USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Perceptions by heartland educational consortium (h.e.c.) elementary title i school principals and assistant principals :

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Perceptions by heartland educational consortium (h.e.c.) elementary title i school principals and assistant principals : data use in their role as achievement-related decision makers
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Albritton, Sherri
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Administration
Education
Federal
Leadership
Rural
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational leadership -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: In the age of accountability and assessment, there is a need to ensure that data provided regarding student achievement can be effectively and appropriately utilized by school site administrators in a systematic way to improve student achievement. This study identified Heartland Educational Consortium Title I principals' and assistant principals' perceptions of their use of data as decision-makers in raising student achievement, with primary emphasis on Florida's Differentiated Accountability Model. Quantitative results revealed statistically significant differences in data use by administrators. Use of data by administrators for professional development was statistically significantly different from school improvement, leadership, or data skills. Data monitoring processes differed statistically significantly from school improvement. School improvement was identified by administrators as the area in which they use data most. Professional development was identified by the administrators as the area in which they use data least. No statistically significant differences occurred between principals and assistant principals in use of data measured by subscales. Principals and assistant principals suggested that professional development, provided by school, district, and state personnel, supported their use of data. Overwhelmingly, time was cited most often by principals and assistant principals as a barrier to data use. Findings suggest that administrators should continue to use data for achievement-related decision making for school improvement. Specifically, administrators should continue to work with leadership teams, school staffs, and School Advisory Councils to identify school improvement strategies using multiple sources of data and analyzing trends. Contradictory findings imply that administrators reevaluate how they use data for professional development. School district personnel should reevaluate their professional development programs for administrators. An additional implication from the findings is that district personnel must support school level administrators in "finding time" to analyze data. District administrators should consider strategies for school level administrators which eliminate time as a factor mitigating using data. The limited sample size provides a need to replicate with a larger size. A larger sample might provide insight into statistically significant differences between perceptions of assistant principals and principals.
Thesis:
Disseration (Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sherri Albritton.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 253 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0004828
usfldc handle - e14.4828
System ID:
SFS0028097:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Perceptionsby HeartlandEducationalConsortium (H.E.C.) ElementaryTitleISchool Principals andAssistantPrincipals : DataUs einTheirRoleasAchievement R elated Decision Makers by SherriAlbritton Adissertation submittedinpartial fulfillment oftherequirementsforthedegreeof DoctorofEducation DepartmentofEducationalLeadershipandPolicyStudies CollegeofEducation UniversityofSouthFlorida MajorProfessor: StevenPermuth ,Ed.D ArthurShapiro ,Ph.D. BruceHall ,Ph. D. HowardJohnston,Ph.D. DateofApproval: April5,2011 Keywords:education,leade rship,administration,federal,rural Copyright 2011,SherriAlbritton

PAGE 2

Acknowledgements Itiswithdeepappreciation thatIwouldliketoacknowledgethe i ndi vidualswho havegiventheirtime,expertise, andenergytohelpme achievethisgo al.Myheartfelt gratitude isextended toDr.StevePermuthandDr.ArthurShapiroforthe ir supportand direction.Thisgoalwouldhaveneverbeenachievedwithoutyoubo th. Iwouldalsolike toextendmygratitudetoDr.BruceHall whoprovidedinvaluabledirectionandfeedback inmystatisticalanalysis .Thankyou toDr.HowardJohnstonwho graciouslyprovided technicalassistanceindatauseandstudentachievement I amthankfulforthe friendship,support,andloyaltyof Dr.MichelePolk FurtherthankstotheHeartland EducationalConsortium TitleIDirectorsand district administrators foryourassistance and thoseassistantprincipalsandprincipalswhograciously gaveofthei rtimetocompletethe surveys neededformetocarryoutmydoctoralstudy. Iappreciatemyhusband,Wayne Albritton,forhisloveandsupport. Finally,IgivetheLordhonorforthe blessingsthathe hasgivenmeoveralifetime.

PAGE 3

i TableofContents ListofTables v ListofFigures vii Abstract viii ChapterI : Introduction 1 Introduction 1 ProblemoftheStudy 3 ProblemStatement 4 PurposeoftheStudy 4 RationalefortheStudy 4 ResearchQuestions 8 Delimitat ionsandLimitations 8 Assumptions 9 Definitions 9 OrganizationoftheStudy 1 2 ChapterII : ReviewofLiterature 1 4 Introduction 14 Accountability 14 Leadership 1 5 DecisionMaking 2 5 High PovertySchools 26 Culture 30 Change 33 BarrierstoDa taUse 37 UseofData 40 RelationshipbetweentheUseofDataandStudentAchievement 45 Summary 47 ChapterIII : Method 49 Introduction 49 Problem oftheStudy 49 ProblemStatement 50 Purpose oftheStudy 50 ResearchQuestions 50 ResearchMe thod 51

PAGE 4

ii PopulationandSampleSize 5 2 D evelopmentofInstrumentation 52 DataCollection 62 DataAnalysis 64 Summary 68 ChapterIV : Results 71 Introduction 71 PopulationSample 71 DataCollection 72 Reliability 77 ResultsandFindingsbyR esearchQuestion 81 Research Question1 81 Research Question2 95 Research Question3 100 Research Question4 106 QualitativeLinktoQuantitativeAnalysis 11 5 Summary 11 6 ChapterV : SummaryofResults,Conclusions,Implicationsand Recommend ationsforFurtherResearch 119 Introduction 119 ProblemStatement 120 PurposeoftheProblem 120 ResearchQuestions 120 ResearchMethod 121 ResultsandConclusions 123 Research Question1 12 3 Research Question2 124 Research Question3 126 Research Question4 127 PerceivedSupports 127 PerceivedBarriers 128 ImplicationsandRecommendations 131 Research Question1 131 Research Question2 134 Research Question3 135 Research Question4 135 RecommendationsforFurtherResearch 1 37 References 139 Appendices 15 2 AppendixA: Interviewwith theFloridaDeputyChancellor forSchool f orSchoolImprovementandStudentAchievement 153 AppendixB: Interviewwith aLargeSchool DistrictAccountabilityContact 1 56

PAGE 5

iii AppendixC: #1 PanelofExperts:ContentValidation 1 59 AppendixD: Feedbackfrom the #1PanelofE xperts:ContentValidation 1 76 AppendixE: SurveyInstrumentSent t o the #1PanelofExpertsto ReviewEdits 179 AppendixF: Directionsfor t he #2Panel ofExperts:HighlyIneffective 186 AppendixG: Directionsfor the #2Pan elofExperts:HighlyEffective 187 AppendixH: Resultsfrom the #2Pan elofExperts:TestforaShiftin Ambiguity 188 AppendixI: Feedbackfrom#1 ExpertPa nels:ItemstoDelete 190 AppendixJ: StudyInformationSharedwith the Respondentsby the Researcher 192 AppendixK: InformedConsent 194 AppendixL: CoverLetterfor the Questionnaire 19 7 AppendixM: CoverLetterW henMailing the Questionna ire 199 AppendixN: DataUsebyPrincipalsandAssistantPrincipalsin Achievement RelatedDecisionMakingQuestionnaire 201 AppendixO : Open endedResponsesfrom the Principalsand Assistant Principals: S upportsandBarrierstoDataUse 211 AppendixP : InitialCodingbytheResearcherandthe2 nd Coder to the Principal s Respon ses:Open EndedItemsRegarding SupportstoDataUse 222 AppendixQ : InitialCodingbytheResearcherandthe2 nd Codertothe Assistant Principa lsResp onses:Open EndedItems RegardingSupports toData Use 224 AppendixR : InitialCodingbytheResearcherandthe2 nd Coderto thePrinc ipals Responses:Open EndedItemsRegarding BarrierstoDataUse 225 AppendixS : InitialCodingbytheResearch erandthe2 nd Codertothe Assistant PrincipalsResponses:Open EndedItems RegardingBarrierstoDataUse 228 AppendixT : Classific ationof ItemsbyInitialCoding :Principals ResponsestoSupportstoDataUse 230 AppendixU : Researcheran dCoderCategories:PrincipalsResponsesto Supports to DataUse 232 AppendixV : CrossTabulationTableofCodersCategories:Principals Responses t o SupportstoDataUse 233 AppendixW : Classific ationof ItemsbyInitialCoding :Assistant Principals ResponsestoSupportstoDataUse 234 AppendixX : ResearcherandCoderCategories:AssistantPrincipals ResponsestoSupportstoDataUse 235 AppendixY : CrossTabulationTableofCodersCategories:Assistant PrincipalsRe sponsestoSupportstoDataUse 236 AppendixZ : Classific ationof ItemsbyInitialCoding :Principals ResponsestoBarrierstoDataUse 237 AppendixAA :ResearcherandCoderCategories:PrincipalsResponsesto BarrierstoDataUse 238

PAGE 6

iv Append ixBB :CrossTabulationofCodersCategories:Principals ResponsestoBarrierstoDataUse 239 AppendixCC : Classific ationof ItemsbyInitialCoding :Assistant Principals ResponsestoBarrierstoDataUse 240 AppendixDD :ResearcherandCoder Categories:AssistantPrincipals ResponsestoBarrierstoDataUse 241 AppendixEE :CrossTabulationofCodersCategories:Assistant PrincipalsResponsestoBarrierstoDataUse 242

PAGE 7

v L istofTables Table1. Deci sionRulesfort he PanelofExperts 5 8 Table2. ItemsRewrittenasaResultofthe#1ExpertP anel 60 Table 3 ResearchQuestionsandStatisticalAnalysis 69 Table 4 PotentialParticipantsfortheS tudy 72 Table5. StudyParticipantsbyAdministrativeE xperi ence 75 Table 6 StudyParticipantsSelf reportingofS chools Differentiated AccountabilityD esignation 76 Table 7 Cronbach alphafortheFiftyI tems 78 Table8. MeanandStandardDeviationbyItem 78 Table9. Item TotalStatistics 79 Table 10. ScaleStatistics 80 Table11. CronbachalphafortheSubscales 81 Table12. DescriptiveStatistics 82 Table13. SchoolImprovementFrequencyofRespondentsMeanItem Response 84 Table14. LeadershipFrequencyofRespondentsItemMeans 86 Table15. ProfessionalDevelopmentFrequencyofRespondentsItemMeans 88 Table16. MonitoringProcessesFrequencyofRespondentsItemMeans 90 Table17. DataSkillsFrequencyofRespondentsItemMeans 91 Table18. FrequencyofRespondent sTotalScoreItemMeans 93

PAGE 8

vi Table19. DescriptiveStatisticsofSubscales 95 Table20. MultivariateTests 96 Table21. TestsofWithin SubjectsEffects Sphericity 97 Table22. CorrectedTestsofWithin SubjectsEffects 98 Table23. Estimate dMarginalMeans 99 Table24. D escriptiveStatisticsofSubscale s 101 Table25. Boxs TestofEqualityofCovarianceMatrices 102 Table26. MultivariateTests Significance 103 Table27. MultivariateTests 103 Table28. TestsofBetween Subj ectsEffects 104 Table29. TestsofBetween SubjectsEffects 105 Table30. 95%ConfidenceIntervalsforBetween SubjectVariables 105 Table31. FinalPrincipal s CategoriesforSupportsforDataUseFrequency Table 109 Table32. FinalAssist antPrincipal sCategoriesforSupportsforDataUse Frequency Table 110 Table33. FinalPrincipal s CategoriesforBarrierstoDataUseFrequency Table 113 Table34. FinalAssistantPrincipal s CategoriesforBarrierstoDataUse FrequencyTa ble 114

PAGE 9

vii ListofFigures Figure1. ItemMeansbySubscaleandOverall 83 Figure2. SchoolImprovementFrequencyofRespondentsItemMeans 85 Figure3. LeadershipFrequencyofRespondentsItemMeans 87 Figure4. ProfessionalDevelopmentF requencyofRespondentsItemMeans 89 Figure5. MonitoringProcessesFrequencyofRespondentsItemMeans 91 Figure6. DataSkillsFrequencyofRespondentsItemMeans 92 Figure7. FrequencyofRespondentsTotalScoreItemMeans 94 Figure8. ConfidenceBandsfortheFiveWithin SubjectVariables 99 Figure9. AssistantPrincipalsandPrincipalsItemMeansforEachSubscale 101 Figure10. 95%ConfidenceIntervalsforBetween SubjectVariables 106 Figure11. ConfidenceBandsfortheFiv eWithin SubjectVariables 125 Figure12. 95%ConfidenceIntervalsforBetween SubjectVariables 127

PAGE 10

viii Abstract Intheageofaccountabilityandassessment,thereisane edtoensurethatdata providedregardingstudentachievement canbe effec tivelyandappropriatelyutilizedby schoolsiteadministratorsinasystematicwaytoimprovestudentachievement. T hisstudy identified HeartlandEducationalConsortiumTitleIprincipalsand assistantprincipalsperceptionsoftheiruseofdataasde cision makersinraisingstudent achievement withprimaryemphasisonFloridasDiffer entiatedAccountabilityModel. Quantitativeresultsrevealed statistically significantdifferences in datause by administrators .U seofdata byadministrators for pro fessionaldevelopmentwas statisticallysignificantlydifferentfromschoolimprovement,leadersh ip,ordataskills. D atamonitoringprocessesdifferedstatisticallysignificantlyfromschoolimprovement. Schoolimprovem entwasidentifiedbyadministrators astheareainwhichtheyusedata most.Professionaldevelop mentwasidentifiedbytheadministrators astheareainwhich t heyusedataleast.N ostatisticallysignificantdifferences occurredbetween principals a ndassistantprincipalsin useofdata measuredbysubscales.Principals andassistant principals suggestedthatprofessionaldevelopment providedbyschool,district,andstate personnel support ed theiruseofdata.Overwhelmingly,timewascitedmostoftenby principals andassistantprinci pals asabarriertodatause. F indingssuggestthatadministrators should continuetousedataforachievement relateddecisionmaking for schoolimprovement.Specifically,administratorsshould

PAGE 11

ix continueto workwith leadershipteam s, schoolstaff s,and SchoolAdvisoryCouncil s to identifyschoolimprovementstrategiesusingmultiplesourcesofdataandanalyzing trends. C ontradictoryfindingsimplythatadministratorsreevaluatehowtheyusedata for professionaldevelopment. Schoold istrictpersonnel shouldreevaluatetheirprofessional developmentprogramsforadministrators. Anadditionalimplicationfromthefindingsis thatdistrictpersonnelmustsupportschoolleveladministratorsinfindingtimeto analyzedata.Districtadministratorsshould considerstrategies forschoollevel administrators whi cheliminatetimeasafactormitigating usingdata Thelimitedsamplesize provide s aneedtoreplicatewithalarger size.Alarger samplemightprovideinsightintostatisticallysignificantdif ferencesbetweenperceptionsof assistantprincipalsand principals

PAGE 12

1 C hapter I Introduction Introduction Asthegapbetweenlow andhigh achievingstudentscontinuestogrowandthe implementationofhigh stakes,performance basedaccountabilit ysystemsbecomesthe norm,theneedfordata insteadofintuition,tradition,andconvenience toguide administrativeandeducationaldecisionshasbecomeincreasinglyimportant ( http:// www.learningpt.org/pdfs/datause/guidebook.pdf ). Accountability mandates have becomeadrivingforceinthenecessity of data use byprincipals inmakingdecisions aboutschoolimprovementandincreasingstudentachievement(Creighton,2007) Nationalleg islation,whichhasincreasedtheroleandpressureofaccountability,has resultedindemandstousedataforinstructionaldecision m aking(Breiter&Light,2006). T heinceptionofTheElementaryandSecondaryEducationAct(ESEA)of1965 marksanexp ansion ofthefederalgovernmentsauthorityineducationwhichhad previouslybeenastateresponsibility. ESEA enactedaspartofPresidentLyndon Johnson'sWaronPoverty, focusedreformeffortsandfederalfundingonthe lowachieving students inhigh povertyschools TitleI,acornerstoneoftheESEA, wasintendedto increasetheproficiency inbasicskills ofdisadvantagedchildren In1981President Ronald ReagansSecretaryofEducation,Terenc eBell, appointedtheNationalCommissiononExcelle nceinEducationwhichpublishedthe report, ANationatRisk. Thereport,whichcharacterizedAmericaspublicschoolsas

PAGE 13

2 mediocreatbest recommended increasedsalariesand higherstandardsfor professionaldevelopmentforteachers,tougherstandard sandgraduationrequirements, andamorerigorouscurriculum withmorelearnerengagementtime .Therelease of A NationAtRisk wasthebeginningofachievementtestingandstandards basededucation reforminAmerica(Jorgensen&Hoffman,2003). Presid entGeorge H.W. Bushssummitofgovernorsin1989resultedinthefirst nationalgoalsforeducationwhichlaidthegroundworkforPresidentBillClintonsGoals 2000in1994. The overallacademicperformanceofstudentsandminoritystudentswas anobj ectiveforthegoalofstudentachievement. Overtheyears,theESEAwasreauthorizedastheHawkins StaffordElementary andSecondarySchoolImprovementAmendmentsof1988andtheImprovingAmericas SchoolsActof1994. Thereauthorization in2002 ofth e ElementaryandSecondary EducationAct ( ESEA ) ,theNoChildLeftBehindAct of2001 (NCLB) represents an unprecedentedemphasisonassessment,achievement,andsanctions .NCLB challenges schooladministratorstofocustheireffortsnotonlyonthedisad vantaged students buton allstudents. NCLB requiresannualtestinginreadingandmathingrades3 8andatleast onceinhighschool,requiressciencestandardsandassessmentsinatleastthreegrades, requiresthatteachersandeducationsupport profe ssionalsmeetnewqualityrequirements, andsanctionsschoolsthatdonotmakeadequateyearlyprogress (AYP) Eachstatehas definedAYP intermsofminimumlevelsof proficiencygoals ofstudentachievement as measured by statestandards.L ocaleducation alagenciesmustachieve proficiencytargets withinthegiventimeframesspecifiedbytheNCLBlegislation Schooldistrictsand schoolsthatfailtomak eadequateyearlyprogress towardstatewideproficiencygoalswill

PAGE 14

3 besubjecttoimprovement,correcti veac tion,andrestructuring ( U.S.Departmentof Education,2001 ) Schoolsandprincipalsareinanunparalleledtimeineducationastheyfacethe demandofhigh stakesaccountabilitywhilemanagingassessments,standards,and studentachievement(Daly, 2009). Theuseofdatabyprincipalsisindispensableas schoolsmeasuretheirprogressagainst high stakes accountability(Wagner,2004).The leadershipoftheprincipalplaysanintegralroleinthedata drivendecisionmaking requiredforschoolstod ay (Bernhardt,2009).Thesuccess ofschoolsdependsonthe principalsskillsandunderstandingoftheprocessesneededfortheeffectiveuseofdata (Holcomb,2004). AsPresident Barack Obama, EducationSecretaryArneDuncan,and congressmoveforwardon thereauthorizationofESEA,theemphasisonincreased accountabilityandstudentachievement willcontinueto playamajorrolein increasing theuseofdatabyprincipals. ProblemoftheStudy Datausebyprincipalscanguidedecisionmakingforincrea sedstudent achievementandbebeneficialinmonitoringtheaccountabilityrequ irementsth at principalsface( Williamson &Blackburn ,2009). Asaccountabilitysystemswithhigh stakesassessmentsincrease,principalsmustunderstandandusedatatoimprov e instruction(Khanna,Trousdale,Penuel,&Kell,1999). Theproperuseofdataby principalsisaneffectivestrategyforraisingstuden tachievement(Bernhardt,2009;Earl &Katz,2006;Holcomb,2004; Johnson,2002). Schoolsreceiveandcollectvastamo unts ofdata;however,theydonotusethedatainasystematicwaytoidentifystrengthsand weaknessesnorstrategiesforimprovement( Bernhardt,2004;Earl,&Katz,2006;

PAGE 15

4 Holcomb,2004; Schmoker,1999, http://www.principalspartnership.com/ ) Most schools collectdatatocomplywithorganizationalrequirementsratherthanmake meaningfulschoolimprovementdecisions(Creighton,2007). Principals,asinstructional leaders, arechargedwith collect ing, analyzing,andusing dataastheyleadthewayfor studentachievement( Usdan,McCloud,&Podmostko,(2000). Insightfulleadersguidetheirstaffindata drivendecisionmaking ( http://www .learningpt.org/pdfs/datause/guidebook.pdf ). However,the schoolprincipal failstousedatatoooftenindecisionmaking(Creighton, 2001; Earl&Katz,2006; http://www.learningpt.org/p dfs/datause/guidebook.pdf ). Morethanever,d ata driven decisionmakingmustbepracticedbytheschoolprincipal(Creighton,2001). ProblemStatement Intheageofaccountabilityandassessment thereisa needtoensurethatdata provided regardings tudentachievement are effectivelyandappropriately utilizedby schoolsiteadministrators inasystematicwaytoimprovestudentachievement PurposeoftheStudy Thepurposeofthisstudy was to identify HeartlandEducationalConsortium Title I prin cipals andassistantprincipals perceptionsoftheiruseofdata intheirroleas decision makers inraisingstudentachievement withprimaryemphasisonFloridas DifferentiatedAccountabilityModel. RationalefortheStudy Giventheresearchonthe useofdatabyprincipals(Bernhardt,2009,Earl&Katz, 2006,Holcomb,2004,Johnson,2002)andtherequirementsplacedonschoolsbythe DifferentiatedAccountabilityModel,thisstudycouldbebeneficialtotheHeartland

PAGE 16

5 EducationalConsortium(HEC)di strictsleadershipandtheschooladministratorsof thesedistricts,asthereiscurrentlylimitedinformationgatheredorsharedregardingdata useorbestpracticesamongthesesimilardistricts. This descriptive research studysoughttogatherinformat ionabouttheperceptions ofTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsintheiruseofdatainmaking decisionstoraisestudentachievement. The focusforthestudywas theperceptionsof data usage byprincipals andassistantprincipals ofe lementaryTitleIschoolsin thesix school districtHeartlandEducationalConsortium. Thisstudyfocusesonthe31 elementaryTitleIschoolsthatarelocatedintheHeartlandEducationalConsortium (H.E.C.).Thedistrictswhichcomprisethisconsortiuma reDesoto,Glades,Hardee, Hendry,Highlands,andOkeechobee counties .Thesedistrictsaresmall,rural communitieswithaslittleastwoTi tleIschoolsinGladesandten inHighlands.The averagenumberofTitleIschoolsinthesedistrictsisfive. In theaccountabilityeraofFloridasDifferentiatedAccountabilityModel (HB991)andthereauthorizationoftheElementaryandSecondaryEducationActormore commonlyknownasNoChildLeftBehindActof2001 (NCLB) ,theexpectationofdata usebyprincipal sintheschoolsettingishigherthaneverbefore. NCLBrequiresschools tomakeAYP whichisachievedifstatecriteriaaremetforeachsubgroupby demonstratingprogresstowardstateproficiencygoals.InFlorida,AYPcanbemetbythe statusmodel,t hesafeharbormodel,orthegrowthmodel. Thestatusmodelrequireseachsubgroupinaschool to achieveproficiencywith theultimategoalthatallstudentswillbeproficientby2013 2014.Proficiencyisdefined aslevel3oraboveontheFloridaCompr ehensiveAssessmentTest(FCAT).Aschool

