The Principal: Leadership For A Global Society

The Principal: Leadership for a Global Society
Developing Systemic Leadership
Contributors: By: Bruce M. Whitehead, Floyd Boschee & Robert H. Decker

Book Title: The Principal: Leadership for a Global Society
Chapter Title: "Developing Systemic Leadership"
Pub. Date: 2013
Access Date: January 27, 2020
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: 55 City Road
Print ISBN: 9781412987103
Online ISBN: 9781544308609
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544308609.n8
Print pages: 173-200
© 2013 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Developing Systemic Leadership

In a global society, the world is undergoing rapid economic and social change. Increasing social and popu-
lation mobility causes students to face very different challenges than their predecessors. These factors fun-
damentally alter the role of schools and school leaders and the challenges they face. Principals appear to
have more autonomy, but with greater accountability. To be sure, then, it is important for building-level leaders
to remain ethical in their approach as well as to understand the larger picture of political, social, economic,
legal, and cultural dynamics as noted in ELCC Standards #5 and #6. Thus, principals must not only help their
faculty and staff to prepare all of their students successfully in a new global economy and society, but they
must also accept increased responsibility for helping teachers improve their practice, as well as assist their
local communities and other public agencies in providing services for student and family support. This means
that school leaders must become system leaders.
The 21st century has seen dramatic shifts in the management of schools and educational systems compared
with those at the end of the last century. These changes begin with family structures and the use (and misuse)
of information and communication technologies. In this new environment, schools and schooling have a big-
ger job to do. As a result, there is a need to redefine and broaden the principal's role and responsibilities,
which means the way school leadership is developed and supported. It implies strengthening the training and
development approaches to help leaders face these new roles.
One of the principal's new roles will be to develop relationships of interdependence and trust. System leaders
will care deeply about all schools, all children, and their learning capabilities. They are willing to shoulder sys-
tem leadership roles because they believe that in order to change the larger system, you have to engage with
it in a meaningful way.
Questions Addressed in this Chapter Include the following

1. What is the nature and function of systemic leadership?
2. Why should school districts become involved with systemic leadership?
3. Who makes up the systemic leadership team?
4. What are the components of the systemic leadership model?
5. How do these components work together to create a supportive and positive model for
improved student achievement?
Systemic Leadership
A system, originated from the Latin word systēma, is a set of detailed methods, procedures, and routines es-
tablished or formulated to carry out a specific activity, perform a duty, or solve a problem. It is an organized,
purposeful structure regarded as a whole consisting of interrelated and interdependent elements (compo-
nents, entities, factors, members, parts, etc.). These elements continually influence one another (directly or
indirectly) to maintain their activity and the existence of the system in order to achieve the common purpose or
the goal of the system. All systems (a) have inputs, outputs, and feedback mechanisms, (b) maintain an inter-
nal steady-state (called homeostasis) despite a changing external environment, (c) display properties that are
peculiar to the whole (called emergent properties) but are not possessed by any of the individual elements,
and (d) have boundaries that are usually defined by the system observer. Systems underlie every phenome-
non and are everywhere one looks for them.
Basically, systems thinking is a conceptual framework, a body of knowledge and tools that has been devel-
SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership
Page 2 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
oped over the past 50 years, to make the full patterns clearer and to help us see how to change them effec-
tively. Senge (1990) perceives the system as human endeavors that are bound by invisible fabrics of interre-
lated actions, which often take years to fully play out their effects on one another. Since we are part of that
latticework ourselves, it is doubly hard to see the whole pattern of change. Instead, we focus on snapshots of
isolated parts of the system and wonder why our deepest problems never seem to get solved. Capra (1996)
states, “In the systems view we realize that the objects themselves are networks of relationships, embedded
in larger networks. For the systems thinker the relationships are primary” (p. 37).
The educational system is a dynamic, adaptive, coherent, and sustainable entity (McREL, 2009) that has a
structure and patterns that are interdependent. Both the alignment of structural relationships and coherence
in process relationships determine the pattern of organization of the functional living system. Capra (1996)
states, “the central characteristic of a living system is that the system continually undergoes structural
changes while preserving its web-like pattern of organization” (p. 218). “With this web-like pattern the living
system interacts with its environment through structural coupling, that is, through recurrent interactions which
trigger structural changes in the system” (p. 219).
Key to Leadership
Education is not a collection of parts; it is a system that must make sense to people.
According to an international report published by McKinsey and Company (2007), top-performing school sys-
tems worldwide recognized that the only way to improve outcomes is to improve instruction. The report con-
cluded that lessons learned were:
• The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers.
• The only way to improve outcomes is to improve instruction.
• High performance requires every child to succeed.
• Every school needs a great leader.
Teacher quality is the most important lever for improving student outcomes. The example cited in the McK-
insey and Company study indicated teacher performance over a period of 3 years could dramatically affect
the learning achievement level of students performing at the same level (50th percentile). Students having a
high-performing teacher could expect to raise their performance to the 90th percentile. Students having a low-
performing teacher could reduce their performance to the 37th percentile level. Over the course of 3 years,
the once-equal-performing students would now be approximately 53 percentile points apart in their achieve-
ment performance (Barber & Mourshed, 2007, p. 12).

Page 3 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
Tip for Principals: 8.1

Professional development with deep implementation is the best practice for helping teachers become
better at their practice.
The top-performing educational systems worldwide indicated that the success of their systems was the train-
ing of their teachers in applying the best practices as well as training principals to create them. Rigorous man-
agement and leadership training programs are available for both teachers and principals. Only candidates
who demonstrate the required competencies are accepted into the educational profession. The concluding
comment related to developing world-class schools was, “it is easy to create a few good schools, and the
challenge is to create a system that can deliver the same quality to all children” (Barber & Mourshed, 2007,
p. 27).
As we look at transforming educational systems in the United States, we need to look at the research of
Marzano and Waters (2009), who indicated that the highest-performing systems in the world establish and
accomplish nonnegotiable goals for instruction in every classroom, which automatically translates into en-
hanced academic achievement for students. These systems are able to decrease the pedagogical variability
between teachers and increase the quality of instruction within schools and between schools. They do this
by establishing clear instructional priorities at the system level, establishing a systemic and systemwide ap-
proach to instruction, investing in teacher preparation and professional development, and developing strong
instructional leadership (Marzano & Waters, 2009).
This paralleled the research of Reeves (2007), who indicated that for significant improvement of student
achievement, there needs to be deep implementation of professional development, which produced evidence
of specific student outcomes.
The notion of systems and system thinking is not a new one; it has been around for decades. In large part,
systems theory owes its origins to the study of ecology, through which scientists have discovered that com-
plex webs of life exist throughout nature. Scientists have observed that seemingly minor changes or additions
to natural systems can have dramatic and unforeseen effects. Similarly, small changes in human systems,
such as schools, often have complex and unforeseen effects.

