. "Producing knowledge in a discipline requires fluency in making and interrogating knowledge claims, which in turn requires fluency in a wide range of ways of constructing and communicating knowledge" (p. 2). Instead of having students memorize facts and crunch numbers, "the goal of content-area instruction is instead to introduce students to the ways in which experts in the core academic 32

PAGE 50

disciplines look at the world, investigate it, and communicate to one another about what they see and learn" (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007, p. 11). The result of going from content-area literacy to deeper disciplinary knowledge (Snow, 2008) may allow students the freedom to chart their own course in life, whether that is in post-secondary education or in the workplace. Daggert (2007) states that in order for students to achieve high levels of Bloom's Taxonomy or what he calls the "Knowledge Taxonomy," a second continuum is important for students to be twenty-first century skilled in content areas: (a) knowledge in one discipline, (b) apply knowledge in discipline, (c) apply knowledge across disciplines (d) apply knowledge to real-world, predictable situations, and (e) apply knowledge to realworld, unpredictable situations. Teachers who expose students to crossdisciplinary skills in schools will be able to achieve numbers 3 through 5 on his continuum. The Common Core Standards State Initiative (2010) states that, Just as students must learn to read, write, speak, listen, and use language effectively in a variety of content areas, so too must the Standards specify the literacy skills and understandings required for college and career readiness in multiple disciplines. Fisher and Ivey (2005) purport that "students can learn more deeply through literacy experiences that focus on big ideas" (p. 9), placing everything in a larger perspective. Possessing the ability to integrate knowledge and skills among content will be an asset for students to be ready to face the challenges they will encounter beyond high school. Holistically, each discipline has the potential to open up students to cultures and opportunities not yet experienced. In addition, 33

PAGE 51

students not connected to school may fmd something engaging in different disciplines that prevents them from dropping out or from not performing to their potential. Through their content courses, teachers can expose students to a wide breadth of reading and writing experiences (Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Graham & Perin, 2007; Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; National Council of Teachers of English, 1985; Vacca & Vacca, 1996). Teachers who are using literacy strategies in their classrooms to enhance comprehension of their content will be engaging in a schoolwide literacy plan. Not only is it important to learn the strategies, but it is also extremely important to understand how to effectively use literacy strategies to help students read and comprehend the tough expository text of the social studies, science, and math books, while also understanding the narrative text of literature books. (Phillips, as cited by the Ohio Resource Center for Mathematics, Science, and Reading, 2007, p. 12) Snow and Moje (2010) concur. They believe that the comprehension strategies that students learn in English classes are useful, "but they aren't sufficient to help students study math, science, history, or literature" (p. 67). Content-area teachers should understand reading and writing rules and processes in their disciplines and use them to teach students (Snow & Moje ). 34

PAGE 52

Writing Writing can also improve how students comprehend content-area texts (Graham & Hebert, 2010). The Writing to Read researchers outline three major areas for students to strengthen their reading and writing skills: 1. Students should write about the texts that they read to comprehend science, social studies, and language arts texts. 2. Teachers should teach students writing skills and processes that go into creating text. 3. Teachers should increase the time that students write, which will help students increase their reading comprehension. Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High Schools (Graham & Perin, 2007) recommends 11 key elements of effective adolescent writing instruction. They include writing strategies, summarization, collaborative writing, specific product goals, word processing, sentence combining, prewriting, inquiry activities, process writing approach, study of models, and writing for content learning. Teacher Preparation All classes have the potential for textual interactions. Consequently, state regulatory certifications require that pre-service teachers take a content reading course to assist learners in their content areas. However, after they leave their teacher training, literacy instruction has not occurred consistently in secondary classrooms because content teachers have not been given the resources needed to 35

PAGE 53

capitalize on reading and writing in their content areas (Fisher & Ivey, 2005). One of the problems of infusing content literacy is that teachers may be resistant due to contextual reasons. For example, O'Brien, Stewart, and Moje (1995) assert that there is a disconnection that exists between teachers' pre-service content literacy education and how it is applied in the classroom. While literature is an important aspect to a student's learning experience and development, the type of reading typically done in English or language arts classes is different from what students would see in their other classes. For example, students in a high school English course would most likely be reading a novel. Teachers would expect students to identify literary terms and their effects on characters or the plot. In contrast, students in a science class would probably be reading a non-fiction textbook or a lab report, which requires different reading strategies to tackle the content and differing text structures (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007). Even though high school and college mathematics and science teachers agree that reading is an important skill, they do not spend time teaching content reading strategies to their students (ACT, 2009). Therefore, it is important for all teachers in content classes to teach and reinforce literacy skills (Daniels & Zemelman, 2004 ). Assessment Student progress should be analyzed in the form of ongoing formative assessments, common assessments, written assessments, or principal assessment of student work (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; lvey & Fisher, 2006; Reeves, 2003). 36

PAGE 54

Teachers should create assignments that are similar to college or workforce reading and writing (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007) and then conduct action research to see if what they are doing is having an impact on literacy achievement (Reeves, 2003). Schools are encouraged to put in place constructive, holistic accountability systems (Reeves, 2003) for teachers and for students to show literacy improvement. All of these ideas together strengthen the chance of striving readers to graduate from high school with the skills to enter college or the workplace (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). The Alliance for Excellent Education (2007) purports that literacy proficiency grows through developmental processes that continue over a lifetime. Reeves (2003) suggests frequent feedback and active coaching from teachers that are based on weekly assessments, collaborative scoring of student papers and determination of proficiency, constructive data analysis, distributed professional development, and emphasis that every adult role is important for schoolwide literacy Interventions Some students will require more intense reading and writing interventions to advance their literacy skills, which educators will address on an individual basis; however, there will be students who enter high school with most of the reading skills they need to be academically successful. It is important to "support the call to engage in focused and sustained literacy interventions for the full range of adolescent readers and writers" (Snow & Moje, 2010). For these students the 37

PAGE 55

principal must implement a schoolwide literacy plan to build on their established literacy skills, while also strengthening weaknesses so that they can read a variety of texts and write about them using different modes of writing. Literacy specialists who identify students as below proficient from data sources should implement appropriate literacy interventions (Beers, 2003; Biancarosa & Snow, 2004) to provide those students the necessary means to become proficient readers and writers by the time they graduate from high school. Meltzer (2007) examined several schools that focused on literacy across the content areas and used strategic interventions typically saw gains in their reading scores. In a formative experiment study to improve literacy achievement at a high school in the western United States, Fisher, Frey, and Lapp (2009) found that by identifying interventions to meet a specific student population's needs and providing professional development for teachers, the school met A YP and graduation rates increased after two and a half years of the formative experiment. The Reading Next researchers (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004) urge teachers to use effective instructional practices embedded in content to reach all learners. Literacy interventions, such as more time allocated for reading and writing (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007; Ivey & Fisher, 2006) and direct, explicit comprehension instruction and intensive writing (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004) were also stressed. Other recommendations include defining a discipline's own essential literacy skills (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007); incorporating open-ended and analytic writing assessments; providing motivation and self38

PAGE 56

directed learning (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Irvin et al., 2007); extending time for literacy (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007; Biancarosa & Snow, 2004); systemically aligning curriculum standards; supporting planning for use of time within different bell schedules; reading and writing in every class; providing opportunities for self-expression; creating safe and responsive classrooms; and implementing school policies, structures, and culture for supporting literacy (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2007; Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Fisher & Ivey, 2006; Irvin et al, 2007; Reeves, 2008). Response to Intervention Response to Intervention (Rtl) was first presented in the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Although Rtl has been mainly implemented in elementary grades, it is beginning to gain attention in secondary schools (Muoneke & Shankland, 2009; Shanklin, 2008). The use ofRti at the high school level has shown to decrease dropout rates and the number of special education referrals (Duffy, 2007). Secondary schools across the nation are creating and using their own three-tiered methods for instructional interventions (Brozo, 2010); however, they are more than likely not scientifically-based (Cobb, Sample, Alwell, & Johns, 2005) Research fmdings for using Rtl for adolescent literacy have been identified (Torgesen et al., 2007) that suggest interventions for learners with a variety of reading backgrounds. Rtl is a multi-tiered intervention system with progress monitoring to improve student achievement and improve graduation rates. Universal 39

PAGE 57

interventions in the first tier are used for all students targeting instructional practices and services available that are usually provided at the classroom level. The level two tier is used to target small groups of students who need extra assistance, while tier three is for intensive interventions for targeted students on a one-to-one basis who did not respond to the second tier interventions. According to Brozo (20 1 0), the first tier is the weakest tier at the secondary level. "If content teachers fail to offer responsive literacy instruction to benefit every student and differentiated assistance for those in need of extra help, then the preventative potential of Rtl is lost" (p. 280). Professional Development One issue that dominates the success or failure of a schoolwide literacy plan is professional development to equip teachers with the knowledge, materials, and support they need to assist students. The plan requires focused and accountable professional development (Fisher, 2001). In addition, Meltzer and Ziemba (2006) urge school leaders to, "develop a three-year professional development plan that sequences professional development in meaningful ways, aligns with other school wide initiatives, and provides time for teachers to share their implementation practices" (p. 23). Traditionally, administrators or an outside source were the purveyors of teacher professional development designed to provide teachers information to use in their classrooms. They usually came in the form of workshops, seminars, and conferences. Because of this design, teachers left professional development 40

PAGE 58

sessions with information but seldom discussed or put it into practice what they learned because oflack of collaborative activities (Burbank & Kauchak, 2003). Professional development-including work in professional learning communities and literacy coaching-will be some of the means of educating teachers of all disciplines to explore and put into practice literacy skills that are going to enhance their content and help students become better readers and writers In the report Reading at Risk (2006), the National Association of State Boards of Education recommended that "teachers must have considerable knowledge to use research-based literacy strategies in content-area instruction" and "ensure that content teachers know about the textual demands of their subjects and have the ongoing supports to build literacy skills appropriate to the requirements of the discipline" (p. 6). Professional development should be constant. "Ongoing teacher professional development is key to a literacy improvement initiative" (Meltzer, as cited by the Ohio Resource Center for Mathematics, Science and Reading, 2007, p. 9). As teachers do with their students, principals and professional developers must also teach, model with follow-up coaching and authentic feedback for continuous improvement (Taylor, 2007). Professional development will also include finding ways for teachers to use culturally-responsive pedagogy and materials that are leveled for reading ability and materials that are engaging to reach all students (Au, 2000; Callins, 2006; Nieto, 1999). 41

PAGE 59

The Alliance for Excellent Education (2007) endorses reading, writing, and discussing academic content, meaningful, and compelling issues and the implementation of intensive and ongoing professional development for content area literacy. Biancarosa and Snow (2004) encourage text-based collaborative learning, strategic tutoring, long-term and ongoing professional development, teacher teams, and strong leadership. Ivey and Fisher (2006) purport that professional development is important for building teachers' knowledge and expertise. Individuals who use reform types of professional development such as "study groups, networking, mentoring, coaching and regular school day meetings that may occur during the process of classroom instruction or planning time" (Lee, 2005) help teachers to gain more knowledge and skills for student learning. In addition, professional learning practices could include identifying student needs and tailoring professional development activities to meet those needs. Working within professional learning communities, teachers would examine students' reading and writing data to glean information that would help them target specific skills, build lessons, assess students for learning, scrutinize student work in a non-threatening manner, re-examine data, and adjust instruction. However, Nichols and his colleagues (2007) state that there are no current mandates to provide direction on how districts or schools should conduct professional development for effective teaching. The result of no mandates is that school leaders have to define the best professional development plan for their 42

PAGE 60

building based on data and available resources that results in the improved learning of students. They can, however, reference professional development context, process, and content standards outlined by the NSDC (National Staff Development Council, 2008b ). Professional development should be at the forefront of leadership so that all personnel can develop new skills to adapt to student learning needs (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000). "Skillful leaders establish policies and organizational structures that support ongoing professional learning and continuous improvement" (National Staff Development Council, 2008a). Youngs and King (2002) examined the extent and the ways in which principal leadership for professional development can be used to increase organizational capacity and are as follows: (a) Principals sustain high levels of capacity by establishing trust; and (b) Principals create structures that promote teacher learning. Guskey (as cited in International Reading Association, 2006) outlines four common elements found in most successful professional development initiatives: "A clear focus on learning and learners, an emphasis on individual and organizational change, small changes guided by a grand vision, and ongoing professional development that is procedurally embedded" (p. 43). A principal cannot do it alone. A principal will need to distribute leadership either with a specified literacy team comprised of a representative group of teachers or with department coordinators to keep the plan focused. "Sharing leadership allows the principal to incorporate the talents and energy of 43

PAGE 61

other administrators, literacy coaches, reading specialists, curriculum coordinators, and teachers" (Irvin, et al., 2007, p. 180). In a study about collaborative actions educators took to implement school reform around literacy improvement, Ylimaki (2001) concluded that highly collaborative actions contribute to the change process. She identified five democratic attributes that had positive effects on reform implementation: shared power, cultures of trust, diverse and equitable participation, authentic involvement, and developing priorities for the common good. Most importantly, a principal must appoint teachers and help to build their capacity to take on leadership roles in professional development activities (Drago-Severson, 2007; Salsberry & Wetig, 2004). The principals will need to ensure that accountability systems are in place to monitor and adjust when needed and evaluate the effectiveness of professional development at different levels (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Part of the professional development process is providing teachers with the content standards set forth for literacy coaches in math, science, social studies, and English (International Reading Association, 2006). Professional developers will make adjustments in professional development activities in order for teachers to be most effective with students. The principal and a literacy team will track student achievement through CSAP, PLAN, and ACT data to observe whether students are making the progress towards being college or workforce ready when they graduate. Over the course of time, the use of remediation data from Colorado 44

PAGE 62

higher education institutions will also be an indicator of the schoolwide literacy plan's success. In a recent study on the sustainability of a school wide literacy reform project, LeFave (2005) found that the learning community was engaged in the instructional changes that began in the professional development that focused on research-based reading instructional practices and ongoing training in leadership for the principal and reading coach. However, there were factors that impeded instructional improvement, such as resistance, conflicts in cultural norms, development of factions within the school low teacher efficacy, and time constraints. The overall way of evaluating the success of the professional development plan will show through teacher efficacy and increased student achievement. Literacy Coaching In order to ensure that professional development is ongoing and supported, a coaching component should be part of a school wide literacy plan (Phillips, as cited by the Ohio Resource Center for Mathematics, Science, and Reading, 2007). Literacy coaching provides "teacher professional learning that builds teachers' capacities to offer quality literacy instruction to students and, in turn, to increase students' literacy achievement" (Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse, 2007). The International Reading Association states that a literacy coach should possess the following traits: (a) be skillful collaborators, (b) be skillful job-embedded coaches, (c) be skillful evaluators ofliteracy needs, and (d) be skillful 45

PAGE 63

instructional strategists (2006). Buly, Coskie, Robinson, and Egawa (2004) define the coach as "one who trains intensively by instruction, demonstration, and practice" (p. 61 ). In a study to discover the strengths of a current professional development coaching program, Sheldahl (2007) found that high school coaches have experienced success both at the schoolwide and individual teacher levels due to administrative support, being veteran teachers, having staffs that were open to learning, and attending district professional development to hone their skills. Principal involvement and support is important for the success of a literacy coaching initiative in their schools. Principals can achieve this by supporting change, setting a vision, actively participate in the change process, building relational trust, and modeling collaboration (Cronin Kral, n.d.). In addition, principals can help literacy coaches succeed by providing a clear job description; developing a school literacy team; providing assistance in using time, managing projects, and documenting their work; assisting coaches in the organization of study groups and planning effective professional development activities; helping coaches to assist teachers in analyzing data; and providing instructional resources and professional development activities (Shanklin, n.d.). Chapter Summary A discussion of the case for principal involvement and school wide literacy began with research of adolescent literacy needs that included the historical context and policies implemented currently and in the past. Education reform 46

PAGE 64

policy began to take foot with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 because education was related to upward mobility in the United States. A position statement from the International Reading Association (Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & Rycik, 1999) was put forth to advocate for adolescent literacy to be included in policy. However when ESEA was reauthorized in 2002 as NCLB, it did not include any language about adolescent literacy. At the time of the conclusion of this study, NCLB had not been reauthorized, which had the possibility of providing direct funding for adolescent literacy (National Middle School Association, n.d.) At the same time, the Act (LEARN) had not passed, which addressed reading, writing, and academic achievement from preschool through 12th grade. Thirty-six states had adopted the Common Core Standards (2010) at this time. The emphasis on strong leadership was recognized through the literature. Instructional leadership has been less influential as a model for implementing school reform. Hallinger (2003), states that the principal-as an instructional leader-possesses too much power and authority to make institutional changes. However, principals who exhibit transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985) empower others in the school to contribute to those changes. Like transformational leadership, principals can use Vygotsky's core principles to transform schools from the inside out as teachers learn to work with other teachers and their cultural artifacts to unify literacy practices and instruction (Lee & Smagorinsky, 2000). 47

PAGE 65

In this literature review, it is important for all high school teachers to teach literacy strategies that are relevant to their content areas (Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Graham & Perin, 2007, Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; National Council of Teachers ofEnglish, 1998; Vacca & Vacca, 1996). In addition to reading strategies, writing strategies must also be implemented (Graham & Hebert, 201 0; Graham & Perin, 2007). Teacher preparation programs need to close the gap between pre-service content literacy education and how it is then applied to the high school classroom (O'Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995). Assessments in the form of ongoing formative assessments, common assessments, written assessments, or principal assessment of student work were stressed (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Ivey & Fisher, 2006; Reeves, 2003). The Alliance for Excellent Education (2007) states that literacy proficiency grows through developmental processes that continue over a lifetime. Universal targeted, and intensive interventions-that are outlined in Response to Intervention-were stressed in this literature review. Snow and Moje (2010) contend that principals need to implement interventions for the full range of adolescent readers and writers. Before readers and writers experience a need for targeted or intensive interventions, teachers should be embedding effective instructional practices in content (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). Principals have the responsibility of implementing professional development plans for their teachers that should be developed over time (Ziemba, 2006). Professional development can take on many forms including work in 48

PAGE 66

professional learning communities (Dufour & Eaker, 1998) and through literacy coaching (Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse, 2007). 49

PAGE 67

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the methodology and procedures used to examine the practices that high school principals institute within their schools to promote reading achievement and growth. This study implemented a mixed-methods design utilizing The Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey and follow-up phone interviews to provide principals' views of their involvement in schoolwide literacy at their schools. A portrait of a group of high school principals' views on what they have in place for schoolwide literacy will be provided based on the survey and follow-up phone interviews. The purpose for mixing quantitative and qualitative data is to obtain the most reliable and authentic data possible to best address the research questions. The study asked three research questions: 1. Do differences exist in principal involvement on the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey, and do those differences link to where schools are located on the Colorado Growth Model? Hypothesis: Schools that possess high achievement and high growth and schools that possess low achievement and high growth will have high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy. 2. What leadership actions do principals take to promote schoolwide literacy? 50

PAGE 68

3. How well does the combination of minority status, graduation rates, per pupil funding, and school size predict reading growth? This chapter provides information on the research design, participant selection, data collection, and data analysis procedures Research Design This research explores what principals are doing to increase students' reading achievement and growth and to close the achievement gap. The design of this mixed methods research study is based on Research Question 1, Research Question 2, and Research Question 3. An exploratory design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) was used that consisted of two phases: a quantitative measure followed by a qualitative measure: QUAN-+ qual. High school principals were surveyed electronically, and interviews of selected principals followed. The purpose for this approach was that "the first phase is quantitative [which is emphasized], the second phase was connected to the results of the first phase, and the intent was to explain these results using qualitative data as a follow-up" (p. 85). The design also provided a general understanding of the research problem in the quantitative phase, while the qualitative data and analysis refined and explained those statistical results by exploring participants' views in more depth (Rossman & Wilson, 1985; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Creswell, 2003, as cited in Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). The quantitative phase also included demographic questions about the principals and about their schools. 51

PAGE 69

The rationale for using such a design was for significance enhancement, participant enrichment, and instrument fidelity (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Sutton, 2006). In terms of significance enhancement, this design expanded the interpretation of both the quantitative and qualitative results in that the findings from one method helped inform the other method. This approach also expanded the breadth and range of inquiry by using multiple methods for different inquiry components. Participant enrichment was achieved by mixing the methods optimizing the sample through inclusion of a variety of participants that better represented the targeted population. Additionally, it gave principals a voice in the interpretation ofliteracy practices that may influence policy decisions. The intention, then, of mixing quantitative and qualitative data is to obtain the most reliable and authentic data possible to best address the research questions. Instrument The purpose of the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Survey (see Appendix D) was to survey 106 Colorado high school principals from schools with enrollments between 750 and 2,800 students. In addition, the purpose was to examine their involvement in increasing student reading achievement and growth. The electronic survey consisted of 30 closed-ended questions related to principal literacy involvement to increase student achievement and growth in reading The survey also included eight open-ended questions. A 12-item section measured demographics. The instrument was developed by me based on a review of the 52

PAGE 70

literature that represented the content of the subject matter the test intended to cover (Krathwohl, 2004), which established content validity. The survey's main construct was the high school principal's involvement with student reading achievement and growth. Sub-constructs were identified through the literature: Principal Leadership, Professional Development, Instruction, Assessment, Interventions, and Twenty-first Century Learning. Each of the 30 questions was rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale. The scale included "strongly disagree," "slightly disagree," "disagree," "agree," "slightly agree," and "strongly agree." Questions for each sub-construct and the open-ended questions can be found in Table 3 .1. 53

PAGE 71

Table 3.1 Sub-constructs, survey items, and open-ended questions Principal Leadership 1. I am clear about my vision for school wide literacy. 7 I solicit funding from the district, state, or federal government to support literacy in my school. Open-ended question: What percentage of funding do you provide for literacy? 13. I hold all teachers accountable for reading instruction. 19. I conduct walkthroughs (learning walks) to observe reading practices. 25. I ensure that reading is embedded in each content area's school improvement plan. Instruction 2. 8 14. 20. 26. Assessment 3. 9. 15. 21. 27. I encourage teachers to teach reading strategies to help students develop high-level reading skills. Open-ended question: Please describe these strategies. I am aware of reading strategies that teachers should use in their content areas. I am knowledgeable of reading instruction. I provide technology supports for reading instruction. Open-ended question : Please list the technology supports you provide. I encourage intensive writing related to student reading tasks. I stress the value of student self-assessment in reading. I am knowledgeable of reading assessment and data analysis. I use reading data to make instructional decisions. I see frequent use of formative literacy assessments in the classroom. I expect teachers to use literacy data to make instructional decisions. Open-ended question: What kinds of data? 54

PAGE 72

Table 3.1 (Con't) Sub-constructs, survey items, and open-ended questions Professional Development 4. I provide funding for literacy coach(es). Open-ended question: How much? Is there one or more coaches? Are they full time or teach? Are they assigned other duties? 10. As an administrator, I receive professional development in literacy Open-ended question : Please describe your professional development activities. 16. I provide funding for reading specialist(s). 22 I provide time for teachers to participate in teacher teams to work on literacy practices. Open-ended question : How much time? Is it structured or on their own? 28 I have a schoolwide, professional development model that addresses literacy. Interventions 5. 11. 17 23. 29. Open-ended question : Please describe what that looks like. I possess a set of reading expectations for all learners. I use the Response to Intervention (Rtl) model for reading interventions. I expect teachers to differentiate instruction to assist all readers and writers. I have built reading classes into the master schedule. Open-ended question: How many classes? What kinds of classes? I work with teachers on the literacy development of students with special needs and with English language learners. Twenty-first Century Learning 6. I encourage teachers to create literacy lessons that allow students to apply knowledge to real-world, unpredictable situations. 12. I support collaborative learning in classrooms to enhance literacy development. 18 I promote critical thinking and problem-solving skills through literacy practices. 24. I support creativity and innovation in students reading and writing assignments. 30. I encourage teachers to provide students the skills to read and write independently. 55

PAGE 73

In the demographic section of the survey, participants were asked to provide information on the following: gender, years as a principal, years as the principal at his or her current school, content taught before becoming a high school principal, years in the classroom before becoming a principal, current enrollment, African-American enrollment, Latino enrollment, free and reduced lunch, school type, per pupil funding, and 2008 graduation rates. Participant Selection and Description Using the Colorado Department of Education Growth Model (2009a)-a measure of student progress from one year to the next in the context of a student's academic peers-a non-probability-based, purposeful sample to achieve representativeness or comparability sampling design (Teddlie & Yu, 2007) was used to identify high schools in the state with enrollments of750 to 2,800 students. The purpose of this range is that these schools were comprised of a large number of students that reflect a significant number of schools. Colorado Growth Model The Colorado Growth Model was signed into legislation in 2007 (HB 071048) as a way to measure each student's growth over time. What followed was the passing ofSB 09-163, the 2009 Education Accountability Act. This bill expanded the set of performance indicators for states, districts, and schools. Instead of ranking schools by achievement levels only, this legislation added growth as indicated by the Colorado Growth Model, achievement gaps indicated by income and ethnicity, and post-secondary readiness as measured by the ACT. 56

PAGE 74

The Colorado Growth Model (Colorado Department of Education, 2009a) served as the means to identify high school principals to potentially survey and to later interview. After students take the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) test, the model is used to assist parents, teachers, schools, and school districts to identify students who need additional assistance and to close learning gaps. The growth model is comprised of four quadrants: high achievement/high growth (HAHG), low achievement/high growth (LAHG), high achievement/low growth (HALO), and low achievement/low growth (LALG). The Colorado Growth Model has been adopted by other states (Colorado Department of Education, 2010a). For this reason, this is not only an important issue in the state of Colorado, but it is also an important issue for other states that adopt this model. The growth model is comprised of two levels of measurement: achievement and growth. Achievement is the level of achievement in percentages: advanced, proficient, partially proficient, and unsatisfactory. For example a "high achievement" school may possess an achievement level of 80%, meaning that 80% of the students were proficient or above in CSAP reading. This number needs to exceed the state average in order to be above proficiency. In addition to achievement level, the growth model is based on percentiles that compare a student's rate of growth to a group of grade level peers from the State of Colorado who started at the same place on the CSAP scale. Each school earns a median growth percentile for reading, writing, and math based on scores. School median percentiles are the average growth percentile for all the students in 57