PAGE 17

6 mustalsomeetparticipation,writing,graduation,andschoolgradecriteriatobe consideredforAYPusingthestatusmodel. Thesafeharbormodelrequiresadecreaseinnon proficientstudentsinsubgroups by10 %fromthepreviousyear,aswellas meeting theparticipation,writing,graduation, andschoolgradecriteria.Thegrowthmodelrequiresstudentsinsubgroupstobeon trackforproficiency.Athree yeargrowthtrajectoryisbuiltbasedonpastperforma nce. Astudentisconsideredontrackifprogressbetweenbaselineandcurrentyeardata increasedbyatleast33%. In2008,apilotprogramofFloridasDifferentiatedAccountabilityModelwas implemented,whichisaconsolidationoffederalandstateac countabilitysystemsforthe sakeofiden tifyinglowperformingschools .BoththefederalNCLBlegislationandthe statesformerschoolaccountabilitysystem,commonlyreferredtoasFloridasSchool Grades,weremergedtocreateaseamlessaccountability systemforFloridasschools.On August14,2009theStateBoardofEducationapprovedthe fullimplementationofthe DA model.Thisruleallowedforthecategorizationofschools,levelofassistance providedtoschools,andthesupportsystemsandstrat egiestobeimplementedbyschools anddistricts. Themodelconsolidatednon TitleIschoolsandTitleIschoolsinto categoriesofdifferentiatedassistanceandsupportfromtheschooldistrictandthestate andclarifiedtherequirementsfromtheschool. Thiscategorizationisreferredtoasthe DifferentiatedAccountabilityMatrix Schools areorganizedintocategoryI, PreventI andCorrectI,whichrequirelesssupportfromthedistrict andfrom thestate.CategoryII, Pre ventIIandCorrectIIschools requiremoresupportfromthedistrictandthestate.The

PAGE 18

7 StrategiesandSupportdocument,providedbytheFloridaDepartmentofEducation, pr ovidestheguidelinesfortheDA requireme ntsforschoolsinthematrix AsTitleIschoolsfailtomakeadequa teyearlyprogress(AYP)overtime,theyare labeledasaschoolinneedofimprovement(SINI). ThisSINIstatuswasusedas criteria fordifferentiation.Themostrecent Florida stateboardruleremovesSINIlanguage from thematrix andreplacesitwith AYPcounts.AsschoolsfailtomakeAYP,thesanctions placedonthembecomemoresevere,especiallyforTitleIschoolsastheyreceivean allocationoffundsfromthefederallevel.AllocationsoffederalfundstoTitleIschools necessitatethatprinci palscanshowdocumentationofstudentachievementas justificationofschoolprogramsand initiatives(Holcomb1999). NCLB legislationhasintensifiedtheneedforprincipalstobecomemore knowledgeableintheirroleintheuseofdatatoimprovetheac hievementofstudents. (Yeagley,2003). However;Holcomb(2004)foundthatmostprincipals arenotprepared to usedata effectively asaresultoflittleopportunitytolearningraduateschool.Many educatorshavelittleexperienceinusingdatasystema ticallytoinformdecisions ( http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/datause/guidebook.pdf ) .Mostschoolscollectdatato satisfyrequirementsorexpectationsratherthanforschoolimprovement(C reighton, 2001).Effectivedatauseforeducatorsneednotbecomplicatedbutasimplisticfocuson afewsimple,specificgoals(Schmoker,2003).Educatorsinschoolsthatsustain improvementknowthatgutfeelings,instincts,andanecdotesarepoorsubs titutesfor empiricaldatawhenimportantdecisionsneedtobemade( McREL,2006 ).

PAGE 19

8 ResearchQuestions Thepurposeofthisstudyistoidentify HEC TitleI principals andassistant principals perceptionsoftheirdatauseintheirroleasdecision make rs inraisingstudent achievement 1. Towhatextent do H EC TitleIelementary princip als andassistantprincipals perceive that they use data inachievement relateddecisionmaking ? 2. Whatpatternsarediscernableintheperceptionsofprincipalsand assista ntprincipalsacrosstheseveralareasofdatausefor achievement relateddecisionmaking? 3. Dotheperceptionsof HECTitleI elementaryprincipalsdifferfromthe perceptionsof HECTitleI elementaryassistantprincipalsintheiruseofdatafor achieve ment relateddecisionmaking? 4. What supportsand barrierstodata use inachievement relateddecisionmaking do HEC TitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipals perceivethatthey experience ? Delimitationsand LimitationsoftheStudy A d el imit ationofthes tudywillbethatthe principals andassistantprincipals tobe survey ed arelocatedinsixschooldistricts whichare centrallylocatedinthestate. The traveltime bytheresearcher and theschedulesoftheprincipals andassistantprincip als andthe ir willingnessto participate incompletingthequestionnaire a re limitations Thetime to survey theseprincipals andassistantprincipals bytheresearcherand thetimetocompletethe surveyinstrument arelimitations. Alimitationofthest udyis thatsomerespondentsmaybelessablethanotherstorecall retrospectively the

PAGE 20

9 informationnecessarytorespondtoalloftheitemsinthe surveyinstrument adequately. Inastructuredresponseformatsuchasa surveyinstrument ,allquestionsmay notbe equallyunamb iguoustotherespondents.Somerespondentsmayvaryinthedepthand breadthoftheirinformationregardingthespecificcontentoftheitemsinthe survey instrument due to differencesintheirexperience,personalinterestandother factors. Assumptions Theresearcherexpectsallparticipantstobehonestandforthcominginanswering questionsin surveyinstrument s Definitions AdequateYearlyProgress( AYP ) : NCLBstatesthateachstateisrequiredto defineAYPinamannerasf ollows:"(i)Appliesthesamehighstandardsofacademic achievementtoallpublicelementaryschoolandsecondaryschoolstudentsintheState; (ii)isstatisticallyvalidandreliable;(iii)resultsincontinuousandsubstantialacademic improvementfor allstudents;(iv)measurestheprogressofpublicelementaryschools, secondaryschoolsandlocaleducationalagenciesandtheStatebasedprimarilyonthe academicassessments...(v)includesseparatemeasurableannualobjectivesfor continuousandsubs tantialimprovementforeachofthefollowing:(I)Theachievement ofallpublicelementaryschoolandsecondaryschoolstudents.(II)Theachievementof (aa)economicallydisadvantagedstudents;(bb)studentsfrommajorracialandethnic groups;(cc)stud entswithdisabilities;and(dd)studentswithlimitedEnglishproficiency" (NCLB,2002,PartA,Subpart1,Sec.1111,2[c]). AYPCount : AYPCountmeansthevalueassignedtoaschoolthatdidnot achieveAYPfortwo(2)consecutiveyears,startingfrom the2002 03schoolyear.The

PAGE 21

10 schoolisassignedavalueofone (1)AYPcountiftheschoolfailedtomakeAYPfortwo (2)consecutiveyearsandincreasesbyone(1)foreachyearthattheschoolfailsto achieveAYP( http://www.fldoe.org/board/meetings/2010_03_26/cover1099811.pdf ). BenchmarkBaselineAssessment: meansadiagnosticassessmentgivenatthe beginning oftheyeartoevaluatestudentsstrengthsandweaknesseson grade levelskills inreading,mathematics,science,andwriting ( http://www.fldoe.org/board/meetings/2010_03_26/cover1099811.pdf ) BenchmarkMid YearAssessment: meansadi agnosticassessmentgivenatthe mid pointofaschoolyeartoevaluatestudents'progressongrade levelskillsinreading, mathematics,science,andwriting ( http://www.fldo e.org/board/meetings/2010_03_26/cover1099811.pdf ) BenchmarkMini Assessments: meansdiagnosticassessmentsgivenatfrequent intervalsusedtomonitorstudentlearningofrecentlytaughtskills,andtoguideteachers' instructionalfocus.( http://www.fldoe.org/board/meetings/2010_03_26/cover1099811.pdf ) Datause: D atause can bedescribedas adriverinschoolreformefforts (Bernhardt, 2004). Forthepurposeofthisstudy ,thefocuswillbethestudent achievementdatathatprincipalsandassistantprincipalsuseintheDifferentiated Accountability(DA)model. DifferentiatedAccountability Plan : the accountabilityplanwhichstreamlines Floridasschoolgradesystemwith thefederalNoChildLeftBehindAdequateYearly Progresssystem( http://flbsi.org/DA/index.htm ) DifferentiatedAccountabilityState SystemofSchoolImprovement,DifferentiatedAccountability,andDAmeanth e

PAGE 22

11 accountabilitysystemusedbyFloridatomeetconditionsforparticipationinthe ElementaryandSecondaryEducationAct,20U.S.C.ss6301etseq.thatrequiresstates toholdpublicschoolsandschooldistrictsaccountableformakingadequateyearly pr ogresstowardmeetingstateproficiencygoals. Elementaryprincipals andassistantprincipals : T he TitleIadministrators ,30 principalsand24assistantprincipals, intheHeartlandEducationalConsortiumwhowill beaskedto completethe surveyinstrumen t Florida ContinuousImprovementModel( FCIM ) : amethodforeffectuating improvementthatisbasedontheprinciplethatstudentandteachersuccessrequiresa continuouseffort.Keyelementsincludeanalyzingdata,developingtimelines,quality instru ction,andfrequentlyassessingstudents. ( http://focus.florida achieves.com/(S(uvzwkz555s40jy45lmdgf52l))/AboutCIM.aspx ) HouseBill991: authorizestheDifferent iatedAccountabilityPlan ( http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/SECTIONS/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=41179 ) NoChi ldLeftBehindActof2001 : Former PresidentGeorgeBush signedthis legislationin2002whichauthorizesstatestoestablishstandards,proficiencytargets, and assessments ( http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html ) Perception: hassomething todowithourawarenessoftheobjectsorconditions aroundusandtheimpressionsthattheseobjectsmakeuponus.(F.H.Allport,1955as referencedbyFritzHeider,1958) Schoolgrade:the gradeassignedtoaschoolpursuanttoSection1 008.34,Florida Statutes,andRule6A 1.09881,F.A.C.,exceptthatahighschoolsgradewillbe

PAGE 23

12 establishedsolelybytheFCATscoresandAYPforpurposesofDifferentiated Accountability. ( http://www.fldoe.org/board/meetings/2010_03_26/cover1099811.pdf ) StudentAchievementdata:For thepurposesofthisstudy,itreferstothedata usedbyprincipalsandassistantprincipalsintheDifferentiatedAccountabilityModel. ( http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html ) TitleIschoollist: ( http:/ /flbsi.org/pdf/2009 2010%20Preliminary%20Title%20I%20schools%20list%2010 27 09%20DG.pdf ) OrganizationoftheStudy ChapterI isani ntroductiontothestudy,whichidentifiestheproblemandthe purposeforthestudy. Theprimaryresearchquestions limit ationsassociatedwiththe proposedresearch ,as sumptionsrelatedtotheresearch ,methodologyanda summary completesthefirstchapter. ChapterIIreviewstheliteraturerelatedtothetopicofthisresearch : leadership, decision making,highpovertysch ools,culture,change,databarriersandresearchstudies thatsupporttheuseofdataby principals. ChapterIIIdiscussesthe metho dbywhichthisresearchwas conducted. A descript ionofthepopulation surveyinstrument edisincluded .The survey instru ment is introduced ,followedbythedatacollectionprocedures,andtheresearchdesign. This chapter concludeswithadescriptionofthe dataanaly sis ChapterIVdiscussestheresultsofthestudy.Potentialparticipantsandactual participantsareout linedindetailwithavarietyofgraphsandcharts.Theprocessesofdata collectionaredescribedindetail.Descriptivestatisticsandresultsofthe repeatedm easures

PAGE 24

13 AnovaandMANOVAconductedfordataanalysisarereviewed.Theresultsfromtheopen endeditemsarediscussesanddisplayedinfrequencytables. ChapterVsummarizesthestudyandprovidesareviewoftheresults.Conclusions andimplicationstothestudyarediscussed.Recommendationsforfurtherresearcherare provided.

PAGE 25

14 Chapter II ReviewofLiterature Introduction Thepurposeofthisstud ywas toidentifyHeartlandEducationalConsortiumTitle Iprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceptionsoftheiruseofdataintheirroleas decision makersinraisingstudentachievement withprimaryemphasisonFloridas DifferentiatedAccountabilityModel. Thischaptercontainsa reviewofthelit eraturein leadership,decision making,highpovertyschools culture,change,datab arriers and researchstudiesthatsupporttheuseofdat abyprincipals. Accountability Thechallengeswefaceinschoolstodayareincreasing,andneverbeforehasthe importanceofusingdataandevidencetomakedecisionsaboutschoolimprovementand increasingstudentachievementbeensocrucial(Creight on,2007 ,pxiii ). Schoolsand principalsareinanunparalleledtimeineducationastheyfacethedemandofhigh stakes accountabilitywhilemanagingassessments,standards,andstudentachievement(Daly, 2009 ; Johnson,2002 ). Asthefederalgovernmenta ndstatedepartmentsincrease accountabilitymandates,schoolleadersmustobtainanddevelopdatacollectionand analysisstrategies(Creighton,2007). Theuseofdatabyprincipalsisindispensableas schoolsmeasuretheirprogressagainsthigh stakesac countabili ty(Wagner,2004).The success ofschoolsdependsontheprincipalsskillsandunderstandingoftheprocesses

PAGE 26

15 neededfortheeffectiveuseofdata(Holcomb,2004). Theeffectiveuseofdatacanhelp schoolleadersmakereflectivedecisionstowa rdschoolimprovement(Earl&Katz, 2006). Theleadershipoftheprincipalplaysanintegralroleinthedata drivendecision makingrequiredforschoolstoday(Bernhardt,2009). Leadership Leadershipmatterstostudentlearning(Leithwood&Wahlstrom,2 008). Quality l eadershipfocusesonestablishingalearningenvironmentwhichreliesondatafor decisionmakinginasystematicwaytoincreasestudentachievement(Bernhardt,2009). Effectiveleadersarenecessaryinthiseraofaccountabilitytoprovid eleadershipbased ondata drivendecisionstoincreasestudentachievement(Creighton,2007). Schoolsacrossthenationaregrapplingwithlowacademicachievementof studentsinhighpovertyschoolswhilefacedwithhigherstandardsofaccountability. Schoolsofhighpovertycontinuetobeschoolsinwhichstudentsdonotachieveatthe samehighlevelsasothermoreadvantagedschools(Caldwell&Ginthier,1996;Cairns, Cairns,&Neckerman,1989,Rumberger&Palardy,2005).Theschoolprincipalcanbe thechangeagentforensuringthattheselowsocioeconomicstudentshavethe opportunitytoachieveandtoexcel despitetheircircumstances(Lewis,1997;Olson, 2000).Theschoolprincipalcanplayapivotalroleinthesuccessofhighpovertyschools b yensuringthatstudentshaveeveryopportunitytosucceed(Teske&Schneider,1999; Caldwell&Ginthier,1996;Lewis,1997). Theschoolleader,theprincipal,mustbethe catalystforchangeandhighexpectationsifstudentsofhigh povertyschoolsareto experiencesuccess(Olson,2000; Taylor,Pearson,Clark,&Walpole, 2000). Themetamorphosisofaschoolinmostcasesistheresultoftheleadership

PAGE 27

16 oftheprincipal(Lewis,1997).Adominantbeliefinpolicycircles,driveninlargepart bytheacad emic standardsmovement,isthatprincipals,insteadofbeingbuilding managers,shouldbecomeleadersofinstruction dynamic,inspirationaleducators focusedalmostexclusivelyonraisingstudentachievement(Olson,2000,p.1). Bennisdescribesthelea dershipnecessaryfororganizationstodayisnotthatof thepast,whichwasatopdownmodelinwhichtheleaderwastheheroofthe organization(Bennis,1999).Whatisneededintoday sorganizationsisaleaderwho understandsthesignificanceofsyst emsandcollaboration.Inordertobealeadertoday, Bennisprescribesthatthefollowingcompetenciesshouldbepresentinleaders(Bennis, 1999): appreciatingfollowersfortheiraccomplishments; remindingindividualswhatistrulyimportantintheorga nization --reviewing thevisionfrequently; workingatgeneratingarelationshipoftrustwiththefollowersandsustaining itintheorganization;and workinginacollaborativemannerwiththeindividualsintheorganization. Thesecompetenciespromotea cultureinwhichchangecanoccur.Theindividuals intheorganizationfeelasenseofcomfortandtrustintheleader,whichisimportantinan organizationdesiringchange.Thetrustfactoristhesocialgluethatkeepsan organizationintactandeffec tive(Bennis,2000,p.113). Nanus(1992)explainedtheroleoftheleaderasthechangeagentasheimplements stepsformakingavisionbecomeareality.Aprincipalwhoguidesandmanagesthe cultureoftheschoolthroughavisioniswhatiswan ted ineducation. Burns(1978)

PAGE 28

17 describedthepurposeofleadershipistoengagefollowerstocoalesceneedsandgoals intoacommonendeavor. Amultitudeoftheoriesdescribethetheoreticalbasisforleadership.Blakeand Moutonsmanagerialgridframeslead ershipfromtheperspectiveofconcernfortaskand concernforpeople(Blake,&McCanse,1991;Blake,&Mouton,1964).Accordingto BlakeandMouton(1964)thefiveleadershipstylesaredescribedasfollows: Style1 1:min imalmanagement Thisstyleis characterizedbylowconcernfor peopleandlowconcernforproduction.ThisstyleissometimescalledLaissez Fairemanagement,becausetheleaderrelinquisheshisorherleadershipstyleand ismoreorlessoutofit(Blake,&Mouton,1964,p85). Styl e9 1:managementistaskorauthoritarianmanagement Style9 1is characterizedbyalowconcernforpeoplebutahighconcernforproduction.This leaderorganizestheworktominimizefeelingsandattitudesandpreventsthe humanelementsfrominterf eringwithefficiencyandoutput(Blake,&and Mouton,1964,p85). Style1 9:managemen tiscountryclubmanagement Thisstyleisdescribedas highconcernforpeoplebutlowconcernforproduction.Thismanagerbe lieves thatyoucantpushpeopleforproductionbecauseifyoudo,theybalkandresist (Blake,&Mouton,1964,p57). Style5 5:managementismiddle offtheroadmanagement Thisstyleis typifiedasan intermediateamountofconcernforbothprodu ctionandpeople satisfaction.Thisorientationcreatesmoreorlesssatisfiedpeopleastheyassume thattheymustexertsomeeffort.

PAGE 29

18 Style9 9:Managementisteamordemocraticmanagement Thisstyle exemplifiesahighconcernforbothproductionand peoplemoraleandsatisfaction andassumesthatthereisnoinherentconflictbetweenproductionandtheneedsof people.AccordingtoBlakeandMouton,thisstyleresultsinimproved performance,lowabsenteeism,lowturnoverofstaffmembers,andhighp eople satisfaction. FrederickTaylor(1911)espousedfourprinciplesfortheorganization.Firsthe suggestedthatintuitivemethodsweretobereplacedwithscientificmethodswhichwould resultin thebestcost benefit.H ebelievedthatthebestperson shouldbeplacedinthe jobandthoroughlytrainedforthetask.Hefurtherbelievedinacollaborativework environment,accordingtostandardsandprocedures,an dfinallyhebelievedthatthe managersweretoassumetheresponsibilityforplanningandp reparingthework. McGregor(1960)developedtheTheoryXandTheoryYleadershipstyles. TheoryXisbasedontheassumptionsthatpeopleinherentlydonotwanttoworkand requiremanagement,controlandanautocraticstyleofleadership.TheoryYpropo ses thatthewo rkerdoesenjoyworkif thecommitmenttoobjectivesisassociatedwith the satisfactionof theego.TheoryZ(Ouchi,1981 )suggeststhattheoriesXandYarenot compatibleastheleadermusthaveaconcernfortheemployeeinsideandout sidethe workenvironment.Furthermore,decisionsaretobemadebyconsensusanda commitmenttoquality.Ouchi( 1981 )studiedAmerican(typeA)companieswhich providedshorttermemployment andspecializedcareerswith Japanese(typeJ) organizationswh ichvaluedthesocietymorethantheindividual.HecalledAmerican firmswhichdisplayedtypeJcharacteristicstypeZorganizations whichmoreoftentend

PAGE 30

19 tohavelong termemployeeswholearnjobspecifictasksinwhichthecompanyhas investedtimeand moneytodevelop.Thisstyleofleadershipismorepeople centered thanpreviousscientifictheories. Lewin,Lippitt,andWhite(1939)studiedtheleadershipstylesofautocratic, democratic,andlaissez faireinastudyofboysclubs.Theautocraticle aderwas observedtogiveordersandcommandsresultinginboysthatwereproductivebutless happy.Laissez faireleadershipproducedconfusionandlessefficiencywhich consequentlyleadtolessproductivityandhappinessintheboys.Thestylemost app reciatedbytheboyswasthedemocraticstylewhichproducedmoreproductivityand happinessintheboysasaresultofdirectionfromtheleader. H erseyandBlanchard (1993 )abdicateasituationalstyleofleadershipwhich resultsfromtherelationshipt hattheleaderhaswiththefollowers.Afollowersreadiness levelislikelytoincreaseovertimeproducingadifferentleadershipstyle.Therearefour stylesofleadershipasdescribedbythesituationalleadershipofHerseyandBlancha rd (1993) : Tel ling:Thisstyleischaracterizedbyahighleveloftaskbutlowlevelof relationshipemphasis.Thisleaderwouldbeportrayedascontrollingand coerciveashegivesdirectionsandcloselysupervises. Selling:Amorepersuasivestyleofleadershipist hatofselling.This leaderhasahightaskandhighrelationshipemphasiswiththefollowers.

PAGE 31

20 Participating:Aparticipativestyleofleadershipthatshiftsresponsibility tothefollowersandencouragestheirparticipationindecision making. Thisstyle ischaracterizedbylowtaskbutahighlevelofrelationship. Delegating:Thislowtaskandlowrelationshipstyleexemplifiestheleader whoturnsoverdecision makingtothefollowers. Synergisticleadership(Irby,Brown,Duffy,&Trautman,2001)i sapplicableto bothmaleandfemaleleadershipbutisreflectiveofthefemaleexperience.Itfurther addressesgender,cultural,andpoliticalissues.Theleaderdoesnotmakedecisionsin isolationbutiscognizantoftheimpactontheindividualandth eorganization. Constructivism (Shapiro,2008)islearningwhichiscreatedbythelearnerwho activelyconstructshis/hermeaningsandunderstandings.Aconstructivistleader who seekstoreformaschool willfocusonmeetingtheinterpersonalneeds ofteachersand providingaprofessionalworkenvironment(Shapiro,2008). T hecontingencymodelofleadership(Fiedler,1967)suggeststhatthegroups performanceiscontingentonmatchingtheappropriateleadershipstyle,theacceptanceof thegroupof thestyle,andthesituation.Onestyleofleadershipdoesnotfitallsituations. Situationalfavorablenessisdescribedasthedegreetowhichtheleadershipsituation providestheleaderwithinfluence.Thecontingencymodeldefinessituationalcontrol on thebasisofthreeelementswhicharetheleadersrelationshiptothegroup,thestructure ofthetask,andtheorganizationssupportoftheleaderbyuseofrules,rewards,and sanctions(Chemers&Ayman,1993).