Page 4 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
It is only through combining efforts and tying them together that synergy is achieved.
Despite the neat, pyramid-type structure often ascribed to schools through organizational charts, schools tend
to operate much more like living systems. The parts of a system function more like dynamic and complex
webs of interactive loops than as compartmentalized units following clear chains of command, like cogs in a
machine. Thus, a major component of systems thinking is looking for the connections in the system, the ways
in which changes to one part might affect and be affected by other parts of the system.
In understanding systemic educational leadership, the leader must understand and grasp the whole as well
as the parts of the system (school district). Systemic leadership theoretically begins with the board of educa-
tion and moves through the central office, down to the building-level leadership to both certified and classified
staff, and ultimately to the students who are served by the system. As the parts of the system are discussed,
it is vitally important to understand that the parts of the system do not act independently but are interdepen-
dent on each other for the success of improving the educational experience for students who will be expected
to compete within a global system in their professional lives.
Systemic Internal Environment
Board of Education
In the ideal system, the board of education would take the lead in setting the vision and direction for the sys-
tem. However, due to the organizational structure of many educational systems (by state mandate), board of
education members are usually lay citizens serving on the board as elected members of the community or
appointed to the board by a mayor or other official in the community. In either case, board members may or
not have any educational leadership background for leading an educational system. Board members usually
rely on the superintendent and/or central office personnel to provide information for the board to react to and
establish policy for the direction of the system.
Board members usually are more comfortable and familiar with the management of schools than with the el-
ements of instructional leadership and improving student achievement. The improvement of student achieve-
ment has always been the most important part of the existence of a school system, but over the past decade,
there are higher expectations with the federal mandate of No Child Left Behind and the perceived slide of
U.S. student achievement related to the success of achievement in other countries. For educational systems
to mature and develop into viable and productive systems, the change process needs to start with the board
in its understanding and involvement in setting the vision and creating the sense of urgency for improving the
quality of education that children in their community are receiving.
Superintendent

Page 5 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
As expectations of the educational system have increased and changed over the past several decades, the
role and expectation of the superintendent is changing as we move into the competitive global society of the
21st century. Marzano and Waters's (2009) research on district leadership has surfaced a set of leadership
responsibilities and practices that, if emphasized and appropriately (strategically and intentionally) implement-
ed, will provide a significant change for superintendents, virtually a systemic shift and significant change from
the past to the future.

The basic tension is between the parts and the whole. They arise from the interactions, and a relation-
ship from the parts to the whole creates a holistic perspective.
These identified responsibilities and practices, derived from meta-analytic research, establish priorities for
district-level leadership that many superintendents have not participated in previously. However, some of the
responsibilities and practices have historically been considered expectations of the board in their role and
relationship with the superintendent. Marzano and Waters's research (2009) established the following respon-
sibilities:
• Ensuring collaborative goal-setting

• Establishing nonnegotiable goals for student achievement and instruction
• Creating board alignment with and support for district goals
• Monitoring goals for achievement and instruction
• Allocating resources to support the goals for achievement and instruction
• Defined autonomy: the superintendent's relationship with schools (p. 8)
These six responsibilities have associated practices that will enable district leadership to take the steps nec-
essary to provide a quality framework and instructional leadership for creating a positive impact on student
achievement.
As school districts shift to a global society, the role of central office personnel and the superintendent must
change to provide the direction and accountability necessary for improving student achievement. The signif-
icance of this change process is viewing the superintendent in the role of instructional leader from a district
perspective. This change initiative enables the superintendent and central office personnel to be instruction-
al leaders and support to the principal, who is the instructional leader at the building level. In this systemic
change process, the superintendent takes on instructional responsibility, but from a different perspective. This
view will be discussed further later in this chapter.

Page 6 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
Central Office Personnel

Depending on the size of the school system and the resources available, central office personnel have and
can contribute to the growth and improvement of student achievement. Many school systems have either a
curriculum director or department (division) of curriculum and instruction that is responsible for working with
and assisting buildings within the district with instructional, curriculum, and assessment needs. School dis-
tricts that are fortunate to have these types of resources have the potential to do wonderful things for the staff
as well as the students. Within these departments (divisions), there are not only directors but also specialists
who have professional competencies to assist building-level administrators and staff in developing and estab-
lishing best practices in the teaching and learning initiatives.
However, small and rural school systems that do not have the resources to provide teaching and learning
initiatives are handicapped in what they can provide to their faculty and students. The resources affect not
only the faculty but also the lack of professional knowledge and training on the part of the administrators that
is necessary to provide the leadership that is needed for school districts to meet the challenge of the 21st-
century global society. Students are required to learn more, produce more, and compete harder in the world
marketplace with little or no increase in skill or practice. The playing field is not equal or level and school dis-
tricts are required to do more with less, so the need to look for change for all school districts is paramount.
The literature and research (Marzano & Waters, 2009) are clear in describing the need for visionary leader-
ship at the district level.
Building Principal
The research is clear; building principals make a difference in improved student achievement (Elmore, 2000;;
Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Reeves, 2004). In School Leadership That Works: From Research to Re-
sults (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005), a meta-analysis of research indicated 21 responsibilities with 66
practices, all of which were significantly correlated with improving student achievement. This meta-analysis
of research began with the review of more than 5,000 studies that purported to have examined the effects of
principal leadership on student achievement. The staff at Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning
(McREL) selected 69 of the 5,000-plus studies based on the quality of the research design, rigor, reliability,
and relevance of data to look for evidence and best practices of school-level leaders. The 69 studies included
more than 14,000 teacher ratings of principal leadership for 2,082 principals. The ratings of principal lead-
ership correlated with more than 1.4 million student achievement scores. The meta-analysis produced three
findings. The first two of these are:
• There was a statistically significant correlation (.05 level) between school-level leadership and stu-
dent achievement. This correlation could translate up to a 10-percentile point difference in student
achievement on a norm-referenced test.
• Twenty-one leadership responsibilities with statistically significant correlations to student achieve-
ment and 66 associated practices or behaviors were identified.

The purpose of leadership is the improvement of instructional practice and performance.

Page 7 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
When we look at these two findings, the concept of “instructional leadership” is no longer an abstraction or left
only to theory. We now have a well-defined set of research-based leadership responsibilities and practices
correlated with student achievement.
Exhibit 8.1 McREL's Principal Leadership Responsibilities

and Practices
Responsibility Associated Practices
• Promotes cooperation among

staff
• Promotes a sense of well-being
Culture: fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and • Promotes cohesion among staff
cooperation • Develops an understanding of
purpose
• Develops a shared vision of
what the school could be like
• Provides and enforces clear

structure, rules, and procedures
for students
• Provides and enforces clear
Order: establishes a set of standard operating procedures and
structures, rules, and procedures
routines
for staff
• Establishes routines regarding
the running of the school that
staff understand and follow
• Protects instructional time from

Discipline: protects teachers from issues and influences that interruptions
would detract from their teaching time or focus • Protects/shelters teachers from
distractions
• Ensures teachers have neces-

sary materials and equipment
Resources: provides teachers with materials and professional
• Ensures teachers have neces-
development necessary for the successful execution of their
sary professional development
jobs
opportunities that directly en-
hance their teaching

Page 8 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
• Is involved in helping teachers

design curricular activities
Involvement in curriculum, instruction, and assessment: is • Is involved with teachers to ad-
directly involved in the design and implementation of curricu- dress instructional issues in their
lum, instruction, and assessment practices classrooms
• Is involved with teachers to ad-
dress assessment issues
• Establishes high, concrete goals

and expectations that all stu-
dents will meet
• Establishes concrete goals for all
curriculum, instruction, and as-
Focus: establishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the
sessment
forefront of the school's attention
• Establishes concrete goals for
the general functioning of the
school
• Continually keeps attention on
established goals
• Is knowledgeable about instruc-

tional practices
Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment: is • Is knowledgeable about assess-
knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, and as- ment practices
sessment practices • Provides conceptual guidance
for teachers regarding effective
classroom practice
• Makes systematic frequent visits

to classrooms
Visibility: has quality contact and interactions with teachers • Maintains high visibility around
and students the school
• Has frequent contact with stu-
dents
• Recognizes individuals who ex-

cel
Contingent rewards: recognizes and rewards individual ac-
• Uses performance versus se-
complishments
niority as the primary criterion for
reward and advancement