PAGE 75

a subject area within the school. For example, if all 9th and 1Oth grade students in a school were lined up from the highest to the lowest growth percentile, then the growth percentile of the student in the middle is the median growth percentile for the school. If the school median percentile is 50 or higher, it indicates that on average, students in that school show above average growth in that subject area. If the school median percentile is less than 50, students in that school demonstrate less than average growth (Colorado Department of Education, 2009a). School growth is then charted on a four-quadrant graph to show where schools lie (see Figure 3.1 ). Schools will get a rating in reading, writing, and math based on their growth percentile and their achievement level on CSAP. If a school has a median growth percentile of 50 or higher, it will be labeled as high growth. If the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced is higher than the state average for that subject area (collapsed across 9th and lOth grades), then the school is in the high achievement category. Schools showing high growth and high achievement will be located in the upper right quadrant. Those with below average growth and high achievement are positioned in the upper left quadrant. Those with high growth, but low achievement are located in the lower right quadrant. Schools with low growth and low achievement are displayed in the lower left quadrant. 58

PAGE 76

High Achievement Level l Low Low 501 h Percentile High Achievement Low Growth Low Achievement Low Growth Longitudinal Growth Figure 3.1 The Colorado Growth Model High Achievement High Growth Low Achievement High Growth ) High The 2009 Colorado Growth Model for reading was used to identify high school principals whose schools represented each quadrant. Student enrollment between 7 50 to 2,800 students was also an inclusion factor (N = 1 06). The breakdown of principals is as follows: High Achievement High Growth (HAHG) (n = 37), High Achievement Low Growth (HALG) (n = 36), Low Achievement High Growth (LAHG) (n = 16) and Low Achievement Low Growth (LALG) (n = 17). The Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy surveys were sent to principals represented by each quadrant. The same survey was sent separately to 59

PAGE 77

principals in each quadrant for tracking principal responses by quadrant for data analysis purposes. Three email addresses were unusable because of electronic delivery problems or due to schools blocking the unrecognizable university email address used for Survey Monkey (SurveyMonkey.com, 2009) purposes. Data Collection The Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board approved the study in November 2009 and an amendment was approved in February 2010 (see Appendix B). Research Question 1 Because responses were tracked by where schools landed on the Colorado Growth Model, four identical Principal Leadership and Adolescent Surveys were sent separately. Specifically, the survey was sent to high achievement high growth (HAHG) principals; a survey was sent to low achievement high growth (LAHG) principals; a survey was sent to high achievement low growth (HALG) principals; and a survey was sent to low achievement low growth {LALG) principals. The Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy surveys were sent to principals on Nov. 22, 2009 through Survey Monkey (SurveyMonkey.com, 2009) to 106 high school principals in the state of Colorado. The first page of the survey included an explanation of the study, its purpose, and the right to voluntary participation. Participants were given the option of identifying their schools for the purpose of sending follow-up communication. In order to protect their anonymity, the list of principals who identified their schools was kept confidential 60

PAGE 78

and will be destroyed one year after the study is completed. A follow-up request for participation and the link to the survey was sent December 11, 2009 to increase the response rate. Research Question 2 Participants were asked in the survey if they would consent to an interview. Two electronic requests for participation yielded 10 responses from principals represented by three of the four quadrants. Participation rates from each quadrant included the following: HAHG (n = 5), LAHG (n = 3), HALG (n = 2), and LALG (n = 0). In-depth interviews were conducted over the phone using a set of questions that were based on data from the quantitative phase and from the literature (see Appendix H). During the interview, I used the list of questions with room to write notes, while also using a digital recorder to record the interview sess10n. Research Question 3 Schools were identified by student enrollment: 750 to 2,800 students. From this list acquired through the Colorado Growth Model Schoolview page (Colorado Department of Education, 2009a), schools were chosen that met that criterion. In addition to school size, minority status-including African-American and Latino students-graduation rates and per pupil funding data were gathered through the Colorado Department of Education website. Data Analysis The study used mixed methods research. The following research questions 61

PAGE 79

guided this study: 1. Do differences exist in principal involvement on the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey, and do those differences link to where schools are located on the Colorado Growth Model? Hypothesis: Schools that possess high achievement and high growth and schools that possess low achievement and high growth will have high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy. 2. What leadership actions do principals take to promote schoolwide literacy? 3. How well does the combination of minority status, graduation rates, per pupil funding, and school size predict reading growth? Research Question 1 All quantitative survey responses were coded, entered, and analyzed using SPSS Version 17 .0. First, Research Question 1 was measured by collapsing the Likert-type "Agree" answers and the "Disagree" answers to create "Agree" and "Disagree" dichotomous responses. Percentages ofboth "Agree" and "Disagree" were reported to assess the proportion of participants that belonged to each category. The means and standard deviations were also examined. Next, the research question was measured using a one-sample t-test, a paired samples t-test, and an independent samples t-test with original ordinal scores to assess whether these differences were statistically significant by high or low growth status as defined by the Colorado Growth Model. 62

PAGE 80

Research Question 2 To gain a more in-depth understanding of principals' involvement in schoolwide literacy that contributes to student achievement and growth, Research Question 2 was addressed through phone interviews. The interviews were transcribed using voice recognition software Dragon Naturally Speaking, version 10.0. The data were transcribed using the digital recording of the interview, which was typed into a document. All of the participants' answers were listed under each question. The data were coded to identify emerging themes by question and underlining key ideas of each theme. By coding the raw data with this initial set, a list of tentative themes were identified. The data were examined for generalities, general perceptions or perspectives, actions, situations, and strategies (Miles & Huberman, 1994) related to principal actions and their involvement in schoolwide literacy. A second reading of the data was conducted to examine responses from principals represented by each quadrant. Research Question 3 Research Question 3 was measured using Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA). The purpose of this statistic was to "develop a weighted linear composite to predict membership in two or more groups" (Cooley & Lohnes, 1971, as cited in Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino 2006, p. 255). DF A is similar to multiple regression analysis in that it assumes inclusion of all important predictor variables and exclusion of extraneous variables (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino 2006). While multiple regression is used to predict, DF A has two purposes: "(a) prediction, 63

PAGE 81

referred to as predictive discriminant analysis, and (b) explanation, referred to as descriptive discrimanant analysis" (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino 2006, p 257). The groups included "high growth" and "low growth" as represented on the Colorado Growth Model. The DF A was used to examine whether minority status, per pupil funding, graduation rates, and/or school size would predict high growth or low growth on the growth model either in isolation or in a combination. All assumptions ofDFA such as multivariate normality, equal covariances, lack of outliers, and multicollinearity were assessed prior to analysis. Reliability and Validity Since this study uses a mixed methods approach, I was able to expand the breadth and range of inquiry by using multiple methods for different inquiry components (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Sutton, 2006). Content literacy was also checked through the pilot survey of middle school principals and secondary reading specialists. The Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey and the interview questions were created based on the literature, thus establishing content validity. Research Question 1 Reliability Because the survey was designed by me-based on the literature that was presented in Chapter II-and has only been used once, the replication of administration over time yielding the same results has not occurred (Golafshani, 2003). However, internal consistency reliability, measured through Cronbach's 64

PAGE 82

alpha, was conducted on the six sub-constructs of principal involvement: principal leadership, instruction, assessment, professional development, interventions, twenty-first century learning, and the scale collectively. The scale as a whole indicated a reliability coefficient of .956. The a coefficients ranged from .60 (professional development) to .89 (twenty-first century learning) (see Table 3.2). Although it is considered a liberal standard of internal consistency reliability (Nunnally, & Bernstein, 1994), an a coefficient of. 70 or greater is an indication of a reliable measure. However, in most survey research literature, a coefficients within a range of .70 to .80 is prominent. Thus, according to standard (Nunnally, & Bernstein, 1994), the professional development sub-construct would not be considered internally consistent. It is important to note that the professional development sub-construct with a coefficient of .609 is considered questionable (Gliem & Gliem, 2003). The implications and ramifications of this issue will be further discussed in Chapter V. 65

PAGE 83

Table 3.2 Principal leadership and adolescent literacy survey reliability statistics Sub-construct n Cronbach's alpha Principal Leadership 5 .798 Instruction 5 .766 Assessment 5 .773 Professional Development 5 .609 Interventions 5 .759 Twentyfirst Century Learning 5 .890 Validity A survey pilot was electronically administered to a Colorado suburban districts' secondary reading specialists and middle school principals in November 2009 to test for content validity. They were sent an attachment in an email (see Appendix A) to respond to the clarity and relevance of the instrument. Seven reading specialists and eight middle school principals responded. The 1999 standard of evidence based on response processes was used to answer the following question: "To what extent does the type of performances or responses in which examinees engage fit the intended construct?" (Goodwin, 2002, p. 1 02). No changes were needed based on the positive responses made by the reading specialists and middle school principals, thus establishing content validity of the 66

PAGE 84

instrument. The doctoral committee approved the instrument, and the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) examined and approved the instrument as well. Research Question 2 Qualitative research requires a different approach to reliability and validity. Instead of arriving at a level of significance, Lincoln and Guba (1985) purport, "while the terms Reliability and Validity are essential criterion for quality in quantitative paradigms, in qualitative paradigms the terms Credibility, Neutrality or Confirmability, Consistency or Dependability, and Applicability or Transferability are to be the essential criteria for quality" (Golafshani, 2003, p. 601). Reliability In order to realize reliability, dependability, and auditability, Miles and Huberman (1994), contend, "the underlying issue is whether the process of the study is consistent, reasonably stable over time, and across researchers and methods" (p. 278). They provide a list of relevant queries related to qualitative research reliability. Miles and Huberman ask if the questions are clear, while the study design is congruent with the research questions. The interview procedures were consistent and did not deviate from the interview protocol for each interview. Reliability was also assessed with a quality check from a peer researcher who interpreted the data (Golafshani, 2003). Coding checks were made that showed adequate agreement between the researcher and the third party. 67

PAGE 85

Validity Internal and external validity were assessed during the entire process. To arrive at "true value" of internal validity, Miles and Huberman (1994) ask ifthe findings of the study make sense and if they are credible to the people that are studied and to the readers. In addition, they offer other relevant queries to test for internal validity. Such questions include asking how context-rich and meaningful the descriptions are. Does the account ring true, make sense, seem convincing or plausible, and enable a vicarious presence for the reader? Is the account rendered a comprehensive one, respecting the configuration and temporal arrangement of elements in the local context? (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 279). Based on the literature and the responses from principals, the data from the principals were credible, meaningful, and comprehensive. In addition, reliability was checked through triangulation. Data was collected through different sources that included the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey-Likert-type items and open-response items-and through interviews. External validity tests the transferability and generalizability of the conclusions of the study, according to Miles and Huberman (1994). Erickson (1986) states that a reader can choose to reconstruct the knowledge learned from one context to another situation based on her or his own personal meanings they give to a situation. The reader decides what information is useful. Eisner (1991) explains that data from a specific context or case can be used as a prototype for other cases, which creates a base for external validity. 68

PAGE 86

Chapter Summary In Chapter Ill, the mixed methods research design, the instrument, participant selection and description, the Colorado Growth Model, data collection, data analysis, reliability, and validity were discussed. Chapter IV will discuss the findings from the survey, the interviews, and the Discriminant Function Analysis that address each of the survey questions. 69

PAGE 87

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This study examined the impact ofhigh school principals' involvement in schoolwide reading achievement and growth. While the issues in this study were issues at the national level, this study focused on these issues in the State of Colorado. The goal was to suggest implications and recommendations ofhow Colorado principals coaches, and teachers can work together to ensure that every student leaves high school with the reading skills needed for college and for work. Three questions guided the research: I. Do differences exist in principal involvement on the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey, and do those differences link to where schools are located on the Colorado Growth Model? Hypothesis: Schools that possess high achievement and high growth and schools that possess low achievement and high growth will have high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy. 2. What leadership actions do principals take to promote schoolwide literacy? 3. How well does the combination of minority status, graduation rates, per pupil funding, and school size predict reading growth? Colorado high school principals were asked about their involvement around literacy in an electronic survey designed and distributed by the researcher. Ten participants agreed to participate in a phone interview to provide additional 70

PAGE 88

information to add to the robustness of the study. Discriminant Function Analysis was run to address Research Question 3. This chapter begins with a description of the sample with demographic findings following. Findings from the three research questions will guide the remainder of the chapter. A discussion of the results of this study is provided in ChapterV. Survey Participants Description of the Sample Research Question 1 Participants solicited to take the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey was generated from a population of 106 Colorado high school principals with an enrollment range of750 to 2,800 students. From that population, data were collected from 36 high school principals, providing a 34% return rate. A 40% response return rate for an email-generated survey is considered "average," while a 50% and 60% response rate are considered "good" and "very good," respectively (Instructional Assessment Resources, 2010). The initial email with the SurveyMonkey link to the survey asking principals to participate was sent November 22, 2009. A second email request with the same SurveyMonkey link was sent December 11, 2009 to increase response rates. The second request yielded eight more participants The number of participants from the Colorado Growth Model quadrants who responded follows: HAHG (n = 16), 71

PAGE 89

LAHG (n = 4), HALG (n = 10), and LALG (n = 6). These are displayed in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Participants by quadrant Quadrant HAHG LAHG HALG LALG Interview Participants n 16 4 10 6 p 44.4 11.1 27.8 16.7 Research Question 2 Ten principals agreed to be interviewed. They represented three of the four quadrants from the Colorado Growth Model, which included HAHG (n = 5) LAHG (n = 3), and HALG (n = 2). See Table 4.2. 72

PAGE 90

Table 4.2 Interview participants Quadrant HAHG LAHG HALG LALG n 5 3 2 0 p 50.0 30.0 20.0 0.0 Research Question 3 Schools with enrollments of750 to 2,800 students (N= 106) were used in a Discriminant Function Analysis to assess whether minority status, graduation rates, per pupil funding, and/or school size predicted where schools were identified on the Colorado Growth Model. See Table 4.3. 73

PAGE 91

Table 4.3 Discriminant function analysis sample Quadrant n p HAHG 39 37.0 LAHG 19 18.0 HALG 34 32.0 LALG 17 16.0 Demographic Data of Survey Participants Personal, professional, and school demographic data were collected from high school administrators who responded to the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey. The demographics researched included gender, years as a principal, years as a principal at their current school, content taught before becoming a principal, years in the classroom before becoming a principal, current enrollment, African-American enrollment, Latino enrollment, free and reduced lunch, school type, per pupil funding, and 2008 graduation rates. Table 4.4 displays the frequency and percentage of high school principal gender responses. Of the 36 principals, 36 responded to the question of their gender. Ten principals (27 8%) were female, while 26 principals (72.2%) were male. Principals from HAHG schools reported that three principals were female (18.8%), and 13 were male (81.3%). LAHG principals reported that there were 74

PAGE 92

two female principals (50%) and two male (50%) principals. Principals from HALG indicated that there were four female principals (30%), while seven principals (70%) were male. LALG principals reported that there were two female principals (33.3%) and four male principals (66.7). Table 4.4 Principal gender by quadrant Female Male Quadrant n p n p All Quadrants 10 27.8 26 72.2 HAHG 3 18.8 13 81.3 LAHG 2 50.0 2 50.0 HALG 3 30.0 7 70.0 LALG 2 33.3 4 66.7 Table 4.5 presents the data on years as a principal. The overall data showed that principals have been in their positions for one to three years (n = 8) 22%, four to six years (n = 5) 13.9%, seven to 10 years (n = 13) 36 1%, 11 to 15 years (n = 9) 25.1 %, 16 to 20 years (n = 1) 2.8%, and 20-plus years (n = 0). HAHG principals (n = 16) reported the following years as principal: one to three years (n = 2) 12.5%, four to six years (n = 3) 18.8%, seven to 10 years 75

PAGE 93

(n = 5) 31.3%, 11 to 15 years (n = 5) 31.3%, 16 to 20 years (n = 1) 6.3%, and 20+ years (n = 0). LAHG principals (n = 4) described their years as principal as one to three years (n = 2) 50%, four to six years (n = 0), seven to 10 years (n = 2) 50%, 11 to 15 years (n = 2) 33.3%, 16 to 20 years (n = 0) and 20+ years (n = 0). Principals from HALG schools (n = 10) who reported their years as principal were one to three years (n = 3) 30%, four to six years (n = 0), seven to 10 years (n = 5) 50%, 11 -15 years (n = 2) 20%, 16-20 years (n = 0), and 20+ years (n = 0). LALG principals (n = 6) provided years as principal as one to three years (n = 1) 16.7%, four to six years (n = 2) 33.3%, seven to 10 years (n = 1) 16.7%, 11 to 15 years (n = 2) 33.3%, 16 to 20 years (n = 0), and 20+ years (n = 0). 76

PAGE 94

Table 4.5 Years as a principal Quadrant All Quadrants HAHG LAHG HALO LALG n p 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 16-20 20+ 8 5 13 9 1 0 22.2 13.9 36 1 25.1 2.8 0.0 2 3 5 5 1 0 12.5 18.8 31.3 31.3 6.3 0.0 2 0 2 0 0 0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 5 2 0 0 30.0 0.0 50.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 1 2 1 2 0 0 16.7 33.3 16.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 Table 4.6 presents years as principal at their current high school. Out of 36 principals who responded to this question, 18 (50%) reported they had been principal in their current high school one to three years, 11 principals (30.6%) said they had been principal at their school for four to six years, 5 (13.9%) reported they had been principal at their school seven to 10 years, 2 (5.6%) stated they had been principal for 11 to 15 years, and no principals reported that they had been principal in their school for more than 15 years. 77

PAGE 95

HAHG principals reported that they had been the principal at their school one to three years (n = 6) 37.5%, four to six years (n = 5) 31.3%, seven to 10 years (n = 3) 18.8%, 11 to 15 years (n = 2) 12.5%, 16 to 20 years (n = 0), and 20+ years (n = 0). LAHG principals said they had been the principal in their school one to three years (n = 2) 50%, four to six years (n = 0), seven to 10 years (n = 2) 50%, 11 to 15 years (n = 0), 16 to 20 years (n = 0), and 20+ years (n = 0). HALG principals stated they have been principals in their schools one to three years (n = 6) 60%, four to six years (n = 2) 20%, seven to 10 years (n = 2) 20%, 11 to 15 years (n = 0), 16 to 20 years (n = 0), 20+ years (n = 0). LALG principals reported that they had been the principal at their school one to three years (n = 3) 50%, four to six years (n = 3) 50%, seven to 10 years (n = 0), 11 to 15 years (n = 0), 16 to 20 years (n = 0), 20+ years (n = 0). 78

PAGE 96

Table 4.6 Years as a principal at their current high school Quadrant n 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 16-20 20+ p All 18 11 5 2 0 0 50.0 30.6 13.9 5.6 0.0 0.0 HAHG 6 5 3 2 0 0 37.5 31.3 18.8 12.5 0.0 0 0 LAHG 1 2 1 2 0 0 16.7 33.3 16.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 HALO 6 2 2 0 0 0 60.0 20.0 20 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LALG 3 3 0 0 0 0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79

PAGE 97

Table 4. 7 displays the content principals taught before becoming a principal. Principals from all four quadrants (n = 36) combined reported the following contents taught: English (n = 4) 11.1 %, math (n = 4) 11.1 %, science (n = 5) 13.9%, social studies (n = 9) 25%, world languages (n = 1) 2.8%, physical education (n = 2) 5.6%, business (n = 4) 11.1 %, art (n = 0), technology (n = 1) 2.8%, library sciences (n = 0), and other (n = 6) 16.7%. HAHG principals stated that they taught English (n = 1) 6.3%, math (n = 2) 12.5%, science (n = 2) 12.5%, social studies (n = 4) 25%, world languages (n = 0), physical education (n = 1) 6.3%, business (n = 2) 12.5%, art (n = 0), technology (n = 1) 6.3%, library sciences (n = 0), and other (n = 3) 18.8%. LAHG principals reported they taught English (n = 0), math (n = 1) 25%, science (n = 0), social studies (n = 1) 25%, world languages (n = 1) 25%, physical education (n = 0), business (n = 0), art (n = 0), technology (n = 0) library sciences (n = 0), and other (n = 1) 25%. HALG principals stated they taught English (n = 2) 20%, math (n = 1) 10%, science (n = 1) 10%, social studies (n = 3) 30%, world languages (n = 0), physical education (n = 1) 10%, business (n = 1) 10%, art (n = 0), technology (n = 0), library sciences (n = 0), and other (n = 1) 10%. LALG principals reported they taught English (n = 1) 16.7% math (n = 0), science (n = 2) 33.3%, social studies (n = 1) 16.7%, world languages (n = 0), physical education (n = 0), business (n = 1) 16.7%, art (n = 0), technology (n = 0), library sciences (n = 0), and other (n = 1) 16.7%. 80

PAGE 98

Table 4.7 Content taught before becoming a principal Quadrant n All HAHG Lf\HG HALG LALG p English 4 1 0 2 1 11.1 6.3 0.0 20.0 16.7 Math 4 2 1 1 0 11.1 12.5 25.0 10.0 0.0 Science 5 2 0 1 2 13.9 12.5 0.0 10.0 33.3 Social Studies 9 4 1 3 1 25.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 16.7 World Lang. 1 0 1 0 0 2.8 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 Physical Educ. 2 1 0 1 0 5 6 6.3 0.0 10.0 0.0 Business 4 2 0 1 1 11.1 12.5 0.0 10.0 16.7 Art 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Technology 1 0 0 0 0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Library Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 6 3 1 1 1 16.7 18.8 25.0 10.0 16.7 81

PAGE 99

Table 4.8 describes the principals' years in the classroom before becoming a principal. Principals (n = 36) reported they had been in classroom before becoming a principal: one to three years (n = 0), four to six years (n = 1) 2.8%, seven to 10 years (n = 9) 25%, 11 to 15 years (n = 18) 50%, 16 to 20 years (n = 4) 11.1 %, and 20+ years (n = 4) 11.1 %. HAHG principals reported that they had been in the classroom before becoming a principal one to three years (n = 0), four to six years (n = 0), seven to 10 years (n = 3) 18. 8%, 11 to 15 years (n = 11) 68.8%, 16 to 20 years (n = 1) 6.3%, and 20+ years (n = 1) 6.3%. LAHG principals said they had been in the classroom before becoming a principal one to three years (n = 0), four to six years (n = 0), seven to 10 years (n = 2) 50%, 11 to 15 years (n = 2) 50%, 16 to 20 years (n = 0), and 20+ years (n = 0). HALO principals stated they have been in the classroom before becoming a principal one to three years (n = 0), four to six years (n = 0), seven to 10 years (n = 3) 30%, 11 to 15 years (n = 3) 30%, 16 to 20 years (n = 2) 20%, and 20+ years (n = 2) 20%. LALG principals reported that they had been in the classroom before becoming a principal one to three years (n = 0), four to six years (n = 1) 16.7%, seven to 10 years (n = 1) 16.7%, 11 to 15 years (n = 2) 33.3%, 16 to 20 years (n = 1) 16.7%, and 20+ years (n = 1) 16.7%. 82

PAGE 100

Table 4.8 Years in the classroom before becoming a principal Quadrant n 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 16-20 20+ p All 0 1 9 18 4 4 0 0 2.8 25. 0 50 0 11.1 11.1 HAHG 0 0 3 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 18. 8 68.8 6.3 6.3 LAHG 0 0 2 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 HALO 0 0 3 3 2 2 0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 20.0 LALG 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 16 7 16. 7 33. 3 16.7 16.7 83

PAGE 101

Table 4.9 presents the percentage of African-American enrollment. All quadrants (n = 36) combined showed African-American enrollment as the percentage of total high school enrollment for the following: 0 to 10% (n = 31 ), 86.1 %; 11 to 20% (n = 1), 2.8%; 21 to 30% (n = 1), 2.8%; 31 to 50% (n = 3), 8.3%; 51 -75% (n = 0); and 76 to 100% (n = 0). HAHG principals reported African-American enrollment percentages at their high schools as 0 to 10% (n = 15), 93.8%; 11 to 20% (n = 0); 21 to 30% (n = 1), 6.3%; 31 to 50% (n = 0); 51 -75% (n = 0); and 76 to 100% (n = 0). LAHG principals stated the percentage of African-American enrollment as 0 to 10% (n = 1), 25%; 11 to 20% (n = 1), 25%; 21 to 30% (n = 0); 31 to 50% (n = 2), 50; 51 -75% (n = 0); and 76 to 100% (n = 0). HALO principals reported African-American enrollment percentages as 0 to 10% (n = 10), 100%; 11 to 20% (n = 0); 21 to 30% (n = 0); 31 to 50% (n = 0); 51 -75% (n = 0); and 76 to 100% (n = 0). LALG principals stated the percentage of African-American enrollment as 0 to 10% (n = 5), 83.3%; 11 to 20% (n = 0); 21 to 30% (n = 0); 31 to 50% (n = 1), 16.7%; 51 -75% (n = 0); and 76 to 100% (n = 0). 84

PAGE 102

Table 4.9 African-American enrollment percentage Quadrant n 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 51-75 76-100 p All Quadrants 31 1 1 3 0 0 86.1 2.8 2.8 8.3 0.0 0.0 HAHG 15 0 1 0 0 0 93.8 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 LAHG 1 1 0 2 0 0 25.0 25.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 HALO 10 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LALG 5 0 0 1 0 0 83.3 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 Table 4.10 displays the percentage of Latino enrollment as a percentage of high school enrollments. All quadrants (n = 36) combined reported the percentage of Latino enrollment as 0 to 10% (n = 10), 27.8%; 11 to 20% (n = 10), 27.8%; 21 to 30% (n = 9), 25%; 31 to 50% (n = 0); 51 to 75% (n = 6), 16.7%; and 76 to 100% (n = 1), 2.8%. HAHG principals reported Latino enrollment percentages as 0 to 10% 85

PAGE 103

(n = 5), 37.5%; 11 to 20% (n = 7), 43.8%; 21 to 30% (n = 13), 18.8%; 31 to 50% (n = 0) ; 51 to 75% (n = 0), and 76 to 100% (n = 0). LAHG principals stated the percentage of Latino enrollment as 0 to 10% (n = 0); 11 to 20% (n = 0); 21 to 30% (n = 2) 50%; 31 to 50% (n = 0); 51 to 75% (n = 2), 50%; and 76 to 100% (n = 0). HALG principals reported Latino enrollment percentages as 0 to 10% (n = 4), 40%; 11 to 20% (n = 3), 30%; 21 to 30% (n = 3), 30%; 31 to 50% (n = 0); 51 to 75% (n = 0); and 76 to 100% (n = 0). LALG principals stated the percentage of Latino enrollment was 0 to 10% (n = 0); 11 to 20% (n = 0); 21 to 30% (n = 1), 16.7%; 31 to 50% (n = 0); 51-75% (n = 4), 66.7% ; and 76 to 100% (n = 1), 16.7% 86