PAGE 32

21 Accordingtoroletheory,memberso fsocietyoccupyrolesinsociety,groups,and organizations(Bass,1990). Mostorganizationsnotonlyhaveformalposition descriptionsandroleexpectations butalsounwritten,implicitroleexpectationsfor administratorsthatcomefromthegroup(Gorto n&Alston,2009). Theroleoftheschool principalisoftendefinedbytheadministratorsself expectationsandpersonalneedsas wellastheexpectationsofothers(Gorton& Alston,2009;Getzels,1968).Thusthe administratorsroleisaresultofthe individualneedsandexpectationsversusthe culturesneedsandexpectations(Gorton&Alston,2009;Getzels,1968). The coalescenceoftheformalrolejobdescriptionandtheinformal,implicitroleexpectation ensuresthattasksareaccomplishedwhile keepingindividualslessfrustratedandsatisfied (Bolman&Deal,2008). Theroleoftheschoolprincipalismorechallengingthaneverbefore asprincipals arefacedwithincreasedaccountability,instructionalleadership,curriculum development,dat aanalysis,andstudentachievement(NationalConferenceofState Legislatures,2002).Thisevolvingrole magnifiedbylegislationfromthestateand federallevels hasresultedintheneedforaleaderwhoexhibitstwostylesofleadership. Principals mustintegratetherolesoftheinstructionalleaderwhocananalyzedataand leadschoolsininstructionalstrategies,aswellasthetransformationalleaderwhocan leadschoolsbyintroducingthemtoinnovationsandshapetheorganizationalculture fro mwithin(Conley&Goldman,1994;Leithwood,1994;Hallinger&Leithwood, 1998)

PAGE 33

22 Abeliefexiststodaythatprincipalsshouldbeinstructionalleaders,butmost principalsdontunderstandinstructionalleadershiporhowtoleadinthismanner (Fullan, 2 009).Instructionalleadershipmodelshavetheirbasisinthe1980sfromtheresearchthat Edmo ndsdidwitheffectiveschools. Edmo nds(1982,p.8)statedthatcharacteristicsof effectiveschoolsare : Theleadershipoftheprincipalnotableforsubstantia lattentiontothe qualityofinstruction; Apervasiveandbroadlyunderstoodinstructionalfocus; Anorderly,safeclimatethatconveytheexpectationthatallstudentsare expectedtoobtainatleastminimummastery; Teacherbehaviorsthatconveytheex pectationthatallstudentsare expectedtoobtainatleastminimummasteryand; Theuseofmeasuresofpupilachievementasthebasisforprogram evaluation. Instructionalleadershipbecamethepervasivemodelinthe1980sand1990s (Hallinger,1992). Duringthe1980stheprincipalwasseenasthesolepersonresponsible forinstructionalleadershipwithnoconsiderationofdepartmentheads,assistant principals,orteachers(Hallinger,2005).HallingerandMurphysinstructionalmodelof instructional leadershipisthemostwidelyusedmodel(Hallinger,2005).Hallingerand Murphysstudyof1985inwhichthe PrincipalInstructionalRatingScale wasusedto survey 10principals,104teachers,and3districtsupervisorsfoundthesedimensionsof instruct ionalleadership:definingtheschoolsmission,managingtheinstructional program,andpromotingapositiveschoollearningenviro nment(Hallinger&Murphy,

PAGE 34

23 1985 ).Thesedimensionswerefurtherexplainedbyteninstructionalleadershipfunctions (Hallin ger,2005):framingtheschoolsgoalsandcommunicatingtheschoolsgoals, supervisingandevaluatinginstruction,coordinatingthecurriculum,monitoringstudent progress,protectinginstructionaltime,promotingprofessionaldevelopment,maintaining hi ghvisibility,providingincentivesforteachers,andprovidingincentivesforlearning. Lezottes (2009) firstgenerationcorrelatesofeffectiveschoolsstatesthatthe principalmustactastheinstructionalleaderin whichhecommunicatesthemission ofthe school,providesaclearandfocusedmission,providesforasafeandorderly environment,hasaclimateofhighexpectations,conductsfrequentmonitoringofstudent progress,haspositivehome schoolrelations,andprovidesopportunitiestolearn and studenttimeontask BlasandBlas(1999)examined800teachersperspectivesonprincipal instructionalleadershipandfoundthatinstructionalleadersshouldbuildaculturefor instructionalimprovementby: Acknowledgingthatchangeisresiste dandisdifficult; Recognizingthatchangerequiresrisktakingandisajourney; Demonstratingrespectforteacherknowledgeandabilities; Talkingwithteachersaboutinstruction; Makingsuggestionsandgivingandgettingfeedbackfromteachersabout cl assroominstruction; Developingpartnershipswithteachers; Emphasizingthestudyofteachingandlearning; Modeling;

PAGE 35

24 Supportingcoaching; Providingtimeforpeeropportunities; Providingresourcesforprograms; Applyingadultlearningprinciplestostaff development;and Promotingcollaboration. Theinstructionalprincipalmodelwhichfocusesontheprincipalasthecentreof expertisebegantodiminishinthe1990swiththepopularizationofsharedleadership, teacherleadership,distributedleadership, andtransformationalleadership(Hallinger, 2003). TransformationalleadershipwasintroducedbyBurns(1978)whoseideasof transactionalandtransformationalleaders serveasthefoundation forthetheory. He definedleadershipasthe introductionof goalsbytheleader,whichrepresentboththe leadersandthefollowersdesires Thetransactionalleader initiatesanexchangewiththe follower,recognizingthevalueofthepersonbutthereisnotasustainablerelationship. Transformingleadershipoc curswhentheleaderandthefollowerengageinsuchaway thatelevatesboth parties toa commonpurposeand relationship. Bennis (1959,p. 259 ) describestransformativeleadershipasthe abilityofapersontoreachthesoulsofothers inafashionwhic hraiseshuman consciousness,buildsmeaningsandinspireshuman intentthatisthesourceof power''. Theleadership oftheprincipalmatterstostudentachievement(Leithwood& Wahlstrom,2008). Ameta analysisoftwenty twostudiesfoundthattheinstr uctional leaderhas threetofourtimesmoreeffect onstudentachievementthanthe transformationalleader(Robinson,Lloyd,&Rowe,2008).Theresearchersexplainedthat

PAGE 36

25 thetransformationalleaderismoreinterestedinrelationshipsthanontheworktha t impactsstudentachievement.MarksandPrinty(2003)foundthatthecoexistenceofboth transformationalandasharedinstructionalleadershipmodelimpactsstudent performancesubstantially. DecisionMaking Datadrivendecisionmakingandinstructiona lleadershiparenotmutually exclusive(Creighton,2007). Data drivendecisionmakingisnotonlyaboutthedatabut thevisionandleadership(Bernhardt,2009).A leadersvisionplanisapracticalguideto helpleadersunderstandone'sownvisionand toleadothersthroughthestepsto implementthatplan(Nanus,1992). Aprincipals understandingofthreemodelsofdecision making:rational,shared, andstrategicwillhelpinthedecision makingprocessandsuccessoftheschool(Gorton &Alston,200 9).Therationalmodelisconcernedwiththestepstoachievethegoal. This bureaucraticmodelassumesthatdecisionsaremadebytheadministrator. Theshared modelisbasedonconsensualdecisionmakingbytheadministratorandthemembersof theorgan ization.Thisstyleofdecisionmakingreliesontherelationshipsbetweenthe administratorandschoolcommunityratherthanmanagerialskills. Thestrategicmodel is aninteractionoftherationalmodelwiththesharedmodel,resultinginamodelwhich i s concernedwith boththeinternalandexternalenvironmentoftheorganization. Tanne n baumandSchmidt(1958)describeacontinuuminwhichdecisionmaking isdirectiveononeendandparticipatoryontheother.Theysuggestthatleadersmake decisionso nbothendsofthecontinuumandinthemiddle.VroomandYetton(1973) developedalistoftenquestionsthat theleadershouldaskwhen decidingtobedirective

PAGE 37

26 orparticipative indecision making.Theypropose thatwhenthesupervisorhasmore knowledge thanthesubordinates,thenthesupervisorshouldmakethedecisionandthe subordinateswillrespectthedecision.However,ifthesubordinatesareknowledgeable aboutthetopicandifitisimportantthatthesubordinatesarecommittedtothedecision, thenaparticipativeapproach shouldbeused. Accordingto HerseyandBlanchard(199 3),decision makingissituationalbased onthe subordinatesjobmaturingand psychologicalmaturity. Fourleadershipstyles: telling,selling,participating,delegating, matchthedevelopmentofthesubordinate.Low commitmentorcompetencefromthesubordinaterequiresamoredirectiveandless relationshipfocusfromthesupervisor. Ascompetenceincreasesinthesubordinate,the supervisorincreasestherelationshipfo cuswhilemaintainingahighleveloftaskfocus. H ighpovertyschools Despitethereformeffortsofthelastfewdecadesintheeraofaccountability, therestillexistsagapinachievementamongstudents,asdefinedbypoverty(Johnson, 2002). During the2008 09schoolyear,1116schoolsor80%oftheTitleIschools(in Florida)failedtomakeadequateyearlyprogress ( http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/profiles/2021/ ). Disadvantagedorlowsoci o economicstatus (SES) isthebestindicatoroflow achievementinstudents(Caldwell,&Ginthier,1996).Theracial,ethnicandsocialclass structureofastudentsschoolisactually1timesmoreimportantthananindividual childsrace,ethnicityo rsocialclassindeterminingstudentoutcomesorstudent achievement(Borman&Dowling,2010).IncreasesintheschoolsmeanSESis

PAGE 38

27 associatedwithincreasesinthestudentsachievementinspiteoftheindividualstudents SES(Perry&McConney, 2003 ). Surprisingly,intheUnitedStates,livechildrenofdisadvantageandpoverty. Nearly13millionAmericanchildrenliveinfamilieswithincomesbelowthefederal povertylevel,whichis$20,000ayearforafamilyoffour.Thenumberofchildrenliving inpovertyincreasedbymorethan11percentbetween2000and2005.Thereare1.3 millionmorechildrenlivinginpovertytodaythanin2000,despiteindications of economicrecoveryandgrowth ( htt p://nccp.org/publications/pub_684.html ). In2007 08,approximately21percent(or13,400)ofallelementaryschoolprincipalsworkedin high povertyschools,comparedwith27percent(or16,700)whoworkedinlow poverty schools.In2007 08,therewere1 6,122schools,or17percentofallpublicschools,that wereco nsideredhigh povertyschools.Seventy five percentormoreofthestudent enrollment inhighpovertyschoolswere eligibleforfreeorreduced pricemeals.In 2007 08,approximately20percen tofelementaryschoolstudentsattendedhigh poverty public schools ( Aud,S.,Hussar,W.,Planty,M.,&Snyder,T.,2010 ) ThereisacrisisofequityinU.S.schools.Oncethoughtofasthemost equalizinginstitutioninoursociety,publicschoolspl ayasmuchofaroleinmagnifying differencesbetweenchildrenfromwealthyandimpoverishedbackgroundsandbetween childrenofdifferentethnicbackgroundsastheydoinovercomingthesedifferences (Slavin,1998,p.1). Theprincipal,asinstructional leader,canbetheimpetusforchangeinthese schoolsifbestpracticesforhighpovertyschoolsareimplemented(Olson,2000;Lewis, 1997).Astrongcorrelationexistsbetweenprincipalswhohaveestablishedaneffective

PAGE 39

28 schoolculture,byimplementing bestpractices,andincreasedstudentachievement(Teske &Schneider,1999).Principalsplayacrucialroleinimprovingteachingandlearningas theyserveasleadersforstudentlearning(InstituteforEducationalLeadership,2000, p.2). Supportingcl assroompracticesthatshowlongitudinalincreasesinachievementis anothervariablethatshouldbeemphasizedatTitleIschools(Turnbull,Welsh,Heid, Davis&Ratnofsky,1999).Principalsmustusesounddatatohelpfindsolutionsto achievement.Sound datacangiveleadersimportantkeysindeterminingwhichpractices affectachievementandwhichareofadetriment.Goodinstructioncanovercome disadvantagesfromsocialand economicfactors(Ravitch,1995 ).Inordertoimprove teachingandlearning, theteachersskillsandabilitiesmustbeaddressedbythe instructionalleader,theprincipal(Ladson Billings,&Gomez,2001).Noamountof standards,benchmarks,andhigh stakestestingcanbringaboutschoolimprovement withoutattentiontoteacher quality(Ladson Billings,&Gomez,2001,p.9). AstudyinTexasofsuccessfulTitleIschoolsfoundthatthereweredifferencesin alltheschoolsbutseveralfactorswerepresentinalltheschoolswhichwerelinkedto theirsuccess(Lewis,1997,p.2). T herewasastrongacademicfocusonacademicsuccesswhichallteachers believedandcarriedoutinplanningandinstructionalpractices. Whilealltheteachersbelievedthattheirstudentscamefromdifficultsituations, noexcuseswereaccepted. Ifcurr entpracticeswerenotsuccessful,principalsandteachersfelttheflexibility andfreedomtotrynewapproaches.

PAGE 40

29 Everyoneintheschoolcommunity;teachers,custodians,parents, paraprofessionals,theprincipal,andcafeteriaworkers,wasapartofthes olution. Theschoolstaffperceivedthemselvesasafamily. Therewasaspiritofcollaborationandtrustandfreedomtodisagree. Noonewascontenttoacceptcurrentsuccess.Everyoneintheschoolcommunity waseagertoimprove. EffectiveTitleIschool shavelower than averageteacherandstudentmobility, moreexperiencedprincipals,andasafer,moreorderlyschoolclimate(Taylor,Pearson, Clark,&Walpole,2000). TherearesuccessfulTitleIschoolsacrossthenationin whichstudentsareacadem icallysuccessfuldespitetheoddsandproduceresultsaswell asnon TitleIschools.Thetaskfortheprincipalistodeterminewhatfactorshecan influence(Lewis,1997). PrincipalsinTitleIschoolsmustbecognizantoffactorsthatinfluence disadva ntagedstudentstobecomesuccessful,suchas,instructionalmethodsand strategieswhichhelpencourageactiveparticipationinlearning(Caldwell&Ginthier, 1996)Nolongercanprincipalsbedisengagedfromtheactivitiesoftheclassroom. In ordertom inimizetheachievementgapofhigh povertystudents,schoolsmustfocuson highstandards,achallengingcurriculum,andqualityteachers(Haycock,2001). They mustusedatatodrivedecisionsregardingcurriculumandstandards.Principalsmust haveanun derstandingofthecurriculum,theacademicsubjectmatter,andadeep knowledgeofatleastonesubjectinordertooverseeteacherinstructionsuccessfully (Olson,2000).Theyshouldbearesourcefortheclassroomteacheraswellassomeone

PAGE 41

30 towhomthe teacherisaccountableforensuringthecurriculumisalignedtothe assessments. Aprincipalwhoisinformedandknowledgeableregardingstrategiesthatare successfulinhigh povertyschoolsandunderstandsthelearningenvironmentbestsuited forthes echildrenisa requisiteforTitleIschools. Onesuchstrategymightbes mall schools which can impacttheachievementofstudents (Wasley & Lear ,2001) Small schoolscutpovertyspoweroverachievementby80to90percentinreadingwritingand mathem atics(Bickel&Howley, 2002 ).Abramson( 2000 ) concursthatreducingthesize ofthestudentbodycanincreasetestscoresinlow achievingschoolswithhighlevelsof poverty. Theachievementgapisnotinevitableifwesethighgoals,highstandards,an d highexpectationsforstudentsandadults(Johnson,200 2). Culture Change leadersrecognizethatresistancetodatauserestsontheleaders credibilityandtheculturecreatedfor the safeuseofdatabytheorganization(Holcomb, 2004). Theleadershi prequiredforacultureofchangerequiresleaderswhocanoperate undercomplex,uncertaintimes(Fullan,2001). Alearning orientedcultureperceives weaknessasanormalpartoftheimprovementprocess(Earl&Katz,2006).Resistanceto changeisacom monforceinorganizations(Bulach,2001).Thecultureinschoolsusually doesntfocusontheuseofdata(Bernhardt,2004).Thesecretforsuccessfulchangeisto identifyanexistingcultureandreshapeit. Aprincipalwhofailstoidentifyhisorher schoolsexistingculturebeforeattemptingtochangeitwillmeetwithresistance (Bulach,2001,p.48).

PAGE 42

31 Sergiovanni(1996)positsthatprincipalsshouldperformthefollowingtasksin ordertocreateacultureofconsensualunderstanding: Purposing P rincipalsmustcommunicateasharedvisiontoallstakeholders. Maintainingharmony --Principalsmustbuildconsensualrelationshipsbetween allgroupsandstakeholders. Institutionalizingvalues --Theprincipalistheprimeleaderinguidingthe behavior andnormsfortheschool. Motivating --Principalsmustprovidefortheculturalneedsofthestaff. Managing --Theprincipalmustensurethatthelogisticalday to daytasksrun efficiently. Explaining --Theprincipalisch argedwithexplainingtostaff t hevision. Enabling --Principalsarechargedwithprovidingopportunitiesforstaffto completegoals. Modeling --Theprincipalmustmodelthevaluesandvisionwhichisbeing proposed. Supervising --Theschoolprincipalmustoverseeallaspectsofthesch oolandbe answerablewhencommitmentsarenotmet. Aschoolcultureinwhichchangecanthrivedoesnothappenbyaccident (Marriott,2001).Theprincipalmustbethechangeagentandleaderofthecultureofthe school.Theroleofdefiningtheculture maybethesinglemostimportantroleofthe principal(Marriott,2001).Thecultureandleadershipofaschoolinfluencesdatausein theschool( Marsh,Pane,&Hamilton, 2006 ).Theschoolsaccessandabilitytoanalyze datacanbelimitedbytheleader shipandtheculturalsupportforchange(Herman&

PAGE 43

32 Gribbons,2001).Principalsthatshapetheorganizationalcultureprovideastructurethat supportstheconceptoflearningforall(DuFour,2004).Acultureofassessmentfor learningisahighyieldstr ategyforeducationalchange(Fullan, Cuttress,&Kilcher, 2005).Fullan ,Cuttress,andKilcher (2005 )explain assessmentforlearningasgathering dataonstudentlearning,disaggregatingdata,developingactionplans,and communicatingperformancetosta keholders. FullanandHargreaves(1996)suggestthefollowingforimprovingthecultureof theschool: Inordertochangetheculture,theprincipalmustfirstunderstandthecurrent culturebybeingvisibleintheschool. Principalsshouldholdtheteac hersinhighesteemsincetheteacherswillhavean integralroleinreforminitiatives. Principalsshouldemploymanyideaswhentryingtochangetheculturerather thanrelyingononesinglecomponent. Principalsshouldexpresstheideasandvaluesthat theyperceivetobeimportant intheschool. Principalsshouldpromotecollaborationamongallofthestakeholdersandbe receptivetopositiveaswellasnegativefeedback. Principalsshouldofferstaffmanyandvariedopportunitiestoincreaseknowledge andskills. Principalsshouldstrivetoincreaseschoolcultureinallaspectsofadministrative managerialduties. Aculturewhichsupportsdatausebytheprincipalisintegralinschoolimprovement.

PAGE 44

33 Change Datascapacitytorevealstrengthsandweaknes sesultimatelydiscloseswhere changesneedtobemade(Schmoker,1999). De signingchangeinschoolsisnota haphazardeventbutaplannedprocessthattheleadermanages.Therefore,educational leadersmustunderstandhowchangecanbeimplementedinsch oolsandwhento implementthatchangeifpastfailuresofreformaretobeprevented(Fullan,2001; Sarason,1982).Schoolstraditionallyareresistanttochangeandalteringthestatusquo, thereforechangerarelyoccurs(Sarason,1995;Toll,2001). Th enormalfearoffailure cannotbeevaluatedbyleadersasalackofcommitment(Holcomb,2004). Kliebard(Toll, 2001)espousesthattheschoolcommunityisconfrontedbychangeyetconfoundedbyit. Theywantchangebutrealschoolchangerarelyoccurs C hangeexists everydayinschools,buttheschool widereforminitiativesthatare neededinhigh povertyschoolsarecomprehensiveandtaketimetoimplement.This reformneedstobeimplementedbyachangeagentthatunderstandstheprocess. Educational leadersmustunderstandhowreformoccursinschoolsandwhyreformmust beimplementedinnon performingschools(Short,Greer,&Melvin,1994).Whenreform initiativesareimplemented,allstakeholdersmustunderstandtheprocessforthischange andthe timenecessarytoseeresultsofchange.Changeinlowperformingschoolstakes yearsinordertoseeturnaround(Fullan,2001). Onecomponentinthegroundworkforchangeistounderstandchangetheories andhowtheyaretheframeworkforchangeinscho ols.TheTri Partitetheoryofchange positsthattherearethreeprocessesbywhichanorganizationtransitions:person,plan, andposition(Shapiro,Benjamin,&Hunt,1995).Thiscyclicaltheoryproposesthat

PAGE 45

34 organizationsandpeoplechangewiththeimpe tusfromacharismaticleader, the planning thatoccurswiththeinputofthepeopleinvolved,andthequagmireofbureaucracy.This theoryofchangeispertinentforaprincipaltodayinleadingreform.Ifoneunderstands thistheoryandtheschoolneeds ,thentheplanforchangecanbedevelopedina purposefulmannerratherthanwithoutvisionorforethought. Cubanexplainschangeoccurringinschoolsasfirst orderandsecond order change.Thefirstorderchangedealswiththeinfr astructureofthes chool,suchas self cont ainedclassrooms,theclass period length,andthe curriculum.Thesecondorder changeistheadoptionofnewthinkingandthenimplement ingthatintotheschool,such as matchingthecurriculumtotheneedsofthedifferingchild. (Woodbury & Gess Newsome,2002). AnothermodelofchangethataprincipalshouldunderstandisLewins changemodelofunfreezing,changingbehavior,andthenrefreezingthenewbehavior (Schein,1996).Unfreezingbehaviormeansthatindividualsinthegro upmustgettoa pointthattheyarereadytochangelearnedbehaviorswhichusuallyresultsfromnegative circumstancesoccurring(Schein,1996).Aleadercanthenleadthegroupthroughthe changeandthenrefreezenewattitudes,behaviors,andthinking (Schein,1996).Lewin furtherexplainshowchangeoccursusinganexampleofforcefields(Schein,1996). Drivingforcesareincentivesandmotivatorsthatencouragetheindividualsinthe organizationtobetterthemselves,theproduct,ortheorganization .Workinginopposition todrivingforcesarerestrainingforceswhichinhibithigherproductionorlearning.A changeineitheroftheseforcescanresultinhigherproductionorlowerproduction. Whentheforcesstayconstant,thentheorganizationwill remaininastatusquostate (Schein,1996).Aftertheprincipalhasleadtheschoolthroughchange,hemustremain