Page 9 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
• Uses hard work and results as

the basis for reward and recogni-
tion
• Is easily accessible to teachers

• Develops effective means for
Communication: establishes strong lines of communication teachers to communicate with
with teachers and among students one another
• Maintains open and effective
lines of communication with staff
• Assures the school is in compli-

ance with district and state man-
dates
• Advocates on behalf of the
Outreach: is an advocate and spokesperson for the school to school in the community
all stakeholders • Advocates for the school with
parents
• Ensures the central office is
aware of the school's accom-
plishments
• Provides opportunity for input on

all important decisions
• Provides opportunities for staff to
Input: involves teachers in the design and implementation of
be involved in developing school
important decisions and policies
policies
• Uses leadership team in deci-
sion making
• Systematically and fairly recog-

nizes and celebrates accom-
plishments of teachers
• Systematically and fairly recog-
Affirmation: recognizes and celebrates school accomplish-
nizes and celebrates accom-
ments and acknowledges failures
plishments of students
• Systematically acknowledges
failures and celebrates accom-
plishments of the school

Page 10 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
• Remains aware of personal

needs of teachers
• Maintains personal relationships
with teachers
Relationships: demonstrates an awareness of the personal
• Is informed about significant per-
aspects of teachers and staff
sonal issues within the lives of
staff members
• Acknowledges significant events
in the lives of staff members
• Consciously challenges the sta-

tus quo
• Is comfortable with leading
Change agent: is willing to and actively challenges the status
change initiatives with uncertain
quo
outcomes
• Systematically considers new
and better ways of doing things
• Inspires teachers to accomplish

what might seem beyond their
grasp
• Portrays a positive attitude about
Optimize: inspires and leads new and challenging innovations
the ability of the staff to accom-
plish substantially
• Is a driving force behind major
initiatives
• Holds strong professional beliefs

about schools, teaching, and
learning
Ideals/beliefs: communicates and operates from strong ideals • Shares beliefs about schools,
and beliefs about schooling teaching, and learning with the
staff
• Demonstrates behaviors that are
consistent with beliefs
• Monitors and evaluates the ef-

Monitors/evaluates: monitors the effectiveness of school
fectiveness of curriculum, in-
practices and their impact on student learning
struction, and assessment

Page 11 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
• Is comfortable with major

changes in how things are done
• Encourages people to express
opinions contrary to those with
Flexibility: adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs
authority
of the current situation and is comfortable with dissent
• Adapts leadership style to needs
of specific situations
• Can be directive or nondirective
as the situation warrants
• Is aware of informal groups and

relationships among staff of the
school
Situational awareness: is aware of the details and undercur-
• Is aware of issues in the school
rents in the running of the school and uses this information to
that have not surfaced but could
address current and potential problems
create discord
• Can predict what could go wrong
from day to day
• Keeps informed about current

research and theory regarding
effective schooling
• Continually exposes the staff to
cutting-edge ideas about how to
Intellectual stimulation: ensures faculty and staff are aware
be effective
of the most current theories and practices and makes the dis-
• Systematically engages staff in
cussion of these a regular aspect of the school's culture
discussions about current re-
search and theory
• Continually involves the staff in
reading articles and books about
effective practices
• The third finding, again statistically significant, found that not all principals perceived as strong by
their teachers have a positive impact on student achievement. With many possible explanations for
this finding, the McREL research team emerged with two plausible reasons:
• 1. The effect of strong leadership could be mitigated if a principal is focused on
school and classroom practices and activities that are not likely to impact student
achievement.
• 2. The misperception of the principal on the degree or magnitude of change that is
needed to accomplish a successful change implementation. This implies that
when principals are focusing on the “right” classroom and school practices, they
Page 12 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
must also understand the implications these changes have for faculty and adjust
their leadership behaviors accordingly.
Principals who fail to understand proper teaching techniques and strategies and only focus on management
issues within their buildings may be perceived to be strong building managers but less-than-productive edu-
cational leaders when student achievement is assessed.
As a result, the best-laid plans can have a minimal and even detrimental impact on student performance.
McREL refers to this as the differential impact of leadership.
Teacher Leaders
The certified staffs in every school system are leaders by the fact of the work they do in schools. Some of
their work in leadership is in the formal sense of their positions, but much of what a teacher does is also in-
formal. Whatever role they play, teachers' leadership influences the educational process and works toward
achieving the goal(s) of the school district. That is why it is so critical to provide internships and in-service to
aspiring building-level leaders as noted in ELCC Standard #7. Teacher leaders influence the school system
beyond their classroom presence by serving on both building- and system-wide committees. Their active role
in professional organizations on the local, state, or national levels is another example of their enthusiasm to
improve themselves professionally.

Teachers have skills that are indicative of leadership. Teacher leaders have the ability to be instruc-
tional leaders. Develop them.
Teachers are leaders and are valuable resources in any school system. In the classroom, they provide and
guide instruction and manage classroom environment, as well as collaborate with other teachers, parents,
and administrators. Many times, the teachers who have the most success in the classroom and show positive
initiative are encouraged to provide their skill, knowledge, and expertise to other members of the building or to
the larger system in general. In this light, teachers accept the task of continuing their own classroom teaching
responsibilities and are encouraged to accept other or additional responsibilities within the building or district.
These responsibilities include but are not limited to instructional coordinator, lead teacher, and department or
area chairperson. Some teachers are asked to leave the classroom and accept administrative positions.

Page 13 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
School systems in the 21st century have recognized that teachers are leaders in their school systems without
having to opt out of the classroom full time. Effective school systems have developed the leadership skills of
teachers within their own systems. This has been accomplished by the support of the educational system to
recognize the enhanced roles of the teacher and to provide support for the development of the roles.
One very significant role that teacher leaders can have an important impact on is the change process. Sys-
temic change at any level of the educational organization will have both a positive and negative impact if
handled poorly. For an educational system to transform, there must be modification in thinking and action at
all levels. Teacher leadership and acceptance of change at the building level will have the most influence and
impact on a child's education.
Teacher leaders are a source of valid information within a school or district. Teacher leaders understand the
communication networks and the dissemination of information to both the internal and external communities.
Teacher leaders understand the patterns of communication and the culture of the school. In addition, teach-
ers know how to communicate within the context of the school. With regard to the most practical matters,
planning realistic and grounded information provided through teacher leaders will be invaluable for progress
in schools interested in school improvement.
Exhibit 8.2 Teacher Leader Roles and Skills