PAGE 104

Table 4.10 Latino enrollment percentage Quadrant n 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 51-75 76-100 p All 10 10 9 0 6 1 27 8 27.8 25.0 0 0 16.7 2 8 HAHG 6 7 3 0 0 0 37.5 43.8 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 LAHG 0 0 2 0 2 0 0.0 0 0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 HALO 4 3 3 0 0 0 40.0 30.0 30 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LALG 0 0 1 0 4 1 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 66.7 16. 7 Table 4.11 presents the percentage of free and reduced lunch students at the i r schools. Principals from all quadrants (n = 36) reported the percentage of free and reduced lunch as 0 to 10% (n = 9) 25%, 11 to 20% (n = 8) 22.2%, 21 to 30% (n = 5) 13.9%, 31 to 50% (n = 7) 19.4%, 51 to 75% (n = 5) 13.9%, and 76 to 100% (n = 2) 5.6%. HAHG principals reported the percentage of free and reduced lunch as 0 to 10% (n = 5) 31.3%, 11 to 20% (n = 5) 31.3%, 21 to 30% (n = 3) 18.8%, 31 to 50% (n = 3) 18.8%, 51 to 75% (n = 0), and 76 to 100% (n = 0). 87

PAGE 105

LAHG principals stated the percentage of students on free and reduced lunch as 0 to 10% (n = 0), 11 to 20% (n = 0), 21 to 30% (n = 0), 31 to 50% (n = 2) 50%, 51 to 75% (n = 1) 25%, and 76 to 100% (n = 1) 25%. HALO principals reported the percentage of free and reduced lunch as 0 to 10% (n = 4) 40%, 11 to 20% (n = 3) 30%, 21 to 30% (n = 2) 20%, 31 to 50% (n = 1) 10%, 51 to 75% (n = 0), and 76 to 100% (n = 0). LALG principals stated the percentage of free and reduced lunch at their schools as 0 to 10% (n = 0), 11 to 20% (n = 0), 21 to 30% (n = 0), 31 to 50% (n = 1) 16.7%, 51 -75% (n = 4) 66.7%, and 76 to 100% (n = 1) 16.7. 88

PAGE 106

Table 4.11 Free and reduced lunch Quadrant n 0 -10 11-20 21-30 31-50 51-75. 76 100 p All Quadrants 9 8 5 7 5 2 25.0 22 2 13.9 19.4 13. 9 5 6 HAHG 15 0 1 0 0 0 93. 8 0 0 6.3 0 0 0.0 0.0 LAHG 1 1 0 2 0 0 25.0 25.0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0.0 HALO 10 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LALG 5 0 0 1 0 0 83. 3 0 0 0.0 16.7 0 0 0 0 Table 4.12 displays the 2008 graduation rates as reported by principals. All principals who participated in the survey detailed the following: 90% to 100% (n = 13) 36 1 %, 80% to 89% (n = 14) 38.9%, 70% to 79% (n = 7) 19.4%, 60% to 69% (n = 1) 2.8%, 50% to 59% (n = 1) 2.8% and less than 50% (n = 0). HAHG principals reported that their graduation rates were 90% to 100% (n = 8) 50%, 80% to 89% (n = 7) 43.8%, 70% to 79% (n = 1) 6.3%, 60% to 69% (n = 0), 50% to 59% (n = 0), and less than 50% (n = 0). LAHG principals stated that their graduation rates were 90% to 100% 89

PAGE 107

(n = 0), 80% to 89% (n = 2) 50%, 70% to 79% (n = 1) 25%, 60 % to 69% (n = 0), 50% to 59% (n = 1) 25%, and less than 50% (n = 0). HALG principals reported that their graduation rates were 90% to 1 00% (n = 4) 40%, 80% to 89% (n = 5) 50%, 70% to 79% (n = 1) 70%,60% to 69% (n = 0), 50% to 59% (n = 0), and less than 50% (n = 0). LALG principals stated that their graduation rates were 90% to 100% (n = 1) 16.7%, 80% to 89% (n = 0), 70% to 79% (n = 4) 66.7%, 60% to 69% (n = 1) 16. 7%, 50% to 59% (n = 0), and less than 50% (n = 0). 90

PAGE 108

Table 4.12 2008 graduation rates Quadrant n 90 100% 80 89% 70 79% 60 69% 50 59% <50% p All Quadrants 13 14 7 1 1 0 36.1 38.9 19.4 2.8 2.8 0.0 HAHG 8 7 1 0 0 0 50.0 43.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 LAHG 0 2 1 0 1 0 0.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 HALO 4 5 1 0 0 0 40.0 50 0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LALG 1 0 4 1 0 0 16.7 0.0 66.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 Other demographic data that includes current enrollment, school type, and per pupil funding can be accessed in Appendix G. Summary of Demographic Findings from the Survey Responses Significant findings from this section follows. The years that principals were in their vocation were relatively evenly distributed across all quadrants Principals who had been at their current school for one to six years demonstrated 91

PAGE 109

a range of 50% to 100% across all four quadrants. Of all principals reporting, 50% were principals at their current school for one to three years. Before becoming a principal, multiple disciplines were taught by these principals. Specifically, social studies was the highest reported content taught at 25%. Very few had been physical education teachers. The majority of the participants from all quadrants reported that they had been in the classroom for seven to 20-plus years before becoming principals. African-American enrollment was varied. HAHG, HALG, and LALG had the lowest percentage of African-American students, while LAHG possessed the largest percentage of African-American enrollment. Latino enrollment was also varied. HAHG and HALG possessed the lowest percentage of Latino students, whereas, LAHG and LALG schools had the highest percentage of Latino enrollment with both quadrants reporting 51% to 100 % Latino enrollment. In Colorado, Latino percentages of enrollment do not necessarily reflect the number of students for which English is a second language. Latino ethnicity dates back to the earliest settlements of the Southwest in the 1600s. However, the Latino population continues to increase. High-achieving schools had low percentages of students on free and reduced lunch. LAHG schools had a greater percentage of students on free and reduced lunch, while LALG principals reported that students on free and reduced lunch were low overall. 92

PAGE 110

Graduation rates were the highest for high-achieving schools. HAHG and HALG principals reported having a higher percentage of students graduating from high school than did the LAHG and LALG schools. Research Question 1 The study included three research questions to explore the high school principal's involvement with adolescent literacy practices at his or her respective schools. Research Question 1 asked Do differences exist in principal involvement on the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey, and do those differences link to where schools are located on the Colorado Growth Model? The hypothesis was that schools possessing high achievement and high growth and schools possessing low achievement and high growth would have high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy. The Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey was comprised of30 questions and eight follow-up, open-ended questions (see Appendix D). Research Question 1 was reported using descriptive statistics, and three sets ofttests to investigate whether there were statistically significant differences in principal involvement on the survey and if those differences linked to the four quadrants located on the Colorado Growth Model. The mean scores standard deviations, and percentages for survey sub construct scores are reported in the tables that follow. The Likert-type question choices were collapsed into "Agree" and "Disagree" categories due to the low 93

PAGE 111

number of principals participating on the survey. The two categories helped to distinguish responses. Descriptive Statistics for Survey Sub-Constructs Table 4.13 displays percentages of principals' agreement or disagreement around the six sub-constructs: principal leadership, instruction, assessment, professional development, interventions, and twenty-first century learning. All four quadrants represented on the Colorado Growth Model were combined. The mean scores and standard deviations were relatively similar with a slightly higher mean in twenty-first century learning. The assessment sub construct (96.6%), the intervention sub-construct (96.9%), and the twenty-first century sub-construct (96.7%) illustrated the highest responses in agreement. The instruction sub-construct (92.6%) and the principal leadership sub-construct (89.7%) were reported as slightly lower in agreement. The professional development sub-construct (80.8%) was significantly lower in agreement than the other scales. 94

PAGE 112

Table 4 .13 Descriptive statistics representing all four quadrants' survey sub-construct scores All High Schools n = 36 Principal Leadership Instruction Assessment Professional Development Intervention Twentyfirst Century Learning M SD 4.66 1.00 4 .75 0.86 4.74 0.84 4.31 0.99 4.81 0.90 5.01 0 88 N Agree Disagree 32 89.7% 10.3% 31 92.6% 7.4% 31 96.6% 3.4% 31 80.8% 19.2% 35 96.9% 3.1% 31 96.7% 3.3% HAHG survey sub-constructs are displayed in Table 4.14. HAHG principal reported 100% agreement for instruction, assessment, interventions, and twenty-first century learning sub-construct scale scores Principal leadership (92.3%) was less in agreement and professional development (81.8%) subconstruct scores were markedly lower in agreement. Mean scores were similar with a lower professional development mean score (M = 4.37) and a higher twenty-first century learning mean score (M= 5.14). 95

PAGE 113

Table 4.14 Descriptive statistics representing HAHG survey sub-construct scores HAHG High Schools n = 16 M SD n Agree Disagree Principal Leadership 4.76 0.85 14 92.3% 7.7% Instruction 4.81 0.75 14 100.0% 0 0% Assessment 4.85 0.55 13 100.0% 0.0% Professional Development 4.37 0.96 14 81.8% 18.2% Interventions 4 94 0 62 16 100.0% 0 0% Twenty-First Century Learning 5.14 0.54 14 100.0% 0 0% Table 4.15 displays LAHG survey sub-construct scores. Principals who responded reported 1 00% agreement in the assessment, interventions, and twentyfirst century sub-construct scores. Instruction was reported at 75% agreement, while both principal leadership and professional development were reported at 66.7% agreement. Mean scores were in proximity of each other. The principal leadership mean score (M = 4 27) was the lowest along with the twenty-first century learning mean score (M = 4.87). 96

PAGE 114

Table 4.15 Descriptive statistics representing LAHG survey sub-construct scores LAHG High Schools n=4 M SD n Agree Disagree Principal Leadership 4.27 1.45 3 66.7% 33.3% Instruction 4.50 1.52 4 75.0% 25.0% Assessment 4.50 1.00 4 100.0% 0.0% Professional Development 4.33 1.17 3 66.7% 33.3% Interventions 4.85 1.18 4 100.0% 0.0% Twenty-first Century Learning 4.87 1.33 3 100.0% 0.0% The percentage of HALG principals reporting was lower in agreement in most of the sub-constructs than the HAHG and LAHG principals. These findings are displayed in Table 4.16. The interventions sub-construct (90%) was highest in agreement. The twenty-first century learning sub-construct (87.5%) was next in agreement. Principal leadership and assessment were both represented at 85.7% with instruction and professional development reported at 83.3% in agreement. Again, mean scores were similar. The professional development scale score 97

PAGE 115

(M= 4.10) was the lowest, and the twenty-first century learning scale score (M= 4.75) was the highest. Table 4.16 Descriptive statistics representing HALG survey sub-construct scores HALGHigh Schools N= 10 M SD N Agree Disagree Principal Leadership 4.18 1.18 9 85.7% 14.3% Instruction 4.57 1.01 7 83.3% 16.7% Assessment 4.38 1.25 8 85.7% 14.3% Professional Development 4.10 1.18 8 83.3% 16.7% Interventions 4.60 1.27 10 90.0% 10.0% Twentyfirst Century Learning 4.75 1.44 8 87.5% 12.5% Table 4.17 presents LALG survey responses. Principal leadership, instruction, assessment, interventions, and twentyfirst century sub-constructs were in 100%, agreement, while professional development was represented at 98

PAGE 116

83.3% agreement. Mean scores for this group were significantly higher than the other groups. Following are each mean scale scores: professional development (M = 4.33), interventions (M = 4.76), instruction (M = 5.00), twenty-first century (M = 5.10), assessment (M = 5.13) and principal leadership (M = 5.37). Table 4.17 Descriptive statistics representing LALG survey sub-construct scores LALG High Schools n=6 Principal Leadership Instruction Assessment Professional Development Interventions Twentyfirst Century Learning M 5.37 5.00 5.13 4.43 4.76 5.10 SD N Agree 0.34 6 100.0% 0.40 6 100.0% 0.47 6 100.0% 0.92 6 83.3% 0.77 5 100.0% 0.21 6 100.0% t-tests Disagree 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% Three sets oft-tests were run to investigate whether there were statistically significant differences in principal involvement on the survey and if those 99

PAGE 117

differences linked to the four quadrants located on Colorado Academic Growth Model (2009); specifically, HAHG, LAHG, HALO, and LALG. I conducted three sets of analyses: 1. A one-sample t-test to determine differences among the sub constructs related to principal involvement on the survey. 2. Two paired samples t-tests, first to determine if pairs were correlated, and second to determine where differences on principal involvement occurred and if statistically significant differences occurred between the paired samples. 3. An independent samples t-test assessed whether these differences were statistically significant as high or low growth as defined by the Colorado Growth Model. Prior to running the analyses, all assumption were checked including normality and homogeneity of variance, which were tested and validated. Table 4.18 exhibits the one-sample t-test results, indicating that all levels of principal involvement are significantly different from zero as measured on the survey. 100

PAGE 118

Table 4.18 One sample t-test Mean t Difference p < .001 Principal Leadership 26.41 4.66 0.00 Instruction 30.88 4.75 0.00 Assessment 31.46 4.74 0.00 Professional Development 24.29 4.31 0.00 Interventions 31.53 4.81 0.00 Twentyfirst Century Learning 31.84 5.01 0.00 Since all sub-constructs of principal involvement were different from zero, the next step in the analysis was to identify which pairs of sub-constructs were different from each other. The third step of the analysis was to run a paired samples t-test to a) find the correlations among these pairs and b) assess whether or not these pairs were statistically significant. In total, 15 pairs of variables were tested, and all correlations were statically significant (p < .001). Correlations were considered moderate to high. Table 4.19 depicts these correlations in further detail. 101

PAGE 119

Table 4.19 Paired samples correlations N r Pair 1 Principal Leadership & 29 0 79 Instruction Pair 2 Principal Leadership & 29 0 77 Assessment Pair 3 Principal Leadership & 30 0.66 Professional Development Pair 4 Principal Leadership & 31 0 76 Interventions Pair 5 Principal Leadership & 29 0.68 Twenty-first Century Learning Pair 6 Instruction & Assessment 27 0 79 Pair 7 Instruction & 28 0 .83 Professional Development Pair 8 Instruction & Interventions 30 0.83 Pair 9 Instruction & 27 0.75 Twenty-first Century Learning Pair 10 Assessment & 28 0 .73 Professional Development Pair 11 Assessment & Interventions 30 0 .81 Pair 12 Assessment & 28 0.82 Twentyfirst Century Learning Pair 13 Professional Development & 30 0.82 Interventions Pair14 Professional Develop & 29 0.64 Twenty-first Century Learning Pair 15 Interventions & 30 0 88 Twenty-first Century Learning 102

PAGE 120

Table 4.20 presents the paired samples t-tests among the 15 pairs tested. Of these, eight pairs were statistically significant (p < .05) as noted below. Specifically, the following had a statistically significant effect when paired: principal leadership with professional development, principal leadership with twenty-first century learning, instruction with professional development, assessment with professional development, assessment with twenty-first century learning, professional development with interventions, professional development with twenty-first century learning, and interventions with twenty-first century learning. These different sub-constructs are all significant interactions of principal involvement. This means that high school principals who are placing emphasis on elements of principal leadership, instruction, professional development, assessment, interventions, and twenty-first century learning at their schools are exhibiting involvement in schoolwide literacy. 103

PAGE 121

Table 4.20 Paired samples t-tests M SD t < .05 Pair! Principal Leadership Instruction -.08 62 -.72 .48 Pair2 Principal Leadership -.01 .65 12 .91 Assessment Pair 3 Principal Leadership .33 .82 2.17* 04 Professional Development Pair4 Principal Leadership -.10 68 85 .40 Interventions Pair 5 Principal Leadership 34 .78 -2.38* 02 Twenty-first Century Learning Pair6 Instruction .14 .56 1.31 .20 Assessment Pair? Instruction .44 .56 4 17* 00 Professional Development Pair8 Instruction 03 .53 -.27 .79 Interventions Pair9 Instruction 22 .64 -1.80 .08 Twenty-first Century Learning Pair 10 Assessment .31 .69 2.40* 02 Professional Development Pair 11 Assessment -.11 .57 -1.03 .31 Interventions Pair 12 Assessment -. 29 .55 -2.77* .01 Twenty-first Century Learning Pair 13 Professional Development .40 .58 -3 78* 00 Interventions Pair 14 Professional Development 69 .80 -4.66* .00 Twenty-first Century Learning Pair 15 Interventions -.25 .47 -2.97* .01 Twenty-first Century Learning Notes : *p < .05 104

PAGE 122

An independent samples t-test was conducted on the six sub-constructs of principal involvement by high growth and low growth schools. The results indicated no significant difference between high growth and low growth schools rejecting the hypothesis that schools that possess high achievement and high growth and schools that possess low achievement and high growth will have high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy. Table 4.21 supports these findings. Table 4.21 Independent samples t test Mean t Difference p<.05 Principal Leadership -.05 -.02 .36 Instruction .08 .02 .64 Assessment -.21 -.06 .41 Professional Development -.34 -.12 .91 Interventions -.86 -.27 .47 Twenty-first Century Learning -.61 -.19 .80 Summary of Findings for Research Question 1 To summarize the analysis for Research Question 1, descriptive statistics showed slight differences in the means and percentages of agreement and 105

PAGE 123

disagreement. Surprisingly, LALG principals reported higher mean scores across almost all six sub-constructs. The one sample t test and the paired samples t-test had indicated clear findings across all sub-constructs of principal involvement. The t-tests indicated that the sub-constructs held because all six sub-constructs showed significance in at least one combination in the paired samples t-test. The independent samples ttest indicated that there is no statistically significant difference in the means of principal involvement between the high growth and low growth schools despite the descriptive results. The psychometric properties of the instrument were not determined earlier due to the instrument being generated from the literature by the researcher and due to this being the instruments' first administration with high school principals in Colorado. Because of the small sample (n = 36}, this could be a limitation to the above findings. Survey Open-ended Questions Results In addition to the 30 survey questions, principals were asked to respond to eight short open-ended questions that were associated with survey questions 2, 4, 7, 10, 20, 22, 23, 23, and 28. Five ofthe six sub-constructs were represented: principal leadership, instruction, assessment, professional development, and interventions. The open-ended responses can be found in their entirety in Appendix J. 106

PAGE 124

What follows is a brief introduction for each question that is associated with one of the five sub-constructs. A summary of principal responses distinguished by quadrant is displayed in a table. Principal Leadership Table 4 22 provides a summary from all four quadrants on survey item 7, which addresses the sub-construct principal leadership Survey item 7 stated, "I solicit funding from the district, state, or federal government to support literacy in my school." The open-ended question asked, "What percentage of funding do you provide for literacy?" 107

PAGE 125

Table 4.22 Principal leadership open-ended question 7 HAHG(n= 8) Most principals could not come up with an exact amount for literacy funding. Some reported 15% to 20%. They discussed how they spend their literacy funding, which included FTE for tracking Colorado Basic Literacy Act (CBLA) students, reading classes, and reading programs. LAHG(n= 3) No exact amount was provided by principals. One principal said that he or she has solicited funds from other sources to support literacy. Another principal dedicates three full-time FTE to literacy. In order to support ELL students, 23 sections of English literacy blocks are provided in addition to regular English classes, according to another principal. This principal also provides an independent reading library for each class. HALG(n= 6) Overall, most principals said that they could not provide an exact percentage dedicated to literacy funding. However, two principals indicated that because they were a high-performing school, additional funding for literacy was not allocated for reading. One principal said priorities have been established for math, writing, and assisting at-risk students. One principal said he or she inherited a budget that had low literacy funding. He or she plans to put an emphasis on literacy in the upcoming year. LALG(n=4) Two of the four principals said that the district is in charge of providing literacy funds. One said the district provides the school with coaches and on-site professional development training. One of the other principals said that literacy funding was 15%, while another said 20% was allocated for literacy funding. Instruction Table 4.23 displays a summary from all four quadrants on survey item 2, which addresses the sub-construct instruction. Survey item 2 stated, "I encourage teachers to teach reading strategies to help students develop high-level reading 108

PAGE 126

skills" The open-ended statement asked principals to, "Please describe these strategies." Table 4 .23 Instruction open-ended question 2 HAHG (n = 10) Some principals indicated that they work with literacy coaches and implement professional development to impart reading strategies. Principals stated there were a variety of reading strategies that teachers were using in their classrooms. Some of these strategies reported include building background knowledge textbook strategies, directed reading, and literature circles. LAHG (n = 3) In addition to reading programs such as Alpine Literacy Training on the Five Components of Reading and the Pikes Peak Literacy Strategies Project, principals said teachers are using Thinking Maps for analyzing their reading. Other strategies mentioned include annotation of texts, small group guided reading, choice selection, and various discussion techniques. HALO (n =6} One principal stated that her/his school is working with the feeder middle school to continue parts of the reading program focused there and to provide inservices on reading strategies for all teachers. Some of the reading strategies that principals said their teachers use include pre-reading strategies, annotating, setting a purpose, semantic mapping, and modeling. LALG(n = 3) One principal is using reading programs such as Lindamood Bell reading strategies, America's Choice Ramp Up to Literacy, and Literacy Navigator. Other principals said teachers use modeling, think alouds, guided reading, accountable talk, among other strategies. 109

PAGE 127

Table 4.24 provides a summary from all four quadrants on survey item 20, which addresses the sub-construct instruction. Survey item 20 stated "I provide technology supports for reading instruction" Principals responded to the following: "Please list the technology supports that you provide Table 4.24 Instruction open-ended question 20 HAHG (n = 12) Principals reported a variety of ways that technology supports reading. Computer-based reading tools that teachers use include Read 180, PLATO for individualized learning needs, and Scholastic Reading Inventory. Acuity is an assessment tool that is used three times a year to measure student reading growth. Some principals said that teachers use LCD projectors to model reading strategies. LAHG (n = 3) Principal reports varied One principal stated teachers use PLATO, MAPS testing, and Renaissance STAR Reading Another principal said that teachers have access to netbooks, laptops clickers for language arts teachers, document cameras, and Promethean technology. Conversely, one principal reported that he/she does not have extensive technolog_y resources within the building. HALG(n= 8) Six of the eight principals reporting said that they use Read 180. One also uses Jamestown Reading Navigator and Scholastic Reading Inventory. Other technology supports include dedicated reading labs, listening stations, audio books and Smartboards to display and manipulate text. LALG (n = 3) One principal said teachers use Success Maker. Another principal indicated that he/she possesses computer reading labs and PLATO. Teachers have access to document cameras, a computer in each classroom with LCD projectors, according to another principal. Other technology he/she provides includes netbooks, clickers and three Smartboards. 110

PAGE 128

Assessment Table 4.25 provides a summary from all four quadrants on survey item 27, which addresses the sub-construct assessment. Survey item 27 stated, "I expect teachers to use literacy data to make instructional decisions." The open-ended question asked, "What kind of data?" Table 4.25 Assessment open-ended question 27 HAHG (n = 11) Principals stated that teachers use a variety of data tools. They include CSAP, EXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT. Three principals said they use Acuity, which tests students formatively on the state standards three times before February. Principals said that there is ongoing assessment with students on Individualized Learning Plans and for students in English classes. LAHG (n = 3) One principal indicated that he does not think that teachers are equipped yet to analyze data deeply. He/She believes that it is the principal's role to train all teachers to do this. Another principal said her/his teachers use CSAP, Galileo Benchmark tests, unit tests, and semester tests, while another principal said her/his teachers use formative and summative assessments. HALG (n = 7) All principals said that they use CSAP to analyze student data. ACT, Acuity testing, Read 180, Scholastic Reading Inventory, common assessments, formative assessments, and district reading assessment scores were also reported. LALG (n= 5) A variety of assessments were reported by principals. CSAP was reported by two principals as a means of tracking data. One principal uses CELA, which is a state test for ELL students. Formative, summative, and common assessments, along with MAPS and AIMSWeb were also mentioned. 111

PAGE 129

Professional Development Table 4.26 provides a summary from all four quadrants on survey item 4, which addresses the sub-construct professional development. Survey item 4 stated, "I provide funding for literacy coaches." The open-ended question inquired, "How much? Is there one or more coaches? Are they full time or teach? Are they assigned other duties?" 112

PAGE 130

Table 4.26 Professional development open-ended question 4 HAHG (n = 12) Five of the principals responding indicated they have a fulltime literacy coach. One said that FTE is allocated for two full-time coaches. Two principals said they have part-time coaches. One principal stated that their free and reduced lunch population is only 6%, so the school is not allotted FTE for coaching. Duties include working with teachers in PLCs, running professional development sessions, and working with students who have individualized learning plans. LAHG (n = 3) One principal said her/his school has district support for teachers to be released from classes to be trained in coaching, and in tum, coach other teachers in their school. Another principal reported that he/she has an instructional coach who works with teachers on instructional techniques that include literacy. The district provides one coach, and four teachers teach two classes and coach the remainder of the according to another principal. HALO (n = 7) Overall, principals reported that they have instructional coaches who are involved in literacy in some way. However, one principal said that he/she did not feel that a literacy coach was necessary because teachers were willing to participate in professional development on their own. At one school, the district provides 1.0 FTE, but the principal splits the position into two positions. One coach is the main literacy team facilitator, while the other coach oversees reading interventions. Duties assigned include working with staff on a variety of topics and lookingat data. LALG (n = 4) Three of the four principals reporting indicated that their districts provide coaches. One principal said that a district coach comes in once per week to coach the literacy staff who then assist other teachers. Another principal stated that budget cuts have affected the coaching staffing. This school went from four literacy coaches to a .5 FTE coach. Duties include working with teachers in all content areas. 113

PAGE 131

Table 4.27 provides a summary from all four quadrants on survey item 10, which addresses the sub-construct professional development. Survey item 10 stated, "As an administrator, I receive professional development in literacy." The open-ended question asked principals to respond to the following statement: "Please describe your professional development activities." Table 4.27 Professional development open-ended question 10 HAHG (n = 12) Principals reported that the district provides professional development. They also said that they read journals work with coaches, and attend conferences. LAHG(n=3) One principal said he/she has attended workshops and conferences in literacy. Additionally, one said he/she has received professional development in CBLA and knowledge of the Five Components of Reading. Another principal said that he/she has attended teacher leader trainings and has attended conventions and workshops HALG (n=7) Professional development is provided by the district for some principals. Other principals said they read journals. One principal said he/she has a masters and a doctorate around reading. LALG(n =4) One principal said he/she receives professional development at monthly district principal meetings. Another principal has been trained in the delivery of the Lindamood Bell learning processes and America's Choice Ramp-up to Literacy Because of cutbacks, one principal said, administrators do not receive as much professional development as teachers. Table 4.28 provides a summary from all four quadrants on survey item 22, which addresses the sub-construct professional development. Survey item 22 114