PAGE 46

35 cognizantofthedrivingandrestrainingforcespresentintheneworganizationinorderto maintainthechange. Withsuchemphasisonrefor mingschools,onewouldimaginethatschoolstoday wouldlookquitedifferentthanschoolsoftheearly1900s.Thissurprisinglyisnotthe case.Thesystemofschoolsisresistanttochangebyvirtueofhistory,tradition,andover learnedattitudes(Sara son,1995).Theconflictofreformingschoolswithouteverseeing muchnoticeabledifferenceinAmericanschoolscanbeattributedtothethinkingofthese threeperspectives(Woodbury&Gess Newsome,2002): Thesystems as contextperspectiveaddressesth eschoolsattemptstoreform withoutunderstandingtheroleofcommunity,politics,systems,oreconomicson theschools.Ifschoolsattempttoreformwithoutaddressingalloftheoutside factorsthatimpactit,theyaredoomedtofail. Theintent of ref ormsperspectivefocusesheavilyonimprovingschoolstheway theyareratherthanrethinkingthewholebusinessofschoolingandmaking comprehensivechanges.Theproblemwiththisperspectiveisthatthechanges necessarytomakesignificantdifferences inschoolsarecomprehensiveand requiremorethansimplypatchworkfixes. Theteacher thinkingperspectivereliesontheknowledgeofteacherswhichmay beinconflictwiththeintentofthereform.Teacherscanmakepositiveimpacts onschoolsiftheyar eeducatedaboutthereformprocessandtherequisite knowledgeneededtomakethechange. Theperspectivethenthatoneapproacheschangecaneitherhelpwiththeimplementation ofthechangeorbecomeabarrierorobstacletoanysignificantchange.An derson(1993)

PAGE 47

36 proposesthattherearesixstagesthatschoolsandeducational leadersmustbecognizant ofbeforechangeoccurs: Vision --Allstakeholdersmustfirstunderstandtheschoolbeforechangebefore anychangeactuallyoccurs. PublicandPolitic alSupport --Asthenewvisionisformed,theschoolmustseek supportfromallstakeholders. Networking --Theschoolleadersmustunderstandthatnetworking:email, newsletters,meetings,conferences,isanintegralcomponentofchange. TeachingandLearn ingChanges --Asthevisionoftheschoolchanges,teachers needtounderstandandutilizenewteachingandinstructionalstrategiesinthe classroom. AdministrativeRolesandResponsibilities --Astheschoolvisionchanges, administrativerolesneedtoch angetoshareddecisionmakingratherthan autocratic. PolicyAlignment --Localpolicyneedstochangetoreflectthechangesandnew visionattheschoolincludingresourcesallocatedtohelptheschoolvisionbe successful. Effectivechangeleadersalso understandandexpectthereactionsofchange(Potter, 2001,p.56): Discovery Iveheardarumorisittrue?; Denial I tdoesntaffectme; Passiveresistance Iwontdoanythingtoassistthechange; Activeresistance Illactivelysabotagethechange;

PAGE 48

37 E xploration L etstrysmallstepsintothenewwayofworking; Commitment T hisisgreat,letshavemore;and Broadcast L etmetellyouaboutthisgreatnewprocess. Theprincipalischargedwithnotonlyreformingone'sparticularschoolbut implementing reformmandatesfromthestateandnationallevelaswell. Tobean effectivechangeagent,aprincipalmustassesstheimpactontheschoolfromoutside forcessuchasthecommunity,government,andparents(Nanus,1992). Aprincipalmust understandrefo rmandthedifficultiesofsustainingchange(Checkley,2000).The contemporaryprincipalisnotonlyconfrontedwithmanagementresponsibilitiesbutis facedwithademandingjobchallengedwithleadingdatadrivenchange(Checkley, 2000). BarrierstoDat aUse Holcomb(2004)concludesthatthebarrierstotheuseofdataincludethelackof propertrainingandtime,theamountofdata,thefearofevaluationandexposure,andthe challengetothecultureoftheschool.Principalshaverarelyhadtrainingi nhowto involvestaffindatadrivendecisionmaking.Thedatatrainingthatteachershavehadin theirteacherdegreeprogramsoftenisabarrier asmostteachersonlylearnedenough statisticstopassthecourseresultinginthechallengetounlearnth enegativefeelingsthat teachershaveofdata.Timeforcollaborativeworkondataisoverwhelmingtoschool leaders.Thebarriersoflackoftrainingandtimecanberesolvedwithareevaluationof thepracticesformeetingsandprofessionaldevelopme nt.Toooften schoolstaffeither arepresentedwithafeastorfamine (Holcomb,2004,p.30) ofdata.Thecareful selectionofdatatomatchthecurrentissuesfacingtheschoolcanhelpwiththeoverload

PAGE 49

38 orlackofdata.Oneofthe greatestbarrier sthatprincipalsfaceisthefearofevaluation expressedbystaff.Tocopewiththisfear,principalsmustresolvetofocusonthegoalof doingwhatisrightforchildrenratherthansuccumbtopoliticalpressure.Thefearof exposureislessovertlyar ticulatedbyteacherswhoresistanyrevelationoftheirclass datawhichmayreveallacklusterresu lts.Finally,theuseofdatais notonlyatechnical taskbutachallengetothecultureoftheschool.Toooften,teachersviewtheirroleasan individua lintheorganizationandnotasacollaborativememberoftheteamwhose collectiveresponsibilityisthelearningofstudents. Bernhardt(2004)suggeststhatschoolstypicallyhavethedatathattheyneedbut lacktheskillstousedata.Fewpeopleint heschoolaretrainedtoanalyzedataoreven to seethegatherin gofdataastheirjob.Educators donotrecognizetheimportanceofdata gatheringandanalysisandseethisjobastakingawayfromteaching.Schoolsoftendo nothavedatabasesorupdated computersystemsthatallowforaccesstoanalyzedata. Profe ssionaldevelopmentforeducators tounderstanddata islackinginschools.They oftenhavehadnegativeexperienceswithdataandhaveuseddatainnegativewaysinthe pastastherearenoteno ughgoodexamplesofdatauseinschools.Finally,dataarenot usedsystematicallyfromstatetothelocallevelandschoollevels. Educatorsareskeptic al abouttheuseofdataastheyfindthemselvesinadata dilemma(Earl&Katz,2006,p.3). They arechargedwithshiftingtodatadriven decisionmakingbutfindthemselves mistrust ing data,fear ingdata,andnothaving the skillstousedataeffectively (EarlandKatz,2006).Aneraofaccountability has pressuredschoolleaderstoconfrontprecon ceptionsofeducati onalpracticesthatdata expose Inthepast,datahave beenusedinapunitiveandevaluativemanner.This has

PAGE 50

39 leadtoaperformance orientedratherthanalearning orientedculture. Thefocuson performance viewsmistakesasweaknesse s,whereas afocusonlearningviewserrorsasa chanceforimprovement. Educatorsareunpreparedtoemploydata drivendecision making.Usingdatainasystematicwayis notthecultureofmostschools. While educatorsdontneedtobeexpertsinstatist ics,theydoneedtargetedtrainingintheuse ofdata. Schmoker(1999) believesthateducatorsavoidtheuseofdataduetoafearofthe unveilingofstrengthsand weaknesses.Revealeddatadrive aneedforimprovement and eliminatesthestatusquo. Ed ucatorsareafraidthat revealed datamaybeperceived negatively(Johnson,2002). Johnson(2002)believesthateducatorsareoverwhelmed withtoomuchdataandexperience what shedefinesas dataoverload(p35). Toooften, asurplusofdataiscollecte dbutrarelyusedindecision making. Fearscanbeeliminated wheneducatorstransitionfrombeingdataproviderstobeingdatausers(p.35). The dataproviderroleisdrivenbyanexternalsourcedefiningexpectationsasopposedtoa datauserwhodefi nestheuseforthedata,resultingindatadrivendecision making. Schmoker(1999)suggeststhatthethreattodatausecanbeeliminatedby followingtheseguidelines(pp40 41): Donotusedataprimarilytoidentifyoreliminatepoorteachers; Donot introducehighstakesprematurely; Trytocollectandanalyzedatacollaborativelyandanonymouslybyteam, department,gradelevel,orschool; Becautiousinimplementingpay for performanceschemes,especiallyinthe beginning;

PAGE 51

40 Allowteachers,byschoo lorteam,asmuchautonomyaspossibleinselectingthe kindofdatatheythinkwillbemosthelpful;and Inundatepractitionerswithsuccessstoriesthatincludedata. UseofD ata Lezotte (2009 ) concludesthateffectiveschoolsaredatadrivensystems with leadersthatareknowledgeableaboutdatause ( http://www.aepweb.org/summit/09_Presentations/Effective_Schools_Lezotte.pdf ) He furtherproposesthatschoolss houldbeevaluatedonresultsandnotprogramsor processesimplemented.Thecollectionanduseofdisaggregateddatatomonitorquality andequityareintegralforeffectiveschools. However,thecollectionofdatabyschool principalswithoutapurpose ismeaningless(Creighton,2001).Principalsthatexamine relevantproblemsintheirowncontextarelearningatwork(Fullan,2002).Principals developstatisticalanddataanalysisskillsmoreeffectivelywhenthetaskscomefrom relevantinstructional situationsencounteredontheircampus(Polnick&Edmonson, 2005). Educatorsmustlookatdatawithabigpictureviewwhichencompasses reviewingallofthedata,understandingthedata,andlookingforcommonalities (Bernhardt,2009).Bernhardt(200 4)suggeststhatdatacanhelpreplacehuncheswith factsandprovideaclearpictureoftheschool.Datacanhelpaschoolunderstand problems,assessneedstotargetservices,realizehowprocessesimpactstudents,and indicateifschoolgoalsareaccomp lished(Bernhardt,2004). WilliamsonandBlackburn(2009)suggestafour stepapproachtotheuseofdata byprincipals.Thefirststepistohaveclarityaboutwhatyouwanttoknowwhichwill

PAGE 52

41 helpindeterminingwhatdatamightbecollectedandanalyzed .Thenonewould determinewhatdataisalreadycollectedandwhatfurtherdatamustbecollected.The analysisofdatashouldbedonebyinvolvingstakeholdersintheprocess.Finally, prioritiesshouldbesetandgoalsdevelopedafteranalyzingthedata Johnson(2002)espousesthefollowingmajorusesfordata(pp36 37): Improvingthequalityofcriteriausedinproblemsolvinganddecision making; Describinginstitutionalprocesses,practices,andprogressinschoolsand districts; Examininginstit utionalbeliefsystems,underlyingassumptions,and behaviors; Mobilizingtheschoolordistrictcommunityforaction; Monitoringimplementationofreforms;and Accountability. TheNationalCenterforResearchonEvaluation,Standards,andStudentTesti ng (CRESST)conductedastudyofthirteenTitleIschoolswhichexaminedtherelationship betweendatauseandachievement.Herman,Lefkowitz,Trusela,&Yamashiro(2008) foundthreemajorthemesthatemergedinregardstotheusefulnessandaccessibility of thedata.Teachersoftenfeeloverwhelmedbytheamountofdataandinformationthat theymustanalyze.Principalsoftenserveastheconduitfilteringdataandhelping teachersanalyzedata,thoughtheyoftenfeelinadequateintheprocess.Schoolpe rsonnel dontalwayshavethedatathatwouldhelpthemseeindividualstudentgrowthovertime. Thisstudydidnotfindanylinkstostudentachievementandtheuseofdatabutthe

PAGE 53

42 researchersattributedthattoasmallsamplesizeandtheuseofdifferen tmethodsfor gatheringdatabetweenschools. Astudyofnineteenprincipalsinurban,suburban,andruraldistrictsinTexas uncoveredfourtrendsindatause (Polnick&Edmonson,2005) .Whileprincipals revealedovertwenty oneadministrativetaskca tegorieswhichprovidedopportunitiesfor dataanalysis,sevenwereidentifiedasthehighestpriorityforopportunitiesfordatause: campusplanning,curriculum,professionaldevelopmentforteachers,studentassessment andachievement,programevaluatio n,andinstructionalsettinganddesign.Principalsare interestedinanalyzingdataanddefiningtheproblemmorethanproposingsolutionsor reportingresults.Theresearchersfoundthatthisseemedlogicalasprincipalswouldonly reportfindingsifthe dataanalysisproceduresusedindefiningandsolvingtheproblem werereliableandvalid.Principalsrevealedthatalmostalldatanecessaryforanalysis existedattheschoollevelanddidnotrequirecollectingadditionaldata.Theprimarydata analys isskillrequiredofprincipalsisdescriptiveratherthaninferentialstatistics. Principalsdevelopstatisticalanddataanalysisskillsmoreeffectivelywhenthetasks comefromrelevantinstructionalsituationsencounteredonhiscampus(Polnick& Edm onson,2005). ResearchersattheMid continentResearchforEducationandLearning ( McREL ) ( Englert,Fries,Goodwin,&Martin Glenn, 2003)foundthataneffectivedataprogram includespurposefuldatacollectionandanalysiswhicharetiedtotheidentif iedneedsand goalsoftheschool.Thiscollectionofdatahelpstomakedecisionsaboutthestudentsand theprograms.Priortothegatheringandanalysisofthedata,designatedresourcesand othersupports,suchastimeandanappropriatedatamanagemen tsystemmustbein

PAGE 54

43 place.Onesupportidentifiedisadatateamattheschoolwhichbuildscommunityand supportforimprovement.Aprimaryroleoftheleadershipoftheschoolistomaintaina cultureinwhichdatacanbecollected,analyzed,andusedfo rimprovement.The leadershipmustalsodevelopstrategiesforcommunicatingtheprocess,purposeand resultsofdataanalysistoallstakeholders. LearningPointAssociates ( http://www. learningpt.org/pdfs/datause/guidebook.pdf ) guidetousingdatawasoriginallyproducedby NorthCentralRegionalEducational Laboratory.Thisworkacknowledgedeightaspectsasessentialdataelementsinaschool. Schoolleadershipshoulddevelopateam comprisedofvariousrepresentativeschool communityrolestocollect,analyze,discuss,disseminate,andfurthertheschool improvementefforts.Thecollectionofdatashouldbeplannedandpurposefuland includeachievement,demographic,programmatican dperceptiondata.Demographic, programmatic,andperceptiondataareallstudiedseparatelyandthenbroughttogether withafocusonstudentachievement.Oncethedataisanalyzed,questionsareformulated andhypothesesgenerated.Thenextstepsareto developgoals,strategiesandevaluation criteria.Finally,theteammustcommittotheschoolimprovementplan. Researchersatthe Mid Continent RegionalEducationalLaboratoryconducteda studyin2003whichexaminedthepracticesthatsuperintendents usetoencourageand fosterdatause.Areviewoftheliteratureinthisstudyrevealedsevencharacteristicsof effectiveaccountabilitysystemswhicharerelevanttoprincipals(Englert ,Fries, Goodwin,Martin Glenn, 2003).Highexpectationsforallstud entsaredemonstratedby assuringthatallstudentsareassessed.Thisexpectationforallstudentsisafactorinlow

PAGE 55

44 achievingstudentsperformingbetterandthusimpactingtheschool.Ahighquality assessmentwhichisalignedwiththestandardsandpro videsusefuldatatostakeholders wasanimportantaspectfromthe survey population.Resources,support,andassistance forimprovementmustbealignedinthesystem.Mostaccountabilitymeasureshave sanctionsandrewardslinkedtoresultsbutnotalled ucatorssupportthislinkage.Itwas agreedthataccountabilitymeasuresshouldbebasedonmorethanoneassessmentand otherdatawhenpossible.Principalsdesiretousedatatomakeprogresstowardschool goalsandtoprovideinstructionalleadership.F inally,datashouldbepresentedtoparents, teachers,andcommunityinameaningfulwaywhichmakessensetoeachgroup. TheresearchbyRegionalEducationalLab oratorywasexpandedin2004 to survey 308principalsinforty eightdistrictsinColorado,K ansas,Missouri,Nebraska, NorthDakota,SouthDakota,andWyoming(Englert,Fries,Goodwin,Martin Glenn,& Michael,2004).Forty threepercentoftheprincipalsidentifiedtheirschoolsasrural.The researcherswantedtounderstandhowassessmentandac countabilitypracticesareusedin theschoolsettingandwhetherthesepracticesimpactschoolandstudentimprovementby allowingprincipalstoratethedegreeofproficiencyonseveralvariablesalignedtothe sevencharacteristicsofthe2003research. Thepurposeofthestudywastogather descriptivedataaboutprincipalsperceptionsoftheiruseofdata.Thefindingscanbe usedtounderstandprincipalsperceptionsabouttheuseofdataandaccountability. Principalswhoreportedhigherproficien cyfortheirschoolsalsohadhigherexpectations forallstudents.Conversely,principalswhoreportedlowerproficiencyalsoreported lowerexpectations.Principalsbelievedthattheirassessmentswerealignedtostate standards ; however theyfeltthat thedataprovidedwasnotdiagnostictoinform

PAGE 56

45 instructionaldecisions.Principalsfeltthattheyhadtheknowledgeandskillstoassistand supportteachersinusingdata butwereunableduetolackofresources.Lackoftimeto analyzedataandlackof fundstoprovidecollaboration,trainingandsupportwerecited byprincipalsasexamplesoflackingresources.Thoughprincipalsfeltthattheyhadthe knowledgetoanalyzedata,theyrespondedthattheydesiredmoretraininginanalyzing dataandindent ifyinginstructionalstrategies.Almost80percentoftheprincipals survey ed indicatedthattheyhadpoliciestoencour ageteachersuseofdata. Approximately86% oftheprincipals survey ed reportedhavingpoliciesfor communicatingaccountabilityresul tstothecommunity. RelationshipbetweentheUseofDataandStudentAchievement TheresearchersattheInstituteofEdu cationSciences( Hamilton,Halverson, Jackson,Mandinach,Supovitz,&Wayman, 2009)suggestfiverecommendationsindata usewhichwil limpactinstructionandthusstudentachievement.Classroomteachers should make dataanongoingpartofcon tinuousimprovementand studentsshouldbe taughttounderstanddataandsetlearninggoals. Teacherscandothisbypracticinga cyclicalprocess fordatausewhichinvolvescollectingdata,interpretingthedata,and thenmodifyinginstructiontotesthypothesestoincreasestudentachievement. Students canlearnfromtheirdatawhentheyunderstandlearninggoalsandwhendataispresented whicht heycomprehend.Teacherswhoprovidetimely,meaningful,andconstructive feedbacktostudentsimpactstudentachievement. Avisionforschool widedatauseanda culturewhichsupportsdatausecanimprovetheschool. Acollaborativeenvironment whichdia gnosesweaknessesandchangesinstructionalpracticesaccountsforplanning, leadership,implementation,andattitude. Trainingindatauseisintegralfordevelopinga

PAGE 57

46 data drivenculture. Districtimprovementresultsindatasystemsthataredevelopeda nd maintainedatthedistrictlevel. Thoughtheresearchersdonothavecompellingevidence tosupport thatthese recommendations leadtoincreasedstudentachievement,they believethattheirexperienceandresearchsupporttherecommendations. Adissert ation,inwhichtheresearcher survey ed 262TitleIelementaryprincipals inIndiana,soughttodeterminehowprincipalsusestudentachievementdataforschool improvementandtherelationshipbetweentestscoresandhowchangeisinfluencedin schools. Lorey(2005)conclu ded thathighperformingschoolleaders practicereviewing andanalyzingdisaggregateddata,providecollaborativereflectivetime, monitorteachers useofdatatodeterminestandardmastery,andfosteraculturewhichiscomfortableus ing data. Theleadershipoftheprincipalplaysanintegralroleinthedata drivendecision makingrequiredforschoolstoday (Bernhardt,2009).Thesuccess ofschoolsdependson theprincipalsskillsandunderstandingoftheprocessesneededforthee ffectiveuseof data(Holcomb,2004). Schmoker( 2006 ) advocatesthatleadershipwhichconcentrateson resultsimpactsteaching.Headvisesthatafocusonlearning,whichisevidencedby assessmentresults,becomestheinfluenceonimprovementsinteachin g. Untilteachers andadministratorsreviewregularlytheconnectionbetweenteachingandresults,no seriousimprovementsinteachingandlearningcanoccur.Effectiveleadersreviewthe followingevidencetoensurethatstandardsarebeingtaught:thepe rcentageofstudents whohaveachievedtargetsonformativeassessments;gradebookswithevidencethat studentsareproficientonstandards;lessonplanswithevidenceoflessons,assessments, andassessmentresults;andstudentworksampleswhichprovide opportunitiesforleaders

PAGE 58

47 tosupportinstructionandassessment(Schmoker, 2006 ). Schoolsimprovewhenpurpose andeffortunite.Onekeyisleadershipthatrecognizesitsmostvitalfunction:tokeep everyoneseyesontheprizeofimprovedstudentlearn ing(Schmoker,1999,p111). Summary Schoolsandprincipalsareinanunparalleledtimeineducationastheyfacethe demandofhigh stakesaccountabilitywhilemanagingassessments,standards,and studentachievement(Daly,2009;Johnson,2002). Accoun tabilitymandateshavebecome adrivingforceinthenecessityofdatausebyprincipalsinmakingdecisionsaboutschool improvementandincreasingstudentachievement(Creighton,2007).Nationallegislation, whichhasincreasedtheroleandpressureofa ccountability,hasresultedindemandsto usedataforinstructionaldecision making(Breiter&Light,2006). Theuseofdataby principalsisindispensableasschoolsmeasuretheirprogressagainsthigh stakes accountability(Wagner,2004). Datauseby principalscanguidedecisionmakingfor increasedstudentachievementandbebeneficialinmonitoringtheaccountability requirementsthatprincip alsface(Williamson&Blackburn, 2009).Theprincipals leadership matterstostudentachievement(Leithwoo d&Wahlstrom,2008).Datacan helpaschoolunderstandproblems,assessneedstotargetservices,realizehowprocesses impactstudents,andindicateifschoolgoalsareaccomplished(Bernhardt,2004).There aresuccessfulTitleIschoolsacrossthenati oninwhichstudentsareacademically successfuldespitetheoddsandproduceresultsaswellasnon TitleIschools.Thetask fortheprincipalistodeterminewhatfactorshecaninfluence(Lewis,1997).The contemporaryprincipalisnotonlyconfronted withmanagementresponsibilitiesbutis

PAGE 59

48 facedwithademandingjobchallengedwithleadingdatadrivenchange(Checkley, 2000).