Teacher Leadership
Range of Skills
Roles
Instructional lead Curriculum development, peer coaching, professional development, decision
teacher making, risk taking
Curriculum development, peer coaching, mentoring, professional development,
Department chair
decision making, risk taking
Committee chair Collaboration, shared decision making, risk taking
Peer coaching, reflection, inquiry, problem solving and problem posing, conflict
Mentor
resolution, risk taking
Teacher/principal selec- Decision making, problem solving, conflict resolution, cooperation, risk taking,
tion committee group processing
Mentoring, cooperation, peer coaching, reflection, inquiry, problem solving and
Peer coach
problem posing, conflict resolution, risk taking
Grade-level leader/or
Curriculum development, peer coaching, mentoring, professional development,
subject-area coordina-
decision making, risk taking, action research (data collection and analysis)
tor
Local school council
Decision making, risk taking
member
Page 14 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
School improvement
Action research (data collection, analysis), decision making, risk taking
team member
District-level committee
Collaboration, shared decision making, risk taking
work
After-school child-care
coordinator
Club moderator/spon-
sor
Coach Collaboration, shared decision making, risk taking
Liaison to the larger
Communication
school community
Schools need teacher leaders, and teacher leaders are present in schools today, from the novice to the most
seasoned veteran. The opportunity to lead is a fundamental right and responsibility of everyone who enters
the teaching profession. Without the avenues for teacher leadership, a school system is running the risk of
losing a very valuable resource for improving student achievement.
Systemic External Environment
Parents
The evidence is consistent, positive, and convincing: Families have a major influence on their children's
achievement in school and through life. When schools, families, and community groups work together to sup-
port learning, children tend to do better and stay longer in school. Many studies (Catsambis, 1998; Epstein,
Simon, & Salinas (1997); Gutman & Midgley, 2000; Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000; Shumow & Miller, 2001)
have found that students with involved parents, no matter what their income or background, were more likely
to attain higher grades and test scores and enroll in higher-level programs. In addition, students pass their
classes, earn credits, and graduate. The studies also found that students would attend school regularly, have
better social skills, show improved behavior, and adapt well to school. Finally, where there was family involve-
ment, students were more likely to graduate and go on to postsecondary education.

Students whose families are involved in their learning earn better grades, enroll in higher-level pro-

Page 15 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
grams, and are more likely to graduate.
Several studies (Mapp, 2002; Peña, 2000; Sanders, Epstein, & Connors-Tadros, 1999; Starkey & Klein, 2000)
found that families of all income and education levels and from all ethnic and cultural groups were engaged
in supporting their children's learning at home.
White, middle-class families, however, tend to be more involved at school. Supporting more involvement at
school from all parents may be an important strategy for addressing the achievement gap.

When working together, families, schools, and communities can successfully make a difference to im-
prove student achievement.
Upon reviewing the research conducted on parent involvement, it is clear that there is a positive and convinc-
ing relationship between family involvement and benefits for students, including improved academic achieve-
ment. This relationship holds across families of all economic, racial/ethnic, and educational backgrounds and
for all students at all ages. The research identifies two key findings regarding parent engagement that support
student learning:
• Respect two-way communication, which engages parents as partners in their child's learning and
has an impact on student achievement.
• Programs and interventions that engage families in supporting their children's learning at home are
linked to higher education.
Community
In a growing number of districts across the country, community groups are organizing a power base of parents
and residents in low-income communities. In addition, related constituency-building efforts are engaging the
larger community, including business leaders and public officials, to build public support for changes in edu-
Page 16 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
cation policy as noted in ELCC Standard #4. The goal of these efforts is to improve outcomes for all students
through increased funding and educational resources.
In low-income urban and rural areas, many schools are underfunded, overcrowded, and poor performing.
Schools in these districts are more likely to have crumbling facilities, noncertified teachers, and out-of-date
textbooks and learning materials. Students attending these schools are shortchanged.
Across the country, community-organizing groups have begun to address these issues. Of the 66 groups sur-
veyed by the Institute for Education and Social Policy at New York University (Mediratta, Fruchter, & Lewis,
2002), 50 have begun organizing since 1994. A related and growing field of work is constituency building for
school reform. Jacobs and Hirota (2002) defined constituency building as organizing and engaging people
with a stake in public education. This work uses a variety of approaches, including mobilizing organizations,
holding public debate and discussion, and organizing parents and community members.

Meaningful community–school partnerships result in upgraded school facilities and improved school
leadership and staffing, which provide higher-quality learning programs for students.
While community organizing around poor schools is not new, this recent round of activity has important differ-
ences from the past. During the 1960s, African American and Latino communities began wide-scale mobiliza-
tion in response to chronically failing schools. One memorable result was the demand for community control
in cities throughout the country—notably New York City, Detroit, and Chicago. While the anger and frustration
are similar, what is different is who is doing the organizing.
The mobilizations of the 1960s and 1970s were ad hoc and community-wide, often citywide, and part of the
grassroots civil rights movement. The organizers were usually National Center for Family & Community Con-
nections with Schools, not trying to build a permanent base or work intensively one school at a time. The
more recent wave of organizing is by neighborhood-based community organizations. Many are established
groups that had previously focused on housing, economic development, and youth service. Now they are
turning their attention to school improvement.
School districts are contacting local community groups and asking them for help. Local community groups can
do outreach with families to let them know what is happening at school and encourage them to attend events
and activities. These groups can help press the district for more resources to accomplish the district goal to
support student learning. School districts are using this resource to recruit and train volunteers to assist staff
in school and for after-school programs.

Page 17 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
Other programs that community groups are becoming involved with are summer learning programs that are
linked to the school's curriculum. By having these types of programs, the staff can become aware of the stu-
dents' academic skills as well as provide information concerning what skills need to be developed over the
course of the summer. With this cooperative effort, the district can share curriculum materials, go over the
performance data, and establish a partnership to monitor student progress.
Putting it All Together

Within the 21st century, dramatic shifts emerged in the management of schools and educational systems
compared with those at the end of the last century. These changes began with family structures and the use
(and misuse) of information and communication technologies. In this new environment, schools have a bigger
job to do. As a result, there is a need to redefine and broaden the principal's role and responsibilities. This
means the way school leadership is developed and supported is based on a community shared vision, as not-
ed in ELCC Standard #1. It implies strengthening the training and development approaches to help leaders
face these new roles. For schools to improve student achievement and become world-class schools, school
leaders at all levels must become system leaders.
School board governance is far more difficult than it once was. The stakes are higher and the degree of free-
dom for making decisions to attain district goals is more restricted. State and federal regulations have eaten
into school board authority, and state governments have become more and more directive. Board members
and superintendents are often unclear about the role of the local board for addressing issues related to stu-
dent learning, and board members are often viewed as ill prepared for fulfilling their roles. Board members
are elected or appointed and move into their roles without sufficient training to build understanding of effective
school governance, especially as it relates to improving student achievement. However, there are increas-
ing indicators that local citizens expect their elected officials to be adequately trained and supported. Eighty
percent of the participants in a recent survey of Michigan voters indicated a strong belief that it is necessary
for board members to receive training, once they are elected, in order to fulfill their responsibilities under the
law. Nonetheless, in that same state, only 24% of the active school board members had received at least 30
hours of training—a minimum standard of training necessary for acquiring a complex new skill. As Mary Dela-
gardelle, director of the Iowa School Boards Foundation (personal communication, June 30, 2011) indicated,
school board members and superintendents must be extremely knowledgeable about the roles and respon-
sibilities of the board/superintendent team and must have access to high-quality, research-based training in
order to develop their knowledge and skills (interview with Dr. Mary Delagardelle, Director of the Iowa School
Board Foundation, Lighthouse Research Team, June, 2011).

While most educational leaders and staff understand the importance of engaging families and commu-
nities to support school improvement efforts, too often, beliefs, attitudes, and fears inhibit the ability of
families and schools to join together to support children's learning.