PAGE 132

stated, "I provide time for teachers to participate in teacher teams to work on literacy practices." The open-ended question asked, "How much time? Is it structured or on their own?" Table 4.28 Professional development open-ended question 22 HAHG(n=9) The majority of principals said that they provided their teachers with time to collaborate either in PLCs or through teacher-directed times. One principal provides teacher teams full-day release to work on their team's literacy plan. Time is spent on a variety of activities and is not necessarily spent solely on literacy. LAHG(n = 3) Principal responses were mixed. Two principals reported having regular collaborative meeting times, while one principal said that teachers meet for six hours per semester. One principal noted that PLCs do not focus only on literacy. HALG (n= 5) Four principals said that teachers meet in PLCs, which has time set aside on a regular basis. One principal said that there was not enough time and that collaborative time is selfdirected. Two principals said that time is not entirely devoted to literacy. LALG(n =4) Three out of the four principals reported that they set time aside for teachers to collaborate. One said that the district sets the professional development structure for the building, and they work around that. Another principal said that teachers meet weekly in data teams and that 9th and lOth grade teachers have common planning hours in which they collaborate throughout the week. Table 4.29 provides a summary from all four quadrants on survey item 28, which addresses the sub-construct Professional Development. Survey item 28 stated, "I have a schoolwide, professional development model that addresses 115

PAGE 133

literacy." The open-ended question asked principals to respond to the following: "Please describe what this looks like." Table 4.29 Professional development open-ended question 28 HAHG(n = 5) Principal responses varied. One principal reported that through their literacy coaches, they have embedded authentic literacy professional development. Another principal is using Acuity reading data to drive professional development. Two principals said their school focus areas include Rtl and twenty-first century learning. LAHG (n = 3) One principal said he/she offers a literacy lab for certain teachers, but has continued literacy instruction for all teachers. Another principal offers inservices, while another principal stated that her/his teachers are involved in literacy professional development groups. HALG (n =4) Principal responses were mixed. One principal's district is involved in the National Literacy Project that lends itself to ongoing literacy professional development throughout the year. Another principal indicated that professional development time is difficult to create in a high school setting. One principal said that literacy strategies are modeled and taught at staff meetings; however, it has not worked out. Teachers are using a structured instruction observation protocol and goal setting that has a professional development element, according to another principal. LALG (n = 2) One principal said that all teachers at her/his school have been trained in Lindamood Bell learning processes, with a schoolwide focus in Step Up To Writing. Another principal said that he/she has designed a school within a school for 9th and 1 01h graders that will result in providing specific professional development for teachers around literacy. 116

PAGE 134

Interventions Table 4.30 provides a summary from all four quadrants on survey item 23, which addresses the sub-construct interventions. Survey item 23 stated, "I have built reading classes into the master schedule." The open-ended question asked, "How many classes? What kinds of classes?" Table 4.30 Interventions open-ended question 23 HAHG (n = 12) All principals said they have reading support classes. They varied in number and approach. Some principals indicated that they use Read 180 and Wilson Reading programs. Others stated that reading classes were scheduled, in addition to students' English classes. LAHG (n = 3) One principal said her/his school has integrated world history classes, while another principal allocated 1 7 sections for various reading support classes last year. Another principal said that English classes are literacy classes for reading and writing, and many of these students have a reading class in addition to their English class. HALG (n = 7) All principals said they have reading support classes. Four principals said teachers use Read 180. Other computerassisted reading programs include Wilson Reading and Strategic Reading. One principal stated that he/she has 1oth and 11th grade language arts classes designed to meet the needs of students on individualized learning plans. LALG (n = 3) Principals reported that reading programs, scheduling 35 minutes each day for reading and other interventions, and using a readers/writers workshop model in English classrooms are activities they use to support students. 117

PAGE 135

Summary of Findings The open-ended questions revealed that overall principals wrote that they were involved in supporting school wide literacy to some extent. They provided resources and support for their literacy programs. However, there were some anomalies concerning some HALG principal responses. They included not needing additional literacy funding or literacy coaches due to their schools having high achievement. Another finding that emerged from the open-ended questions for LALG principals was the indication of high district involvement in providing funding, coaches, and professional development, which indicates that the principal does not have power over some important decisions. Research Question 2 What leadership actions do principals take to promote schoolwide literacy? Ten principals volunteered to participate in the interviews. Three of the four quadrants were represented: HAHG (n = 5), LAHG (n = 3), and HALG (n = 2) No principals from the LALG quadrant volunteered to participate in the interviews. From the interviews, the data were analyzed using an open-coding process (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The open-coding process allowed the researcher to identify, name, categorize, and describe phenomenon found in the text. All interviews were organized in a document by question and by the quadrant where high school principals' schools were located on the Colorado Growth Model. After reading over the responses multiple times, sentences phrases, and words were highlighted. Next, main ideas from the data were typed 118

PAGE 136

in the right-hand margin using the comment function in Microsoft Word. From these descriptors, themes were derived. The data were checked by a third party to ensure that the researcher's conclusions were accurate. What follows are the results of the interviews. Summary of Responses across Quadrants The second research question explored leadership actions high school principals take to promote schoolwide literacy. All principal responses were collapsed across the three quadrants represented in the interviews to summarize the findings. In addition, separate responses from HAHG, LAHG, and HALG principals were synthesized and reported. This section is organized by each interview question. Under each question is a summary of the findings followed by specific interview data. The data are organized by quadrants in the following order: HAHG, LAHG, and HALG. Question I What is your vision for schoolwide literacy? Themes that emerged included communicating a school wide literacy plan and providing support. Principals said that possessing a communication plan at the beginning of the school year with teachers and specialists is important and understanding literacy is necessary in all content areas. Support was also a main idea. Principals said that supporting teachers in the form of professional development was important. In addition, principals said that providing support for students in terms of identifying needs early in order to implement interventions 119

PAGE 137

was a key idea. The following responses are illustrative of principals' vision for schoolwide literacy: HAHG. One principal said the following: At the beginning of each year in August during a faculty meeting, I have emphasized the importance of a school wide focus on literacy (reading, writing, discussing, and thinking). We have collaborated as department coordinators and administrators to develop a school improvement plan with a clear focus on literacy with a specific goal of reading. We have asked department coordinators and PLC leaders to work with the teachers in their departments and PLCs to align their professional development and achievement goals with literacy. We have focused this year on reading and have asked each PLC and department to have specific reading commitments built into their weekly discussions and lesson plans. We observe, coach, and evaluate teachers during preand post-observation conferences as well as during the actual observation or walkthrough observation. LAHG. A LAHG principal stated, We have a comprehensive three-year plan for the school, and I have been very involved in developing this plan. I feel, as administrators, that it is our responsibility to set the focus. I don't get into how they do it. But I do think because I see all of the data and the preparedness of the school and the school state, that I have good idea of what the focus should be. The plan is being developed by us, but with every step along the way, teachers are giving input. Last week, we had an initial meeting where teachers could come in and look at the plan. The initial piece is what the actual goals are. We have aligned the plan with the ACT College Readiness Standards. In each discipline, they are to look at literacy practices and the college readiness standards of ACT and make them match. 120

PAGE 138

HALG. A principal said that schoolwide literacy at the high school level is a primary focus or cornerstone for all lesson and unit planning. However, the principal went on to say that at her/his school the demographics and the academic achievement are different from the previous school he/she was principal. The principal said, "At this school in content area reading, I haven't given a lot of specific instruction in here's how we do it and provide professional development." He/She stated that the school does not get much FTE for literacy "because we are not an impacted school." Question 2 What is your role in developing and maintaining your school's vision for schoolwide literacy? Themes that emerged included providing resources and keeping the vision at the forefront. Principals stated they should provide resources in the form of time, staff, and money. They also said they should communicate the vision and the importance of literacy to all stakeholders. Principals expressed their roles to develop and maintain their school's vision for schoolwide literacy. HAHG. One principal stated that her/his school has a PLC environment that meets weekly. Goals and common assessments drive teachers' work. He/She said, Our vision is that we're following our school improvement plan and part of it is the literacy goal for reading growth on CSAP and ACT. So, teachers, not just me are being the ones who drive it. 121

PAGE 139

Each department has a teacher leader and they come up with the goal and the action plan that are related to schoolwide goals. Another HAHG principal was also goal-driven and believed her/his role was to organize people in order to create a structure of who will oversee the goals and monitor the timeline. The principal and the person he/she delegates to oversee the process meet to discuss how they are going to train teachers, form the professional development plan, and communicate to teachers the goal and the plan to meet it. "My role is to monitor and adjust as we go," he/she said. A different HAHG principal stated that her/his role is to set the vision and the groundwork with clear expectations for others. He/She said that a vision cannot exist without plans for professional development and aligned goals and expectations for classroom instruction. He/She asserted that there is a need to provide adequate funding for classroom and human resources and to support literacy coaches, reading specialists, literacy coordinators, department coordinators, and PLC leaders. He/She stated that I need to empower other leaders to lead professional development for the entire faculty. Literacy must be seen as a universal intervention for all students provided by all teachers across all departments, not as something for which only a few are responsible. LAHG. Leading and coordinating the professional development and data discussions along with the administrative team in the areas of literacy across all department lines is the role of one LAHG principal. Another LAHG principal 122

PAGE 140

believes that teachers are always going to have to teach literacy in her/his school due to the number of high poverty students and a high ELL student population. Currently, her/his instructional leadership team is writing a literacy mission statement to make the focus on schoolwide literacy visible. He/She considers her/his role is to be an instructional leader and guides student work examination to see what proficiency looks like in literacy. Teachers and administrators also look at student work from other districts to see what students are doing and to set expectations for students. When referring to her/his vision for schoolwide literacy, the principal said, "It's a continual process; we never stop." HALG. One principal's school is a participant of the National Literacy Project. He/She has developed a literacy team with representation from every content area. He/She sits on the committee but does not chair it or facilitate it. This principal said that next year he/she would lead this committee so that he/she was more involved with literacy at the school. He/She said her/his responsibility is to provide resources and to keep team members focused on the schoolwide goals that are included in the school improvement plan. He/She said, Not only am I a participant on the literacy team, but I am also an instructional leader. The whole idea of introducing literacy as our main focus should come out of the administrative team and be supported by the administrative team. Another HALG principal indicated that principals should provide resources in the form of professional development and materials. They 123

PAGE 141

should also identify issues around literacy that he/she can address. He/She said that he/she wants to empower teachers to make a difference. This principal stated, "There are not many teachers who want their students to fail, but I don't think teachers, especially in high school, know what they can do to impact reading." He/She said it was her role to help teachers make an impact and provide them with continued support. Question 3 How do you work with your literacy/instructional coaches if you have them? Principals from all three quadrants did not do much direct work with literacy coaches or instructional coaches if they had them. Some principals said that this was the primary responsibility of department heads or literacy coaches. However, there were principals who do work directly with their coaches. HAHG. A HAHG principal who had literacy or instructional coaches said that the coach meets with the administrative team at least once a week to go over what she is doing, to discuss how teachers are doing, and to discuss topics the coach is currently working on or could be working on. Their conversations include review of district goals. Conversely, another principal admitted that he/she does not work as closely with the school's literacy coaches as he/she did when they were first assigned several years ago. The principal stated that 124

PAGE 142

I know they are invested in our mission and have the expertise to lead. They not only provide professional development for all of our teachers, but they specifically work with different professional learning communities to specifically and strategically embed literacy into their lessons. Another principal said that he/she has no direct contact with the coach and assigns the responsibility of meeting with the coach to an assistant principal. LAHG. One principal is a participant in a literacy lab that was started by the district and was funded through a Title I grant. Literacy lab trainers coach teachers, and they in tum, coach teachers within their building. The principal is involved in the literacy lab training. A different principal stated that he/she has an instructional coach who is not directly associated with literacy, but does work somewhat with literacy. He/She did not indicate how much time he spends with her. HALG. One principal meets with her/his 1.5 instructional coaches regularly. The 1.0 coach is an allocation from the district whom he/she meets with weekly. The coach co-chairs the instructional leadership team with the principal. They also eo plan professional development and learning throughout the year. The principal guides her and keeps her focused on the goals that they co-develop throughout the year. She also participates on the literacy team. The .5 literacy coach is the main facilitator of the literacy team and is the main liaison with the district that helps guide literacy instruction. Another principal stated that he/she does not have 125

PAGE 143

literacy staffing for a coach because the school is not "highly impacted." He/She said, "When we were looking at our scores, we do not have a lot of kids who are unsatisfactory in their reading. We might have some kids who are partially proficient, but we don't have a lot of them." Question 4 As a principal, what professional development are you provided about literacy? How confident are you of your knowledge ofliteracy instruction? Formal professional development for principals was inconsistent. Several principals indicated they had to seek out their own opportunities for training and sometimes it was just in the form of reading current research or consulting with colleagues about good literacy practices. Most principals were confident about their knowledge of literacy instruction. Principals reported the following: HAHG. A HAHG principal indicated that principals in her/his district have had professional development on specifically supervising and understanding what the new literacy goals are and objectives related to them. However, another principal stated that he/she does not receive explicit professional development in literacy. I read, and I listen to our in-house and in-district experts. I listen to our literacy specialists and empower them to work collaboratively to deliver ongoing professional development in PLCs or in all faculty professional development sessions. Another HAHG principal also relies on experts to inform her/him ofliteracy practices that he/she said should be occurring in his building. Four out of the five 126

PAGE 144

were confident of their knowledge ofliteracy instruction with one principal reporting that he/she "leaves it to the experts." LAHG. Like two of the HAHG principals, one LAHG principal said, I am a lot more confident in the people I have in charge of improving literacy within the building." Conversely another LAHG principal admitted that literacy is not in her/his background but feels a responsibility to learn about it. He/She stated that he/she joins book studies and attends district teacher-leader meetings. He/She also takes advantage of other professional development opportunities the district makes available around literacy. Two of the three principals said that they were confident in their knowledge of literacy instruction, while the other principal was more confident in the people he/she has in charge of literacy. HALG. One HALG principal's literacy knowledge is extensive. He/She earned her/his masters and doctorate in reading. He/She said "My research reinforced that it is important for a principal to understand what literacy means. He/She pointed out that he/she continues to seek out professional development opportunities in literacy in the form of workshops and by reading journals and books on adolescent literacy. Another principal stated that principals in her/his district were receiving professional development every month through the district's principal institute They were receiving professional development in writing-to-learn activities. In the past, principals were studying Reading Next 127

PAGE 145

(Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). Both principals felt confident in their knowledge of literacy instruction. Question 5 Please describe how reading is embedded in your school improvement plan to address each content area? In general, the theme that emerged from the common way reading was embedded in the school improvement plan was by the principal articulating the importance of reading in the goals or in the school improvement plan itself. HAHG. One principal responded, Individual goals for each teacher in the building are connected to department goals. We have building goals, department goals, and we have individual goals. Those department goals have to reflect our building goal, which is literacy-based. To improve our performance in literacy, we use the CSAP as one of those indicators that includes performance. We also are looking at all the data that the individual teachers are collecting within each department to support that data. Another principal indicated reading is not directly addressed in the school improvement plan but has broad-stroked growth goals in reading and writing with CSAP and ACT targets. Another principal said that growth and proficiency goals are embedded based on district goals. He/She said that the goals at this school include responsible citizenship, ethical behavior, and leadership, but no direct link to reading. 128

PAGE 146

LAHG. One LAHG principal said that reading is embedded in the school improvement plan" ... in the sense that it talks about the literacy plan. When we talk about reading, it's not done in isolation. Reading and writing go hand-in-hand as well as thinking." Another LAH G principal stated that the reading focus is in everything the teachers and administrators do. He/She said, "The SIP is just about reading across all contents. The SIP is a statement and an improvement goal of what we are going to do and that it reaches across all contents, and it is the teachers' responsibility to follow it." HALG. Because reading scores have been stable over time and writing growth was low, one HALO principal said that he/she combines reading and writing goals in the school improvement plan. He/She said that he/she does not point out anything specific in the school improvement plan, but does require departments to have a literacy strategy teachers implement throughout the year. Another principal said that even though her/his school is high-achieving, he/she has some overall school goals and works with teachers to help students who are weak in reading. He/She asks departments how they are going to help reach those goals. He/She said, "One ofthe challenges of being a high-performing school is that sometimes it is hard unless there is a group that brings your rating down [so that it gives] people the focus to improve." 129

PAGE 147

Question 6 How do you manage accountability for reading and writing instruction? Principals conduct walkthroughs and provide feedback through conversations with teachers. Principals indicated that literacy was not a direct part of the evaluation process, but agreed that it should be. Principals reported the following: HAHG. One principal said accountability for reading and writing instruction is evidenced by the key elements administrators are looking for when they conduct walkthroughs or observe teachers. Conversations with teachers include discussing specifically the data they are collecting and the improvements they are seeing or the things they want to create that improvement. He/She said, "It is not directly tied [to evaluations] and certainly in order for us to make huge gains, I think it has to at some point." Another HAHG principal stated, "Teacher evaluations do focus on this somewhat, but probably not as specifically and deliberatively as they should." He/She believes-as witnessed through walkthroughs and observations-that the majority of teachers focus on literacy instruction and use the skills they have learned and developed in professional development sessions. LAHG. Reading and writing instruction is loosely tied to evaluations and walkthroughs said one LAHG principal. He/She stated, "I am looking at that all of the time. Just like we want teachers to give students feedback, it is my job to give 130

PAGE 148

teachers feedback about reading and writing instruction." Another LAHG principal said it is linked to the school improvement plan. Administrators use a walkthrough protocol to measure teacher performance. Part of their performance focuses on content-area knowledge and student performance in reading and writing. HALG. One principal stated that when reading scores declined at her/his school he/she talked to the English teachers to inquire about what they were doing with reading. Another HALO principal stated that We do a lot of walkthroughs. We will launch a strategy. We will have a period of modeling and learning, peer observations, and co teaching if needed. Then we have a deadline of when they should have implemented the strategy and a few weeks later, it should be embedded in their planning and teaching. That is how we get it rolled out. The systemic implementation of embedding reading and writing becomes part of the evaluation. My team usually looks at our big focuses and our goals. Those immediately become the things that we talk to our people who are on the evaluation cycle. Question 7 How do you use reading assessments and data analysis to inform schoolwide reading instruction? Assessment practices were inconsistent across the three quadrants (and even within the quadrants). In some cases, it was seen as the principal's role to examine and analyze data and then to provide the information to the teachers, while in other cases there were teacher teams that looked at the data together and 131

PAGE 149

set goals based on the results. This may be the result of a lack of perceived training on the part of teachers to examine and analyze data. Principals described their use of assessment and data analysis as follows: HAHG. HAHG principals use a variety of assessments to analyze reading achievement to improve reading instruction. One HAHG principal is using the Scholastic Reading Inventory, which is set up on all computers for teacher access. It is mainly used to monitor progress for students on Individual Learning Plans (ILP) and for students on Individual Education Plans (IEP). It is not required for students who are not on these plans. In addition, he/she uses the ACT as a measurement. Another HAHG principal also uses the computer-assisted program, Acuity to assess students through their English classes. Teachers have been trained to access the data as a big data source. Administrators and teachers also examine the PLAN and Colorado Student Achievement Program (CSAP) tests to gain a broader picture of student progress. One HAHG principal indicated that administrators and teachers examine data, but does not believe that they use data as well as they could outside of reading intervention classes. H/She said, "We look at data in general terms for initial placement of students into classes, and teachers look at general and specific data to help them group students to inform their instruction." Administrators and teachers use the standardized tests EXPLORE, PLAN, and CSAP as data sources. 132

PAGE 150

LAHG One LAHO principal is using the ACT College Readiness Standards (ACT, 201 0) to align curriculum to meet the district's goal of college readiness. Teachers use common assessments as a vehicle to match common assessment items with the ACT College Readiness Standards. Another LAHO principal has processes in place for data discussion. He/She and an assistant principal pull benchmark reading and writing test data from Oalileo (Assessment Technology Incorporated, 2010). Based on their objectives, they may pull an entire grade level, a classroom, or particular standards to analyze. Administrators will break teachers into small groups to examine the data either by department or interdepartmentally. Teachers do not come in knowing how to examine data. They don't get it at the collegiate level. We walk them through some of the data," he said. A third LAHO principal indicated that her/his school has data teams and teachers work together for the planning and the assessment of reading. "Assessment to me is ongoing assessment," he/she said. HALG. Working extensively with a representative group of teachers, a HALO principal examines data with this team. They work together to set school goals by analyzing all of the data that are available to them. They take the data back to the faculty and share the goals they are recommending. This group gathers input for those goals and finalizes them. Another HALO principal uses CSAP and Acuity. Three benchmark tests are given throughout the year using Acuity. Even though 133

PAGE 151

administrators, according to this principal, are examining the Acuity data and making decisions the principal admitted that the administrative team members were not proficient using it at the time of this study. Question 8 Please discuss your work with teachers on the literacy development of students with special needs and with English language learners (ELL) Few, if any, of the principals worked directly with teachers on literacy development for students. In many cases the literacy teacher collaborated with the special education teachers and/or the ELL teacher in order to make sure any struggling students had the appropriate support. In some cases, the special education teacher and/or the ELL teacher co-taught with the literacy or classroom teacher in an effort to identify and assist struggling students Principals reported the following: HAHG. A HAHG principal's literacy teacher is also the Rtl coordinator and the 504 coordinator. She works with those groups and supports students in special services in the building. She performs progress monitoring and other duties to meet the needs of those students. She also helps the ELL instructor with materials and with instructional strategies. Another HAHG principal indicated that her/his school is an inclusion school that uses many inclusionary practices. Ninety percent of the special education students are in regular classes with support. Pull-out support classes are 134

PAGE 152

also utilized. Because this school is on the block schedule, some students receive skill-building in an additional class. Teachers use three levels: Language! for low level students who are many grade levels behind to get them to grade level and Read 180 for scaffolding so that students can read at grade level. They also offer a "regular" class that is used for skill building. This principal pointed out that her/his school had only two ELL students, which they placed into special education classes for reading support. Two of three reading specialists who teach reading classes are also special needs teachers who work with special needs and typical needs students who are in require reading interventions, according to another HAHG principal. Her/His school does not doing anything specific with ELL students other than the instruction they receive in their required reading and writing classes with their ELL teacher. LAHG. In inclusion classes, one LAHG principal said that they use Language! for targeted and direct instruction. In addition, her/his school utilizes teamed classes, which includes a special education teacher and a regular education teacher. Some special education students who have higher-level skills are assigned to a regular class. In addition, all special education students are assigned to a learning lab where they meet with their special education instructor to go over support systems. ELL students are placed according to their language proficiency. Some 135

PAGE 153

students are in all ELL classes, while others are in teamed classes or are mainstreamed into regular classes. Another LAHG principal did not address special education students specifically, but discussed the notion that he/she has built additional reading classes into the master schedule for students who score unsatisfactory or partially proficient on the CSAP. Identified students are placed into the reading class in addition to their English class. In essence, they receive reading instruction everyday He/She said that her/his school has developed a Newcomers program where ELL students are scheduled three out of four periods each day to meet in an English immersion program During one block each day, students are moved into the mainstream Students with high English proficiency levels are scheduled into ELL classes where Language! is used. "We have taken the tact that good literacy meets the needs of special ed[ ucation] and ELL [students]. Those practices help to accelerate those students," stated another LAHG principal. He/She believes that good literacy instruction is a good strategy to work with students He/She said that the growth data and scores prove that this is working. Across the board, teachers are using readers/writers workshop model. Most of the special education students are mainstreamed and instruction does not vary much for those learners he/she indicated 136

PAGE 154

HALG. A HALO principal and her/his team visited schools in the Denver-metro area to research other schools in the area and the ways in which they address their student reading skill level. He/She plans to have reading labs where teachers specifically target the skills of their special education students. Teamed classes with a special education teacher and a regular education teacher are used to help students access the curriculum. "This and to follow that up with the reading lab is going to be impactful," he/she said. Another HALO principal uses computer assisted programs such as Wilson Reading and Read 180 to support special needs students and regular education students who require reading support. Her/His ELL population is small, and reading is embedded in the ELL classes. Question 9 Describe your Rtl model for reading interventions. Response to Intervention (Rtl) was introduced in 2004 through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). One of the purposes of the act was to implement the Rtl process by putting in place three tiers of interventions before referring students to special education. The three tiers include universal interventions, targeted interventions, and intensive interventions. Principals from each category discussed the need for early identification of students who needed extra help in literacy and then finding the appropriate 137

PAGE 155

intervention to assist those students in reaching grade level. The following responses are illustrative in the ways principals use the Rti model: HAHG. One HAHG principal stated that her/his Rtl model follows the standard three-tier model. Tier I universal interventions focus on classroom instruction and identifying reading skill deficiencies and address them at the classroom level. Teachers use Acuity data and teacher referrals with a problem-solving team meeting weekly. Tier II targeted interventions include pull-out classes for students who have "true skill issues." The Tier III intensive interventions have not been consistent because most students who need this intervention have attendance issues so it is difficult to provide the intensive help they need, stated this principal. Another HAHG principal concurred and said that their Rtl model for reading interventions starts at the universal level with all teachers receiving professional development in literacy strategies to enhance their instruction. Students who are behind are also placed into reading classes in addition to their English class. LAHG. One LAHG principal is working to create a Tier I intervention through the school's site-based Literacy Lab. However, not every teacher is a part of it at this time. Students who are poor readers or writers are placed in teamed classes to receive double support as a Tier II intervention. Students who have failed a class or are in need of Tier III interventions are placed in computer-assisted classes that 138