PAGE 60

49 ChapterIII Method Introduction NCLBlegislationhasintensifiedtheneedforprincipalstobecomemore knowledgeable intheirroleintheuseofdatatoimprovetheachievementofstudents. (Yeagley,2003). However;Holcomb(2004)foundthatmostprincipalsarenotprepared toeffectivelyusedata Manyeducatorshavelittleexperienceinusingdatasystematically toi nformdecisions( Bernhardt,2004;Earl,&Katz,2006; Holcomb,2004; http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/datause/guidebook.pdf ) The perceptionsofthe useof databyHeartlandTitleIelemen taryadministrators wasdeterminedbasedonthe participantsresponseonthesurveyinstrument. ProblemoftheStudy Datausebyprincipalscanguidedecisionmakingforincreasedstudent achievementandbebeneficialinmonitoringtheaccountabilityrequ irementsthat princip alsface(Williamson&Blackburn ,2009).Asaccountabilitysystemswithhigh stakesassessmentsincrease,principalsmustunderstandandusedatatoimprove instruction(Khanna,Trousdale,Penuel,&Kell,1999).Theproperuseofdata by principalsisaneffectivestrategyforraisingstudentachievement(Bernhardt,2009;Earl &Katz,2006;Holcomb,2004;Johnson,2002).Schoolsreceiveandcollectvastamounts ofdata;however,theydonotusethedatainasystematicwaytoidentify strengthsand weaknessesnorstrategiesforimprovement( Bernhardt,2004;Earl,&Katz,2006;

PAGE 61

50 Holcomb,2004; Schmoker,1999, http://www.principalspartnership.com/ ) Most schools collectdatatocomply withorganizationalrequirementsratherthan to make meaningfulschoolimprovementdecisions(Creighton,2007). Principals,asinstructional leaders,arechargedwithcollecting,analyzing,andusingdataastheyleadthewayfor studentachievement( http://www.iel.org/programs/21st/reports/principal.pdf ).Insightful leadersguidetheirstaffindata drivendecisionmaking ( http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/datause/guidebook.pdf ).However,theschoolprincipal failstousedatatoooftenindecisionmaking(Creighton,2001;Earl&Katz,2006; http://www.l earningpt.org/pdfs/datause/guidebook.pdf ).Morethanever,data driven decisionmakingmustbepracticedbytheschoolprincipal(Creighton,2001). ProblemStatement Intheageofaccountabilityandassessment,thereisaneedtoensurethatdata provide d,regardingstudentachievement, are effectivelyandappropriatelyutilizedby schoolsiteadministratorsinasystematicwaytoimprovestudentachievement. PurposeoftheStudy Thepurposeofthisstudywas toidentifyHeartlandEducationalConsortium Title Iprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceptionsoftheiruseofdataintheirroleas decision makersinraisingstudentachievement withprimaryemphasisonFloridas DifferentiatedAccountabilityModel. ResearchQuestions The followingrese archquestionswereinvestigated toidentifyHECprincipals andassistantprincipalsperceptionsoftheirdatauseintheirroleasdecision makersin raisingstudentachievement.

PAGE 62

51 1. TowhatextentdoHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipa ls perceivethattheyusedatainachievement relateddecisionmaking? 2. Whatpatternsarediscernableintheperceptionsofprincipalsand assistantprincipalsacrosstheseveralareasofdatausefor achievement relateddecisionmaking? 3. Dotheperceptio nsofHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsdifferfromthe perceptionsofHECTitleIelementaryassistantprincipalsintheiruseofdatafor achievement relateddecisionmaking? 4. Whatsupportsandbarrierstodatainachievement relateddecisionmakinguse do HECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceivethatthey experience? Researchmethod Aquantitative descriptive research studywas conductedinwhicha cross sectional surveyinstrument was administeredtotheTitleIelementaryp rincipalsand assistantprincipalsintheHeartlandConsortiu m.Across sectional surveyinstrument provide s currentinformationregardingdatauseandreveal s informationthatmaybe beneficialtotheadministratorsofthesedistricts(Fink, 2009). A Like rtquestionnaire in additiontotwoopen endeditems was developedtosurvey theadministratorst ogauge theirperceiveduseofdata.The questionnaireitemswere developedbytheresearcherand administeredbytheresearcher. Thefocusforthestudywas the principals andassistant principals perceptionsoftheirdatausagein theTitleIschoolsinthesix district HeartlandEducationalConsortium.

PAGE 63

52 Populationandsamplesize Theelementaryprincipalsand assistantprincipalsinthesix districtHeartl an d EducationalConsortiumwere askedtoparticipatei nthisstudy.Thisstudyfocusedonthe 31 elementaryTitleIschoolsthatarelocatedintheHeartlandEducationalConsortium. ThedistrictswhichcomprisethisconsortiumareDesoto,Glades,Hardee,H endry, Highlands,andOkeechobee.Thesedistrictsaresmall,ruralcommunitieswithaslittleas twoTi tleIschoolsinGladesandten inHighlands.TheaveragenumberofTitleIschools inthesedistrictsisfive. Becauseofthesensitivenatureofiden tifyinginformationaboutpri ncipals, schools,ordistricts,n odistrictorschoolwas comparedagainsteachotheroridentifiedin thestudy. DevelopmentofInstrumentation Inconsideringthe surveyinstrument touseforthisstudy,theresearcher condu ctedextensivesearchesof the MentalMeasurementsYearbooksearchengineand theTestLink(ETS)searchengine. Inaddition,aninternetsearchwasconductedand an inquiry made to the NationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals(NAESP) resea rch departmenttodetermine whatinstruments ,ifa ny,wereavailableonthetopicof datausebyprincipalsinachievement relateddecisionmaking Noneofthese source s resultedinaquestionnaireconsideredsuitableforthisstudy bytheresearcher .Asearch ofonlinedissertationsresultedinthreedissertationswithasimilartopic but thesurvey instruments werenotspecificenoughtothisstudytobeused. Asare sult,theresearcher conducted interviews tohelpinthe designofa surveyinstrument spec ifictothestudy.

PAGE 64

53 AphoneinterviewwiththeFlorida DeputyChancellorforSchoolImprovement andStudentAchievement wasconductedtoexplorethestateperspectiveondatauseby schoolprincipals (A ppendixA ) TheDeputyChancellorlinkedthedefinitio nofstudent achievementdatatotherequirementsfoundintheDifferentiatedAccountabilityModel (DA) anddescribed the FloridaComprehensiveAchievementTest(FCAT)asthemost significant example ofstudentachievementdata. Otherassessmentswhichth echancellor referencedwerethebaselineandmidyeardistrictassessmentsasrequiredbyDA andthe FloridaAssessmentsforInstructioninReading(FAIR) whichisprovidedbythestate. Themostimportantstateexpectationfordatausebyprincipalsisto analyzestudent deficiencies,torecognizetheareaswherestudentsarestillstrugglingbasedonthe standardsandthebenchmarks,andthenusethatdatatoinforminterventionsandother supportsystemsthatareneededtomovestudentstoproficiency. Principalsshouldalso considerusingdatatoidentifywhichteachersmayneedmoreassistanceand interventionsininstructionalstrategiesasmeasuredbystudentachievementdata. The Deputy Chancellors explanationofstudentachievementdataandthe e xpectationbythe stateforschoolprincipalswillbeconsidered indeveloping the surveyinstrument An additionalphone interview withadistrictlevel acc ountabilitydirectorina large Florida school districtwasconductedto gaugewhatconstructs fro madistrict perspective mightbeconsideredindevelopingaquestionnaire (Appendix B ) Forthe purposeo fthisdissertation,construct isusedtoidentifythethemesortopicswhichare usedtoorganizetheitemsintheLikert sub scale s Thesubscales oftheLikert questionnaireincludeditemsthatrepresenttheconstructsofstudentachievement related datauseinrelationtoschoolimprovement,professionaldevelopment,dataskills,

PAGE 65

54 leadership,andmonitoringprocesses.Thedistrictleveldirector ide ntified the same assessments todefinestudentachievementdata as mentionedbytheDeputyChancellor butadded theComprehensiveEnglishLanguageLearningAssessment( CELLA ) and the FloridaKindergartenReadinessScreener( FLKRS ) Sincethesetwoaddition al assessmentsarenotmentionedintheDAmodel,theywillnotbeconsideredwhen writingthequestionnaire. Whenaskedaboutthestatesexpectations,shereplied,Itsall abouttheSchoolImprovementPlan. Thestatesexpectationsforprincipaldata useare articulatedintheschoolimprovementplanwhichisacomponentoftheDifferentiate d AccountabilityModel andrequiredforFloridaschools. Thestateexpectsprincipalsto makedata drivendecisionsattheschoolforprograms,interventions,andg oalsinthe SchoolImprovementPlan. Asaresultoftheinterviews,theresearcher determinedthat theDAmodel along withareviewoftheliterature ondatause should shape the surveyinstrument A three partquestionnaire was created bytheresearcher and administeredtothe HECTitleI principalsandassis tantprincipalsin face to facemeeting (AppendixN ). Apacket consisting ofanexplanationofthepurpose,problem andresearchquestions(Appendix J ),theinformedconsentdocument(Appendix K), a coverletter (AppendixL ) andthe questionnaire (Ap pendixN ) were providedtothe respondents bytheresearcher Thefirstpart ofthe surveyinstrument was comprisedof L ikert type items created bytheresearcher asaresultoftheinterviews,therequi rementsofFloridas DifferentiatedAccountabilityModel,andareviewoftheliteratureon student achievement related datausebyprincipals Likert typeitemsaskrespondentstotellhow theyagreeordisagreewithastatement(Fink,2009).Typically,t hescalerangesfrom

PAGE 66

55 stronglyagreetostronglydisagree. Informationfromtheinterviews,DA requirements andareviewoftheliterature were used togenerateitemsintomeaningful subscales in the surveyinstrument toaddresstheresearchquestions The itemswere organizedby topics ratherthanrandomlyplacedinthequestionnairetoaddinternallogicand provide a smoothtransitionthroughoutthequestionnaire(Czaja&Blair,2005). Fink(2009)states thatpriortoselectingthecontentofthe survey instrument ,theresearchermustdefinethe termsandclarifytheinformationdesi redfromthe surveyinstrument .Thesubscales of theLikertquestionnaire include d itemsthatrepresenttheconstructsofstudent achievement relateddatauseinrelationtos choolimprovement,professional development,dataskills,leadership,andmonitoringprocesses. The 5 point scalethat was usedinthestudyis: StronglyA gree, A gree, NeitherAgreenorD isagree, Dis agree, and S trongly Dis agree (Fink,2009) Th esecondp art ofthequestionnaire contain ed twoopenendedquestions regardingthesupportsandbarriersofdatause instudentachievementdecisionmaking byschoolprincipalsandassistantprincipals. Thethird part contain ed demographicquestions on administrat ivetitle, administrativeexperience andschoolsDAdesignation C ategoricalresponsechoices were providedforeachofthesecategories,thusensuring participantsthatthe survey instrument was anonymous. Theresearcher gain ed permissiontoadminister thequestionnairetoschool based TitleIelementary administrators ,principalsandassistantprincipals, fromeachofthe superintendents oftheHeartlandEducationalC onsortium byrequestingtobeonthe agendafortheNovember,2010Heartlandsuperinte ndentsmeetingagenda .Permission

PAGE 67

56 toadministerthe surveyinstrument wasgrantedafterarequestfromtheHardee superintendentande mailcorrespondencefromtheresearcher. Acopyofthe questionnaireandthecoverletter was sharedwithsuperintendent s bytheHardee superintendent alongwith written explanation bytheresearcher ofthepurposeofthe research,theresearchquestions,andtheproposeddataanalysis. Superintendentswere assuredthatnodistrictsorschools would berevealedintheanaly sis. The questionnaire was administeredbytheresearcheratprincipalandassistantprincipalmeetings or atthe schoolsites ineach ofthesix schooldistrict s Theface to facemethod foradministering thequestionnaire waschose n toincreasetherespo nserate(Czaja,R.,Blair,J.,2005). Biasisalsousuallylowinaface to facequestionnaire(Czaja,R.,Blair,J.,2005). The disadvan tagesof thismetho dwere thecostfortheresearchertotraveltotheschool dist rictsandthetimethatittook toa dministerthe surveyinstrument (Czaja,R.,Blair,J., 2005). Whentheresearcherwasnotabletomeetwithaprincipal ora ssistantprincipal the researchinformation (AppendixJ ),theinformedconsentdocument ( AppendixK ) ,a coverletter( AppendixLan dM )andtheques tionnaire (Appendix N ) wasprovided to each administrator Sincetheresearcherworksandlivesin the Hardeedistrict,carefulconsideration was giventoensurethatthe questionnaires oftherespondentsinHardeewere anonymous tother es earcher.Hardeerespondentswere survey ed afterthedistrictsofDesoto, OkeechobeeandGladeswere surveyed .The questionnaires ofthe three survey ed districts collectedpriorto surveyingHardeeadministrators were placedinanenvelope. AftertheH ardeerespondentscomplete dthe ir questionnaires theywere placedinthe

PAGE 68

57 envelopesothattheresearcherwouldnotknowtheres ponsesoftheHardee administrators A panel ofexperts comprisedof f our TitleIdistrictadministratorswhich representthe sixdistricts andaconsortiumadministrator was established totestthe content validityoftheinstrument Apanelofexperts strengthisits diversityof expertiseaswellastheinteractioninthemeeting(Czaja,R.,&Blair,J., 2005). This panel o ffive has expertiseintheDifferentiatedAccountabilityModelandtherequisite dataskillsthatarerequiredofaTitleIschoollevelelementaryadministrator. The membersallworkcloselywiththeadministratorsofthe ir TitleIschoolsandhave expe riencewiththerequirementsoftheDA StrategiesandSupport document. Allofthe panelmembershaveamastersdegreein educationalleadershipand three haveprior experienceasaTitleIelementaryprincipalorassistantprincipal. Onehasprior experi enceasasecondaryleveladministrator.Onememberhasamastersdegreein educationalleadershipandadoctoratedegreeincurriculumandhasservedasan administratorattheschoollevel,districtlevel,andnowattheconsortiumlevel. The questionna irewas reviewed bytheresearcher withthis panel inaface to facemeeting The panel review ed theitemsofthequestionnaireforclarity ,relevance,redundancy bias, anddouble barreledcharacteristics ( AppendixC ). Biascanoccurifemotionally charg edwordsareincludedintheitemsoriftheresearcherhaswrittentheitemsinsuch awaytoleadtherespondent(Fink,A.,2009). Double barreleditems,whichconfuse respondentsbecausetheyhavetwopartsthatrespondentsmayfeeldifferentlyabout, w ouldberewrittenastwoquestions(Czaja,R.&Blair,J.,2005).

PAGE 69

58 Thisfirst panel ofexperts was also askedtoconsiderifanyite msshouldbeadded ordeletedfrom thequestionnaire,ifthelengthofthequestionnairewasappropriate,and iftheyhadan yfurtherfeedbackregardingthequestionnaire. Theresponsesand feedback fromthepanelwere usedtomakeanynecessary editsor clarificationstothe questionnaire(Creswell,2005). T welveitemswere written bytheresearcher foreachof theconstructs ofstudentachievement relateddatauseinrelationtoschoolimprovement, professionaldevelopment,dataskills,leadership,andmonitoringprocesses. Decisionrules,createdbytheresearcherpriortothereviewoftheinstrume ntby thepanel ofexpert s, determine dwhichitemsshould berewrittenoramended (Table 1 ) T able1 DecisionRulesfor the PanelofExperts ContentValidity Rating DecisionRulebythe R esearcher Clarity 1=clear 2=somewhatunclear 3=unclear Itemscodedas2willbe reviewed bytheresearcher andrewrittenasnecessary. Ifitemsarerewritten,they willbesenttothepanel forfurtherreview.Items codedas3bythreeor moreexpertswillbe consideredforremoval fromthequestionnaireor rewritten. Relevance 1=school improvement 2=professional development 3=leadership 4=monitoringprocesses 5=dataskills Anyitemsthatare reportedinaconstruct unintendedbythe researcher,willbe reevaluatedforrelevance andrewrittenasnecessary.

PAGE 70

59 Redundancy 1=itemstandsal oneand isnotrepeatedinanother item 2=itemissomewhatlike anotheritem 3=itemistooclosein meaningtoanotheritem Itemscodedas2willbe reviewedbytheresearcher andrewrittenasnecessary. Ifitemsarerewritten,they willbesenttothepan el forfurtherreview.Items codedas3bythreeor moreexpertswillbe consideredforremoval fromthequestionnaireor rewritten. Bias 1=itemdoesnotleadthe respondenttoapreferred response 2=itemissomewhat writtentoleadthe respondentto apreferred response 3=itemiswrittentolead therespondenttoa preferredresponse Itemscodedas2willbe reviewedbytheresearcher andrewrittenasnecessary. Ifitemsarerewritten,they willbesenttothepanel forfurtherreview.Items codedas 3bythreeor moreexpertswillbe consideredforremoval fromthequestionnaireor rewritten. Double barreleditems 1=itemonlyreferstoone part 2=itemsomewhatrefersto twoparts 3=itemreferstotwoparts Itemscodedas2willbe reviewedbythe researcher andrewrittenasnecessary. Ifitemsarerewritten,they willbesenttothepanel forfurtherreview.Items codedas3bythreeor moreexpertswillbe consideredforremoval fromthequestionnaireor rewritten. Thefeedbackfromthepane l indicatedthatfiveitemsrequiredfurther clarificationwhichisrepresentedin T able2. Additionally theplacementofitems19,20, and24 inthe surveyinstrument were movedtothebeginningofthe professional developmentsubscale asaresultoffe edbackfromapanelmember (AppendixD )

PAGE 71

60 Tab le2 ItemsRewrittenasaResultofthe #1 ExpertP anel Item# Editsto I tem s AfterFeedbackfromtheP anel 9 Iimplementthecurriculumthatis required necessary afterananalysisof studentachievementdat a. 47 Ireviewstudentachievementdata throughouttheyear withtheleadershipteam. 48 Ireviewstudentachievementdata throughouttheyear withtheSchoolAdvisory Council(SAC). 59 Iinfluenceteachers tochangeinstructionalpractices withstudent achievement data. 60 Ischeduletime forme toanalyzestudentachievementdata. Oncethequestionnaire was reviewedbythepaneland items rewrittenas necessary, theresearchersenttheupdatedquestionnairebacktothepanelthroughe mail Theres earcher askedfor feedbackontheeditsandrequested thatthepanelchoosetwo items persubscale to deletefromthesurveyinstrument ( AppendixE ). Asecondexpertpanelwasconvenedtotestthequestionnaireforashiftin perspective whichwouldprovid einsightintotheambiguityoftheitems. Thesecond panelwasalsoaskedto choosetwoitemsineachsubscale :schoolimprovement, professionaldevelopment,leadership,monitoringprocessesanddataskillswhichshould beeliminatedfromthequestionnair e. Theresearcherdirectedpanel#2toconsiderthe itemsimportanceinthesubscale ,itsclarity, anditsredundancy whenconsideringitems forremoval. The60itemeditedquestionnairesenttopanelonewasalsousedwithpanel

PAGE 72

61 two. Thisfourmemberpa nelconsistedofformerTitleIelementaryprincipalsandone assistantprincipal. Threeofthemembershavem asters degreesineducationalleadership andonehasadoctoraldegreeineducationalleadership. Twoofthemembersare district leveladministr ators,o neisahighschoolprincipal andoneisa n alternativeschool principal.Theresearcher e mailedtheexpertpanel arequest tocompletethe survey instrument in theroleofa principalor an assistantprincipal whousesdataeffectivelyor ineff ectively instudentachievement relateddecisionmaking. Twoofthememberswere askedtocompletethe surveyinstrument intheroleofahighly in effective school administrator (AppendixF ) andtwowereaskedtocompletethe surveyinstrument inthe role ofahighly effectiveadministrator (AppendixG ) The researcherreviewedthe responsesofpanel#2todetermineif theitemsweresensitivetoashiftinperspective.If theitemsdidntdisplayashift,theresearcherwoulddetermineiftherewasaneed to rewriteanyitems.Theabsenceofashiftwouldindic atethatthereisambiguity. The resultsfrompanel#2 scompletionofthe surveyinstrument indicatedthattherewasa shiftinperspectiveoftheitemsandthatnoneoftheitemsshowedanyambig uity that wouldresultintheeliminationfromtheinstrumentoraneedtorewrite (Appendix H ) The InstitutionalReviewBoard( IRB ) requestedchangesinthedemographic portionofthequestionnaire.Duetoasmallsamplesizeandtheriskof the identif ication oftherespondents,theresearcherchangedthey earsofexperiencefromthesixoptions: 0 5years,6 10years,11 15years,16 20years,21 25yearsand26+yearstotwo options:0 15yearsand16+years.TheDifferentiatedAccountabilitydesignat ionwas alsochangedfromfiveoptions:PreventI,CorrectI,PreventII,CorrectII,andIntervene

PAGE 73

62 totwooptions:Category1:(PreventI,CorrectI,ornoDAdesignation)andCategoryII: PreventII,CorrectII,andIntervene. Theresearcheranalyzedth efeedbackfromPanels#1and#2regardingwhich itemstodelete.Theresearcher alsochosetwoitemspersubscale todeleteafterreviewing theworkfromthetwopanels(AppendixI). Afterthe editsweremadetothe questionnaire upon the reviewfromthe two expert panelsandtheIRB,the instrument wasused to survey theTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipa lsinthe HeartlandConsortium (AppendixN ) Datacollection The31principalsand24assistantprincipalsofelementaryTitleIschool sinthe HeartlandEducationalConsortiumwereaskedtoparticipateinthestudy.Theresearcher asked tobeonthesuperintendentsagendaforthesuperintendentsmonthlymeetingfor thepurposeofexplai ningtheresearch requestingpermission to surve y the principalsand assistantprincipals.Thisrequestwasgrantedbutduetoanunforeseenconflict,the superintendentofHardeerepresentedtheresearcheratthemeetingandmadetherequest forthestudy.Theresearcherprovidedacopyofthequestion naire,thecoverlettertothe questionnaire,andanexplanationofthepurpose,problemstatement,andresearch questionsforthesuperintendents.Inaddition,theresearchermetwithHardees superintendentandexplainedthestudypriortohismeetingwi ththesuperintendents.The superintendentsfromHighlands,Hendry,Okeechobee,andGladesapprovedthestudy. ThesuperintendentofDesotowasnotinattendanceatthesuperintendentmeetingbut approvedthestudyaftertheresearchermadearequestthrou ghe mail

PAGE 74

63 Thequestionnaire wasdesigned bytheresearcherto survey theprincipalsand assistantpri ncipalsinthestudy(AppendixN ).The surveyinstrument wascreatedtotake nolongerthan30minutestocompletebutinmostcasesrespondentswereabl etofinishit inmuchlesstime.Theresearcherscheduledtomeetwiththeprincipalsandassistant principalsineachdistricttoadministerthequestionnaire.InHighlands,Okeechobee, Hardee,andHendry c ounties,theresearcherwasgiventimeduringa principalsmeeting toexplainthestudyand survey therespondents. Theresearcherpresentedthesurvey duringaprincipalsmeetingin Hardee C ounty Two ofthe principalsfinished the questionnaire duringthem eetingandthethreeothershadtheir sur veyinstrument either pickedupbytheresearcherattheindividualschoolsitesordeliveredthe survey instrument totheresearcher.The surveyinstrument softheOkeechobeeprincipalswere mailedbacktotheresearcher.TheprincipalsofHighlandsandH endrycompletedthe surveyinstrument sduringtheprincipal s meetingandtheresearchercollectedthe survey instrument satthattime.InDesotoandGlades,theresearchertraveledtoeachschoolsite andmetwiththeprincipalandassistantprincipalto providethemacopyofthe survey instrument .Theresearcherleftthe surveyinstrument withtheadministratorsandreturned backtoeachschooltopickupthe surveyinstrument safewdayslater. TheresearchermetwitheachOkeechobeeassistantprincipa lateachschoolsite andadministeredthe surveyinstrument toeachindividually.Those surveyinstrument s that werenotcollectedatthetime weremailedbacktotheresearcher.InHardee,the researchermetwitheachassistantprincipal attheschoolsi tetoprovideeachwithacopy ofthe surveyinstrument Theresearcherlaterreturnedtopickupeach surveyinstrument attheschoolsites.TheresearchergaveeachoftheHighlandsprincipalsacopyofthe