Page 18 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
According to Land (2002), raising student achievement is the most important challenge facing local districts
and local school boards today. Numerous reports over the past two decades have presented a portrait of an
educational system in trouble. These reports point to a perceived failure of the education system to adequate-
ly develop or improve even the most basic of academic skills. In addition, the reports frequently call attention
to subsequent public problems such as an increasing number of adults who cannot read, deteriorating public
school standards, and increasing numbers of single-parent families. Increasing numbers of children live in
poverty, graduates lack skills necessary for the 21st-century economy, increasing numbers of children come
to school hungry, and relations between teachers, administrators, and school boards have become disrupted.
It seems impossible to think that any single agency can resolve all of these problems. However, school district
leaders and the public schools are being asked to resolve these problems as they pertain to students.
A systemic educational leadership model being proposed has the potential of aligning all of the previous sys-
tem internal and external components into one systemic change initiative. World-class educational institutions
have one component in common, a system that has many responsibilities that are clear priorities for the de-
velopment of the system. McREL's meta-analysis on district-level leadership has outlined these foundational
parts as a guide for understanding the system that needs to be in place. These responsibilities are as follows:
• Collaborative goal-setting process

• Nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction
• Board alignment with the support of district goals
• Use of resources to support the goals for achievement and instruction
• Monitoring goals for achievement and instruction
• Defined autonomy: superintendent relationship with schools
For an in-depth review of these responsibilities, please read District Leadership That Works by Marzano and
Waters (2009).

Before we can build strong and effective internal and external partnerships, we have to believe not
only that it is important but also that it can be done and we can do it. It is necessary for all parts of the
system to hold a set of positive beliefs about improving student achievement.
In the alignment process, a key component is the board of education or that appointed or elected body of lay
Page 19 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
individuals that is responsible for the accountability and welfare of the educational organization. Historically
speaking, these types of administrative boards have been concerned with financial and management issues
of the system and have left the accountability of the education to the central office and/or building-level ad-
ministrators.
Some school board experts support experimentation with school board and educational governance reforms
while others decry it; and some call for thoughtful consideration of and dialogue regarding reform options.
Few, however, demand additional research on school board effectiveness generally or within the context of
specific reforms (Carol et al., 1986; Danzberger, Kirst, & Usdan, 1992, 1993; Harrington-Lueker, 1996; Moore,
2004; Resnick, 1999; Shanker, 1989; Twentieth Century Fund, 1992). School board proponents have argued
that effective school boards focus on students' academic achievement and policy rather than administration.
Yet the idea that school boards may be critical, not only indirectly, for ensuring students' academic success
has begun gaining momentum. Evidence of this shift can be seen in the efforts of school board and education-
al governance organizations to focus school boards directly on students' academic achievement rather than
budgeting, the superintendent, the community, or other more traditional foci. Researchers have just begun
to present evidence of an association between school boards and students' academic achievement (Good-
man & Zimmerman, 2000; IASB, 2000; McAdams, 2000). A solid, rigorous, multimethod body of research
that clearly identifies key characteristics of effective school boards and clearly links these characteristics to
students' academic achievement may be essential for school boards' survival. Furthermore, it may slow or
reverse states' and others' increasing involvement in local education and enable boards to resume greater
control over local educational governance.
In this world-class systemic approach to increasing student achievement, the superintendent—or what is be-
coming a more common title of chief executive officer (CEO)—of the organization is becoming a critical leader
in the student achievement process. It is understood that even in the smallest educational organizations, it is
becoming a complicated organizational structure to manage and direct. The expectations of the position have
changed, and more accountability from this central office position should be expected.
The superintendent (CEO) is now a system instructional leader in addition to managing the organization and
making sure that it is running smoothly as well as maintaining public relations with both the internal and ex-
ternal constituencies. For an individual to be successful, a system with a goal-setting process needs to be
developed and implemented. The six areas of responsibilities are an excellent guide for giving direction to the
superintendent.
In the development of this systemic leadership process, the superintendent cannot and should not be the only
administrator in this systemic process. The superintendent along with other central office staff or district per-
sonnel should provide a team approach as a foundation for the system.

Page 20 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
The superintendent has a huge responsibility for the implementation of this systemic leadership process. This,
for many districts, will be a significant departure from practices of the past and a tremendous change for future
direction. As for change, the superintendent must also be cognizant of the change process and be sensitive
to individuals that will be involved with the change leadership initiative. The McREL meta-analysis of building-
level (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005) and district-level leadership (Marzano & Waters, 2009) research
has identified key components for individuals to review and adopt as they look at a change process.
The board of education, along with building-level administrators, must have extensive professional develop-
ment in understanding its role in systemic leadership. The superintendent, again, is the key to this profes-
sional development. The superintendent (CEO) becomes the developer of the board in providing the vision
and understanding of its role in improving student achievement. A vision needs to be developed with a sense
of urgency to move the initiative of improving student achievement along with deep implementation. In this
systemic leadership initiative, the board must understand its role in student achievement and holding the dis-
trict employees accountable for providing data and evidence that students are meeting the goals that are set
by the board, administration, and staff. Remember that systemic leadership is a team process and not a top-
down administrative process.
The other part of professional development by the superintendent/central office staff will take place at the
building level. The superintendent/central office staff (depending on district size and organizational structure)
will provide research, material, and data to support building-level administrators to understand the district
goals for improved student achievement. This process is identified as defined autonomy: superintendent/cen-
tral office relationship with schools in the district (Marzano & Waters, 2009; McREL, 2009).
Defined autonomy is the superintendent's and/or central office's role of showing instructional leadership with
each building-level principal in the district. Along with this expanded instructional role, central administration
has the responsibility to provide the necessary resources to support the goals for improving instruction. The
central office, that is the superintendent and other district-level personnel, has the responsibility to monitor
the adopted goals for achievement and instruction and make the necessary revisions when the data and ev-
idence show the lack of achievement of the goals. This process provides pressure and accountability on the
central administration to maintain an active part in what is happening at the local building level.
Once building-level administrators understand the vision and goals adopted by the board and developed by
a team of leaders in the district, they should be set to provide the leadership within their building. Again, pro-
fessional development provided will include the necessary district resources for successful implementation.
Building-level administrators must be concerned with the change process of moving from a familiar system
to one that will have more accountability. An understanding of managing a change process will have a direct
effect on the acceptance of the systemic leadership change initiative.