PAGE 156

use PLATO, which is used for skills reinforcement and credit recovery. Another LAHG principal did not address universal interventions, but discussed targeted interventions in place such as a second class in reading, small group guided reading, differentiation, and tutorials throughout the school day and after school. Another intervention they have in place is to educate parents about study habits, reading times, and places to read. Intensive interventions include mandatory reading classes, which are taught by reading specialists. HALG. "I believe that when you are approaching literacy, it has to be multi-tiered across all contents, and students should be literate in all those content areas They should be able to read social studies, math, and science," stated one HALG principal. He/She believes in the Rtl model where Tier I universal interventions are practiced with all students, while concentrated help for struggling students is done at the Tier II level where specialized classes are offered to them. Another HALG principal said that the administrative team always begin with CSAP data and then build a profile for students with unsatisfactory or partially proficient reading scores. These students are placed in Read 180 classes, and teachers use Scholastic Reading Inventory data for progress monitoring. Question 10 What kinds of intensive writing activities are teachers using that are related to student reading tasks? 139

PAGE 157

Embedding reading and writing across content areas that allowed for more exposure to good reading and writing practices for students was the main theme that emerged. Principals reported the following: HAHG. One principal said that this was the second year that they had not written a writing goal. Another HAHG principal reported that a 1oth grade common assessment is tied to reading Of Mice and Men where students write a character analysis. He/She said that teachers with choice reading assign readers workshop type activities, such as reading journals. Another HAHG principal said that their district curriculum map closely ties reading to writing activities. One principal stated, "We have asked teachers, especially our teachers of English, to assign writing tasks that accompany the reading. With every novel that our English teachers assign, students are expected to write an essay. Finally, one principal admitted to not knowing what writing tasks her/his teachers link to reading. LAHG. A LAHG principal stated that social studies teachers have students complete a research paper. Teachers also use a writer's workshop model where students are writing as they are reading. Another LAHG principal indicated that students write short-constructed and extended-constructed responses often for a piece ofliterature or while reading an article. Not only is writing built into the English curriculum, it is also a part of the social studies and science curriculums. "Reading and writing are embedded. What we read about, we write about; what 140

PAGE 158

we write about, we read about," said one LAHG principal. Students write every day in their journals, write reading responses, and write some papers on units of study. "It is writing to learn," he/she said. HALG. Both HALO principals indicated that their intensive writing extends beyond the English classroom. For example, one principal said that in addition to essays being written in English and social studies classes, science teachers have committed through the SIP to work with students to write better lab reports. One principal said that teachers have been creative with a writing-to-learn model that was delivered by district literacy experts. Math teachers brought in an interactive notebook that contains different sections for students to interact with and learn math concepts through reading and writing practice "The kids are always writing at the beginning and at the end of the lesson. That is an example of mathematics supporting literacy," he/she stated. Question 11 How are you using technology to support students' development of reading and writing? Most principals said that teachers are using technology like Smartboards, online software programs, and online curriculum, which has been helpful in supporting students' development in reading and writing. One school, however, indicated that financial resources were limited and, therefore, the use of 141

PAGE 159

technology was limited with their population of struggling students. Principals reported the following: HAHG. One principal said that many teachers at her/his school are implementing web-based learning in all of their classes. Teachers have Wikis and access all of their assignments online. Another principal said that social studies and English teachers have students write research papers, which require accessing information from computer or mobile computer labs. PLATO is used for skill identification, scaffolding, and credit recovery. One school has a technology professional development institute during the summer that is followed up with a year-long integration of reading and writing activities as well as other specific content into lessons. LAHG. "The first thing we did this year was to buy document cameras. The teachers use them to model their thinking before students do it, stated one principal." He/She indicated that her/his school is not a Smartboard school yet, but is encouraging teachers to use Blackboard so that teachers can post assignments or readings and provide feedback to students online when students post their writing assignments. Another principal stated that 85 percent to 90 percent of the technology in her/his building is over 10 years old due to lack of funding. Conversely, another principal has purchased six sets of notebooks and has four computer labs for students to write 'assignments. Teachers and students 142

PAGE 160

use Moodie and GoogleDocs for students to post their work. Teachers are using Promethean technology so that students can see examples ofboth student and teacher writing. HALG. With over 500 computers to access, students are able to complete a lot of essay writing at school, according to one principal. They also have document cameras and LCD projectors in classrooms so that teachers can model good writing, participate in the editing of writing, and collaborate on developing a written essay. The other principal touted the work of her/his teacher librarian. She offers anI-pod station in the library where students can listen to the books. She also possesses digital books that students can upload to their Kindles. In addition, she uses a Smartboard to project research lessons into different classrooms at the same time. Question 12 What else about your role as principal related to literacy would you like me to know? Principals reiterated the need for providing a strong foundation of goals as well as the resources needed to achieve those goals. As a principal, it was their role to make this happen. The responses to the question were linked to individual principals and to their contexts. All responses can be accessed in Appendix I. 143

PAGE 161

Summary of Findings Overall, principals who participated in the interviews understand that literacy is necessary in all content areas and that they must communicate a vision around the importance of adolescent literacy. Most principals said that articulation of the importance of reading is through school goals or is written into the school improvement plan. They believed that it was their role is to support teachers with professional development and resources so that they could meet the needs of all students: those achieving and those struggling or those with special needs. Principals from all three categories did not meet regularly, if at all, with their literacy coaches or instructional coaches. Most principals said that they were open to literacy professional development and would try to seek out professional development opportunities whenever possible. They managed accountability for reading and writing instruction by conducting walkthroughs and having conversations with teachers, but there was not a literacy component specifically written into their districts' evaluation instrument. Most principals said that using technology had been helpful in supporting students' development in reading and writing. Finally, principals reiterated the need for providing a strong foundation of goals as well as the resources needed to achieve those goals. These qualitative comments revealed no consistent trends by quadrant of the Colorado Growth Model. 144

PAGE 162

Research Question 3 How well does the combination of minority status, graduation rates, per pupil funding, and school size predict reading growth? Research Question 3 Results A simultaneous discriminant function analysis was conducted to assess whether the five predictor variables, percentage of African-American students, percentage of Latino students, graduation rates, per pupil funding, and school size significantly predicted high growth or low growth on the Colorado Growth Model. This is important to know because there are outside factors that can potentially affect achievement and growth rates that are beyond the principal's knowledge, skills, and leadership actions around literacy. Prior to running the analysis, all the multivariate assumptions tests relating to discriminant function analysis were checked, including normality, equal covariance matrices, lack of outliers and multicollinearity. The overall Wilks' lambda was significant, -A.= 87, i (6, N= 106) = 13.8,p < 05, which indicated that the predictors differentiated between the low growth and high growth groups. Based on these fmdings, the null hypothesis that the mean of the two groups on the discriminant function at the group centroids are equal is rejected, and it is concluded that the group centroids are different. Table 4.31 displays the within group correlations between the predictors and the discriminant function as well as the standardized beta weights. Based on these fmdings, school size and African-American enrollment presented the 145

PAGE 163

highest relationship with the discriminant function of high or low growth on the Colorado Growth Model. The percentage of Latino students demonstrated a moderate relationship. Graduation rates and per pupil funding showed the weakest relationship. However, only 12.18% was the amount of the variance accounted for by the discriminant function of these five variables. Using this model, 62.3% of the grouped cases correctly classified into high and low growth categories. Table 4.31 The standardized coefficients and correlations of predictor variables of the discriminant function School Size Percentage of African American Students Enrolled Percentage of Latino Students Enrolled Graduation Rates Per Pupil Funding Correlation Coefficient -0.649 -0.502 0.422 -0.285 -0.091 Summary of Findings Standardized Coefficient -0.635 0.794 -0.442 -0.141 -0.307 The Discriminant Function Analysis illustrated that school size (p < .05) was a statistically significant indicator to assess reading growth on the Colorado Growth Model. African-American enrollment neared significance 146

PAGE 164

(p = .053). Even though school size is statistically significant and African American enrollment is close in significance, they cannot be used as strong predictors as they make up only 12.18% of the amount of variance accounted for by the discriminant function. 147

PAGE 165

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS This research study has been completed in a year of rapidly-changing views of the role of the principal at both the state and national levels There have been Race to the Top applications, adoption of the Common Core Standards by many states, the proposal for National Board Certification of Principals, and increased focus on principal preparation programs. Additionally, in the State of Colorado, the legislature adopted SB 10-191, a new teacher tenure law that also holds principals accountable for student achievement and growth This study has attempted to determine whether the Colorado Growth Model can be used as an investigative tool to improve schools through use of quantitative indicators combined with qualitative analysis. Results show that in terms of increasing literacy scores investigating the principal's role is important and can make a difference in student achievement and growth. The researcher's intent is to use the findings to inform high school principals of principal literacy leadership and to put into practice the principal's role in creating literacy-rich schools that will aid in closing the achievement gap. Chapter V summarizes and discusses the findings of this study. First, this chapter reviews the purpose ofthe study and the research questions. Next, findings for all three research questions are summarized Implications for practice, delimitations, limitations, and recommendations for future research follow. Finally, the chapter ends with concluding remarks. 148

PAGE 166

Purpose and Research Questions This study examined the role of high school principals' involvement in schoolwide reading achievement and growth. While the issues in this study occur at the national level, this study focused on these issues in the State of Colorado. The goal was to describe how Colorado high school principals whose schools demonstrated high growth exert their leadership so that students leave high school with the reading skills required for college and for work. The Colorado Growth Model was signed into legislation in 2007 (Colorado House Bill 07-1048) as a way to measure each student's growth over time. The model is used to assist parents, teachers, schools, and school districts to identify students who need additional assistance and to close learning gaps. The growth model is comprised of four quadrants: high achievement/high growth (HAHG), low achievement/high growth (LAHG), high achievement/low growth (HALO), and low achievement/low growth (LALG). The Colorado Growth Model has been adopted by Arizona and Indiana (Colorado Department of Education, 2010a) who are also interested in tracking students' achievement and closing gaps. Using the growth model to explore the role of the principal in adolescent literacy achievement should be of interest to other states that might adopt this model. The following research questions guided this study: 1. Do differences exist in principal involvement on the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey, and do those differences link to where schools are located on the Colorado Growth Model? 149

PAGE 167

Hypothesis: Schools that possess high achievement and high growth and schools that possess low achievement and high growth will have high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy. 2. What leadership actions do principals take to promote schoolwide literacy? 3. How well does the combination of minority status, graduation rates, per pupil funding, and school size predict reading growth? Findings What follows are findings linked to the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey, demographic data, the survey responses to answer Research Question 1, interview results for Research Question 2, and the quantitative results for Research Question 3. Demographic Findings from the Survey Responses Out of the 106 surveys sent, 36 principals responded to the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey. The return rate was 34%. A 40% response rate for an email-generated survey is considered "average," while 50% and 60% response rates are considered "good" and ''very good," respectively (Instructional Assessment Resources, 2010). Personal, professional, and school demographic data were collected from the high school administrators who responded. The demographics researched included gender, years as a principal, years as a principal at current school, content taught before becoming a principal, years in the classroom before becoming a principal, current enrollment, African150

PAGE 168

American enrollment, Latino enrollment, free and reduced lunch, school type, per pupil funding, and 2008 graduation rates. The majority of principals had been in their schools six or fewer years; fifty percent said that they had been in their schools three years or less. These principals were relatively new to their schools and may not have had much time to implement change in literacy practices, especially in HALG and LALG schools. Principals reported varying types of teaching experiences with a significant number of principals having taught in core areas: English, math, science, and social studies. Another important finding is that the majority of the principals were teachers for more than seven years before becoming principals. Because these principals reported that they taught in core areas and had taught for a number of years, it implies that these principals have solid knowledge of standards and curriculum development. In some cases, this might include an understanding of reading and writing strategies and lessons, which may be used to further the advancement of adolescent literacy practices in their schools. African-American enrollment was relatively low with three schools reporting their African-American enrollment as between 31% and 50%. Latino enrollment was more varied. Principals indicated that Latino enrollment ranged from 0% to 100% across all four quadrants of the Colorado Growth Model. However, most schools' Latino enrollment was in the range ofO% to 30%. HAHG and HALG schools had fewer Latino students, while LAHG and LALG schools had much larger Latino populations. Latino enrollment is higher in low 151

PAGE 169

achievement schools, but it is not clear how many English language learners were enrolled at these schools at the time of this study. In Colorado, ethnicity as a Latino does not necessarily mean a student is a second language learner. It would have been beneficial to know how many Latino students were ELL students since these learners face more literacy challenges than their English-speaking peers. Unfortunately, during the time of data collection, ELL state data were not available to examine language proficiency related to where these schools fell on the growth model. HAHG and HALG schools possessed the highest graduation rates with the majority of students finishing school. LAHG and LALG had lower graduation rates. Even though some low-achieving schools are showing growth, there is still a concern around students' proficiency levels in reading. According to Ehren, Lenz, and Deschler, many adolescent learners who have ongoing difficulties with reading and writing drop out of high school (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009). Principals who reported per pupil funding on the survey varied within and across each quadrant on the Colorado Growth Model. However, when per pupil funding data were gathered from the Colorado Department of Education for all schools whose enrollment ranged from 750 to 2,800 students, per pupil funding for each school was in close range of one other. Specifically, the state reported that schools were receiving $6,409 to $7,325 in per pupil funding for the 20082009 school year. Schools from all quadrants were approximately close in range 152

PAGE 170

to the above per pupil funding amounts. One could question how per pupil funding is distributed. Should the funding be all equal, or should funding be appropriated based on school need? For example, low-performing schools in districts would receive more funding than the high-performing schools in the same district until achievement gaps were closed. Findings for the Research Questions Certain findings came up in Research Question 1 that are further articulated by the findings learned in Research Question 2. A discussion of Research Question 3 follows. Research Question 1 Do differences exist in principal involvement on the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey, and do those differences link to where schools are located on the Colorado Growth Model? Hypothesis: Schools that possess high achievement and high growth and schools that possess low achievement and high growth will have high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy. This study's focus was on high school principals and their involvement with literacy. Through the literature, six sub-constructs were determined: principal leadership, instruction, assessment, professional development, interventions, and twenty-first century learning. On the survey participants were given six options for each survey question: "strongly disagree," "slightly disagree," "disagree," "agree," "slightly agree," and "strongly agree." Because of 153

PAGE 171

the low number of participants, the six Likert-type survey choices were collapsed into dichotomous categories: "Agree" and "Disagree." Overall, principals surveyed agreed that they were involved somewhat in schoolwide literacy. HAHG principals' responses were high in agreement in five of the six categories. Specifically, they were in 100% agreement with the sub constructs instruction, assessment, interventions, and twenty-first century learning. HAHG principals were in 92.3% agreement for principal leadership and reported a lower level of agreement for professional development at 81.8 %. LAHG principals were in 100% agreement for assessment, interventions, and twenty-first century learning. However, instruction was lower in agreement at 75%, and principal leadership and professional development were the lowest in agreement at 66.7%. HALG principals were lower in agreement across all sub constructs than HAHG and LAHG principals. They reported that they were 90% in agreement for interventions and 87.5% in agreement for twenty-first century learning. Principal leadership and assessment were lower in agreement at 85.7%, while Instruction and professional development were the lowest at 83.3%. Finally, LALG schools reported much higher levels of agreement. Principals stated they were in 1 00% agreement for principal leadership, instruction, assessment, interventions, and twenty-first century learning. Professional development was lowest at 83.3% agreement. Even though LALG principals reported high agreement on the survey, none volunteered to participate in interviews. 154

PAGE 172

Except for HALO principals, twentyfirst century learning was shown to be the highest in principal agreement among the other three quadrants. Professional development was the lowest in agreement as represented by principals from all four quadrants. The reason that twenty-first century Learning was high could be attributed to the focus on these skills from authors (Friedman, 2005; Pink, 2006) and the business and education sectors (Achieve.org, 2007; Kirsch et al., 2007; National Center on Education and the Economy, 2007). The State of Colorado has also included twenty-first century skills in the new Colorado state standards. In addition, the survey questions were related to some twenty-first century soft skills-not twenty-first century technological skillssuch as supporting collaborative learning, promoting creativity and innovation, and encouraging students to work independently. Professional development, on the other hand, seemed in very low agreement considering that principals should have professional development plans in place to address literacy (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Striving Readers Act, 2007) and other matters in order to meet the goals of the school improvement plan According to the survey open-ended responses and the interviews, most of the principals must seek out literacy professional development opportunities for themselves. Some principals indicated that they were provided literacy professional development from their districts. As for teacher professional development, most principals have set aside time in a PLC environment where teachers meet on a regular basis. Some principals said that collaborative time is 155

PAGE 173

limited and self-directed. Even though principals allocate funding for literacy coaches or instructional coaches to provide professional development for teachers, most principals stated they do not spend a lot of time meeting with their literacy or instructional coaches according to data from the interviews. Principal leadership varied in agreement with a range of 66.7% agreement to 100% agreement. This could mean that principals may not have all of the skills or resources they need to grow their staffs in the topic ofliteracy. That is why future principals in training and current principals should know about literacy practices and their importance at the high school level. They should know how to implement and sustain literacy plans. Assessment was 100% in agreement with principals from HAHG, LAHG, and LALG quadrants, while HALG principals reported being only in 85.7% agreement. This implies that HAHG, LAHG, and LALG principals may be placing more emphasis on assessment, data analysis, and progress monitoring than HALG principals. However, HALG principals may be beginning to give more attention to assessment. If schools want to exhibit achievement and growth, attention needs to be paid to assessment in the form of frequent feedback and active assistance from teachers that are based on weekly assessments, collaborative scoring of student papers with determination of proficiency, and constructive data analysis, (Reeves, 2003). 156

PAGE 174

t-test Findings The paired samples t-test indicated that eight of the paired samples from the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey were statistically significant. All six sub-constructs interacted with at least one other sub-construct. According to this study, this implies that principal leadership, instruction, assessment, professional development, interventions and twenty-first century learning must be areas of focus around literacy for high school principals. However, the independent samples t-test did not show significance between high growth and low growth schools, rejecting the hypothesis that HAHG and LAHG schools will have high principal involvement in schoolwide literacy. Open-Ended Responses to Survey Questions Overall, principals wrote that they were involved in supporting schoolwide literacy to some extent. They provided resources and support for their literacy programs. Interestingly, some subtle anomalies emerged from HALG principals' responses. For example, two HALG principals said that they did not receive additional funding because their schools were high-performing when asked how much funding they provided for literacy. Regarding coaches, one HALG principal stated that he/she did not feel that a literacy coach was necessary because teachers were willing to participate in professional development on their own. When asked about how much time was provided for teacher collaboration to work on literacy, one HALO principal said that there was not enough time and that collaborative 157

PAGE 175

time was self-directed. Another HALG principal indicated that professional development was difficult to create in a high school setting. One finding that emerged from the open-ended questions for LALG principals was the indication of high district involvement in providing funding, coaches, and professional development. In these schools, the principals felt they had less power over the decision-making at least at the time they participated in the survey. Research Question 2 What leadership actions do principals take to promote schoolwide literacy? High school principals from HAHG, LAHG, and HALG schools participated in phone interviews with the researcher. Overall, principals who participated in the interviews understood that literacy was necessary in all content areas. In addition, they said they must communicate a vision around the importance of adolescent literacy. Most principals said that articulation of the importance of reading was through school goals or was written into the school improvement plan. They believed that their role was to support teachers with professional development and resources so that they could meet the needs of all students: those achieving and those struggling and those with special needs. Most principals were open to literacy professional development and tried to search for professional development opportunities whenever possible. They managed accountability for reading and writing instruction by conducting 158

PAGE 176

walkthroughs and having conversations with teachers, but there was currently no literacy component specifically written into their districts' evaluation instruments. Most principals said that using technology had been helpful in supporting students' development in reading and writing. Finally, principals reiterated the need for providing a strong foundation of goals as well as the resources needed to achieve those goals. As principals, it was their role to make this happen. Discrepancies between high growth and low growth principals existed in relation to the details they provided. Principals from HAHG and LAHG schools had solid literacy plans in place. The LAHG principals possessed more challenges as they had higher minority and free and reduced lunch populations; however, they were showing growth. They must have been working effectively with teachers to help students achieve growth, even though their achievement levels were lower than the state average. Principals from the HALG schools had literacy plans in place, and there were some aspects of schoolwide literacy but not to the extent of high growth schools. HALG principals' responses were somewhat global and expressed initiatives that were still in the planning stages. For example, one HALG principal said that for the coming year he/she will focus on teachers who are on the evaluation cycle, but not for teachers not on the evaluation cycle. Now principals from HALG schools have to pay attention to the reading growth of all students, while also maintaining their high achievement position. Thus, HALG principals were starting to do more and not rely on the fact that their schools have been 159

PAGE 177

historically high-achieving schools. It was difficult to judge what LALG principals had in place at their schools because no principals agreed to participate in the interviews. Research Question 3 How well does the combination of minority status, graduation rates, per pupil funding, and school size predict reading growth? A simultaneous discriminant function analysis was conducted to assess whether the five predictor variables, percentage of African-American students, percentage of Latino students, graduation rates, per pupil funding, and school size significantly predicted high growth or low growth on the Colorado Growth Model. This was important to know because there are outside factors that can potentially affect proficiency and growth rates that are beyond the principal's knowledge, skills, and leadership actions around literacy. Findings from the simultaneous discriminant analysis were that school size and African-American enrollment presented the highest relationship with the discriminant function of high or low growth on the Colorado Growth Model. The percentage of Latino students demonstrated a moderate relationship, and graduation rates and per pupil funding showed the weakest relationship. However, only 12.18% of the variance was accounted for by the discriminant function of these five variables. Using this model, 62.3% of the grouped cases correctly classified into high growth and low growth categories, not a percentage that was particularly high. 160

PAGE 178

There is high potential that the work of the principal on student literacy growth may be important because only 12. 8% of the variance was explained by the variables school size, African-American enrollment, Latino enrollment, graduation rates, and per pupil funding. This is an important finding because many policymakers, members of the public, and educators themselves believe that these variables may influence achievement and growth largely. In the end, for the purposes of this study, school size and African-American enrollment were not strong predictors of whether students made reading growth. Implications for Practice Today, principals must be able to manage a building but also be knowledgeable of literacy practices and professional development opportunities for themselves and for their teachers if they are going to be able to support improving students' academic achievement and growth and the closing of the achievement gap. Principals from high-achieving schools cannot be complacent with their achievement scores; they must also provide teachers the resources and support to ensure students are achieving and making growth. What these findings mean for practice is that principal preparation programs will need to help aspiring administrators understand the importance of literacy at the secondary level and to provide them with the knowledge and skills they can take to their buildings. The Colorado Growth Model and how it links to writing school improvement plans also needs to be a part of principal training. 161

PAGE 179

Questions from the survey were developed from a review of the literature on adolescent literacy and principal literacy involvement. Six sub-constructs and open-ended responses were shown to be distinct from t-test analysis. Because of these successful measures, principals in training need to learn how adolescent literacy links to principal leadership, instruction, assessment, professional development, interventions, and twenty-first century learning in order to meet the needs of their students. Table 5.1 displays recommendations for principals that links to the literature reviewed in Chapter II. 162

PAGE 180

Table 5.1 Principal literacy involvement recommendations Principal Leadership 1. Possess a clear vision for literacy. 2. Provide a dequate funding. 3. Hold teachers accountable. 4. Ensure reading goals are embedded across contents and are written into the school improvement plan. Instruction 1. Encourage teachers to teach reading strategies. 2. Be aware of reading strategies. 3. Be knowledgeable of reading instruction. 4. Provide technology supports. 5. Encourage intensive writing instruction. Assessment 1. Stress the value of student self-assessment. 2. Be informed of reading assessment and data analysis. 3. Use reading data to make instructional decisions. 4. Look for frequent use of formative literacy assessments. 5. Expect teachers to use literacy data to make instructional decisions. Professional 1. Provide funding for literacy coaches and set aside time to Development plan with them. 2. Provide funding for reading specialists. 3. Receive own professional development in literacy. 4. Provide time for teachers to participate in teacher teams. 5. Possess a schoolwide professional development model to address literacy. Interventions 1. Possess a set of reading expectations for all learners. 2. Use the Response to Intervention model for reading interventions. 3. Expect teachers to differentiate instruction. 4. Build reading classes into the master schedule. 5 Work with teachers on the literacy development of ELL students and students with special needs. Twenty-first l. Encourage teachers to create lessons that allow students to Century Learning apply knowledge to real-world, unpredictable situations. 2. Support collaborative learning in classrooms. 3. Promote critical thinking and problem-solving skills. 4. Support creativity and innovation. 5. Encourage teachers to provide students with the skills to read and write independently. 163

PAGE 181

Much work needs to be done. Even though 50% of the 106 schools in the study were high growth schools in 2009, the other 50% of these schools were low growth. This means that there are principals who are implementing practices in their schools that have students experiencing reading growth. However, principals from low growth schools need to become knowledgeable of literacy practices and implement both literacy plans and professional development plans so that teachers across all contents are using appropriate strategies to provide students with diverse and rigorous exposures and practices around literacy. Formative and summative assessments need to be embedded in each core content area with support from other content areas, which HAHG and LAHG principals seem to be doing well. Principals must ensure that there is an infrastructure and resources that support the Rti process, while also pushing students to advanced levels of reading. Districts should be working with their secondary principals to provide them with job-embedded professional development opportunities in adolescent literacy. Principals trained in this manner realize that district support for literacy programs and resources, coaches, and district-level experts must become a priority. Districts should align curriculum and assessments with the Common Core Standards. In addition, district personnel can assist principals in "knowing how to connect data to the school's literacy goals and objectives to help improve learning and to make the important decisions of student placement in intervention 164

PAGE 182

classes" (Irvin et al., 2007, p. 112). A district-wide, long-term focus to sustain literacy improvement is the foundation of academic success (Irvin et al.) The LEARN Act and the reauthorization ofNCLB should be taken seriously by policymakers. It is important that adolescent literacy funding be a part of future legislation if the United States is going to be a top contender with the rest of the world. The business and higher education sectors are pleading with high schools to graduate better-prepared students so that they are ready to take on post-secondary work. If policymakers make adolescent literacy a priority, then all districts and high school principals will have to make it a priority as well. Delimitations The study was delimitated to high school principals in the State of Colorado using Colorado Growth Model data to identify them. Another delimitation was selecting principals from schools with student populations of750 to 2,800 students. Principals from other Colorado high schools were excluded. Limitations Various limitations resulted from this study. First, the survey sample size was small (n = 36). If more principals would have responded to the survey, there would have been more explanatory power. Also, the test re-test reliability of the survey could not be determined because the instrument had not been tested repeatedly over time to yield the same types of results or observations (Golafshani, 2003). Additionally, the professional development sub-construct demonstrated a low alpha coefficient (a = .609), suggesting questionable internal 165