PAGE 75

64 surveyinstrument packettogivetotheirassi stantprincipal.Afollow upe mailwassent fromtheresearchertotheassistantprincipalstoexplainthestudy.Theresearchermet withtheHighlandsprincipalsafteradistrictmeetingthefollowingweektopickupthe surveyinstrument s.HendryC ount ydoesnothaveanyassistantprincipals. Infive cases theresearcherwasnotabletomeetwithschooladministratorsduetoillnessorprior commitments.Apacketwiththequestionnaire,coverletter,informedconsent,anda stampedenvelopewasleftfor theadministratortocompleteandreturntotheresearcher. Twoofthe surveyinstrument sweremailedbackandonewasscannedande mailedback totheresearcher. DataAnalysis Datawere collectedfrom surveyinstrument sadministe redtotheschoolprinc ipal and assistant principalateachofthe elementary TitleIschoolsintheHeartland Consortium. SPSSs t atisticals oftware (2010) was usedtoanalyzethedatagenerated fromthe surveyinstrument s Descriptivestatistics include d themedian,mode and ra nge andare representedinbarcharts and frequency tables Treatingthescaleasacontinuous scalera therthananordinalscale allow ed theresearchertocalculatethemeanand standarddeviation(Fink,2009). Reliabilityreferstothe consistencyofva rianceinrepeatedtrials (Czaja&Blair, 2005).Ifanotherresearcherusesthequestionnaireinthisstudy,followingthesame procedures,thesameresultsshouldbeobtained(Czaja&Blair,2005). Cronbacha lpha s reliabilitieswere calculatedtodetermin eanestimateoftheinternalconsistencyofthe entire surveyinstrument ,aswellaseach subscale oftheinstrument todetermine reliability (Gall,Borg,&Gall, 1996). Theseestimatesreflecttheextenttowhich

PAGE 76

65 respondentsanswersimilaritemsthesam eway(Gall,Borg,&Gall,1996). Gliemand Gliem(2003)concludethatitismoreappropriatetocalculatethereliabilityofthe subscaleandtheentireinstrumentratherthanthereliabilityofeachiteminthe questionnaire( http://hdl.handle.net/1805/344 ) WhenusingaLikertscale,itis appropriate tocal culateandreporttheCronbach alphacoefficientforinternalconsistency reliabilityforsubscalesasopposedtoindividualitems .T hereliabilityofind ivi dualitems islowandCronbach alphadoesnotprovidereliabilityforsingleitemsinthe survey instrument (Gliem&Gliem,2003).Furthermore,theresearcher reported onlyresultsof theoverall surveyinstrument orthesubscales andnotontheindivid ualitemlevel. Specificproceduresusedtoanswereachoftheresearchquestionsaredescribed below. ResearchQuestion1:TowhatextentdoHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistant principalsperceivethattheyusedatainachievement relatedde cisionmaking? Anoverallmean score was computedforalloftherespondents asonegroup principalsandassistantprincipals,aswellasameanforeachofthesubscales inthe questionnaire (Table3) Additio nally, standarddeviation swere calculatedto represent theextentofvariationinscoresabouteachmean. Theseanalyse s provide d insightinto the overall perceptions ofthe respondentsconcerningdatauseinachievement related decisionmaking. ResearchQuestion2:Whatpatternsaredis cernablein theperceptionsof principalsand assistantprincipalsacrossthe severalareasofdatauseforachievement relateddecision making? Treatingalloftherespondentsasonegroup ,theresearchercalculateda repeated m easuresANOVA toexamine forstatistical ly significantdifferencesamongthesubscale

PAGE 77

66 means (Table3) Anyp atternsamongtherespondents perceptions were revealedinthis analysis. Anadvantageofarepeatedmeasur esdesignisthatfewersubjectsarerequired (Stevens,1999). ResearchQuestion3:DotheperceptionsofHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsdiffer fromtheperceptionsofHECTitleIelementaryassistantprincipalsintheiruseofdata forachievement rela teddecisionmaking? Theperceptionsoftheprincipa lsandassistantprincipalswere analyzedusinga O n e WayMultivariate A nalysis (MANOVA) which allow ed acomparisonofallofthe subscalemeansoftheprincipalswiththoseoftheassistantprincipals ( Table3) The MANOVAanalysiscontrolstheerrorrateandallowscorrelationsamongthedependent measures(Stevens,1999). Theresultsprovidedinsightintowhetherelementary principalsandassistantprincipalsdifferedintheirperceptionsofdatause. ResearchQuestion4:Whatsupportsandbarrierstodatauseinachievement related decisionmakingdoHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceive thattheyexperience? Twoopenendeditemswere includedinthequestionnairetoanal yzethesupports andbarriersofdatausebyprincipalsandassistantprincipals. Open endedquestionswere helpfulingaininginsightbutcanbechallengingtoanalyze(Jackson&Trochim,2002). Afterallofthequestionnaireswerecompleted ,theresearch erprovided each principal andassistantprincipalwithhisorheropen ended responses (AppendixO ) .The responses weree mailedbacktoeachindividualandeachwasofferedtheopportunityto review thecomments andprovideadditional feedback or clar ifi cation .Feedbackcouldbe e mailedbacktotheresearcheroritcouldbeprovidedanonymouslyonblogswhich

PAGE 78

67 werecreatedbytheresearcher.Ablog, http://principaldatause.blogspot.com ,was providedfor theprincipalstorespondanonymouslyandablog, http://assistantpriincipaldatause.blogspot.com wasprovidedfortheassistantprincipals. MoserandKalton(1977)suggesteditingforcomplet eness,accuracy,anduniformity. Theresearcher review ed theitemsto checkthattherespondents suppliedananswerfor theopen endeditems. Toincreasethereliability apriori procedure swere establis hed afterthequestionnaireswere completedandprio rto thedevelopmentof coding categories(Montgomery&Crittenden,1977). Codingrequirestheresearchertoorganize theresponsesintocategories(Montgomery&Crittenden,1977). StraussandCorbin (1990)recommendorganizingideasandconceptsbycompa risonsandaskingquestions aboutthesimilarityoftheresponses. MontgomeryandCrittenden(1977)suggestthata coderorganizee achquestionnaire response into logical categories .Asecondcoder follow ed thesameprocedurefororganizingtheresponsesi ntologicalcategories.The secondcoder,chosenbytheresearcher ,hasadoctoraldegreeinEducationalL eadership andiscurre ntlyahighschoolprincipaland isaformerTitleIelementaryprincipalwith experienceinthebarriersandsupportsofdatau se. Patternswere consideredbetweenthe twocodersby organizingthecategoriesinto crosstabulationtable s Theresearchermetwiththeadditionalcoderandexplainedtheproceduresfor identifyingthethemespresentintheresponses.Acopyofthepri ncipalsandassistant principalsresponsestothetwoopen endeditemswereprovidedtothesecondcoder. Initially,theresearcherandthesecondcoderindependentlyconsideredthethemes presentineachadministratorsresponsetothetwoopen endedit ems (Appendices P,Q, R,&S ) Aftertheinitialthemeswereidentifiedbytheresearcherandtheadditional

PAGE 79

68 coder,theitemswereorganizedbytheinitialcodingcategoriesinanefforttoseeany emergingpatterns (Appendices T,W,Z,&CC ) Thenther esearcherandcoder independentlyorganizedtheideasandconceptsbycomparingthesimilarityofthe responses (Appendices U,X,AA,&DD ) Oncec ategorieswereorganized,category names were assignedtothegroups. Thetwocoders agree d uponthecategor ynamesby analyzingthecrosstabulationtable s and then comingtoconsensus (Appendices V,Y, BB,&EE ) Theresultsare displayedinfrequencytables (Tables31, 32, 33, &34) After thethemeswereidentified,theresearcherlinkedtheobservationsto thequantitative portionofthe surveyinstrument Summary Thisstudysoughttodescribetheperceptionsofdatauseintheirroleas achievementrelateddecisionmakersbytheelementaryTitleIprincipalsandassistant principalsintheHeartlandEduca tionalConsortium. Theproblemisthatintheageofaccountabilityandassessment,thereisaneedto ensurethatdataprovided,regardingstudentachievement,iseffectivelyandappropriately utilizedbyschoolsiteadministratorsinasystematicwayto improvestudent achievement. ThepurposeofthisstudyistoidentifyHeartlandEducationalConsortiumTitleI principalsandassistantprincipalsperceptionsoftheiruseofdataintheirroleas decision makersinraisingstudentachievementwithpri maryemphasisonFloridas DifferentiatedAccountabilityModel. Theresearchquestionsansweredasaresultofthestud ywere :

PAGE 80

69 TowhatextentdoHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistant principalsperceivethattheyusedatainachievement related decision making? Whatpatternsarediscernableintheperceptionsofprincipalsand assistantprincipalsacrosstheseveralareasofdatauseforachievement relateddecisionmaking? DotheperceptionsofHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsdifferfromthe perceptionsofHECTitleIelementaryassistantprincipalsintheiruseof dataforachievement relateddecisionmaking? Whatsupportsandbarrierstodatauseinachievement relateddecision makingdoHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprinc ipals perceivethattheyexperience? Table3 ResearchQuestionsandStatisticalAnalysis ResearchQuestion StatisticalAnalysis TowhatextentdoHECTitleI elementaryprincipalsandassistant principalsperceivethattheyuse datainachievement relat ed decisionmaking? Overallmeanforthegroup Overallmeanforeachofthesubscales Whatpatternsarediscernableinthe perceptionsofprincipalsand assistantprincipalsacrossthe severalareasofdatausefor achievement relateddecision maki ng? repeatedmeasuresANOVA

PAGE 81

70 DotheperceptionsofHECTitleI elementaryprincipalsdifferfrom theperceptionsofHECTitleI elementaryassistantprincipalsin theiruseofdataforachievement relateddecisionmaking? One WayMultivariateAnalysis W hatsupportsandbarrierstodata useinachievement relateddecision makingdoHECTitleIelementary principalsandassistantprincipals perceivethattheyexperience? Theresearcherandanadditionalcoderwill organizetheresponsesintocategoriesby themes. ALikertquestionnairewasdevelopedbytheresearcherusingtheinformation gainedfrominterviews,theDifferentiatedAccountabilityModel,andfromaliterature reviewofdatause.Afterthetwopanelsofexpertsreviewedthequestionnairet oimprove thevalidity,theresearcheradministeredthesurveyinstrument,collectedthedata,and completedthedataanalysisinanattempttoanswertheresearchquestions.Dataanalysis consistedofthefollowingstatisticalprocedures:overallmeanfo rthegroup,overallmean foreachofthesubscales,repeatedmeasuresANOVA,One WayMultivariateAnalysis, andtheresearcherandanadditionalcoderorganizedtheresponsesintocategoriesby themes.

PAGE 82

71 ChapterIV Results Introduction Datauseby principalscanguidedecisionmakingforincreasedstudent achievementandbebeneficialinmonitoringtheaccountabilityrequirementsthat principalsface(Williamson&Blackburn,2009).Asaccountabilitysystemswithhigh stakesassessmentsincrease,pr incipalsmustunderstandandusedatatoimprove instruction(Khanna,Trousdale,Penuel,&Kell,1999).Theproperuseofdataby principalsisaneffectivestrategyforraisingstudentachievement(Bernhardt,2009;Earl &Katz,2006;Holcomb,2004;Johnso n,2002).Intheageofaccountabilityand assessment,thereisaneedtoensurethatdataprovided,regardingstudentachievement,is effectivelyandappropriatelyutilizedbyschoolsiteadministratorsinasystematicwayto improvestudentachievement. ThepurposeofthisstudywastoidentifyHeartlandEducationalConsortiumTitle Iprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceptionsoftheiruseofdataintheirroleas decision makersinraisingstudentachievementwithprimaryemphasisonFloridas Di fferentiatedAccountabilityModel. PopulationSample Theelementaryprincipalsand assistantprincipalsinthesix districtHeartland EducationalConsortiumwereaskedtoparticipateinthisstudy (Table4) .Thisstudy

PAGE 83

72 focusedonthe31elementaryTitle IschoolsthatarelocatedintheHeartlandEducational Consortium.ThedistrictswhichcomprisethisconsortiumareDesoto,Glades,Hardee, Hendry,Highlands,andOkeechobee.Thesedistrictsaresmall,ruralcommunitieswithas littleastwoTitleIschoo ls inGladesandten inHighlands.TheaveragenumberofTitleI schoolsinthesedistrictsisfive. Table 4 PotentialParticipantsfor theS tudy Heartlanddistricts Principals AssistantPrincipals Total Desoto 3 3 6 Glades 2 2 4 Hardee 5 5 10 Hendr y 6 0 6 Highlands 10 9 19 Okeechobee 5 5 10 31 24 55 DataCollection The31principalsand24assistantprincipalsofelementaryTitleIschoolsinthe HeartlandEducationalConsortiumwereaskedtoparticipateinthestudy.Theresearcher askedto beonthesuperintendentsagendaforthesuperintendentsmonthlymeetingfor thepurposeofexplainingtheresearch,requestingpermissiontosurveytheprincipalsand assistantprincipals.Thisrequestwasgrantedbutduetoanunforeseenconflict,the superintendentofHardeerepresentedtheresearcheratthemeetingandmadetherequest

PAGE 84

73 forthestudy.Theresearcherprovidedacopyofthequestionnaire,thecoverlettertothe questionnaire,andanexplanationofthepurpose,problemstatement,andres earch questionsforthesuperintendents.Inaddition,theresearchermetwith thesuperintendent fromHardeeCounty andexplainedthestudypriortohismeetingwiththe superintendents.ThesuperintendentsfromHighlands,Hendry,Okeechobee,andGlades ap provedthestudy.ThesuperintendentofDesotowasnotinattendanceatthe superintendentmeetingbutapprovedthestudyaftertheresearchermadearequest throughe mail. Thequestionnairewasdesignedbytheresearchertosurveytheprincipalsand ass istantprincipalsinthestudy(AppendixN).Thesurveyinstrumentwascreatedtotake nolongerthan30minutestocompletebutinmostcasesrespondentswereabletofinishit inmuchlesstime.Theresearcherscheduledtomeetwiththeprincipalsandas sistant principalsineachdistricttoadministerthequestionnaire.InHighlands,Okeechobee, Hardee,andHendrycounties,theresearcherwasgiventimeduringaprincipalsmeeting toexplainthestudyandsurveytherespondents.Theresearcherpresente dthesurvey duringaprincipalsmeetinginHardeeCounty.Twooftheprincipalsfinishedthe questionnaireduringthemeetingandthethreeothershadtheirsurveyinstrumenteither pickedupbytheresearcherattheindividualschoolsitesordelivered thesurvey instrumenttotheresearcher.ThesurveyinstrumentsoftheOkeechobeeprincipalswere mailedbacktotheresearcher.TheprincipalsofHighlandsandHendrycompletedthe surveyinstrumentsduringtheprincipalsmeetingandtheresearchercoll ectedthesurvey instrumentsatthattime.InDesotoandGlades,theresearchertraveledtoeachschoolsite andmetwiththeprincipalandassistantprincipaltoprovidethemacopyofthesurvey

PAGE 85

74 instrument.Theresearcherleftthesurveyinstrumentwith theadministratorsandreturned backtoeachschooltopickupthesurveyinstrumentsafewdayslater. TheresearchermetwitheachOkeechobeeassistantprincipalateachschoolsite andadministeredthesurveyinstrumenttoeachindividually.Thosesurv eyinstruments thatwerenotcollectedatthetimeweremailedbacktotheresearcher.InHardee,the researchermetwitheachassistantprincipalattheschoolsitetoprovideeachwithacopy ofthesurveyinstrument.Theresearcherlaterreturnedtopic kupeachsurveyinstrument attheschoolsites.TheresearchergaveeachoftheHighlandsprincipalsacopyofthe surveyinstrumentpackettogivetotheirassistantprincipal.Afollow upe mailwassent fromtheresearchertotheassistantprincipals toexplainthestudy.Theresearchermet withtheHighlandsprincipalsafteradistrictmeetingthefollowingweektopickupthe surveyinstruments.HendryCountydoesnothaveanyassistantprincipals. Infive cases theresearcherwasnotabletomeetw ithschooladministratorsduetoillnessorprior commitments.Apacketwiththequestionnaire,coverletter,informedconsent,anda stampedenvelopewasleftfortheadministratortocompleteandreturntotheresearcher. Twoofthesurveyinstrumentswe remailedbackandonewasscannedande mailedback totheresearcher. Fifty threeofthepotentialfifty fiveparticipantscompletedthe surveyinstrument whichwas usedinthedataanalysis. Thisreflectsa96%completionrate. T hirty principals ,97%re sponserate, andtwenty three ass istantprincipals,96%response rate, completedthe surveyinstrument sforthestudy. Oneassistantprincipal questionnaire was returnedtotheresearcheraftertheanalysisandthusnotusedinthestudy. Mostofthe prin cipals ,97%, andalloftheassistantprincipalshavebeenintheircurrentrolelessthan

PAGE 86

75 fifteenyears(Table 5 ) Onlysi xoftheprincipals ,20%, havesixteenormore administrativeyearsexperienceinFlorida. Table 5 Study P articipants by Administr ativeE xperience Questionnaire Administrative Experience Categories Principals F Principals % Assistant Principals f Assistant Principal s % Total 0 15yearsincurrent role 29 97% 23 100% 52 16+yearsincurrent role 1 3% 0 0% 1 0 15totalnumbero f administrative experience(principal andassistant principal)inFlorida 24 80% 22 96% 46 16+totalnumberof administrative experience(principal andassistant principal)inFlorida 6 20% 1 4% 7 Sixty sixpercent oftheprincipalsandassistantprin cipals reportedthattheir schoolisin CategoryIoftheDifferentiat edAccountabilitymodel(Table6 ). Thirty four percentreportedthattheir schoolisinCategoryIIoftheDifferentiat edAccountability (DA) model(Table6 ). In2008,apilotprogramo fFloridasDifferentiatedAccountabilityModel (DA) wasimplemented,whichisaconsolidationoffederalandstateaccountabilitysystemsfor thesakeofidentifyinglowperformingschools.BoththefederalNCLBlegislationand thestatesformerschoola ccountabilitysystem,commonlyreferredtoasFloridasSchool Grades,weremergedtocreateaseamlessaccountabilitysystemforFloridasschools.On

PAGE 87

76 August14,2009theStateBoardofEducationapprovedthefullimplementationofthe DAmodel.Thisrule allowedforthecategorizationofschools,levelofassistance providedtoschools,andthesupportsystemsandstrategiestobeimplementedbyschools anddistricts.Themodelconsolidatednon TitleIschoolsandTitleIschoolsinto categoriesofdiffer entiatedassistanceandsupportfromtheschooldistrictandthestate andclarifiedtherequirementsfromtheschool.Thiscategorizationisreferredtoasthe DifferentiatedAccountabilityMatrix.SchoolsareorganizedintocategoryI,PreventI andCorr ectI,whichrequirelesssupportfromthedistrictandfromthestate.CategoryII, PreventIIandCorrectIIschools,requiremoresupportfromthedistrictandthestate.The StrategiesandSupportdocument,providedbytheFloridaDepartmentofEducati on, providestheguidelinesfortheDArequirementsforschoolsinthematrix. Table 6 StudyP articipants S elf reportingof S chools DifferentiatedAccountabilityD esignation Differentiated Accountability Categories Principals F Principals % Assistant P rincipals f Assistant Principals % Total CategoryI: PreventIor CorrectIorno designation 20* 63% 20 87% 40 CategoryII: PreventII, CorrectII,or Intervene 11* 33% 3 13% 14 Total 31 23 54 *One principal coded CategoryI andII

PAGE 88

77 Reliabilit y Theinternalconsistencyofthefiftyitem swasdeterminedbyaCronbach alpha whichisanestimateofinternalconsistency.Thealphacoefficientforthefiftyitemsis .966,suggestingthattheitemshaverelativelyhighinternalconsistency(Table 7 ) A reliability coefficientof70 orhigherisconsideredacceptable. Highreliabilitymeansthat respondentswhoselectedhighscoresforoneitemalsotendedtoselecthighscoresfor theothersandthosethatselectedlowscoresforoneitemtendedt os electlowscoresfor the others. Areviewofthereturnedsurveyinstrumentsbytheresearcherrevealedthat tworespondentshadinadvertentlyleftoutresponsesto someofthe items.AP# 10d idnot an s weritem #16 ofthe survey instrument.AP#19d idnotan sweritems 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,or 20 Topreventtheexclusionofthesetwosurveysfromtheanalysis,theresearcher substitutedvaluesforthemissingvalues.Themissingvalueswereimputedfromthe overallmeanofeachrespondentsquestionnaire. Theoverallmeanscoreforassistant principal# 10 was 4.1 .Avalueof4wassubstitutedforthemissingvalue initem#16. The overallmean scoreforassistantprincipal#19was3.9 .Avalueof4wassubstituted for themissingvaluesinitems14,15,16, 17,19,and20. Tables8and 10displaythe meanandstandarddeviationoftheitems Areviewof theCronbach alpha s ofthesubscales indicated thatleadershiphadthehighestreliability anddataskillshadtheleastreliability (Table11 ) TheCorrect ed ItemTotalCorrelations forthe 50 itemquestionnaireandeachofthe10 itemsubscalesdidnotreveal anyitems thatneededtoberemovedduetoalowcorrelation (Table9)

PAGE 89

78 Table 7 Cronbach al phafortheFiftyI tems N % Cases Valid 53 100.0 Excluded 0 .0 Total 53 100.0 Cronbach's Alpha NofItems .965 50 Table8 MeanandStandardDeviationbyItem N Mean Std.Deviation V1 53 4.77 .423 V2 53 4.72 .455 V3 53 4.28 .769 V4 53 4.04 999 V5 53 4.45 .748 V6 53 4.36 .811 V7 53 4.58 .497 V8 53 4.30 .503 V9 53 4.21 .863 V10 53 4.36 .710 V11 53 4.15 .969 V12 53 3.75 1.054 V13 53 3.68 1.105 V14 53 4.26 .836 V15 53 3.89 .993 V16 53 3.91 1.005 V17 53 4.40 .947 V18 53 4.06 .929 V 19 53 3.23 .993 V20 53 3.00 1.193 V21 53 4.21 1.007 V22 53 4.55 .774 V23 53 4.40 .862 V24 53 3.98 1.065 V25 53 4.87 .342 V26 53 4.11 1.068 V27 53 4.34 .831 V28 53 4.11 1.031 V29 53 4.00 .920 V30 53 4.02 .772