Page 21 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
Overall Vision and Keys

As all of the pieces of this leadership initiative come together, the overall view of the system would consist of
the board of education setting the vision and goals for improving student achievement. This is a significant
change from present practice for many boards of education in this country. However, when a board accepts
this responsibility, it will have taken an enormous step in providing needed leadership for the school district.
The district leadership team (superintendent, central office/personnel staff) provides the needed data and in-
formation for the board to reach agreement on vision and goals. The board develops a continuous monitoring
of the district and building data to provide evidence of successfully achieving district goals.
As the superintendent works with the board of education on collecting and analyzing student achievement
data, the superintendent also has the responsibility to show direction and leadership to central office per-
sonnel/building leaders. As this systemic change takes place, defined autonomy becomes a very important
part of successful curricular vision and goals for adoption and implementation. The superintendent/central of-
fice personnel must hold building-level administrators accountable for what is happening at the building level.
Again, monitoring data and having evidence of achieving district student achievement goals on a regular and
continuous basis is critical for achieving improved student achievement status. The superintendent/central
office develops a monitoring process through which the superintendent/central office meets on a scheduled
basis with each building principal to discuss collected data and dialogue on the building's student achieve-
ment goals.
The building principal has the obligation to provide the teaching staff with the needed balance of direction and
support to accomplish the student achievement goals. The assistance of the superintendent/central office will
aid the principal in setting direction for the building. The principal, as the building instructional leader, is the
key individual to provide the vision and direction for staff in helping them develop ownership in the improved
student achievement initiative(s) that they will be undertaking for the school year. The building principal, with
the support of the superintendent/central office, connects the vision of the improved student achievement ini-
tiative(s) to the action steps at the local building level.
Along with providing the necessary technical and resource support for professional development and imple-
mentation, the principal must also be concerned with the focus of leadership and the magnitude of change
that this student achievement initiative will create. McREL (2009) presents the Balanced Leadership Frame-
work®, which provides conceptual support for this systemic process. Principals should review this framework
to get a better understanding of their role in developing themselves as instructional leaders as well as un-
derstanding and implementing a change process for providing improved student achievement results in their
buildings.

When teachers feel they have a voice in matters that affect them, they will have a greater commitment
to the overall organization and will take greater responsibility for what happens to it.
A principal's focus on improved student achievement at the building level will have far-reaching impact on
Page 22 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
the staff in their understanding of the initiative and goals. One of the keys of understanding for the principal
is to have a vision of improving student achievement based on current research. The vision should be con-
crete in nature and not “I think this is the direction we need to go.” There is a wealth of research (Elmore,
2000, 2003; Marzano, 2000, 2003; Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock 2001; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005;
Schmoker, 1996; Waters & Cameron, 2006; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003) concerning improvement of
student achievement to provide district- and building-level administrators a vision for improvement. The prin-
cipal who focuses with a clear vision for improving student achievement will be able to provide the needed
direction for faculty and staff who may not be enlightened with improvement initiatives that the district is un-
dertaking. Focusing on the right things will also provide confidence to the faculty and staff, especially when
supported by data and research to provide evidence that the district and buildings are on the right track for
assisting students to perform better academically.
Another key understanding for building-level administrators is being able to comprehend the magnitude of
change occurring for most, if not all, of the faculty. The McREL research (Marzano et al., 2005; Marzano &
Waters, 2009) has provided skill and practices necessary for both the district- and building-level administra-
tors to become successful. The building administrator who miscalculates the magnitude of change with fac-
ulty and staff will have created a major roadblock to achieving the desired result for improvement of student
academic achievement. When faculty and staff do not understand the change initiative and cannot envision
the result, the successful achievement of the goal becomes difficult if not impossible to obtain. Faculty are
expected to implement the practices and skills desired for improved teaching and student achievement and
need the direct support of the administration as well as transparency in understanding expectations and end
results desired. Principals must have a relationship with the faculty that provides evidence of the faculty's
acceptance or nonacceptance of the change initiative. To avoid the misperception of the effectiveness of the
principal by the faculty, which Waters and Cameron (2007, pp. 42–43) identified as the “differential impact of
leadership,” the principal must understand and accurately address the magnitude of change that will impact
the majority of stakeholders.
Furthermore, principals must identify ways and develop strategies to deal with four responsibilities that neg-
atively correlated to change initiatives that had a significant impact on those implementing the change or
affected by it. These negatively correlated responsibilities include culture, communication, order, and input
(Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005, p. 73). The principal needs to be aware of the faculty (team) when initi-
ating change as well as using common language in an effort to establish a spirit of cooperation (culture). Be-
cause of perceived deteriorated communication (s/he does not hear what members of the faculty are saying
because the district is not moving in the right direction), the principal is accused of not communicating prop-
erly or enough. The third negatively correlated responsibility of the principal is that the routine or order of past
occurrences is now changed because of the change initiative. The fourth negatively correlated responsibility
is the perception of the result of accepted input that staff has given in relation to the new change initiative (the
decisions of the principal have not been impacted by the faculty's input).
Research by Waters and Cameron (2007, pp. 42–43) interpreted the negative correlation of these four re-
sponsibilities to mean they are extremely difficult, even impossible, for principals by themselves to successful-
ly impact. A third party or group, working with the principal, who has credibility with the affected faculty, must
Page 23 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
intervene and provide support and evidence that the change innovation will be in the best interest of both
faculty and students. When trust is developed and ownership of the change initiative is in place, achievement
of the goal is more likely to be successful.
The final key to understanding systemic leadership for improved student achievement is the relationship of
parents and community and the impact that each of those groups brings to the change process. McREL
(2009) presents the concept of “purposeful community” as:
• Purpose and outcomes

• Agreed-upon processes
• Collective efficacy
• Available assets
The authors are proposing that purposeful community be applied to both the internal and external communi-
ties that serve student needs. The research (Iowa Association of School Boards Foundation Research Team,
2001, 2007; McREL, 2005, 2009) is clear concerning the impact faculty and staff, as well as parents, com-
munity groups, and agencies that serve the school district, can have on a child's education. For many school
districts, the concept of purposeful communities, which includes both the internal and external environments,
has not been well coordinated to provide a well-developed educational process to help students achieve at a
higher level.
McREL's Balanced Leadership Framework in relation to the internal and external communities in order to
present a systemic leadership model is displayed in Figure 8.1. The board of education is responsible for
the oversight of the systemic leadership model with the responsibility of policy development of the organiza-
tion. The board of education is the all-encompassing component of the systemic leadership model for student
achievement, as it is the policy making body of the organization. The board of education is ultimately respon-
sible for setting the direction and goals of the organization and is accountable for the organization reaching all
goals, including improving student achievement. Only with an organized and systemic leadership model with
deep implementation and regular monitoring with required data analysis and evidence will a school district
improve student success in the classroom and beyond.
Figure 8.1 McREL Balanced Leadership Framework, in Relation to Internal and

External Environments

Page 24 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
High-Reliability Organizations (HROs)

In this global society, schools will be challenged to prevent practically all failures and to close the achievement
gap that presently exists among many student groups. Schools are commissioned to provide and ensure high
reliability for the learning of all students. The public expects schools to adjust their operations to prevent fail-
ure and provide the skills necessary for students to be successful and compete in a global society. High-reli-
ability organizations (HROs) are concerned about containment of the errors before they cascade into failure
(Weick, Sutcliff, & Obstfeld, 1999).
In the systemic leadership model for improving student achievement, the system must demonstrate higher

Page 25 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
reliability in its operations. Bellamy, Crawford, Marshall, & Coulter, (2005) have identified three important as-
pects to organizations becoming HROs: An organization must have clear goals and constant monitoring of the
extent to which goals are being met, an understanding of the necessary conditions under which these goals
are met, and, finally, immediate corrective action when goals are not being met. This third element places a
significant responsibility on both building and district leadership to take action immediately when the data and
evidence indicate that goals are not being met. High-reliability school districts do not wait until the next plan-
ning process to make the necessary adjustments to the system. The organization's belief is that the children
of the district cannot wait, but change needs to take place now.