PAGE 183

consistency. Limitations to the study may have also included respondent bias during the data collection process. This was a concern because principals may have wanted to portray their school in a more positive manner than what may have been the actual state of the school's literacy focus. While measurement validity was outside of the scope of this study and the Principal Involvement scale was designed with high content validity, another limitation raised was the lack of constructand criterion-related validity on the survey instrument. Recommendations for Future Research It would be beneficial to repeat the study and increase the number of participants from Colorado An a-priori power analysis would allow the researcher to determine the sample size for a true quantitative research design. Possibly, additional items to the professional development sub-construct would increase the internal consistency coefficient. Since this study has demonstrated a correlation between principal involvement and schoolwide literacy, it opens the door for future research to validate the construct and criterion-related validity of the Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey. Because other states including Arizona and Indiana have adopted the Colorado Growth Model, another interesting study would be to repeat this study of the principal's involvement in adolescent literacy practices in those states. This would allow for the validation of the survey through a better response rate. 166

PAGE 184

A weakness of this study is that no research was done at these principals' schools to see if there was a match between what principals said and what was actually happening in these schools. Literacy walk-throughs to compare and contrast principal responses with the literacy practices that occur in these schools would be an important addition or next step to extend the research. There are questions about the LAHG and LALG schools. Several of the schools have many English language learners. Because a year ago English language learner data were not available, it is important to investigate where schools with large populations of ELL students are located on the Colorado Growth Model and to examine the literacy practices that principals have in place to meet their needs. Concluding Remarks Not all schools are in crisis. Many schools have students who are achieving. However, it is more important now that schools are making sure that academic achievement and growth are occurring. High school principals from all four quadrants of the Colorado Growth Model are doing work in literacy at their schools and possess much knowledge around literacy. This is a step in the right direction to reform low-achieving schools. At the same time, it is important that high-achieving schools are not resting on their laurels and remaining complacent with high scores. They must now be ensuring stakeholders that students are exhibiting growth. High school principals who believe that they do not need to know about literacy and only leave it up to the "experts" in their buildings will be 167

PAGE 185

at a disadvantage. The principal must lead this charge and have a vision that is implemented through various literacy resources, practices, and knowledgeable personnel. Even though the number of survey responses was somewhat low, the strength of the study was its design and potential to demonstrate how the Colorado Growth Model can be used to increase student achievement and close the achievement gap. High school principals must be knowledgeable in literacy to ensure students graduate from high school with the skills to be successful in college or in the twenty-first century workforce. As this research study ends, an area principals will need to continue to pay close attention to is the adoption of Common Core Standards and their linkage to the development of new state and national assessments. Currently, 36 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010), and the U.S. Department of Education has allocated $330 million in grants for states to collaborate on better ways to measure student learning (Gewertz & Robelen, 2010). Principals from these states, including Colorado, must be knowledgeable of the Common Core literacy standards so that they can implement literacy practices in their schools in order for students to read and write about college-level or other post-secondary texts upon graduating. High school principals are starting to reflect on and realize the importance of the leadership role they have in adolescent literacy. One HALG principal said, 168

PAGE 186

I am probably of the new age of principals. I have seven years under my belt as a principal. I think that when you work in a school district that struggles with reading and the challenges they have compared to high-achieving districts, you kind of get grounded pretty quick about the importance of literacy and especially at the high school level where it is not often a thought. I think that is changing. It is definitely shifting from that role as manager of a building and making sure that it is running, clean, and operating with all the hurdles that come up during the year. It's more interactive. You have to be out there. You have to be involved. You don't have to be the expert, but you need be expert enough to push the goals and the agenda. The districts that are attuned to that know that there is a need for that type of professional development. They are getting us exposed to it. I have come to an understanding that I need to be the main cog. I met with my literacy team this last week, and they wanted to know who the new AP would be for literacy. There will be one, but I will be the primary. Rather than the AP being the primary co facilitator and then me just coming in being informed and providing some answers to questions and direction and stuff, I will be more of the facilitator. I think you need to be that involved for it to be as systemic as you need it to be. It will be interesting because our growth scores were nothing to brag about. We are on the other side of that 50 percentile growthlike 43/44--we were in the 50th percentile at one time. With the literacy project springing up this last year and more hands-on involvement next year, it will be interesting to see if we can correlate that to the growth we hope to see. In conclusion, it is this type of principal who will take low-growth schools and raise student reading achievement, while also raising growth levels. Because our children deserve a life where they are able to earn a reasonable income and 169

PAGE 187

participate in a democratic society the principal must be the purveyor of future possibilities through a schoolwide literacy initiative for these youth. 170

PAGE 188

APPENDIX A Survey Pilot Questionnaire Survey Pilot Questionnaire Examining the Impact of High School Principals' Involvement in Schoolwide Literacy Achievement Thank you for taking the time to complete this pilot test of the questionnaire. As you go through the questionnaire, please think about the following questions and answer them. Please answer the questionnaire questions as well To check for content validity, please indicate ifthere are any questions that are not appropriate or relevant to examining the impact of high school principals' involvement in schoolwide literacy achievement. 1. For content validity purposes, were any questions inappropriate or irrelevant to examining a principal's involvement in schoolwide literacy achievement? 2. Are the instructions for completing the questionnaire clearly written? Any suggestions? 3. Are the questions easy to understand? Any suggestions? 4 Did you know how to indicate responses? Any suggestions? 5. Are the response choices exhaustive? Any suggestions? 6. Because this questionnaire was sent to you electronically, did you understand what to do with the completed questionnaire? Any suggestions? 7 Do you feel your privacy for responding to this questionnaire is respected and protected? 171

PAGE 189

APPENDIXB Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board Approval Malllna ,.!.ddt!U' l!.all SIOSI F--400 P O Boll 6508 .AI.Ircn, Co !10045-SSOS 30:) 724 1055 [Phonal 303.724 0990 { Fax) uchsc.edutcomlrb (Web] cornirb@ucdGnvor .edu (E MaHJ FWA00005070 {FWAJ ---------------------Univer3ity or Cot<>rlldo Henltn M&dtr.aJ C.1r.!w Vetern11's Admlnislratlcm Medic! Cenler ThttCMdfWI'sHospital Ur;ivenily of Colowdo Oar.ver Colorado Pravant1011 13-Nov-2009 Investigator: Sponsor(s): Certificate of Approval Moni c a Zucker Subject: Effective Date: COMIRB Protocol 09 -0981 Ini tial Application 1 0-Nov-2009 Expiration Date: 09-Nov-2010 Expedited Category: 7 Title: E x amining the Impact of High School Principals' I nv olvement i n School-wide Liter a cy Achi evement All COMI RB Approved Investigators must comply wilh the following : For the duralion of your protocol, any change in the experimental design / consent and/o r assent form m u st be approv e d by the COM IRB before implementation of the changes Use only a copy of the COMIRB s i gned and dated Consent and/or Assent Form. The investigator bears the respons i b ility for obtaining from all subjects "Informed Consent as approved by the COMIRB. The COMIRB REQUIRES that the subject be given a copy of the consent and/or assent form Consent and/or assent forms must include the name and telephone number of the invest i gator Provide non-English speaking subjects with a cer!Jfied translation of the approved Consent and/or Assent Form in the subject's first language. The investigator also bears the responsibility for informing the COMIRB immediately of any Unanticipated Prob l ems that are unexpected and related to the study in accordance with COMIRB Policy and Procedures. Obtain COMIRB approval for all advertisements questionnaires and surveys before use. Federal regulations require a Continuing Review to renew approval of this project within a 12-month period from the last approval date unless otherwise indicated in the review cycle listed below. If you have a restricted/high risk protocol, specific details will be outlined in this letter. Non-compliance with Continuing Review will result in the termination of this study. You will be sent a Continuing Review reminder 75 days pr ior to the expiration date. Any questions regarding this COMIRB action can be referred to the Coordinator at 303-724-1055 or UCHSC Box F-490. Review Comments Approval Includes; Application for Protocol Review Attachment F-Expedited Rev iew Attaclm1 c nt GUse of the Internet Attachment MWaiver of Consent for waiver o f written documentation of consent P ro tocol Recruitment Let ter Recruitment Emai l Invitation to Participate/ C o nsent Survey 172

PAGE 190

Un i valStly of Colorado Hospital Dc1nver Health MediC!I Canter Veteran'S Adm1nislr.atio, Medical Center The Ouldren's H ospila l UniverS >I) ot Colorado Denver Co iOt
PAGE 191

APPENDIXC Informed Consent: Participant Release Agreement Date: February 19, 2010 Valid for Use Through: November 9, 2010 Study Title: Examining the Impact of High School Principals' Involvement in Schoolwide Reading Achievement Using the State of Colorado Academic Growth Model Principal Investigator: Monica D. Zucker HSRC No: 09-0981 Version Date: February 17, 2010 Version#: 2 You are being asked to be in a research study. This form provides you with information about the study. A member of the research team will describe this study to you and answer all of your questions if you need clarification. Please read the information below and ask questions about anything you don t understand before deciding whether or not to take part. Why is this study being done? This study plans to learn more about high school principals involvement in literacy achievement. You are being asked to be in this research study because you have been identified as a high school principal that is employed in a school with student enrollment of 750 to 2,800 students in the State of Colorado. Other people in this study Up to 116 high school principals from the State of Colorado will participate in the study. What happens if I join this study? If you join the study, you will be asked ten interview questions by the researcher during a phone interview. Your responses to these questions will be recorded and transcribed The interview will take between 30 and 45 minutes Only the researcher's advisor Dr Nancy Shanklin, and the researcher will see the data from this study 174

PAGE 192

What are the possible discomforts or risks? Discomforts you may experience while in this study may include feeling slightly uncomfortable describing your literacy involvement in your school. You may feel uncomfortable if you do not have answers to the questions that you are asked. All of your answers are confidential. What are the possible benefits of the study? This study is designed for the researcher to learn more about high schools principals' involvement in schoolwide literacy achievement. Information from this study will help to inform best practices for principals so that students benefit. This study is not designed to treat any illness or to improve your health. Also, there may be risks, as discussed in the section describing the discomforts or risks. Will I be paid for being in the study? You will not be paid to be in the study. Will I have to pay for anything? It will not cost you anything to be in the study. Is my participation voluntary? Taking part in this study is voluntary You have the right to choose not to take part in this study. If you choose to take part, you have the right to stop at any time. If you refuse or decide to withdraw later, you will not lose any benefits or rights to which you are entitled. Who do I call if I have questions? The researcher carrying out this study is Monica Zucker If you have questions, concerns, or complaints later, you may call Monica Zucker at 303-263-6606. You will be given a copy of this form to keep. You may have questions about your rights as someone in this study. You can call Monica Zucker with questions at 303-263-6606. You can also call the Human Subject Research Committee (HSRC) You can call them at 303-315-2732. 175

PAGE 193

Who will see my research information? We will do everything we can to keep your records a secret. It cannot be guaranteed. Both the records that identify you and the consent form signed by you may be looked at by others. They are Federal agencies that monitor human subject research. Human Subjects Research Committee (HSRC). The group doing the study. Regulatory officials from the institution where the research is being conducted who want to make sure the research is safe The results from the research may be shared at a meeting. The results from the research may be in published articles. Your name will be kept private when information is presented. This authorization does not expire. However, you may withdraw this authorization for use by providing written request to the Investigator. If you withdraw this authorization, the Institution, the Investigator, and the research staff will no longer be able to use or disclose your information from this study, except so far as that they have already relied on this information to conduct the study. 176

PAGE 194

Agreement to be in this study I have read this paper about the study or it was read to me I understand the possible risks and benefits of this study. I know that being in this study is voluntary I choose to be in this study: Please sign a copy and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed envelope, and retain a copy of the consent letter for your records. I consent to be in this study __ l do not consent to be in this study __ Signature: ______________________ Date: ___ Print Name : _____________________ Consent form explained by : _____________ Date: ___ Print Name: Principal Investigator: Monica D Zucker Date: ______ 177

PAGE 195

APPENDIXD Principal Leadership and Adolescent Literacy Survey 1. Leadership and literacy Survey Hello, You are being asked to be in a research study. This form provides you with information about the study. I can describe this study to you and answer alt of your questions by caiUng 303-263-6606. Please read the information below and ask questions aboUt anything you don't understand before deciding whether or not to take part. In order to improve the quality of students' IKeracy Ieeming in high schools, there is a need to better understand the role and influence of high school principals on literacy achlevemenl The purpose of this study Is to leam more about high school principals' Involvement i n lllerscy achlevemenl You are being asked to be in this research study because you have been ldsntlfled as a high school principal. Up to 116 high school principals from the St_ete of ColomdQ wll participate in the study ; If you join the study, you will be asked to complete the survey that follows this page Your responses to these questions wiQ be stored end kept confidential. Only my advisor, Dr. Nancy Shanklin, and I wilt see the data from this study. The survey should take no longer than 20 minutes. Discomforts you may experience while In this study may Include feeling siightly uncomfortable describing your literacy involvement in your school. You may feel uncomfortable if you do not have answers to the questions that you are asked. AU of your answers are confidential. Possible beneflls of this study Is for the researcher to learn more about high school principals' involvement in school-wide literacy achlevemenl You will not be paid to be In the study. It will not cost you anything to be in the study Taking part in this study Is voluntary. You have the right to choose not to take part In this study. If you choose to lake part, you have the right to stop at any time If you refuse ordsckle to withdraw later, you wiU not lose any benefits or rights to which you are entitled The researchef carryW1g out !tis study is Monica ZUCker. You may ask any questions you have OON If you have questions, concerns, or complaints later, you may can Monica Zucker at 303-263-6606. You may have questions about your rights as S0f1'190091n this study. In addition, you can can the Human Subject Research Committee (HSRC). You can call them at 303-315-2732. The University of Colorado Denver and I will do everything wa can to keep your rncords a secret; however, it cannot be guaranteed. Both tha records that identify you and the consent form signed by you may be looked at by others. They ars People at the Human Subjects Research Committee (HSRC). The researche!' and her faculty advisor 011lcials at University of Colorado Denver who are In charge of making sure that wa follow all of tha rules for research Federal Agencies that monitor research This research study may be discussed at meetings and the results of this research study may also be printed il) relevant journals. But the names of the research subjecls, like you, will be kept private. This aulhorizaHon does not expire. However, you may Withdrew this authorization for use by providing written request to the Investigator. If you withdraw this authorization, the Institution, the lnvesllgator, and the research staff will no longer be able to use or disclose your Information from this st.ldy except so far as that they have already relied on this information to conduct the study Agreement to be in this study : I have read this paper aboUt the study, or K was read to me. I understand the possible risks and benefits of this study. I know that being In this study is voluntary. I choose to be in this study. By continuing onto the nel(l page, I consent and can quit at any time without fear of consequences. Thank you for taking time to participate In this survey. Monica Zucker Doctoral Candidate University of Colorado Denver 178

PAGE 196

---2. Survey 1. I am clear about my vision for school-wide literacy. Qstrongl y D i sagree Oslightly Disagree Q Disagree. 0 Slightly Agree 0 Stmngly Agree 2. I encourage teachers to teach reading strategies to help students develop high-level reading skills. QstmngJy Disagree 0 Slightly Disagree Please describe t11eso $1r81egtes. Oo -0 Agree 3. I stress the value of student self-assessment in reading. 0 Slightly Agme 0 Strong l y Agroo Dlsagroa Disagroo 4. I provide funding for literacy coach(es). 0 Strong l y 0 S lightly 0 Disagree 0 Agree 0 Slightly Agree 0 D!S8!J98 Disagree How much? Ia lhefe one 0< 1110(8 OOBCheo? Are they full time IBach? Are they BSOtgned other dutieo? 5. I possess a set of reading expectations for all learners. 0 Strongly Disagree 0 Slightly Disagree 0 Disagree oAg ..... 0 Slightly Agree Q Strongly Agnoe 6. I encourage teachers to create literacy lessons that allow students to apply knowledge to real-world, unpredictable situations. 0 strongly 0 Slightly 0 01118gfee 0 Agree 0 Slightly Agree 0 Strongly Agree Disagree 179

PAGE 197

7.1 solicit funding from the district, state, or federal government to support literacy in my school. Q Strongly OIS..grea 0 Slightly Disagree Q Disagree What percentage of rundlng do you provide for literacy? 0 Agree 0 Slightly Agree 0 S!tol\gly Agree 8. I am aware of reading strategies that teachers should use in their content areas. 0 Strongly Disagree Qsnghtly Disagree 0 Disagree 0 Agree 0 Slightly Agree 0 Strongly Agr"" 9. I am knowledgeable of reading assessment and data analysis. Oisag
PAGE 198

14.1 am knowledgeable of reading Instruction. 0 Strongly 0 Slight l y 0 Disagree Q Agree Disagrea Olsagrae 15.1 use reading data to make Instructional decisions. 0 Strongly Disagree 0 Slightly Disagree 0 Agree 16.1 provide funding for reading specialist(s). 0 Strongly Disagree 0 Slightly Disagree 0 Disagree OAgree o Slightly Agraa 0 Strong l y Agrae 0 Agrae 0 Strongly Agree 0 Slightly Agree o Strongly Agree 17. I expect teachers to differentiate Instruction to assist all readers and writers. 0 Strongly Dl""''ree 0 Slightly Disagree 0 Dlagree 0 Agrea 0 snghUy Agree 0 Strongly Agree 18.1 promote critical thinking and problem-solving skills through literacy practices. 0 Strongly Disagree 0 Slightly Disagree 0 Disagree 0 Agree o Slightly Agrve 0 Strongly Agree 19.1 conduct walkthroughs (learning walks) to observe reading practices. 0 Strongly Dlsagraa 0 Slightly Disagree ODisegree OAgme 20.1 provide technology supports for reading Instruction. 0 Strongly Disagree 0 Slightly Disagree Please list the technology supports you provide. 0 Disagree L---------------__....:. 0 Slightly Agree 0 Strongly Agree 0 Slightly Agree 0 Strongly Agree 21.1 see frequent use of formative literacy assessments in the classroom. D>oagree Dioagree 181

PAGE 199

22. I provide time for teachers to participate in teacher teams to work on literacy practices. 0 Strongly DIS"llf90 0 SllghUy Dlo&gr88 Q Disagree How much UIT16? Ia It siiUciUred or on their own? -OAgree 23. I have built reading classes Into the master schedule. 0 Strongly Dlaagree 0 Slightly Disagree How many clasaee? What klmiB of claaaee? Q Disagree OAgree 0 Slightly Agree 0 Strongly Agree 0 Slightly Agree 0 Strongly Agree 24. I support creativity and innovation in students' reading and writing assignments. 0 Strongly Dlaagrea 0 Sllghlly Disagree 0 DISilgrcc 0 Agfee 0 Slightly Agrae 0 Strongly Agree 25. I ensure that reading Is embedded in each content area's school Improvement plan. Disagree Disagree 26. I encourage Intensive writing related to student reading tasks. Disagree Disagree 182

PAGE 200

27. I expect teachers to use literacy data to make instructional decisions. 0 Strongly 0 Slightly 0 Disagi"Be 0 Agree o Sllghby Agree 0 Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree What klnda of data? ..:.. ----28. I have a school-wide, professional development model that addresses literacy. 0 Strongly 0 Slightly 0 Disagree o"Y""' 0 Slightly Agree 0 STrongly Dlaagreo Dlsagraa Agree Pleaoe deocrlba what lhollookollke. .:.:.. 29. I work with teachers on the literacy development of students with special needs and with English Language learners. 0 Strongly 0 Slightly 0 Disagree OAgree o Slightly Ag""' 0 Strongly Agree Olsaoreo Disagree 30. I encourage teachers to provide students the skills to read and write Independently. 0 Strongly 0 Slightly 0 Disagree 0 A!ea 0 Slightly Agree 0 Strong l y Agree Disagree Di s agree 183

PAGE 201

---3. Demographics 31. Gender OMala 0 Female 32. Years as a principal 0 1 04 0710 011-15 016 0 20p1Us 33. Years as the principal at your school 01 0 07 011-15 016-20 0 20piUB :U. Content you taught before becoming a high school principal 0 Engllan OMath Q Scienoo Q Social Slud ies 0 Lanquagea Other (plea011 specify) Q Physica l EducaUon OM 0 Technology 0 Library Sciences 184

PAGE 202

35. Years in the classroom before becoming a principal 01-3 04-6 0 7-10 0 10-15 016-20 Q 20plus 36. Current Enrollment Orso-1,ooo 0 1 ,001-1,500 01,501-2, 000 0 2,000plus 37. African-American Enrollment Oo-1o% 011-20% 021-30% 0 31-50% 051-75% 0 76-100% 38. Latino Enrollment 0o-1o% 011-20% 0 21-30% 0 31-50% 0 51-75% 0 76 100% 185

PAGE 203

39. Free and Reduced Lunch Oo-to% 011-20% o zt-30% 031-50% Os1-75% 076-100% 40.Schoo1Type 0 Rural 0 Suburban 0 Urban 41. Per Pupil Funding 0 Less than $3,000 0 $3,001 $4,000 0 $4,001 -$5,000 0 5,001 -$6,000 42. 2008 Graduation Rates 0 90-100% Osa-89% 0 70-79% 0 60% 0 50-59% 0 L.aeslhan 50% 0 $6,001 $7,000 0 $7,001 -$8,000 0 $8,000 plua 43. Name of Your School: This is for identifier purposes only so that I do not send you follow-up emails regarding participating in the survey. Your school name will not be identified at any time in the study. 186

PAGE 204

------4. May I Contact You for an Interview? I would like to contact you via a follow-up telephone interview. If you would be willing to participate, please include your contact information here I wil then send you an Adult/General Informed Consent Fonn. Thank you for your time and assistance in lhls study. If you would fille to know the results of this study. please include contact information Monica Zucker 44. If you would like to participate In th Interview, please fill In the following text boxes. Name: School: Phone number. School emaU: 187

PAGE 205

March 14, 2010 Principal High School Address City, State ZIP Dear: APPENDIXE Interview Request Letter Monica Zucker 777 Locust St. Denver, CO 80220 Thank you for responding to my survey on principal leadership and your role with literacy at your school. In the survey, you indicated that you would consider participating in a phone interview. I would like to contact you to set up a time for the interview to help deepen the information I received from the survey. The phone interview will last approximately 30 to 45 minutes at a time that is most convenient for you. I will be using a digital recorder to so that I can review and check for accuracy of your statements during the data analysis phase. Enclosed is a letter of informed consent. Please read through it. If you agree to participate in the interview, please fill out the form on the last page and return it to me in the self-addressed, stamped envelope. I look forward to talking with you and learning about your school. If you have questions, please contact me at 303-263-6606. Sincerely, Monica Zucker Principal Investigator (HSRC #09-0981 ), University of Colorado Denver Assistant Principal, Grandview High School 188

PAGE 206

APPENDIXF Interview Request Email Hi, I am sending a friendly reminder to you to ask if you have questions about the follow-up interview you earlier stated you would be interested in participating in. Please let me know if you would like me to send you another informed consent form, or call me to let me know if you are opting out of the follow-up interview. You can reach me at 303-263-6606. Thank you for your time. Monica Zucker Principal Investigator (HSRC # 09-0981 ), University of Colorado Denver Assistant Principal, Grandview High School 189

PAGE 207

APPENDIXG Demographics: Current Enrollment, School Type, 2008 Graduation Rates Table 6.1 displays the current enrollment of principals' schools. All high school principals (n = 36) reported their student enrollment as 750 to 1,000 (n = 6) 16.7%, 1,001 to 1,500 (n = 12) 33.3%, 1,501 to 2,000 (n = 13) 36.1 %, and 2,000-plus students (n = 5) 13.9%. HAHG principals described their current enrollment as 750 to 1,000 (n = 2) 12.5%, 1,001 to 1,500 (n = 7) 43.8%, 1,501 to 2,000 (n = 5) 31.3%, and 2,000-plus students (n = 2) 12.5%. LAHG principals reported current student enrollment as 750 to 1,000 (n = 0), 1,001 to 1,500 (n = 2) 50%, 1,501 to 2,000 (n = 0), and 2,000-plus students (n = 2) 50%. HALO principals stated that the current enrollment at their school as 750 to 1,000 (n = 1) 10%, 1,001 to 1,500 (n = 2) 20%, 1,501 to 2,000 (n = 6) 60%, and 2,000-plus students (n = 1) 10%. LALG principals reported their student enrollment as 750 to 1,000 (n = 3) 50%, 1,001 to 1,500 (n = 1) 16.7%, 1,501 to 2,000 (n = 2) 33.3%, and 2,000-plus students (n = 0). 190

PAGE 208

Table 6.1 Current enrollment Quadrant All HAHG LAHG HALO LALG n p 750-1,000 1,001-1,500 1,501-2,000 2,000+ 6 12 13 5 16.7 33.3 36.1 13.9 2 7 5 2 12.5 43.8 31.3 12.5 0 2 0 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 1 2 6 1 10.0 20.0 60.0 10.0 3 1 2 0 50.0 16.7 33.3 0.0 Table 6.2 presents the school type for all schools (n = 36) and by individual quadrants. Overall, principals reported their school type as rural (n = 4) 11.1 %, suburban (n = 26) 72 2%, and urban (n = 6) 16. 7%. HAHG principals reported that their school type as rural (n = 2) 12.5 %, suburban (n = 13) 81.3%, and urban (n = 1) 6.3% LAHG principals identified their school type as rural (n = 0), suburban (n = 2) 50%, and urban (n = 2) 50%. HALO principals reported their schools as rural (n = 1) 10%, suburban (n = 8) 80%, and urban (n = 1) 10% LALG principals stated that their schools were rural (n = 1) 16.7% suburban 191

PAGE 209

(n = 3) 50%, and urban (n = 2) 33.3%. Table 6.2 School type Quadrant All HAHG LAHG HALG LALG n p Rural 4 11.1 2 12.5 0 0.0 1 10.0 1 16.7 Suburban 26 72.2 13 81.3 2 50.0 8 80.0 3 50.0 Urban 6 16.7 1 6.3 2 50.0 1 10.0 2 33.3 Table 6.3 presents per pupil funding for all quadrants combined and for each quadrant. All quadrants illustrated the following per pupil funding: less than $3,000 (n = 2) 5.6%, $3,001 to $4,000 (n = 5) 13.9%, $4,001 to $5,000 (n = 3) 8.3%, $5,001 to $6,000 (n = 7) 19.4%, $6,001 to $7,000 (n = 15) 41.7%,$7,001 to $8,000 (n = 4) 11.1 %, and $8,000-plus (n = 0). HAHG principals reported that their schools received less than $3,000 (n = 2) 12.5%, $3,001 to $4,000 (n = 2) 12.5%, $4,001 to $5,000 (n = 0), $5,001 to $6,000 (n = 5) 31.3%, $6,001 to 192