PAGE 90

79 V31 53 4.38 .596 V32 53 4.40 .566 V33 53 3.02 .971 V34 53 4.15 .841 V35 53 4.38 .740 V36 53 4.53 .696 V37 53 4.32 .701 V38 53 3.28 1.231 V39 53 4.51 .724 V40 53 4.19 .833 V41 53 4.38 .657 V42 53 4.51 .576 V43 53 4.06 .929 V44 53 4.36 .736 V45 53 4.23 .776 V46 53 4.06 .886 V47 53 4.25 .617 V48 53 3.81 .962 V49 53 3.91 .925 V50 53 4.34 .807 ValidN(listwise) 53 Table9 Item TotalStatistics ScaleMeanif ItemDeleted Scale Varianceif ItemDeleted Corrected Item Total Correlation Cronbach's AlphaifItem Deleted V1 203.25 643.189 .624 .964 V2 203.30 643.907 .547 .964 V3 203.74 635.198 .541 .964 V4 203.98 626.519 .584 .964 V5 203.57 631.289 .662 .964 V6 203.66 629.075 .664 .964 V7 203.43 644.827 .462 .964 V8 203.72 648.091 .328 .965 V9 203.81 632.502 .542 .964 V10 203.66 636.229 .559 .964 V11 203.87 626.694 .600 .964 V12 204.26 627.160 .539 .964 V13 204.34 627.921 .498 .964 V14 203.75 627.150 .691 .963 V15 204.13 630.655 .503 .964 V16 204.11 624.025 .632 .964 V17 203.62 624.086 .671 .963

PAGE 91

80 V18 203.9 6 626.999 .621 .964 V19 204.79 629.706 .523 .964 V20 205.02 626.903 .476 .965 V21 203.81 624.348 .624 .964 V22 203.47 623.331 .849 .963 V23 203.62 621.278 .808 .963 V24 204.04 621.114 .650 .964 V25 203.15 648.631 .460 .964 V26 203.91 617.472 .718 963 V27 203.68 624.491 .760 .963 V28 203.91 617.010 .755 .963 V29 204.02 622.903 .719 .963 V30 204.00 632.615 .606 .964 V31 203.64 635.157 .707 .964 V32 203.62 638.393 .630 .964 V33 205.00 631.346 .502 .964 V34 203.87 626.232 .708 .963 V35 203.64 627.081 .786 .963 V36 203.49 630.409 .740 .963 V37 203.70 638.292 .507 .964 V38 204.74 629.352 .419 .965 V39 203.51 630.370 .711 .963 V40 203.83 627.105 .694 .963 V41 203.64 636.465 .599 .964 V42 203.51 641.985 .495 .964 V43 203.96 628.537 .587 .96 4 V44 203.66 643.959 .328 .965 V45 203.79 642.052 .359 .965 V46 203.96 632.229 .533 .964 V47 203.77 638.525 .572 .964 V48 204.21 630.283 .529 .964 V49 204.11 633.641 .478 .964 V50 203.68 623.222 .816 .963 Table10 ScaleStatistics Mean Variance Std.Deviation NofItems 208.02 656.750 25.627 50

PAGE 92

81 Table 11 CronbachalphafortheS ubscales Cronbachalpha NofRespondents Nofitems SchoolImprovement .871 53 10 Professional Development .8 49 53 10 Leadership .917 53 10 MonitoringProc esses .890 53 10 DataSkills .823 53 10 Results andFindingsbyResearchQuestion ResearchQuestion1 TowhatextentdoHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceive thattheyusedatainachievement relateddecisionmaking? Anov erallmeanwascomputedforalloftherespondentsasonegroup,principals andassistantprincipals,aswellasameanforeachofthesubscalesinthequestionnaire. Additionally,astandarddeviationwascalculatedtodescribetheindexvariability. Add itionaldescriptivestatistical analysisprovidedinsightintotheperceptionsofthe groupindatauseinachievement relateddecisionmakingwhichwasusedtoanswer researchquestion1. Table 12 provides thedescriptivestatistics: item mean, standard errorofthe mean, standarddeviation ,variance,andmedian ofeachsubscale andtheoverall questionnaire.Fifty threeschooladministrators,30principalsand23assistantprincipals, participatedinthestudy.

PAGE 93

82 Table 12 DescriptiveStatistics Subscales N Mean Std. Error of Mean Std. Deviation Variance Median School improvement 53 4.408 .0656 .478 .228 4.5 Leadership 53 4.258 .0926 .674 .454 4.4 Professional Development 53 3.819 .0914 .665 .443 4.0 Monitoring Processes 53 4.115 .0791 .576 .331 4.1 DataSkills 53 4.189 .0681 .496 .246 4.3 Overall 53 4.160 .0704 .513 .263 4.2 The descriptivestatisticsrevealednounusualmeansorstandarddeviations Figure 1 display the item meansoftheperceptionsofadministrators,principalsand assistant principals, intheiruseofdatain theareasof schoolimprovement,leadership, professionaldevelopment,progressmonitoring,anddataskills.Themeanfortheoverall scoreforthequestionnaireisalsodisplayedinthegraph. S chooli mprovementhasth e highestmean,4.40 8 Themeanforl ead ersh ip,4.258,wasrankedsecondby the administrators M onitoringp rocessesan ddatas killshadsimilarmeans,4.115and4.189 respectively. Theperceptionsby administratorsinthe ir use ofdataintheareaof prof essionaldevelopmenthadthelowestmean,3.819. Themeansofschool improvement,leadership,anddataskillswerehigherthantheoverallmean ,4.160, forthe questionnaire.

PAGE 94

83 Figure1. ItemMeansbySubscaleandOverall AreviewofthemeansinTabl e 12 indicatesthattheadministratorsperceivethat the yusedatamostintheareaofschooli mprovement( x =4.408).Thereistheleas t amountofvariabilityintheschooli mprovementscoreswithastandarddeviationof.478 andavarianceof.228 (Table 1 2 ) Thismeansthattheresponsesarelessdispersed. The informationin Table 13 andFigure 2 shows thatonly13.2 % oftherespondentshada mean itemresponsebelow4.0ontheschooli mprovementsubscale.Themean andthe median ofschooli mprovement are thehighestscoresof allof thesubscales .Assistant principal#5sresponsetotheopen endeditemregardingsupportstodatause corroboratestheseresultswiththefollowingstatement: Asaleadershipteam(principal, AP,anddatacoach)wemeetweek lytodiscussdatatrends,analyzedataandplanfor waystousethedatatoimproveinstructionalstrategies.Wealsohavetwicemonthlydata meetingswithourteacherstoreviewdata,reviewassessmentsandplannextsteps. Item s #2 and#3 fromtheque stionnaire wereincludedintheschooli m provement subscale : #2: Iworkwiththeschoolleadershipteamtoanalyzestudentachievement Subscale s

PAGE 95

84 datatoidentifyschoolimprovementstrategies. #3:Iworkwiththeentireschoolstaffto analyzestudentachievement datatoidentifyschoolimprovementstrategies. Table 13 Sc hoolImprovement FrequencyofRespondentsMeanItemResponses MeanItem Response Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 2.8 1 1.9 1.9 3.2 1 1.9 3.8 3.5 1 1.9 5.7 3.7 1 1.9 7.5 3.8 2 3.8 11.3 3.9 1 1.9 13.2 4.0 4 7.5 20.8 4.1 3 5.7 26.4 4.2 3 5.7 32.1 4.3 4 7.5 39.6 4.4 4 7.5 47.2 4.5 4 7.5 54.7 4.6 7 13.2 67.9 4.7 4 7.5 75.5 4.8 3 5.7 81.1 4.9 2 3.8 84.9 5.0 8 15.1 100.0 Total 53 100.0

PAGE 96

85 Figure2.SchoolImprovementFrequencyofRespondentsItemMeans Figure2.SchoolImprovementFrequencyofRespondentsItemMeans Afterschooli mprovement,administratorsreportedthatthe yusedatamostinthe areaofl eadership( x =4.258). H owever,t hereisthemostamountofvariabilityinthe area of l eadershipwithastandarddeviationof.674andavarianceof.454(Table 12 ). The negativeskewnessoftheresponsesindicatesthatmostrespondentstendedtostrongly agreeorag reetothei temsinthissubscale (Figure2). Table 14 andFigure 3 indicatethat 26.4 %oftherespondentshadameanscoreof 3.9orless intheareaof leadership comparedto13.9% whohadameanscoreof3.9or less intheareaofschooli mprovement. Overfifteen percent ofthemeanscores were3.5 orbelowforl eadershipcomparedto5.7% at 3.5 orbelow intheareaofschool i mprovement. Assistantprincipal#3sresponsetotheopen endeditemregardingsupportsto datause substantiates theseresultswiththefo llowingstatement: AP 3: DatachatsusingLiteracyFirst,GoMath,andMockFCATdata conductedbytheLiteracycoachandtheprincipalseemtobeverybeneficial.Thesedata ItemMeans

PAGE 97

86 chatsareconductedwith teachersindividually. Item#2 1fromthequestionnair e was includedinthel eadershipsubscale : #21: Ireviewstudentachievementdatawitheach teacherinaone on onemeeting. Table 14 LeadershipFrequencyofRespondents Item Means MeanItem Response Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 2.4 2 3 .8 3.8 2.5 1 1.9 5.7 2.9 1 1.9 7.5 3.4 1 1.9 9.4 3.5 3 5.7 15.1 3.6 2 3.8 18.9 3.7 1 1.9 20.8 3.8 1 1.9 22.6 3.9 2 3.8 26.4 4.1 4 7.5 34.0 4.2 4 7.5 41.5 4.3 2 3.8 45.3 4.4 3 5.7 50.9 4.5 3 5.7 56.6 4.6 3 5.7 62.3 4.7 5 9.4 71 .7 4.8 5 9.4 81.1 4.9 7 13.2 94.3 5.0 3 5.7 100.0 Total 53 100.0

PAGE 98

87 Figure3 LeadershipFrequencyofRespondentsItemMeans Table 12 indicatesthattheadministratorsperceive d thattheyusedata least inthe area ofprofessionald evelopment( x =3.819). Forty fivepointthreepercent ofthe respondentshadmeanscoresof3.9orless inprofessionald evelopment comparedto 26.4 %inleadershipand13.9%inschooli mprovement (Table15 andFigure4) Thirty fourpercen t ofthemeanscoreswere3.5orbelow intheareaofprofessional d e velopmentcomparedto15.1%inleadershipand5.7%inschooli mprovement. After leadership,professionald evelopmenthasthemostvariab ilityinscores:SD=.665and variance=.443. Admini strators indicated intheopen endeditem thatalackofprofes sional developmentandpersonnelwithexpertise todelivertrainingwerebarrierstotheuseof data.Timeforprofessionaldevelopmentandresistancetochange bystaffmembers were alsoinclu dedasbarriers. ItemMeans

PAGE 99

88 AP 2: Themostcriticalbarrierwouldbemylackoftrainingandknowledge. AP 16: Barrierstodatauseincludeusingdifferentdatacollectiontoolsandproviding timefortrainingontheuseofthetools. P 25: Oneofthebarrier sinclude (sic) resistancetochange.Ithasgottenbetterbutat firstchanginginstructionalstrategieschangeswerenothappening.Nowaftermanyin services,etc.teachersaresharing,usingbestpracticesandarewillingtomodelto groupsforthepur poseofchanginginstruction . P 29: Timeforstaffdevelopmenttotrainteachersindatacollectionaswellasdata analysisisverylimited.Weneedmultipledaysthroughouttheyearandresourcesto bringinexpertsortrainfromwithinontopicssuch asdataanalysis,bestpractices,and paradigmshift.Lackofresourcesandtimecontinuetobemajorbarriersaswellas havingtrueexpertiseavailablefortraining Table 15 ProfessionalDevelopmentFrequencyofRespondents Item Means MeanItem Res ponse Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1.9 1 1.9 1.9 2.2 1 1.9 3.8 2.6 1 1.9 5.7 2.7 2 3.8 9.4 2.9 1 1.9 11.3 3.0 2 3.8 15.1 3.2 3 5.7 20.8 3.4 3 5.7 26.4 3.5 4 7.5 34.0 3.7 1 1.9 35.8 3.8 4 7.5 43.4 3.9 1 1.9 45.3 3.9 2 3.8 49.1

PAGE 100

89 4.0 3 5.7 54.7 4.1 4 7.5 62.3 4.2 4 7.5 69.8 4.3 2 3.8 73.6 4.4 5 9.4 83.0 4.5 5 9.4 92.5 4.6 2 3.8 96.2 4.7 1 1.9 98.1 4.8 1 1.9 100.0 Total 53 100.0 Figure4.ProfessionalDevelopmentFrequency ofRespondentsItemMeans Table 12 indicatesthatmonitoringprocessesanddataskillshadsimilarmeans, 4.115and4.189respectively. However,thereismorevariabilityinthemeansof monitoringprocesses(SD=.576andvariance=.331)thandataskills (SD=.576and variance=.331) Thismeansthattheresponsesweremoredispersedthanhomogeneous. Thirty ninepointsixpercent ofthemonitoringprocessesmeanswere3.9orbelow comparedto24.5%at3.9orbelowfordataskills (Tables16and17 andFig ures5and6 ) ItemMeans

PAGE 101

90 Themedianscoreformonitoringprocesses,4.1,isalsolowerthanthemedianfordata skills,4.3. Administratorsindicatedthatalackofknowledgeandtimetoanalyzewere barrierstodatause. AP 5: Thebarrierformewaslackofexpe rienceinanalyzingthedata. AP 12: Timeforanalysisandacompleteunderstandinghavebeenbarriers. P 14: Lackofknowledgeconcerningsomespecificskillanalysisdata. P 5: Thebiggestbarrierformehasbeencompilingallthedataanddeterm iningwhich direction,interventiontoutilizetodirectclassroominstruction.Pinpointingspecific studentdifficulties andcreatingthetimeandresourcestogetthestudentthat individualizedinstruction (sic) Table 16 MonitoringProcessesFreque ncyofRespondents Item Means MeanItem Response Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 2.3 1 1.9 1.9 2.7 1 1.9 3.8 3.0 1 1.9 5.7 3.5 4 7.5 13.2 3.6 3 5.7 18.9 3.7 2 3.8 22.6 3.8 7 13.2 35.8 3.9 2 3.8 39.6 4.0 2 3.8 43.4 4.1 4 7.5 50.9 4.2 3 5.7 56.6 4.3 3 5.7 62.3 4.4 3 5.7 67.9 4.5 3 5.7 73.6 4.6 3 5.7 79.2

PAGE 102

91 4.7 3 5.7 84.9 4.8 4 7.5 92.5 4.9 2 3.8 96.2 5.0 2 3.8 100.0 Total 53 100.0 Figure5.MonitoringProcessesFrequencyofRes pondentsItemMeans T able 17 DataSkillsFrequencyofRespondents Item Means MeanItem Response Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 2.4 1 1.9 1.9 3.1 1 1.9 3.8 3.2 1 1.9 5.7 3.4 2 3.8 9.4 3.6 1 1.9 11.3 3.7 2 3.8 15.1 3.8 3 5.7 20 .8 ItemMeans

PAGE 103

92 3.9 2 3.8 24.5 4.0 3 5.7 30.2 4.1 5 9.4 39.6 4.2 4 7.5 47.2 4.3 6 11.3 58.5 4.4 6 11.3 69.8 4.5 5 9.4 79.2 4.6 4 7.5 86.8 4.7 2 3.8 90.6 4.8 2 3.8 94.3 4.9 1 1.9 96.2 5.0 2 3.8 100.0 Total 53 100.0 Figure6.DataSkillsFrequencyofRespondentsItemMeans ItemMeans

PAGE 104

93 Theoverallmeanforthequestionnairewas4.160.Thevariabilityisindicatedby astandarddeviationof.513andavarianceof.263 (Table12) .Table 18 andFigure 7 denoteasomewhateq ualdistributionacrosstherangeofmeans. Table 18 FrequencyofRespondents TotalScoreItem Means MeanItem Response Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 2.44 1 1.9 1.9 2.74 1 1.9 3.8 3.02 1 1.9 5.7 3.46 1 1.9 7.5 3.52 1 1.9 9.4 3 .56 1 1.9 11.3 3.60 1 1.9 13.2 3.68 1 1.9 15.1 3.74 1 1.9 17.0 3.78 1 1.9 18.9 3.82 2 3.8 22.6 3.86 1 1.9 24.5 3.90 2 3.8 28.3 3.95 1 1.9 30.2 4.00 1 1.9 32.1 4.02 1 1.9 34.0 4.04 1 1.9 35.8 4.06 1 1.9 37.7 4.10 1 1.9 39.6 4.18 1 1.9 41.5 4.22 3 5.7 47.2 4.24 2 3.8 50.9 4.26 2 3.8 54.7 4.30 1 1.9 56.6 4.34 1 1.9 58.5 4.36 3 5.7 64.2 4.42 2 3.8 67.9 4.44 1 1.9 69.8

PAGE 105

94 4.48 1 1.9 71.7 4.50 1 1.9 73.6 4.54 1 1.9 75.5 4.56 1 1.9 77.4 4.64 3 5.7 83.0 4.66 3 5. 7 88.7 4.68 1 1.9 90.6 4.74 1 1.9 92.5 4.78 1 1.9 94.3 4.80 1 1.9 96.2 4.82 1 1.9 98.1 4.84 1 1.9 100.0 Total 53 100.0 Figure7.FrequencyofRespondentsTotalScoreItemMeans ItemMeans

PAGE 106

95 ResearchQuestion2 What patternsaredis cernableintheperceptionsof principalsand assistantprincipals acrosstheseveralareasofdatauseforachievement relateddecision making? Arepeatedm easur esANOVAwascalculatedtoexamineforstatistical ly significantdifferencesamongthesubscalemeans.Anypatternsamongthegroups perceptionswererevealedinthisanalysis.Anadvantageofarepeatedmeasuresdesignis thatfewersubjectsarerequired (Stevens,1999). Table 19 revealsthatadministratorsperceivetha ttheyusedataintheareaof schooli mprovement( x =4.408) and l eadership( x =4.258)more thanintheareaof monitoringp rocesses( x= 4.115)anddatas kills(x = 4.189 ) .Theyperceivethat th eyuse dataintheareaofprofessionald evelopment( x =3.819) theleast Skewnessvalueswereoutsidetherangeof+1and 1 (Table 1 9) .Thisindicatesa non symmetricdistributionofthedata. Theskewnessvaluesareallnegative,indicatingthat thefre quencydistributionofthesurveyquestionnaireresponsestendtohavealongertailon thelowendofthescale rather thanthehighendoft hescale(Figures 2& 3) Table 19 Descrip tiveStatisticsofSubscales Subscales N Skewness Mean Std.Deviation School Improvement 53 1.05 4.408 .478 Leadership 53 1.25 4.258 .674 Professional Development 53 .892 3.819 .665

PAGE 107

96 Wilks'lambdaisates tstati sticusedin analysisofvariancetotestwhetherthere aredifferencesbetweenthemeansof identifiedgroupsofsubjectsonacombinationof dependentvariables. L ambdavariesfrom0to1,with0 denoting groupmeansdifferand 1meaningallgroupmeans arethesame. Table 20 reportstheWilkslambdaat.305. The WilksLambda=.305,F=(4,49),p=.000 suggeststhatoneormore statistically significant differences existamongthefivesubscales :schoolimprovement,leadership,professional development,mon itoringprocesses,anddataskills (Table 20 ) Othermultivariatetests listedinTable17providesimilarinformationtotheWilksLambda,asnotedbythe resultsinthelastcolumn.Theresultsinthelastcolumnaretruncated,meaningthatthe results couldbe.0009orless. Table 20 MultivariateTests b Value F Hypothesis df Errordf Sig. Wilks Lambda .305 27.879 4.000 49.000 .000 PillaisTrace .695 27.879 4.000 49.000 .000 Hotellings Trace 2.276 27.879 4.000 49.000 .000 Roys LargestRoot 2. 276 27.879 4.000 49.000 .000 Monitoring Processes 53 .742 4.115 576 DataSkills 53 1.14 4.189 .496

PAGE 108

97 Theassumptionofindependenceisnotpresu medin arepeatedm easures ANOVA asthesamepersonismeasuredfordifferentconditions ortrials .The assumptionthatthereisarelationshipbetweenthe conditions issphericity. The assumptionofsphericitycanbecomparedtotheassumptionofhomogeneityofvariance, equalvariancebetweenthe observationsintheindividualgroups. Thesig nificant valueof .048forMauchlysWandtheepsilonvalueof.899forHuynh Feldtsugges tsthatthere isaviolationofsphericity (Table18) WhenthesignificanceleveloftheMauchlystest is<0.05thensphericitycannotbeassumed. Epsilon indicatesthedegreetowhich sphericityhasbeenviolated.Ifsphericityismetperfectlythene psilonwillbeexactly1. Ifepsilonisbelow1thensphericityisviolated.Thefurtherepsilongetsawayfrom1the worsetheviolation. Thevalueof.899forHuynh Feldtsuggeststhattheviolationisfairly mild (Table21) Whentheassumptionofspher icityisviolated,theprobabilityofaType Ierrorisincreased.ATypeIerrorresultsinrejectingthenullhypotheseswhenthenullis infactcorrect. Table 22 displaystheanalysisforthecorrectedviolationsofsphericity. Huynh Feldtreportsthe df at3.597 whichisbelow4.0;t herefore theviolationof sphericityhasbeencorrected. Thecorrectedresultsshowsignificancevaluesindicating thatoneormorereliabledifferencesexistamongt hefivesubscalemeans(Table22 ). Table: 21 Testsof Within SubjectsEffects Sphericity Epsilon Within Subjects Effect Mauchlys W Approx. Chi Square df Sig. Green h ouse Geisser Huynh Feldt Lower bound .713 17.035 9 .048 .835 .899 .250

PAGE 109

98 Table: 22 Corrected TestsofWithin SubjectsEffects Source T ypeIII Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Subscale Sphericity Assumed 10.086 4 2.522 26.401 .000 Subscale Huynh Feldt 10.086 3.597 2.804 26.401 .000 Subscale Greenhouse Geisser 10.086 3.340 3.020 26.401 .000 Subscale Lower bound 10.086 1.00 10.086 26.401 .000 Error(Subscale ) Sphericity Assumed 19.866 208 .096 Error(Subscale ) Huynh Feldt 19.866 187.023 .106 Error( Subscale ) Green h ouse Geisser 19.866 173.671 .114 Error(Subscale ) Lower bound 19.866 52.000 .382 Table 23 displays95%confide ncebandsforeachofthefivewithinsubject variables. Thewithinsubjectvariablesareth eresponsesonthefivesubscales Theband forprofessionaldevelopmentdoesnotoverlapwiththebandsforschoolimprovement, leadership,ordataskills (Figure 8 ) P rofessionaldevelopmentisactuallylowerthanthe b andsfortheotherthreesubscale s. Thisindicatesthatthemeanforprofessional developmentdiffersatorbeyondthe.05alphalevelfromthemeansofeachofthese variables.Thebandformonitor ing processesdoesnot overlapwiththebandforschool improvement (Figure 8 ) .Thisindicatesthatthemeanformonitoringprocessesdiffersat

PAGE 110

99 orbeyondthe.05alphalevelfromthemeanforschoolimprovement. Monitoring processesislowerthantheband forschoolimprovement. Table 23 EstimatedMarginalMeans 95%ConfidenceInterval Subscale Mean Std.Error LowerBound UpperBound School Improvement 4.408 .066 4.276 4.539 Leadership 4.258 .093 4.073 4.444 Professional Development 3.819 .091 3.635 4.002 Monitoring Processes 4.115 .079 3.956 4.274 DataSkills 4.189 .068 4.052 4.325 3.6 4.1 4.6 School Improvement Leadership Professional Development Monitoring Processes DataSkills Figure8.ConfidenceBandsfortheFiveWithinSubjectVariables

PAGE 111

100 ResearchQuestion3 Dotheperceptionsof HECTitleIelementaryprincipalsdifferfromtheperceptionsof HECTitleIelementaryassistantprincipalsintheiruseofdataforachievement related decisionmaking? Theperceptionsoftheprincipalsandassistantprincipalswereanalyzedusinga On e WayMultivariateAnalysis (MANOVA) whichallowedacomparisonofallofthe subscalemeansoftheprincipalswiththoseoftheassistantprincipals.TheMANOVA anal ysiscontrolstheerrorrate which allows for correlationsamongthedependent measures(S tevens,1999).Theresultsprovidedinsightintowhetherelementary principalsa ndassistantprincipalsdiffer intheirperceptionsofdatause. Overall mean scores forthesurvey werenotcalculatednorreportedfortheprincipalsandtheassistant princi pals asthereportingwasdoneonthesubscalelevel. Areviewoftheoverallgrouprevealsthatschoolimprovementhasthehighest mean,4.408.Themeanforleadersh ip,4.258,hadthenexthighestscore bythe administrators.Monitoringprocessesandda taskillshadsimilarmeans,4.115and4.189 respectively.Theperceptionsbyadministratorsintheiruseofdataintheareaof professionaldevelopmenthadthelowestmean,3.819. Theassistantprincipalshadlower meansthanthep rincipalsinallofthe subscales (Table24 ) Figure9displaysthemeans oftheperceptionsofassistantprincipals,principals,andtheoverallgroupintheiruseof dataintheareasofschoolimprovement,leadership,professionaldevelopment,progress monitoring,anddatask ills. Interestingly,allofthestandarddeviationswerealsogreater intheassistantprincipalgroupthantheprincipalgroup. Thissuggeststhattheassistant principalsaremorevariableintheirperceptionsabouttheuseofdata.