No blame, no shame, no excuses! The system/building reacts immediately for corrective action.
When both the internal and external environments accept their roles in the improvement process and become
highly consistent at working within the partnership, the system can become a truly high-performing organiza-
tion. Only when this change happens will students see results that will provide them with the necessary skills
to function in a global society of the 21st century.
Summary
Systemic leadership is the process of identification of the parts of the organization and understanding the
contribution of these parts to the overall goal of the organization. Developing the partnerships, both internally
and externally, to create an environment that will produce the desired results is the main work of the system.
Individuals and groups that belong to the organization must feel valued and trusted to provide the needed
resources to impact a child's education. The system working in a holistic fashion, being accountable for mon-
itoring and feedback, will provide the organization with a highly reliable framework. This will enable the end
product (students) to achieve academically and be ready to further themselves in areas to which their adult
lives will taken them, whether that be with further education or into the world of work. The systemic leadership
model for education has the potential to bring people and communities together to serve children in a mean-
ingful and productive way. Strength comes from unification and confidence. Systemic leadership on the part
of the board of education, superintendent/central office, building administrators, teacher leaders, parents, and
community leaders will provide a framework and foundation for advancing the academic achievement of what
transpires within the school walls and classrooms of the children of the 21st century.
Applications
1. In the school district about which you are the most knowledgeable, discuss the challenges
that exist in moving (a) the board of education to their role of improving student achieve-
ment and (b) the superintendent/central office in their role of systemic leadership for stu-
dent achievement.
Page 26 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
2. In the school district you know best, what are the barriers for creating change and moving
to a systemic leadership model?
3. As you think about McREL's 21 principal leadership responsibilities and 66 practices,
what surprises you about the leadership responsibilities and practices? What questions
do the responsibilities and practices rise for you? Share your thoughts with another per-
son or group.
4. Reflect individually and with your group on the question, “Why do leaders who are per-
ceived as strong not always have a positive effect on student achievement?”
5. Individually and as a group, develop strategies that you would use as a principal to
counter the effects of the four negatively correlated responsibilities that surfaced in the
McREL school-level leadership meta-analysis research.
6. In the school district that you are familiar with, identify the role, practices, and skills that
teacher leaders could provide to assist the building administrator in accomplishing the
district goal of improving student achievement.
7. In schematic form, design an organizational chart that would show the critical areas (in-
ternal and external) that would provide a starting point for discussing systemic leadership
for improving student achievement.
Case Study: Stars and Stripes Forever
Players
Dr. Elizabeth Wescott, superintendent, Cornwall School District
Michael McCarty, principal, Oak Creek High School
Setting
Superintendent's office, Cornwall School District
Scenario
Michael McCarty is a new principal at Oak Creek High School, which is a part of the Cornwall School District.
Cornwall is a relatively large district with a student population of 10,921 students and a community population
of 137,000. People in this up-and-coming suburban area of Virginia are concerned about what is happening
nationally and internationally as it affects the education of their students. With this in mind, parents, teach-
ers, community leaders, and students continue to be engaged in a deep dialogue over what students really
need to know and be able to do in order to function in and improve upon society from a global perspective.
Because of recommended national common core standards, an increasing number of community members
are expecting administrators and teachers to provide content that will ensure alignment and adherence to the
standards and curriculum.
To address these issues, Cornwell School District's central administration is proactively seeking building-level
leaders to assist them in developing a change model. This change would consist of moving from a traditional
leadership initiative to a systemic leadership model. It is for this reason that Principal McCarty has asked to
meet with Superintendent Dr. Elizabeth Wescott.