PAGE 210

$7,000 (n = 7) 43.8%, $7,001 to $8,000 (n = 0), and $8,000-plus (n = 0). LAHG principals stated that their schools received less than $3,000 (n = 0), $3,001 to $4,000 (n = 1) 25%, $4,001 to $5,000 (n = 0), $5,001 to $6,000 (n = 0), $6,001 to $7,000 (n = 1) 25%, $7,001 to $8,000 (n = 2) 50%, and $8,000-plus (n = 0). HALO principals reported that their schools received less than $3,000 (n = 0), $3,001 to $4,000 (n = 2) 20%, $4,001 to $5,000 (n = 2) 20%, $5,001 to $6,000 (n = 1) 10%, $6,001 to $7,000 (n = 4) 40%, $7,001 to $8,000 (n = 1) 10%, and $8,000-plus (n = 0). LALG principals revealed that their schools received less than $3,000 (n = 0), $3,001 to $4,000 (n = 0), $4,001 to $5,000 (n = 1) 16.7%, $5,001 to $6,000 (n = 1) 16.7%, $6,001 to $7,000 (n = 3) 50%%, $7,001 to $8,000 (n = 1) 16.7%, and $8,000-plus (n = 0). 193

PAGE 211

Table 6.3 Per pupil funding All HAHG LAHG HALO LALG n p n p n p n p n p Less than $3,000 2 5.6 2 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 $3,001 $4,000 5 13.9 2 12.5 25 2 20 0 0 $4,001 $5,000 3 8.3 0 0 0 0 2 20 1 16.7 $5,001 $6,000 7 19.4 5 31.3 0 0 1 10 1 16.7 $6,001 $7,000 15 41.7 7 43.8 1 25 4 40 3 50 $7,001 $8 000 4 11.1 0 0 2 50 1 10 1 16.7 $8,000-Elus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194

PAGE 212

APPENDIXH Interview Questions Interview Questions Monica Zucker, Principal Investigator HSRC # 09-0981 Hi, This is Monica Zucker, the principal investigator for this project. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to fill out the survey that you were sent in the fall about literacy leadership in your school and now allowing me to interview you. I am working on my dissertation at the University of Colorado Denver and am interested in your role as a principal and the literacy practices that you have in place at your school. I have set aside 45 to 60 minutes for the interview; however, if you would like to visit longer, I am available. I would like to digitally record your interview. The digital recorder is now on. Even though you agreed to consent in written form, may I please have your consent so that I may review your statements later? Allow time to answer. If you are uncomfortable with any aspect of the interview, please feel free to say so. I can stop the recording or the interview at any time you wish. Do you have any questions at this point? Let's begin. 1. Let's turn to my first question. Could you tell me about your vision for schoolwide literacy? Follow-up Question: In what ways do you communicate your vision for school wide literacy, and how do you assure yourself that teachers are on board with it? 195

PAGE 213

2. What is your role in developing and maintaining your school's vision for schoolwide literacy? Lookfors: professional development activities, top-down or team effort, teacher supports, literacy/instructional coaches 3. How do you work with your literacy/instructional coaches if you have them? 4. As a principal, what professional development are you provided about literacy? Follow-up Question: How confident are you of your knowledge ofliteracy instruction? 5. Will you please describe how reading is embedded in your school improvement plan to address each content area? Follow-up Question: Would you be willing to share your school improvement plan, or can I find it online? 6. How do you manage accountability for reading and writing instruction? Follow-up Question if Necessary: If not, why not? Is it tied to teacher evaluations? 7. How do you use reading assessments and data analysis to inform schoolwide reading instruction? Lookfors: What types of assessments are teachers using? Who conducts assessments? What does data analysis look like in your school? What processes do you use to examine data? How do you train teachers to examine and to analyze reading data, resulting in instructional decisions? 8. Please tell me about your work with teachers on the literacy development of students with special needs and with English Language Learners. 196

PAGE 214

9. Describe your Rtl model for reading interventions. Lookfors: What does your overall Rtl plan look like at your school? 10. What kinds of intensive writing activities are teachers using that are related to student reading tasks? 11. How are you using technology to support students' development of reading and writing? Lookfors: twenty-first century skills 12. What else about your role as a principal related to literacy would you like me to know about ? Thank you for your time. You have been very helpful. If you would like to know the results of the study, I will be happy to share them with you next fall. 197

PAGE 215

APPENDIX I Interview Question 12 Responses All responses to Interview Question 12 are organized by quadrant. Each paragraph represents an individual principal's response. All responses are written in the manner in which principals provided their answers. HAHG(n =5) I think as a principal everything that I believe is important, I talk about. So, literacy is in forefront of our professional development and what we talk about is key because teachers are no different than kids. If teachers are not required to do it or is not held up, they won't do it. Not because they don't want to; it's not a focus for them. So keeping it as a focus and emphasizing it and creating situations where we are modeling it is important. My leadership team members are readers as well. We try to demonstrate that we believe in reading and spend a lot of money putting together that bookroom. We are willing to commit resources, time to making this an environment where resources are not a barrier. We want books, computers, whatever kids need in their hands. We are trying to move our teachers into technology. They so do love their books. The future is going to be a lot different. We have purchased some Promethean boards this year. I am trying to get them to do more interactive writing as a class and as individuals. We are trying to get them to utilize the communications tools, which are in the computers. Some say you are not supposed to say social networking, but address a similar type of writing so that kids enjoy that type of writing, but understand that the importance of the skill of writing, especially in those settings We are still trying to use more of the technology-198

PAGE 216

LAHG (n = 3) the twenty-first century type skills-it is difficult because that is an area that is so heavily standardized that you can't do it all. But it is so critical. Most of our standards and our curriculum are very weak on technical reading and writing. That is very important right now. Kids need a lot of quality technical reading and writing, and we are a little deficient on that in our area. Students need to know how to read manuals and process scientific research You do everything that you can do as a principal. Even though we are having budget issues, I am going to find ways to put money into classrooms around literacy. All of the decisions stop on my desk. When you start putting FTE dollars toward a literacy coordinator, technology coordinator, twenty-first century coordinator, those positions that are not tied directly to students in a classroom, you had better see that it is helping teachers in the classroom. Make sure to put people in positions where they are responsible and accountable for seeing that literacy instruction is consistently and continuously happening in the classroom. That is why it is important to have administrators and others with backgrounds in literacy to support the direction. It is not good enough that literacy is our focus; now, go do it. I think if did that here, I would fall on my face. I have to show them that I am a learner, and that I am not expecting them to do anything that I wouldn't do. I sit through the classes. I try to model what I am asking them to do as far as enduring understandings. I do the same thing for staff meetings. That is an important piece of it. The key to any kind of leadership within the building in regards to where it is at is to surround yourself with the smartest people you can find. They are going to help you. Being the principal of a high school of this size, it is 199

PAGE 217

HALG(n = 2) impossible for me to be the expert in all areas. What is incumbent on me it to put people in place that do have the expertise and work as a team to make sure that expertise is shared across all areas. The most important thing we have done in this school.is change to a literacy model. I believe that we have students who can read. As a high school principal, we have these students for four years, and we can teach them to read and write in that time and do it proficiently. It is not easy to change a high school and especially a large high school through literacy. Changing attitudes around, "I am an English teacher. I am only content." Now what we are doing is now I think that we are doing is saying this is the process, but you need to have content as well, especially in 11th and 12th grade. You have the literacy part that is the how and yet you still how to get that rigor in there. I think about the books we had as choice books when we started. They were books like Cirque du Freak and Monster, and I am looking at the level ofbooks that we have. We have almost gotten rid of all those because our students have wider interests than that. Students are now able to read more complex books. It's kind of fun to watch the progression, especially with these students. Most of these students came in underachieving and it is amazing how our honors and our AP classes have grown over the last seven years. It's been fun to watch. The principal has the responsibility to make sure students are prepared academically when they are in high school. A foundation of that has to do with literacy. It's math literacy and what we traditionally know of literacy as reading and writing. We are responsible for making sure we provide a good foundation. It is an important role for a principal to have. 200

PAGE 218

I am probably of the new age of principal. I have seven years under my belt as principal. I think that when you work in a low-performing school district and the challenges they have compared to a high-performing district you kind of get grounded pretty quick about the importance of literacy and especially at the high school level where it is not often a thought. I think that is changing. I think men and women stepping into principal roles today ... .it's the new understanding that we have. Definitely shifting from that role as manager of a building and making sure that it is running, clean, and operating that all the hurdles that come up during the year. It's more interactive. You have to be out there. You have to be involved. You don't have to be the expert, but you need be expert enough to push the goal and the agenda. I don't know if it is just me, but I think principals understand this now. We are science teachers or social studies teachers is our teaching life, so they don't know a whole lot about teaching reading and writing or learning. And take districts that are attuned to that know that there is a need for that type of professional development. They are getting us exposed to it. I put an AP in charge of literacy this year because that is what your APs are for, and of course I can't be at everything. I have come to an understanding that I need to be the main cog. I met with my literacy team this last week, and they wanted to know who the new AP would be for literacy. There will be one, but I will be the primary. Rather than the AP being the primary co-facilitator and then me just coming in being informed and providing some answers to questions and direction and stuff, I will be more of the facilitator. I think you need to be that involved for it to be as systemic as you need it to be. It will be interesting because our growth scores were nothing to brag about. We are on the other side of that 50 percentile growth-like 43/44-we were in the 501h percentile at one time. With the literacy project springing up this last year and more hands-on involvement next year, it will be interesting to see if we can correlate that to the growth we hope to see. This first year, my goal 201

PAGE 219

was to get it out there and talk about it then we will probably do okay, but you never know. 202

PAGE 220

APPENDIXJ Survey Open-ended Responses The open-ended question responses that follow were taken directly from SurveyMonkey. No corrections for grammar or any typos have been made. They are organized by quadrant: HAHG, LAHG HALG, and LALG. Q2: Describe reading strategies. HAHG I work directly with my Literacy teacher and strategize ways that she can support teachers in the classroom My Literacy teacher has a full-time allocation to do this work for us. Comprehension strategies, vocabulary building, note taking, Our language arts department publishes reading tips weekly to the whole staff via email. We have a number of AP classes these teachers work together to make sure they all have college level rigor We have spent thousands of dollars buying books for literature circles so kids at all our levels have choice these lit circle sets are in the library so teachers can take their classes in they are labeled lit circles .. so kids know where to go Several reading programs. A school wide direction for writing. Through professional developments sessions for all faculty, our literacy coaches have taught a variety of reading strategies with an emphasis on teaching students to build on background knowledge by having them ask, "What do I already know and what to I need to know?"; read with a purpose and ask, "Why am I reading this?"; and having students record their thinking by asking, "What important thoughts/information do I need to write as I read." How text book is laid out and helpful tips and strategies. Vocabulary. How to access additional resources through reading Provide supplemental texts for students who are struggling readers for success. Develop required reading assignments Assess reading assignments in other methods than discussions Identify struggling readers and refer them to our Achievement Center. Utilize supportive remediation centers and "catch up" classes that teach reading skills 203

PAGE 221

Our district has provided extensive balanced literacy training. Also, a literacy coach is funded for each school. We follow the ILP process closely. We have a Literacy Coach monitoring every student. -arranging staff development activities such as; sharing best reading strategies, lift training, small PLCs grouping chosen by teachers, maps testing. -Most important administrative strategy ... provide support for qualified individuals to deliver reading strategies. Read 180. Writing to Learn. Directed Reading. Directed Reading. Adults reading to students LAHG Providing a graphic organizer for their reading. Using thinking maps for analyzing their reading. Various discussion techniques. Alpine Literacy Training on the Five Components of Reading, Grade level proficiency Assessments, Pikes Peak Literacy Strategies Project Choice selection. Varied text. Reading non-fiction. Annotating. Reading responses. Small group guided reading HALO Pre-reading Strategies(P AS)Preview text, Access Prior Knowledge, Set the purpose. KWL, annotations. We have a variety of programs that support students who are below grade level in reading. For all students we have a SSR time twice a week. We have been and are working with our feeder middle school because they have a literacy program and so we are trying to continue major parts of that program with 9th graders as they move up to high school. In-services on reading strategies for all teachers SSR. Reading in Content Area specific strategies. Strengthening vocabulary. Language objectives for each lesson highlighting, readers notebooks, etc. We have 20 minutes a day dedicated to reading-DEAR, drop everything and read. I feel that teachers in various content areas should use those strategies that are easiest to adapt to their subject area and according to the task/learning activity. Reading a book for 204

PAGE 222

Language Arts for example requires a different strategies than reading a book for Science. Here are some of the strategies that have recommended in the past to teachers: Anticipation/Prediction Guides, KWL, Semantic Mapping, Words Sorts, SQ3R, Concept Rating Guide, Compare/Contrast, Inference Chart, Textbook Activity Guide, Word Analogies, Summarize and Paraphrase, Comparison Table, etc. Two-column notes, highlighting, sticky note journals, various graphic organizers such as thinking maps (we are just starting to plan full-on training for teachers). Teacher modeling and reading aloud to display the thought process while engaged in difficult texts. Teaching vocabulary in context. We have finally abandoned the "vocabulary book" and our students are taught in context in English class just as they are in other content areas. LALG Lindamood Bell Reading Strategies, America's Choice Ramp Up to Literacy and Literacy Navigator, increasing the reading of novels in all language arts classes. We try to implement programs at include reading strategies across all content areas. Modeling reading passages for our students, with think alouds to show the students how they the teacher interpret the reading. These demonstrations are focused on product or procedures. Guided reading with small groups of students. Accountable talk. Independent reading and then joumaling after they read. Teaching using mentor texts. Choice readingto build independent readers. Teacher meets with students one on one, small group and whole group for instruction. Engage in purposeful, self-directed classroom talk to pursue questions and to process understandings. Use monitoring notes as a primary method of gathering and evaluating formative assessments to plan instruction that results in increased student learning. Students work on inferences and predictions in reading increasingly complex text. Students learn about bias, propaganda and stereotyping in text to read critically and evaluate ideas. Is able to select and articulate which strategies were effective for making meaning of the text. Is able to select and 205

PAGE 223

articulate which strategies were effective for making meaning of the text. Q4: How much? Is there one or more coaches? Are they full time or teach? Are they assigned other duties? HAHG Currently have a full time teacher dedicated to literacy. Currently, she is teaching two reading classes a day. The rest of the day is focused on supporting students and teachers with reading strategies. District provides a .25 fie and I provide the rest to have full time position. Our staffing allotments to not allow us the flexibility to use these positions in our school since we have a 6% free reduced lunch enrollment. We have two fulltime literacy teachers who do some coaching I build one section of developmental reading into one of my language arts teachers schedule there is limited coaching from the district level... the emphasis is much more on middle and elementary One full time coach We presently have two literacy coaches who each receive a .2 release from their other teaching assignment (English and Reading) to work with teachers in Professional Learning Communities and also to lead professional development sessions for faculty. We have 2 half time Instructional Coaches. One specializes in Literacy and the other in Mathematics, although they are both trained to assist any teacher. The district provides a .5 FTE specifically for a literacy coach. One coach-full-time. We have one full time literacy coach who works with students who are on Individual Literacy Plans. Full time literacy specialist, Rtl coordinator full time, ESL full time. Other assignments include staff development. 206

PAGE 224

LAHG I have teachers who have are released to work on literacy. This is a project sponsored by the district called Literacy Lab. they also teach part time and they do have other duties as well. We have a full time instructional coach who works with our teachers on all instructional techniques including literacy. One district coach/four teachers who teach two classes and coach the remaining of the day, we also hire one literacy consultant to work with the teacher leaders for .4 of the time for professional development planning. HALG Currently we have both a Math and Literacy coach, however they are only 20% released to do this work. We have both a full-time math and general tutor in our learning lab, which is open 7 AM to 4PM I have 1.5 FTE dedicated to instructional coaches. One coach is the main facilitator of our Literacy Team. The other coach supports our reading interventions (Read 180, Wilson) teachers Both coaches have other duties that significantly impact their time toward literacy. We have an Instructional coach who works with the staff on writing, literacy, grading practices interventions for students who are struggling as well as looking at data. There are also 4 Instructional Leaders in the core areas who also support the work of the Instructional coach. But we do not have a designated person for literacy We have 3 sections of classes dedicated to reading, taught by reading specialists. I have a literacy teacher. I don't have a literacy coach at this high school, nor do I really feel one is necessary. My teachers are highly qualified, willing to participate in professional development on their own, and responsive to student learning needs. I have used literacy coaches in other high schools. In our district we are allotted one FTE for a coach. We split that into two half time coaches. They are technically instructional coaches, but our focus this year, my first year as principal, is on literacy. One of the coaches is an English teacher so we enjoy the 207

PAGE 225

benefit of her expertise as well. They have other duties such as working with new teachers and conferencing with many other teachers, but we have tried this year to have them lift up literacy to the staff by using teachers as examples at staff meetings. I encourage them to learn all they can about literacy and provide release time to attend conferences, etc. The use of a student achievement coach is in part related to literacy. LALG We have had up to 41iteracy coaches. Today we have a .5 coach. Budgets have dictated the drop in resources. This is why I currently am putting agree instead of strongly Agree. The District Office hires coaches but it is part of our building budget. We have one full time instructional coach who works with teachers of all content areas. The district provides the funds. I have a district coach that comes in once per week to coach the Literacy staff, and I have 2 teacher leaders who are full time in the building to assist other teachers. Q7: Funding for literacy HAHG Currently, my teacher's entire FTE is funded by the district. The school's funding supports any materials needed. 15% A little less than 1% of a $380,000 budget. We spent over $20,000 on the Language program and training several years ago. This is a tricky questions as our funding really isn't about "stuff or materials like in a title one elementary ... our resource is people language arts is our largest department and carries the heaviest course requirement for graduation so literacy takes a big part of our budget... In addition to the funding for our two literacy coaches, one of them has another .2 F.T.E. release to track all of our CBLA students and to be our literacy coordinator. She receives an additional $750.00 also. I also spend approximately another $1000.00 to pay other 208

PAGE 226

literacy coaches for professional development responsibilities. I also provide for substitute pay and curriculum pay for teachers to do table grading. I also spend a 1.2 F.T.E. for reading specialists to teach reading support/intervention classes, which are for struggling readers; this is in addition to their English classes. We have a funded Read 180 laboratory. We utilize the Language! granted through Special Ed. Funding. We have applied for a Colorado Legacy grant to get at-risk students into our Advanced Placement program 20% unsure exact percentage LAHG My budget is small. I have garnered funds from other sources to help with the need here. The actual funding % is very difficult to determine. We do however provide 3 full time FTE dedicated to student literacy. All students who perform less than Proficient on CSAP are required to double up English and Reading classes as a Freshman and Sophomores. Our teaching staff also implements the SlOP Lesson Plan model. Every teacher identifies for students not only the Content Objective but the Language Objective associated with each lesson. The literacy department supports 23 sections of English literacy block for English Language Learners, which is in addition to their regular English class. Each year we spent $7-10,000 on choice reading books for literacy classes. Each class has an independent reading library worth thousands of dollars. HALO I is difficult to put a percentage on this ... percentage of my entire budget resources? Including general fund dollars, at-risk dollars, staffing? The whole ball of wax considered, I would say about 1520% of my budget resources go to literacy. A limited amount since there is not a lot of extra funding in the building and there are other areas that also require as much attention such as math, writing and assisting students who are at risk. 209

PAGE 227

One FTE for a reading recovery teacher, time in our schedule for all to read. I have the funding that is available to high schools in my District for literacy. We are a high performing school that made A YP so there is not additional funding available. For the record, high school principals can reallocate funding to an area of need. It comes from someplace else in their budget unless their school is low performing with a number of high risk students. Then schools are more able to apply for additional funding from various sources. When schools are generally high performing, those funds are not readily available. As this is my first year, I inherited a budget. Now, as I plan for 2010-2011, I intend to increase the emphasis on literacy in general. I do not know what the percentage is, but it is low in dollars. We do budget much of our time in meetings and in-service time to literacy, however. I was not involved in the creating the budget or distribution of FTE for the 2009-10 school year. Therefore, I have not yet had the opportunity to solicit or distribute funds for literacy. LALG Approximately 15%. The District Office is in charge of soliciting for funds. The district provides my school with coaches and on-site staff/professional development training. I am unable to put a % or $. I have a professional development budget and spend money for teacher professional development, AP PD and this comes to approximately 20% of my funding. Q 10: Principal Professional Development Activities HAHG Literacy coordinate reviews processes and expectations with principals yearly. Monthly principals meetings that address literacy supervision attend reading conferences and state abreast of the literacy information put out by the state 210

PAGE 228

I read all the journals, my leadership team has done a book study on Readicide, we provide time fro PLCs with a late start Monday I go to conferences The only professional development activities that I experience involving literacy is what I read and attending professional development sessions in our building led by our own literacy coaches. District Principal meetings have had a strong focus on Literacy strategies for the past three years. Many highly recognized trainers have works with our Leadership teams. Extensive literacy professional development provided each administrator in my district. I've been to many trainings over the years. The only type of staff development is ifl go to a conference and find a session that sounds interesting in literacy. I believe as an administrator my job is to provide the support and resources in order to create the opportunity for improving student learning. As principal I assign an asst principal to oversee Literacy. LAHG I have attended several reading workshops and taken many classes in reading. I know about literacy and the stages of acquisition. I know how to use information to diagnose reading issues. I have worked with Cris Tovani, reading expert, on literacy as well. How to around evaluation of student performance on CSAP in the are of specific standards, cut points and scale scores. In-serviced on the Colorado Basic Literacy Act Grade Level Expectations. Knowledge of the Five Components of Reading and numerous instructional strategies associated with each of the components. How to apply rubric associated with SCR and ECR writings on the state CSAP level exercises. I attended the teacher leader trainings for two years and attend regularly the demonstration classroom in our building. There have also been conventions and workshops I have attended in literacy. 211

PAGE 229

HALG I am aware of the strategies we use in our Read 180 labs and the reading strategies hat are infused in our Springboard curriculum and also the CSU Writing Project training that we employ. District directed professional development that includes consultants, district employees, training on intervention programs, and development of our own Literacy Action Plan. We receive professional development for a lot of areas including literacy. It depends on what is the priority at the time. Writing is our major focus at this time because the scores are not what we would like. Then we try and work on the other areas while still doing evaluations, managing the school and doing all the PR that is required. Reading literature from ASCD and books that I pick up Professional articles on a monthly bases I have a Masters in Curriculum and Instruction: Reading. I also completed my Doctorate and wrote a dissertation on the role of principals in high school reading programs. I have attended a number of reading workshops and conferences. I have successfully designed reading programs and professional development activities that have moved significant numbers of students out of unsatisfactory in reading on CSAP. Our district as put a premium on literacy and thus has provided training for all coaches and administrators this year and most of last year. We have read, analyzed and begun to implement ideas from Reading Next and Writing Next, for example. LALG I have been trained in the delivery of the Lindamood Bell learning processes and America's Choice Ramp Up to Literacy. Because of cut-backs, administrator do not receive as much as teachers. Go to Literacy Teacher leader meetings. The district has all Principals in PLCs and they have brought in writing experts for us to work with and reading experts for us to work with. Monthly Literacy Principal meetings with district curriculum head 212

PAGE 230

Q20: List technology supports you provide HAHG Currently, the technology supports is limited to the assessment process for students on ILPs. Sri testing on all building computers. PLATO computer system for individualized learning needs. We have a one-to-one laptop initiative. Teachers use the internet to find resources for poor readers as well as make use of reading activities found on the web We have a few "canned" programs available for kids in specialized classes eg. special education and ESL we also have write to learn on all our computers we have three labs three mobile laptop carts, document cameras .. .led projectors whatever teachers need we have pretty solid technology Reading programs read 180 and other tech supported programs We have a full-time instructional technology teacher and another .6 F.T.E. instructional technology teacher who both assist teachers in using technology to enhance student achievement, and that includes reading. As mentioned we have a Read 180 laboratory. We have a Language Arts lab and utilize the Acuity assessment tool to measure student growth. We have 2 full labs in our Media Center for school wide access. We have a mobile lab that connects to our wireless network. Teachers utilize projection systems to demonstrate reading strategies. In addition to the district supported technology budget, I provide a supplemental budget to assist teachers in purchase of technology as needed. Computers in the classrooms. We have a reading lab and software that assists students who are behind their grade level in reading. Full time CRT that's only job is to promote technology in the classroom. Hired at the building level the highest paying position for tech support within the school district. PLC days sharing best practices regarding reading strategies. Read 180 213

PAGE 231

LAHG PLATO Learning lab. MAPS. Renaissance STAR Reader We do not have extensive technology resources within our building. There are four netbook carts in classrooms, one netbook cart for teachers to check out as needed, one literacy lab with an assistant, laptops in the AP classrooms. The media center also has netbook and laptop carts for teachers to check-out. There is also a set of clickers for language arts teachers. All 35 teachers have visualizers and over 60% have Promethean technology; 100% next year. HALG We have two Read 180 Labs and a lab that is dedicated to reading improvement using other strategies. Read 180 program, lap tops, listening stations, audio books. We have a reading lab for students who are below high school grade level. It provides support mostly for 9th and 1Oth graders who get a double dose of English/Reading. The program is a computer based program called READ 180. read a long technology. books on tape We have a reading computer lab with 10 computers I am not currently providing technology support at this school. In the past I have used Read 180 and Jamestown Reading Navigator. I have also used the Scholastic Reading Inventory to assess student learning. read 180 We have implemented the Read 180 program. Teachers are armed with Smartboards to display and manipulate text, for example. LALG We use Success Maker, by Pearson, for reading. Computer reading labs, Plato, and a allocated period for reading. Purchased a visualizer for all teachers. Every classroom has a computer for the teacher and this is tied to a projector mounted in the ceiling. My teacher leaders are using netbooks to see how these work with our students. We have clickers if they want to use them. We now have 3 smart boards in English with 12 teachers. 214

PAGE 232

Q22 : How much time? Is it structured or on their own? HAHG This year, our focus has been on our Guaranteed Viable Curriculum role out. Any time spent on literacy issues has been determined by my staff and scheduled at times they can meet. There is time built in monthly for teachers to collaborate. Teachers have structured common planning time of 45 minutes each day. We have collaborative teams that meet 45 minutes per week. This time is not always spent on literacy. Every instructional team in our building has 45 minutes 3 Mondays a month (one is for all staff) to meet to work on their annual action plan which is based on our school goals that include a growth goal for literacy math and science. I also offer teacher teams the opportunity for subs to come in if they have a special project they are studying or working on for example the language arts teams has a sub group working on the development of the research project continuum for our comp 10 and 11 classes they meet 1/2 day a month Our professional learning community time on Wednesday mornings for 1 hour (late start for students) is utilized for a variety of work including literacy. We have also required all teachers to attend literacy professional development sessions during the year. We have early release Wednesdays in which we structure time for our teachers to work together to develop effective strategies. We often have show and tell where teachers demonstrate best practices with their peers. We provide full day release as needed for teams who want to work on a Literacy Plan Language Arts teachers and teachers from other departments are given what is called "teacher directed" periods of time to work on teaching practice and assess student achievement. This time amounts to about two full days. The majority of our in-service development. Structured and unstructured. 215

PAGE 233

LAHG Done during PLC time -every Wed for 50 minutes. Not all of that time is allocated to literacy though. We spend time developing knowledge of the rubric used to score the District writing assessment once each semester. This takes@ 6hours each semester. Teachers are required to assess students bi monthly on their responses to a SCR prompt and report student scores to the AP for Achievement. We implement a Silent Sustained Reading period for 25 minutes every day. Teachers have 90 minutes each Wednesday for planning and data/Collaborative Learning/Coaching teams. They also teach only 5 out of 8 instructional periods and have common time for planning for their grade level. HALG Not enough and it is self directed. Departments have professional development time every three weeks but it is still not enough time. This time is not specifically devoted to literacy. The time is spent on discussing instructional practices for writing, literacy, math, developing common assessments, defining how to assess students, flexibility in grading practices and Rtl interventions. Not enough time so teachers also meet at lunch when needed. Twice a month we have PLCs My teachers are organized into professional learning communities so that they have common time either daily or weekly to discuss, analyze, problem solve, etc. in planning for student success. We have late starts each week. Not all of this time is allotted for literacy, but it is a part of what we do. Each week, teachers have about 60 minutes LALG 30 minutes of structured PLC per day. The District sets the PD structure for our building and we work around it to determine building PD. Grant projects also drive our PD as well as District and Colorado State mandates. There has been a lot of focus on reading at the elementary levels with the implementation of Reading First but little focus on secondary. 216

PAGE 234

The block period is approximately 35 minutes. The teachers have the choice to make it structured or think out of the box. We have Literacy Data Teams Every Wed from 7:50-9:20 am we give time for the data teams to meet. 9th and 1Oth grade teachers have common planning hoursso they also get together several times per week for the teams to work together. Q23: How many classes? What kind of classes? HAHG Currently, we have 2 classes per semester to support students on ILPs who are not receiving services from SE or ELL. We are reading instruction courses that are 1 semester long and guided study that provides literacy support for struggling readers and writers. Our population is 89% proficient so this would not be a requirement in our scheduling. We have 10 literacy classes that serve about 120 students grades 9-12 We have as many special education literacy classes as we need. We have one or two "read/lab" comp lit ten classes and one read lab comp 11 class with the same teacher who had those kids as sophomores. We also have a study lab-guided study hall for ANY kid who is not proficient in reading/writing/math and/or has below a 2.0 GP A or is credit deficient which are our leading indicators for being at risk of not graduating 3 read 180 classes several Wilson reading sections We have two different levels of reading intervention/support classes geared to students' needs. We have 6 classes, which meet every other day for 99 minutes (1.2 F.T.E.). We have remediation classes, which allow students to "catch up" while still enrolled in their regular Language Arts classes. We establish team teaching classes that put additional staff in sections of all core classes that have identified struggling readers. We have a teacher who uses 27% of their contract to tract students on an ILP. We have remedial reading and Read 180 classes that are part of the schedule. 217

PAGE 235

6---Literacy classes for low readers ... kids on ILPs 4 3 Classes. 2 Read 180. 1 Wilson Reading LAHG reading and studying for success. Integrated world history Foundational Reading, Language!, Reading Essentials, Lit for Life, American Lit, Non Fiction. A total of 17 sections or 2 and 5/6 FTE Our English classes are literacy classes for reading and writing. HALO Many of our students have been double-blocked into a second literacy class We have three Read 180 labs, two on program and one half program as well as four other reading improvement sections. 3 sections daily of 90 minutes everyday. Three different classes depending on the needs of the students. Wilson Reading, Strategic Reading and READ 180. Wilson is for the lowest level of reader who really needs work on phonics etc. Strategic is for students who are closer to high school level and Read 180 is for the student is probably one or two years behind. 3 specific classes on READING and more if necessary as determined by the CSAP proficiency scores and ILPs Read 180 We have Language Arts Classes at both the 1Oth and 11th grade level which have content and activities designed specifically to address the needs of students who have individual literacy plans. These classes have two teachers and therefore a smaller teacher student ratio. Two sections of Read 180 and two reading support classes that are for students within a few grade levels of their peers. LALG America's Choice Literach 3 classes and collaborative Special Education Classes in English Each day on our block schedule we have a 35 minute period for reading among other interventions. 218

PAGE 236

We are using the readers writers workshop in all of our English classrooms. Our classes are 1 00 minutes each. Q27: What kinds of data? HAHG Teachers are informed of students on ILPs and encouraged to look at CSAP data to focus on areas of growth needed. All teachers are required to have smart goal based on literacy or numeracy. State testing, benchmark testing, individual classroom testing for comprehension and fluency We have a number of district data tools that include CSAP growth charts, proficiency levels to gather baseline data to get to know their kids ... the use of ongoing assessment in literacy is most prevalent in our language arts classes Acuity and CSAP ACT Explore and Plan Tests Teacher data Internal formative assessments, CSAP, EXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT tests. We also use progress monitoring tools in our reading intervention/support classes. We utilize the Acuity assessment program, which tests students formatively on the state standards three times before February. All teachers are given the results for the students in their classroom and have been trained on the use of this data. We use state standardized test scores and ACUITY results. Scantron data, CSAP data. CSAP, ACT, Scantron for ILP students and the Rtl process Teachers assessments through departmental discussions, district identified learning, and state standards. LAHG I do not think teachers do this yet. I think teachers look at data and may suspect that reading is a cause for student achievement issues but they do not have the knowledge to determine why the student can't read. They don't know if it is a fluency issue or a phonemic awareness, etc. Even if they did, they do not know strategies to address the actual reason a student is struggling with reading. This is not a bash on 219

PAGE 237

teachers. This is to say that we need training of teachers and new teachers so they are aware of the needs of the students. SCR, ECR, CSAP, Galileo Benchmark, Unit Tests and Semester Finals Assessments. Teachers use both formative and summative assessments to make instructional decisions. Students are in small group guided reading where the information is taken. HALO I do not think teachers do this yet. I think teachers look at data and may suspect that reading is a cause for student achievement issues but they do not have the knowledge to determine why the student can't read. They don't know if it is a fluency issue or a phonemic awareness, etc. Even if they did, they do not know strategies to address the actual reason a student is struggling with reading. This is not a bash on teachers. This is to say that we need training of teachers and new teachers so they are aware of the needs of the students. SCR, ECR, CSAP, Galileo Benchmark, Unit Tests, and Semester Finals Assessments. Teachers use both formative and summative assessments to make instructional decisions. Students are in small group guided reading where the information is taken. LALG CSAP data, Formative classroom assessments MAPs, Common Assessments, CSAP, CELA AIMSWeb Benchmark -Edison and Galileo The Data Teams create formative assessments throughout the quarter and at the end of each quarter the district has the 9th and 1Oth graders taking what we call Interim Assessments. These assessments are built around state standards and follow the planning and pacing guides that we haveso these are summative assessments. Data is collected on each summative assessment and on the formative assessments. The data drives the instruction for all of my English teachers as the Reader and Writer Workshops are individually to student needs. 220

PAGE 238

Q28: What PD plan looks like HAHG Through our literacy coaches, we have embedded authentic literacy professional development before and throughout the school year. Using the Acuity data, we have a PD plan that requires teachers to assess their student's reading abilities and then adjust their reading strategies accordingly. The school goal is to get 95% of our students at a college ready level of reading. Our professional develop model supports our school focus. This year it is Rtl and twenty-first century proficiency. People attending conferences in and out of district. Lift training, Literacy coordinator training through staff development, decided upon by Literacy specialist, Rtl coordinator, ESL teacher, CRT and assistant principal who oversees this "twenty-first century group" Rtl team. LAHG Literacy lab for certain teachers. Continued literacy instruction for all teachers. In-service on those elements listed above and their use obtain data to drive instruction. All departments are in literacy professional development groups. HALG Currently, the instructional leadership team is writing a Literacy Mission Statement for our school across all content areas. My School is working with the National Literacy Project. We do a literacy launch at the beginning of each year. We introduce and implement several literacy strategies through out the year. Professional development time is difficult to create in high school setting. As mentioned previously we have professional development time but the time is used to increase information and have dialogue about instructional practices in a lot of areas including literacy. I have teachers who are studying SlOP (Structured Instruction Observation Protocols) to more effective deliver instruction to our 221

PAGE 239

students who are learning English. I have teachers who are studying a more effective co-teaching to model in order to be able to better meet the learning needs of students in our co-taught literacy classes. The teachers are well versed in strategies, but we need to find a way to make better use of their skills in the co-taught classes. Every department in my school has goals that are designed to improve reading and/or writing of our lowest performing students and of students who did not show significant growth in this past year in literacy. Those goals are developed by department and aligned to school wide goals. Each goal has a professional development component so teachers can assess what training they need. In addition when a student is experiencing difficulties in literacy or learning in general, we have a problem solving team under the Rtl model to select those strategies that will have the greatest positive impact on the student's learning. We model/teach literacy strategies at our staff meetings. This has not always worked the way I intend, but as I continue to develop in my first year as principal, I am aware that we need much more teacher training in this area. LALG We have had all teachers trained in Lindamood Bell Learning Processes and school wide professional development in Step Up To Writing. We have designed a 'School With In a School" for 9th and 1Oth graders that will provide specific PD for teachers in Literacy. We have learning goals and success criteria written daily for our students in each content area, which helps our students know what they need to learn in each class daily. 222

PAGE 240

REFERENCES Achieve.org. (2010). ADP Network. Retrieved February 19,2010, from www.achieve.org/ADPNetwork Achieve.org. (2007). Closing the expectations gap 2006: An annual 50 state progress report on alignment of high school policies with the demands of college and work Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.achieve.org/ files/ 50-statepub-06. pdf ACT. (2007a). Aligning postsecondary expectations and high school practice: The gap defined Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.act.org/path/ policy/pdf/NCSPolicyBrief.pdf ACT. (2002). College graduation rates steady despite increase in enrollment. Retrieved July 11,2007, from http://www.act.org/news/releases/2002/1115-02.html ACT. (2010). College readiness standards. Retrieved July 31,2010, from http://www.act.org/standard/ ACT. (2009). Focusing on the essentials for college and career readiness: Policy implications of the ACT national curriculum survey results 2009 Retrieved February 2, 2010, from http://www.act.org/research! curricsurvey.html ACT. (2007b). QualityCore: Every student deserves to be ready for college. Retrieved July 1 2009 from http://www.act.org/activity/spring2007/ qualitycore.html Alliance for Excellent Education. (2010). The economic benefits from halving the dropout rate: A boom to businesses in the nation 's largest metropolitan areas. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from www.all4ed.org/files/ EconBeneCityCardBookletO 1121 O.pdf Alliance for Excellent Education. (2007). Striving readers act of 2007 (11 01h). Retrieved February 19, 2010, from http://www.all4ed.org/federal_policy/ legislative_ updates/striving_ readers 223

PAGE 241

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2009). Understanding high school graduation rates in Colorado. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from http://www.al14ed.org/ files/Colorado_ we. pdf Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr. M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 951-983). New York: Longman. A Nation at Risk. (1983). Recommendations. Retrieved February 12, 1010, from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/N atAtRisk/recomm.html Au, K. H (2000). A multicultural perspective on policies for improving literacy achievement: Equity and excellence. In M. L. Kamil, P B. Mosenthal, P D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 835-851). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bain, A. (2007). The self-organizing school: Next-generation comprehensive school reform. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Barth, R. S. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Beers, K. (2003). When kids can't read: What teachers can do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row. Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next-A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A C., & Garet, M.S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 2833. 224

PAGE 242

Holman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed ) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brozo, W. G (2010). Response to intervention or responsive instruction? Challenges and possibilities of response to intervention for adolescent literacy Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(4), 277-281. Bryk, A. S., Bender Sebring, P., Allensworth, E., Luppescu S., & Easton, J. Q. (20 1 0) Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Buly, M. R., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Egawa K. (Eds.). (2004). What is a literacy coach? Voices from the Middle, 12( 1 ), 60-62. Burbank, M.D., & Kauchak, D (2003). An alternative model for professional development: Investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 499-514 Callins, T. (2006) Culturally responsive literacy instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(2) 62-65. Carey, K. (2004). A matter of degrees: Improving graduation rates in four-year colleges and universities A report by the Education Trust. Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/1184283F-104E4511-BOCA-1D3023231157/0ihighered .pdf Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010) A time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation ofNew York. Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl J. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education requirements through 2018. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Worliforce. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from http:/ /www9 .georgetown.edu/ grad/ gppilhpi/ cew /pdfs/FullReport. pdf 225

PAGE 243

Cobb, B., Sample, P Alwell, M., & Johns, N. (2005). Effective interventions in dropout prevention: A research synthesis The effects on cognitive behavioral interventions on dropout prevention for youth with disabilities. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Collins, K., Onwuegbuzie, A., Sutton, I. (2006) A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed-methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities : A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67-100. Colorado Commission of Higher Learning. (2005). Higher education report library. Retrieved June 18, 2007, from http://highered.colorado.gov/ Reports.asp Colorado Department of Education. (2010a). "Arizona, Indiana join Colorado in multi-state growth model collaboration." Retrieved August 14, 2010, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/download/PDF/20100308new statecollaborations-growthmodel.pdf Colorado Department of Education. (2009a). Colorado growth model. Retrieved July 7, 2009, from www.cde.state.co.us/research/GrowthModel.htm Colorado Department of Education. (2010b). Colorado P-12 academic standards. Retrieved July 23, 2010, from http://www .cde.state.co. us/ cdeassess/U AS/CoAcademic Standards.html Colorado Department of Education. (2009b ). Education Accountability. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2010, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdegen/downloads/ SB 163/SenateBill163 .pdf Colorado Department of Education. (2010c). Graduation rate increases, dropout rate declines Retrieved February 21, 2010, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/Communications/download/PDF/20100113gra duationrate4.pdf 226

PAGE 244

Colorado Department of Education. (2009c). Schoolview. Retrieved Sept. 15, 2009, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview Colorado Department of Education Office of Standards and Assessment. (2009). Colorado academic standards: Reading, writing, and communicating. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/ U AS/DRAFTS/R& W _Public_ Draft_ 5 .1.09 .pdf Colorado House Bill 07-1048. (2007). Concerning longitudinal analysis of student assessments. Enacted by the General Assembly of the Sate of Colorado. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). National Governors' Association/The Council of Chief State School Officials. Retrieved February 9, 2010, from http://www.corestandards.org Creswell, J., & Plano-Clark, V. (2007). Mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cronin Kral, C. (n.d.). Principal support for literacy coaching. Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://www.literacycoachingonline.org/briefs/PrincipalSupportFinal3-2207.pdf Daggert, W. R. (2007, June). The education challenge: Preparing students for a changing world. Symposium conducted at the meeting of Colorado Association of School Executives, Breckenridge, CO. Daniels, H., & Zemelman, S. (2004). Subjects matter: Every teacher's guide to content-area reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine out future. Multicultural Education Series. New York: Teachers College Press. Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPoint, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from http://www.smleads.org/data/pdfs/sls/sls_rr.pdf 227

PAGE 245

Drago-Severson, E. (2007). Helping teachers learn: Principals as professional development leaders. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 70-125. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional/earning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Duffy, H. (2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school: A look at approaches to tiered intervention. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from http://www.betterhighschools.com/docs/ NHSC_RTIBrief_08-02-07.pdf Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Elliott, M. S. (2007). Principal leadership in the process of literacy reform: A structured conceptualization. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Connecticut. Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research in teaching. In the Handbook of research on teaching, M. C. Wittrock (Ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing. Fisher, D. (2001). We're moving on up: Creating a schoolwide literacy effort in an urban high school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(2). Fisher, D., Brozo, W. G., Frey, N., & Ivey, G. (2007). 50 content area strategies for adolescent literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Fisher, D., & Ivey, G. (2005). Literacy and language as learning in content-area classes: A departure from "every teacher a teacher of reading." Action Teacher Education, 27(2), 3-11. Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2009). Meeting A YP in a high-need school: A formative experiment. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(5), 386-396. 228

PAGE 246

Fountain, M. H. (2009) The correlation between dropout rates of a high school and reading levels of a middle school in a small city in northwest Georgia. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Capella University Friedberg, R. M. (2010). The economic impact of knowledge workers from India and China. Retrieved Sept. 27, 2010, from http://www.econ.brown.edu/ fac/Rachel_ Friedberg/Links/friedberg_princeton. pdf Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is .flat : A brief history ofthe twenty-first c e ntury. New York; Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Full an, M. (2003 ). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Gewertz, C. (2010). College and the workforce: What "readiness" means. Education Week: Quality Counts, 29(17), 24-25 Gewertz, C., & Robelen, E. W. (2010) U.S. tests awaiting big shifts. Education Week, 30(3), 1, 18-19. Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing and Community Education. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 8(4), 597-607. Goodwin, L. D. (2002). Changing conceptions of measurement validity: An update on the new standards. Journal of Nursing Education, (47)3, 100106. Graham, S. & Hebert, M.A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. 229

PAGE 247

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-351. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American Journal of Education, 94(3), 328-355. Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). Retrieved Sept. 10, 2010, from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h.1350.enr: Institute of Educational Sciences. (2009). The nation's report card: NAEP 2008 trends in academic progress. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from http:/ /nces.ed.gov /nationsreportcard/pdf/main2008/20094 79. pdf International Reading Association. (2006). Standards for middle and high school literacy coaches. Newark, DE: Author. Instructional Assessment Resources. (20 1 0). Assess teaching: Response rates. Retrieved Sept. 6, 2010, from http://www.utexas.edu/academic/ ctl/ assessment/iar/teaching/ gather/method/surveyResponse. php Irvin, J. L., Meltzer, J., & Dukes, M. (2007). Taking action on adolescent literacy: An implementation guide for school leaders. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ivey, G., & Fisher, D. (2006). Creating literacy-rich schools for adolescents. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 230

PAGE 248

Kirsch, 1., Braun, H., Yamamoto, K., & Sum, A. (2007). America's perfect storm: Three forces changing our nation's future. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Krathwohl, D. R. (2004). Methods of educational and social science research. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Laird, J., Cataldi, E. F., KewalRamani, A., & Chapman, C. (2008). Dropout and completion rates in the United States: 2007. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lee, C. D., & Smagorinsky, P. (Eds.). (2000). Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lee, H. (2005). Developing a professional development plan model based on teachers' needs. The Professional Educator, 27(1 & 2), 39-49. LeFave, M. N. (2005). Sustainability of a schoolwide literacy reform. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Florida. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformation school leadership effects: A replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4), 451-479. Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What do we already know about successful school leadership? Prepared for the AERA Division A Task Force on Developing Research in Educational Leadership. National College for School Leadership. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from http://www.betterhighschools.com/docs/NHSC RTffirief_ 08-02-07 .pdf Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/carei/Leadership/ReviewofResearch.pdf 231

PAGE 249

Levine, M. (2007). The essential cognitive backpack. Educational Leadership, 64(7), 16-22. Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2004). Educational administration: Concepts and practic;es (41h ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Marcus, P. (201 0). Colo. education board adopts national standards. State Bill Colorado. Retrieved August 7, 2010, from http://www.statebillnews.com/ 201 0/08/ colo-education-board-adopts-national-standards/ Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. McCallin, N. (2006). Colorado Community College System report on remedial education. Colorado Community College System. Retrieved May 11, 2009, from http://www.cccs.edu/Docs.SBCCOE/Agenda!Nov06/1110806WkSessioniD .pdf Meltzer, J., & Ziemba, S. (2006). Getting schoolwide literacy up and running. Retrieved, July 27,2008, from http://O-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com. skyline.cudenver.edu/ Metiri Group (2009). Twenty-first century skills. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.metiri.com/21st%20CentutY'Io20Skills/PDFtwentyfirst%20cen tury%20skills. pdf Meyers, L. S., Gamst G., & Guarino A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moje, E. B. (2006). Integrating literacy into the secondary school content areas: An enduring problem in enduring institutions. Retrieved July 27, 2008, from http://www.umich.edu/-govrel/adoles_lit/moje.pdf 232

PAGE 250

Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy : A position statement. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from http://www.reading org/Libraries/Position _Statements_ and_ Resolutions/p s 1036 adolescent.sflb.ashx Muoneke, A & Shankland, L. (2009). Using tiered intervention to improve high school performance. SEDL Letter, 21(1). Retrieved February 24, 2010, from http:/ /www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v21no 1 /tiered/html Murray, P., Polis, J., & Yarmuth, J (2009). Literacy education for all, results for a nation act. Retrieved February 13, 2010, from http : //thomas.loc.gov/cgi bin/query/F?c111: 1 National Association of State Boards of Education. (2006). Reading at risk: The state response to the crisis in adolescent literacy. Retrieved February 24 2010, from http://www.nasbe.org/index.php/educational-issues/all educational-issues/funcfinishdown/43 9/ National Center on Education and Economy. (2007). Tough choices or tough times : The report of the new commission on the skills of the American worliforce. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Center for Student Engagement. (2005). The legal and economic implication of truancy: Executive summary. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from http://www .schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionRegistry/ Admin/Resources/Resources/72 pdf National Council ofTeachers of English. (1985) Teaching composition: A position statement. Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http : //www.ncte org/ print.asp?id=107690&node=633 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (2005) Reading to achieve: A governors' guide to adolescent literacy Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www .nga.org/Files/pdf/051 Ogovguideliteracy.pdf National Middle School Association. (n. d). NCLB recommendations Retrieved February 19,2010, from www. nmsa org/portals/O/pdf/advocacy/messages/ NMSA _Recommendations. pdf 233

PAGE 251

National Staff Development Council. (2008a). Leadership. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from http://www .nsdc.org/standards/leadership.cfm National Staff Development Council. (2008b ). NSDC's standards for staff development. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from http://www .nsdc.org/standards/index. cfm Nichols, W. D., Young, C. A., Rickelman, R. J. (2007). Improving middle school professional development by examining middle school teachers' application of literacy strategies and instructional design. Reading Psychology, 28, 97-130. Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural/earning communities. New York: Teachers College Press. Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. O'Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 442-463. Ohio Resource Center for Mathematics, Science, and Reading. (2007). Leading for Literacy: A Compendium of Best Practices for Successful Leadership in Adolescent Literacy. Retrieved February 21,2010, from http:/ /education.ucf.edu/ mire/Research/ ALLF%20%20Leading%20fot'/o20Literacy. pdf Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2010). The high cost of low educational performance: The long-run impact of improving PISA outcomes. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecdlll/28/44417824.pdf 234

PAGE 252

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009). Framework for 2 rt century learning. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/ documents/framework_ flyer_ updated_ april_ 2009. pdf Payne, C. M. (2008). So much reform so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York: Berkley. Plaut, S. (Ed.). (2008). The right to literacy in secondary schools. Denver: Public Education and Business Coalition. Reeves, D. B. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90190/90 and beyond. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.sabine.k12.1a.us/ online/leadershipacademylhigh%20performance%2090%2090%2090%20 and%20beyond.pdf Salsberry, T., & Wetig, S. (2004). Clinical instructors as teacher leaders in the professional development schools: Benefits, challenges, and support systems. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 71(1), 36-55. Sapon-Shevin, M. (2007). Widening the circle: The power of inclusive classrooms. Boston: Beacon Press. Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Mora/leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59. Shanklin, N. E. (2008). At the crossroads: A classroom teacher's key role in Rtl. Voices from the Middle, 16(2), 62-63. 235

PAGE 253

Shanklin. N. E. (n.d.). What supports do literacy coaches need from administrators in order to succeed? Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://www.literacycoachingonline.org /briefs/LCSupportsNSBrief.pdf Sheldahl, T. E. (2007). High school instructional coaches: Where are we now and where are we going? Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of New Mexico. Snow, C. (2008). Improving literacy plans: A time to act. Retrieved July 28, 2008, fromhttp://www.reading.org/downloads/53rd conv _handouts/IRA_ Rdg% 20Res.pdf Snow, C., & Moje, E. (2010). Why is everyone talking about adolescent literacy? Phi Delta Kappan, 91 ( 6), 66-69. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sturtevant, E. G. (2003). The literacy coach: A key to improving teaching and learning in secondary schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. SurveyMonkey.com. (2009). SurveyMonkey. Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://www.surveymonkey.com/ Swanson, C. B. (2007). Learning and earning. Education Week, 26(40), 15-20. Taylor, R., & Collins, V. D. (2003). Literacy leadership for grades 5-12. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (7), 77 100. Teske, P. E., & Schneider, M. (1999). The importance of leadership: The role of school principals. The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government. Retrieved February 27,2010, from http://www .businessofgovemment.org/pdfs/Import _of_ Leadership. pdf 236

PAGE 254

Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., et al. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Corporation Center on Instruction. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Retrieved July 25, 2006, from http://www.census.gov U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Building the legacy: IDEA 2004. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from http:/ /idea.ed.gov/ U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of2001. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from http://www2.edgov/policy/ elsec/leg/ esea02/indexlhtml U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Reading First. Retrieved July 17, 2007, from http://www. ed gov/plans/readingfirst/index.html U S Department ofEducation. (2007) Retrieved February 19, 2010, from http://www2edgov/programs/striving readers/index html Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (1996). Content area reading (51h ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Waters, T., Marzano, R. J & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Ylimaki, R. M. (2001). A theory of collaborative actions for the successful implementation of literacy reform: A multi-case study. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Wisconsin. Youngs, P & King, M. B (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643-670. 237