Page 27 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
“I appreciate you taking the time to meet with me,” says McCarty, locating a chair in Wescott's spacious but
somewhat cluttered. office. A small sign with the words “Stars and Stripes Forever” hangs on an adjacent
wall. “Actually, I'm curious as to what are your expectations of me as Oak Creek's new principal,” inquires the
youngish looking man.
Dr. Wescott, a silver-haired woman in her late 50s, pours some coffee. “Well, that's what I want to talk to you
about,” she shares, handing him a steaming hot cup. “Cream or sugar?” she asks.
“No, black is fine,” he answers nervously, still concerned about what is expected of him as a new building
principal.
The superintendent moves some papers and then settles into a padded leather chair behind a large ma-
hogany desk. “Actually, Mr. McCarty, I'll get to the point,” she states, in a no-nonsense tone. “I'm curious as to
how you plan to improve student achievement at Oak Creek. In a nutshell, what I really need to know is how
you plan to change the current instructional model into one of systemic leadership?”
McCarty swallows hard, knowing this is a tough question. He himself is worried about the political realities of
his new position. For example, he is not sure what concerns parents and community members have about
the school. Moreover, he's not sure to what extent they are willing to become involved. Nor is he certain how
he will handle faculty and staff who might oppose central administration's desire for change.
The Challenge
The Cornwall School District central administration, being proactive, seeks building-level leaders to assist
them in developing a change model from a very traditional leadership initiative to a systemic leadership mod-
el. If you were high school Principal Michael McCarty, what important aspects of the change process would
you emphasize as this new model is developed? How would you implement a new change model in your
building? Moreover, what would you do when some faculty and staff opposed the new model? And how would
you react to a new process that is implemented by central administration?
Key Issues/Questions
1. What are the key issues facing high school Principal McCarty in the Cornwall School Dis-
trict?
2. What are the needs at the building level that the district team will need to know as the
leadership model is developed?
3. What concerns, if any, do you have with parents and community leaders becoming in-
volved with developing a partnership of systemic leadership for student achievement?
4. What will be the role of the various groups and/or people involved?
5. Identify any or all of the political realities that could be played out in the development of
such a leadership model. How can the administrative team build a solid political base to
support the implementation of the new systems approach to improving student achieve-
ment?
6. What ideas do you have for impacting or changing the current instructional model to one
of systemic leadership?
7. Due to the magnitude of change that this new leadership model will create, what strate-
gies will you provide the administrative team in defusing the four negatively correlated
responsibilities that were identified in the McREL change research?
Page 28 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
Webliography
A New Wave of Evidence
• www.sedl.org
Beyond the Bake Sale: the Essential Guide to Family–School Partnerships
• http://thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_title&task=view_title&metaproductid=1296
Center for Teacher Leadership
• www.ctl.vcu.edu/
Educational Research for Principals and Superintendents
• www.wallacefoundation.org
Harvard Family Research Project
• www.hfrp.org
Iowa School Boards Foundation
• http://www.schoolboardresearch.org/section/projects_services/lighthouse
Macomb ISD Teacher Leader Model
• www.macombtl.com/
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL)
• www.mcrel.org
National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education
• www.ncpie.org
The James B. Hunt, Jr. Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy
• www.hunt-institute.org/
The Leadership and Learning Center
• www.leadandlearn.com/
Note: Some Web resources are time and date sensitive and may become inactive at any time.
References
Barber M., & Mourshed M. (2007). How the world's best performing school systems come out on top. Toronto,
CA: McKinsey & Company.
Bellamy G., Crawford L., Marshall L., & Coulter G. (2005). The fail-safe schools challenge: Leadership possi-
bilities for high-reliability organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 383–412.
Page 29 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
Capra F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Doubleday.
Carol L., Cunningham L., Danzberger J., Kirst M., McCloud B., & Usdan M. (1986). School boards: Strength-
ening grass roots leadership. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Catsambis S. (1998). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in secondary education—Effects on high
school academic success (CRESPAR Report 27). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. ED426174. Re-
trieved from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report27.pdf
Danzberger J., Kirst M., & Usdan M. (1992). Governing public schools: New times, new requirements. Wash-
ington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Danzberger J., Kirst M., & Usdan M. (1993). A framework for redefining the role and responsibilities of local
school boards. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Danzberger J. (1994). Governing the nation's schools: The case for restructuring local school boards. Phi
Delta Kappan, 75(5), 367–373.
Elmore R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore R. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and performance-based accountability.
Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.
Epstein J., Clark L., Salinas K., & Sanders M. (1997). Scaling up school family connections in Baltimore: Ef-
fects on student achievement and attendance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Edu-
cational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Epstein J. L., Simon B. S., & Salinas K. C. (1997). Involving parents in homework in the middle grades. Re-
search Bulletin, 18. http://www.pdkintl.org/edres/resbul18.htm
Goodman R. H., Fulbright L., & Zimmerman W. G. (1997). Getting there from here: School board–superinten-
dent collaboration creating a school governance team capable of raising student achievement. Arlington, VA:
Educational Research Service and New England School Development Council.
Goodman R. H., & Zimmerman W. G. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for 21st century school
board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high student achievement. Arlington, VA:
Educational Research Service.
Gutman L. M., & Midgley C. (2000). The role of protective factors in supporting the academic achievement of
poor African American students during the middle school transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(2),
223–248.
Harrington-Lueker D. (1996). School boards at bay. American School Board Journal, 183(5), 18–22.
Iowa Association of School Boards Foundation. Lighthouse research studies 1, 2 and the past, present and
future summary. Retrieved from http://www.schoolboardresearch.org/section/projects_services/lighthouse
Iowa Association of School Boards Foundation. (2001). IASB Lighthouse inquiry: The technical research
report of IASB's Lighthouse Study. Retrieved from http://www.ia-sb.org/student-achievement.as-
px?id=436&terms=lighthouse+research&rawsearchtype=1&fragment=false&SearchType=AndWords
Jacobs L., & Hirota J. (2002). Constituency building for public school reform. New York and Chicago: Acade-
my for Educational Development and Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.
Jordan G. E., Snow C. E., & Porche M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy project on
kindergarten students' early literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 524–546. EJ616175.
Land D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to students' acad-
emic achievement. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED462512.pdf
Mapp K.L. (2002). Having their say: Parents describe how and why they are involved in their children's ed-
ucation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Marzano R. (2000). A new era of school reform: Going where the research takes us. Aurora, CO: Mid-con-
tinent Research for Education and Learning. Free download available from www.McREL.org/topics/product-
Detail.asp?productID=81
Marzano R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano R., Pickering D., & Pollock J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies
for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
ment.
Marzano R., Waters T., & McNulty B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexan-
Page 30 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano R., & Waters T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
McAdams D.R. (2000). Fighting to save our urban schools … and winning: Lessons from Houston. New York:
Teachers College Press.
McKinsey Report. (2007). How the world's best-performing school systems come out on top. http://www.mck-
insey.com/App_Media/Reports/SSO/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf
McREL Student Manual. (2005). Balanced leadership framework: An overview. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.
McREL Student Manual. (2005). Developing a purposeful community. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research
for Education and Learning.
McREL Student Manual. (2009). Purposeful community and district level leadership (2008). Aurora, CO: Au-
thor.
McREL Student Manual. (2009). Balanced leadership: District-level leadership. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Mediratta K., Fruchter N., & Lewis A. C. (2002). Organizing for school reform: How communities are finding
their voice and reclaiming their public schools. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York
University. [This publication is a summary version of Mediratta & Fruchter, 2001.]
Moore S.K. (2004). Sources of social capital in community engagement efforts. Retrieved from http://digital-
case.case.edu:9000/fedora/get/ksl:weaedm307/weaedm307.pdf
Peña D. C. (2000). Parent involvement: Influencing factors and implications. Journal of Educational Research,
94(1), 42–54. EJ615791.
Reeves D. (2004). Assessing educational leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Reeves D. (2007). Iowa Department of Education Leadership and Learning: Superintendent evaluator train-
ing. Des Moines, IA: Hy-Vee Events Center. DVD produced during training session.
Resnick M. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today's practice and tomorrow's promise. Denver,
CO: Education Commission of the States.
Sanders M. G., Epstein J. L., & Connors-Tadros L. (1999). Family partnerships with high schools: The parents'
perspective (CRESPAR Report 32). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. ED428148. Retrieved from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/reports.htm
Schmoker M. (1996). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Senge P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Shanker A. (1989). Al Shanker (of all people) wants a hard look at what's befallen school boards. American
School Board Journal, 176(3), 29–30.
Shumow L., & Miller J. D. (2001). Parents' at-home and at-school academic involvement with young adoles-
cents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 68–91. EJ628426.
Starkey P., & Klein A. (2000). Fostering parental support for children's mathematical development: An inter-
vention with Head Start families. Early Education and Development, 11(5), 659–680. EJ618579.
Twentieth Century Fund/Danforth Foundation. (1992). Facing the challenge: The report of the Twentieth Cen-
tury Fund task force on school governance. New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press.
Waters T., & Cameron G. (2007). The Balanced Leadership Framework®: Connecting vision with action. Den-
ver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Waters T., Marzano R., & McNulty B. (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about
the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning. Retrieved from www.mcrel.org/topics/productDetail.asp?productID=144
Weick K., Sutcliffe K., & Obstfeld D. (1999). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindful-
ness. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 81–121.
• districting
• student leadership
Page 31 of 32
SAGE SAGE Books
• district schools
• boarding schools
• boards of education
• instructional leadership
• achievement
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544308609.n8

Page 32 of 32

The Principal: Leadership For A Global Society

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Principal: Leadership For A Global Society

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Principal: Leadership for a Global Society

Developing Systemic Leadership

Contributors: By: Bruce M. Whitehead, Floyd Boschee & Robert H. Decker

Developing Systemic Leadership

Questions Addressed in this Chapter Include the following

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

Tip for Principals: 8.1

Tip for Principals: 8.2

Systemic Internal Environment

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

Tip for Principals: 8.3

• Ensuring collaborative goal-setting

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

Central Office Personnel

Tip for Principals: 8.4

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

Exhibit 8.1 McREL's Principal Leadership Responsibilities

• Promotes cooperation among

• Provides and enforces clear

• Protects instructional time from

• Ensures teachers have neces-

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

• Is involved in helping teachers

• Establishes high, concrete goals

• Is knowledgeable about instruc-

• Makes systematic frequent visits

• Recognizes individuals who ex-

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

• Uses hard work and results as

• Is easily accessible to teachers

• Assures the school is in compli-

• Provides opportunity for input on

• Systematically and fairly recog-

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

• Remains aware of personal

• Consciously challenges the sta-

• Inspires teachers to accomplish

• Holds strong professional beliefs

• Monitors and evaluates the ef-

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

• Is comfortable with major

• Is aware of informal groups and

• Keeps informed about current

Tip for Principals: 8.5

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

Exhibit 8.2 Teacher Leader Roles and Skills

Systemic External Environment

Tip for Principals: 8.6

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

grams, and are more likely to graduate.

Tip for Principals: 8.7

Tip for Principals: 8.8

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

Putting it All Together

Tip for Principals: 8.9

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

• Collaborative goal-setting process

Tip for Principals: 8.10

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

SAGE Books - Developing Systemic Leadership

Overall Vision and Keys

Tip for Principals: 8.11

• Purpose and outcomes