PAGE 112

101 Table 24 Descripti veStatistics ofSubscale s Group N Mean Std.Deviation School Improvement AP 23 4.296 .5866 P 30 4.493 .3619 Total 53 4.408 .4779 Leadership AP 23 3.957 .8084 P 30 4.490 .4374 Total 53 4.258 .6741 Professional Development AP 23 3.521 .7778 P 30 4.047 .4592 Total 53 3.819 .6653 Monitoring Processes AP 23 3.961 .6913 P 30 4.233 .4452 Total 53 4.115 .5756 DataSkills AP 23 4.061 .5425 P 30 4.287 .4416 Total 53 4.189 .4960 Figure 9 .AssistantPrincipalsandPrincipalsItemMea nsforEachSubscale

PAGE 113

102 BoxsTestofCovarianceteststhenullhypothesisthattheobservedcovariance matricesofthedependentvariablesareequalacrossgroups (Table 25 ) .Theassumption ofhomogeneity ofcovariancehas not been violated(sig=.154). Tab le 25 BoxsTestofEqualityofCovarianceMatrices BoxsM 22.996 F 1.366 df1 15 df2 8977.754 Sig. .154 Wilks'L ambdaisateststatisticusedinanalysisofvariancetotestwhetherthere aredifferencesbetweenthemeansofidentifiedgroupsof subjectsonacombinationof dependentvariables.Lambdavariesfrom0to1,with0denotinggroupmeansdifferand 1meaningallgroupmeansarethesame. AOne WayMultivariateAnalysis(MANOVA) wasconductedtocompareallofthesubscalemeansofthep rincipalswiththoseofthe assistantprincipals.Therewasnota statistically significantdifferencebetweenthetwo groups ontheoverallsetofdependentvariables ,WilksLambda=.803,F=(5,47),p=.060 (Table26 ) Thepowerofastatisticaltestequal stheprobabilityofrejectingthenull hypotheseswhenthenullisfalse.Powercanrangefrom.000to.999.Thecloser that poweris to1.0, thegreatertheprobabilityofrejectingthenullwhenitisfalse.Power increase s asthesamplesizeincrease s ,andasthetruevalueoftheparameterbeingtested deviatesfurtherfromthevaluehypothesizedbythenull.Withoutsufficientpower,the statisticaltestsareunabletorejectthenullandtherefore,unabletoacceptthealternate hypothesisofadif ference.(Glass&Hopkins,1996). Basedonthisanalysis,the

PAGE 114

103 researchercouldnotrejecttheoverallnullhypothesesofnodifferencesamongthesetof su bscalesmeansofthetwogroups,principalsandassistantprincipals. Table 26 MultivariateTests S ignificance Effect Value F Hypothesis of Errordiff Sig. Group Pillais Trace .197 2.301 5.000 47.000 .060 Group Wilk s Lambda .803 2.301 5.000 47.000 .060 Group Hotellings Trace .245 2.301 5.000 47.000 .060 Group Roys Largest Root .245 2.301 5.000 47.000 .060 Thefollowingtableprovidesthepowervalueassociatedwiththetestoftheoverallnull fortheMANOVA(.690).Table28providestheFvaluesassociatedwiththesignificance valueswhichareshowninTable29. Table 27 MultivariateTes ts Effect Partial Eta Squared No n cent. Parameter Observed Power Group PillaisTrace .197 11.507 .690 WilksLambda .197 11.507 .690 Hotellings Trace .197 11.507 .690 RoysLargest Root .197 11.507 .690

PAGE 115

104 Table 28 TestsofBetween Subjects Effects Source Dependent Variable TypeIII Sumof Squares D f Mean Square F Corrected Model School Improvement .509 1 .509 2.282 Leadership 3.705 1 3.705 9.484 Professional Development 3.594 1 3.594 9.436 Monitoring Processes .966 1 .966 3.031 Dat aSkills .664 1 .664 2.791 TheWilks'Lambdaanalysisresultedintheresearchernotrejectingtheoverall nullhypothesesofnodifferencesamongthesetofsubscalesmeansofthetwogroups, principalsandassistantprincipals.However,Table 29 indi catesthatprofessional developmentandleadershiphaveasignificancevalueof.003. Thepowervalues associatedwiththetestsofthenullsforthefivesubscales(.317to.856) aredisplayedin Table29 Table 30 andFigure10display 95%confidenceba ndsforeachofthefive between subjectvariables.The principaland assistantprincipalbandsforleadershipand professionald evelopmentdonotoverlap, suggestingthatwithalargersampleorwith morereliablesubscales theremighthavebeen statisti cal ly significantdifferencesbetween thetwoadministrativegroupsonthesesubscales

PAGE 116

105 T able 29 TestsofBetween SubjectsEffects Source Dependent Variable Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Power b CorrectedModel School Improvemen t .137 .043 2.282 .317 Leadership .003 .157 9.484 .856 Professional Development .003 .156 9.436 .854 Monitoring Processes .088 .056 3.031 .401 DataSkills .101 .052 2.791 .374 Table 30 95%ConfidenceIntervalsforBetween SubjectVariables 9 5%ConfidenceInterval Dependent Variable Group Mean Std.Error Lower Bound Upper Bound School Improvement AP 4.296 .098 4.098 4.493 P 4.493 .086 4.320 4.666 Leadership AP 3.957 .130 3.695 4.218 P 4.490 .114 4.261 4.719 Professional Developme nt AP 3.521 .129 3.263 3.780 P 4.047 .113 3.820 4.273 Monitoring Processes AP 3.961 .118 3.724 4.197 P 4.233 .103 4.026 4.440 DataSkills AP 4.061 .102 3.857 4.265 P 4.287 .089 4.108 4.465

PAGE 117

106 3.5 4 4.5 A P S c h o o l I m p r o v e m e n t P S c h o o l I m p r o v e m e n t A P L e a d e r s h i i p P L e a d e r s h i p A P P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t P P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t A P M o n i t o r i n g P M o n i t o r i n g A P D a t a S k i l l s P D a t a S k i l l s Figure10.95%Conf idenceIntervalsforBetween SubjectVariables ResearchQuestion4 Whatsupportsandbarrierstodatauseinachievement relateddecisionmakingdoHEC TitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceivethattheyexperience? Twoopenendedi temswereincludedinthequestionnairetoanalyzethesupports andbarriersofdatausebyprincipalsandassistantprincipals. Open endedquestionsare helpfulingaininginsightbutcanbechallengingtoanalyze(Jackson&Trochim,2002). MoserandKalt on(1977)suggesteditingforcompleteness,accuracy,anduniformity. Theresearcher review ed theitemsto checkthattherespondentshad suppliedananswer fortheopen endeditems. Threeassistantprincipalsandtwoprincipalsprovidedno responsetothe supportstodatauseopen endeditem.Threeassistantprincipalsprovided noresponsetothebarrierstodatauseopen endeditem. Toincreasethereliability, a priori procedure swere establishedaftert he questionnaireswere completedandpriortodev elopingcodingcategories(Montgomery &Crittenden,1977).Datareductionconsistsofcodingresponsesinpreparationfor analysis(Cohen,Manion,&Morrison,2003). Codingrequirestheresearchertoorganize theresponsesintocategories(Montgomery&Cr ittenden,1977).StraussandCorbin (1990)recommendorganizingideasandconceptsbycomparisonsandaskingquestions

PAGE 118

107 aboutthesimilarityoftheresponses.MontgomeryandCrittenden(1977)suggestthata coderorganizeeachquestionnaireresponseintolo gicalcategories.Asecondcoder followedthesameprocedurefororganizingtheresponsesintologicalcategories.The secondcoder,chosenbytheresearcher,hasadoctoraldegreeand is current lya high schoolprincipalanda formerTitleIelementarypr incipalwithexperienceinthebarriers andsupportsofdatause. Patternswere consideredbetweenthetwocodersbyo rganizing thecategoriesinto crosstabulationtable s Theresearchermetwiththeadditionalcoderandexplainedtheproceduresfor ide ntifyingthethemespresentintheresponses.Acopyoftheprincipalsandassistant principalsresponsestothetwoopen endeditemswereprovidedtothesecondcoder. Initially,theresearche randthesecond coderindependently consideredthet hemes pr esentineach administrator s response tothetwoopen endeditems (Appendices P,Q, R,&S ) Afterthe initialthemes were identified bytheresearcherand the additional coder ,theitemswereorganizedbytheinitialcodingcategories inanefforttose eany emergingpatterns (Appendices T,W,Z,&CC ) Th entheresearcherandcoder independently organized theideasand conceptsintocategories bycomparingthe similarityoftheresponses ( Appendices U,X,AA,&DD ). Uponcompletionofthisstep, theres earcherandcoderdiscussedthesimilarities oftheir codingcategories andthe emergingpatterns. Finally,theycametoconsensusonthefinalcategorynames by analyzingthecrosstabulationtable s ( AppendicesV,Y,BB,&EE ). The final resultsare dis playedinfrequencytables (Table 31,32,33,and34 ) .Afterthethemeswere identified,there searcherlinkedthefindings tothequantitativeportionofthe survey instrument

PAGE 119

108 The researcherandthesecondcoderidentifiedthe finalthemes fortheprinc ipals supportstodatauseas professionaldevelopment,support,datachats,dataskills,anddata sources(Table31).Thirtyofthe45responses,67%,werematchedbythetwocoders. Principalssuggestedthatprofessionaldevelopmentanddatasourceswe rethemost significantsupportstotheiru seofdata.Trainingsprovided byschoollevelcoaches, districtpersonnel,Heartlandpersonnel,andstatepersonnelwereallcited bythe principals assupportstousingdata.Principal#24stated, Wevebeen welltrainedinall areasofdataanalysis. Thedatasourcemostoftenmentionedbyadministratorsasa supportwastheproduct,PerformanceMatters.AllHeartlanddistrictshaveimplemented thisdatawarehousewebsitewhichhostsseveralsourcesofdata whichincludes FCAT, districtbenchmarkassessments, andFAIR. Thistoolallowsadministratorsand principa lstheabilityto analyzedata.Principal#2conveyedthat the Performance Mattersdatasystemhasbeenespeciallyhelpfulinanalyzingdata.Ith elpstoseeschool widetrendsindatabasedonitemanalysis,benchmarks,etc.Itisverybeneficialin reviewingdatawithteachers. Administratorsmentionedthatthedistrictlevelhas providedsupportwhichhasenabledthemtousedata.Principal#7w rote thatthe d istrict providessubs(substitutes)todiscussdataindividuallywithteachers. Principal#8stated thatthe districtdirectorhasprovidedworksheetsanddatachatsattheschoollevel . Essentially,theygrantoureveryrequestwhenit comestodatacollection ,commented Principal#12.Datachatsanddataskillswereeachcoded as 10%oftheoverallmatched responses.Principal#4stated, Wehavecreateddatateamswiththesupportoffunding tobeabletogiveteachesanopportunity tolookatdatabeyondtheirgradeleveltohelp withimprovingtheirmethodstoraiseinstructiontomeetstandardsofupcominggrades

PAGE 120

109 ortoknowwheretheirstudentsstrengthsandweaknessesarecomingintothegrade . Principals#25and#26described dataskillswhichenablethemtoidentifytargeted studentsandtoimplementstrategiesforintervention. Tabl e 31 FinalPrincipal s Categoriesfor Supportsfor DataUseFrequencyTable Category F %ofmatched responses ProfessionalDevelopment 9 30% Support 6 20% DataChats 3 10% DataSkills 3 10% DataSources 9 30% T hefinal categoriesfor the assistantprincip alssupportstodatausewere professionaldevelopment,support,datachats,dataskills,anddatasources(Table32). Twenty threeof the31responses,74%,werematchedbythetwocoders.Assistant principalssuggestedthatprofessionaldevelopmentanddatachatswerethemost significantsupportstotheiruseofdata.Liketheprincipals,theassistantprincipals reportedprofession aldevelopmentmostoftenasasupporttodatause.Thirty nine percentoftheassistantprincipalsprovidedprofessionaldevelopmentastheirmost significantsupporttothe ir useofdata.AP#2commented, Ivebeeninvolvedina coupleoftrainingsond ataanalysisandtheywereveryhelpfulinteachingmehowto lookatFCATdataandtodetermineifastudenthasmadeadequateyearlyprogressand howtochartparticularteachersstudentstodeterminewhereprofessionaldevelopment

PAGE 121

110 mightbeneeded. Two assistantprincipalscitedtheirownprofessionalreadingand researchashelpfulinusingdata.Twenty twopercentoftheassistantprincipalsciteddata chatsasasupporttotheiruseofdata.AP#5reported, Asaleadershipteam(principal, AP,andda tacoach)wemeetweeklytodiscussdatatrends,analyzedataandplanfor waystousethedatatoimproveinstructionalstrategies.Wealsohavetwicemonthlydata meetingswithourteacherstoreviewdata,reviewassessmentsandplannextsteps. It was mentionedbyassistantprincipalsthat beneficial datachatsoccurbetweenthedistrict levelleadership andschooladministration ,theschooladministrationandte achers,and teamsofteachers. Supportanddatasourcescontributedto17%eachofthematch ed responses. Thes upports mentionedbytheassistants included district funding of substitutesandprofessionaldevelopmentandprovidingconsultants fortraining and technologysupport.Seventeen percent ofthecodedresponsesreferencedtheavailabili ty ofdataasasupporttodatause.Datamentioned bytheassistantswere FCAT, FAIR districtbenchmarkassessments,andclassroomassessments Itisalsohelpfulthatwe havesuchavarietyofdatatoanalyzetomakedecisions ,commentedAP#18.AP#23 stated, Acollaborativeeffortonbothadministratorsandteachers,usingallofthedata elementslisted,havebeenbeneficial . Table 32 FinalAssistantPrincipal s Catego riesforSupportsfor DataUseFrequencyTable Category F %ofmatchedrespo nses ProfessionalDevelopment 9 39 % Support 4 17 %

PAGE 122

111 DataChats 5 22 % DataSkills 1 4 % DataSources 4 17 % Thefinalcategoriesforprincipalsbarrierstodatauseweredatasources,time, datasystem,professionaldevelopment,change,technology,and theuseofdata(Table 33). Principalsreportedmore barriersto theuseofdata than supportsfor datause.Forty oneofthe59responses,69%,werematchedbythetwocoders.Duringtheconsensus stage,thecodersdecidedtocombinethecategoriesofa ssessmentsanddatasystemsto datasources.Also,technologywascombinedwithsupport resulting inthesupport category. Overwhelmingly,timewascitedmostoftenbyprincipalsasabarriertodatause. Thirty twopercentoftheresponsesindicatedtime wasabarrier.Principal#11responded thatthe mostcriticalbarrierislackoftime .Principal#17concurredbystating, The greatestbarrieristimetodothejobwithadecreasinglossofpersonnel.Inotherwords, theprincipalandhis/hercorele adershipteamhasincreasingpaperworkandincreasing duties.Thistakesawayfrompivotaltimetoanalyze,discover,implement,andmonitor. Thisdoesgetdone,butnottothehigh levelofpersonalexpectancy.Schoolsneedmore personnelsupport,evenif itappearstobeindirect,suchasparaprofessionals,whocan dotasksthatfree uptimefor (sic) leadershipteamtododata. Principal#18agreed bywriting, Timeisalwaysafactor; however itiswellworththetimeneededtomeet witheachteache r .

PAGE 123

112 Twentysevenpercentofthematchedresponsesconcernedthedatasourcesthat areavailabletoprincipals.Severalprincipalsfeltthatsomeofthedatathattheyrelyonis notvalidorreliable.DistrictbenchmarkassessmentsandFAIRassessmentswe recitedas examplesofdatathat concern principals Principal#2concluded, Teachersfeeldistrict benchmarkassessmentsaredifficulttousetorelayresultstostudents.Assessment formatsarenotsimilarandthereismuchdisconnectbetweentests.Te achersfindit difficulttoknowwhetherstudentsareimprovingorregressingasawhole .Principal#3 concurred, Therehasbeensomeresistancetorelyingondatafromthe3baselinetests weuseforPerformanceMattersbymyteachers.Theyfeelthete stsarepoorlywritten, somequestionsonthetestsarenotaccurate.Theyquestionthevalidityofthesetests. Personally,IlikedthetestsfromKaplanthatweusedinpreviousyearsmuchbetterthan thetestswecurrentlyuse.IfeelthePerformanceMa tterswebsiteisdifficulttouse. Seventeenpercentofprincipalsreportedthattheyrequireadditionalsupportto usedata.Principals#4and17suggestedthattheyrequiremorepersonnelsupportto assistteachersandadministratorsfortimetododa taandassiststudents.Atleastone principaldoesnothaveacoachattheschoolsitetoassistwithdataanalysis. Principalsreportedchangetobeabarriertodatause.Thecoderswereableto match15%ofthematchedresponsesinthecategoryofch ange. Oneofthebarriers include(sic)resistancetochange.Ithasgottenbetterbutatfirstchanginginstructional strategies (sic) changeswerenothappening.Nowaftermanyin services,etc.teachers aresharing,usingbestpracticesandarewilling tomodeltogroupsforthepurposeof changinginstruction, concludedprincipal#25. Principal#4statedthat anotherbarrier istryingtochangethewayseasonedteachersthink.

PAGE 124

113 Table 33 FinalPrincipal s CategoriesforBarrierstoDataUseFreque ncyTable Category F %ofmatchedresponses DataSources 11 27% Time 13 32% ProfessionalDevelopment 2 5% Change 6 15% Support 7 17% Data Skills 2 5% The final categories thatemerged forassistantpri ncipalsbarrierstodatausewere time,p ro fessionaldevelopment,datasources,dataskills,andsupport (Table34). Similar totheprincipals,t he assistantprincipalsreportedmore barrierstodatause than supports todatause.Twentyofthe34responses,59%,werematchedbythetwocoders. Thirty twopercentoftheresponsesbyprincipalsindicatedtimewasabarrier. Assistantprincipalsreportedtimeasabarriertodatauseevenmorethanprincipals. Fifty fivepercentofthematchedresponses forassistantprincipals reportedtimeasa barriertodatause.Followingaresomeofthecommentsrelatedtotimeasabarrier. AP#3: AsanAPthegreatestbarrieristime.Iamusuallybeingcalledfromdata meetingtotakecareoffacilityoperationalduties . AP#6: SomebarriersthatIhav eexperiencedistheamountoftimethatdata analysisandreflectionrequires.Althoughitistimelytheinformationthatyou gainisbeneficialandusefulinmakingcurriculumbaseddecisions .

PAGE 125

114 AP#7: Oneofthebiggestbarrierstoachievementrelated decisionmakingisnot enoughtimeintheday.ItisdifficulttofindtimetomeetwiththeLeadership Teamandteacherswithoutpullingthemfromclass. AP#9: Findingtimetoanalyzedataonanongoingbasisanddeterminethe instructionalimplicatio nsofthatanalysisisabarrierIhaveexperienced.Bythe timedataisreceived,decisionsaremade,andadjustmentsoccuritisoftentime toalreadyassessagain,beforeenoughtimehaspassedtoreasonablyexpecta noticeableimprovement. AP#22: T hemostcriticalbarriertodatauseisthelackofuninterruptedtime withteacherstoanalyzeandmakeinstructionaldecisions. Theassistantprincipalsrespondedthatadditionalbarrierstodatausewere profe ssionaldevelopment,datasources ,anddata skills.AP#2stated, Themostcritical barrierwouldbemylackoftrainingandknowledge. AP#20feltthattoomany assessmentsarenotreliableorvalidandpreferredtheassessmentsfromLiteracyFirst ratherthanFAIR. AP#13feltthat acommonb arrieristheminimalcomfortareaof interpretingdata .AP#5concurredbystating, Thebarrierformewas(sic)lackof experienceinanalyzingthedata Table 34 FinalAssistantPrincipal s CategoriesforBarrierstoDataUseFrequencyTable Cat egory F %ofmatchedresponses Time 11 55% ProfessionalDevelopment 2 10%

PAGE 126

115 DataSources 3 15% DataSkills 3 15% Support 1 5% QualitativeLinktoQuantitativeAnalysis Professionaldevelopmentwasmostreportedbytheprincipalsandassistant princ ipalsasasupporttodatauseintheopen endeditem.Interestingly,the findingsfrom the de scriptiveanalysisrevealed thatadministratorsperceivedthattheyusedataleastin theareaofprofessionaldevelopmentwhichhadthelowestmeanofthesubsca les. The repeatedm easuresANOVA revealedthatthe bandforprofessional developmentdoesnotoverlapwiththebandsforschoolimprovement,leadership,ordata skills(Figure8).Thisindicatesthatthemeanforprofessionaldevelopmentdiffersator be yondthe.05alphalevelfromthemeansofeachofthesevariables. Principalsand assistantprincipalsreportedprofessionaldevelopmentasasupporttodatause,30%and 39%respectively.Usingdatabecauseofdataskillswasreported10%byprincipalsa nd 4%byassistantprincipals. AOne WayMultivariateAnalysis(MANOVA)wasconductedtocompareallof thesubscalemeansoftheprincipalswiththoseoftheassistantprincipals.Therewasnot a statistically significantdifferencebetweenthet wogroup sforanyofthesubscale s; however, Table29 indicatedthatprofessionaldevelopmentandleadershiphavea sign ificancevalueof.003.Table30 andFigure10display95%confidencebandsfor eachofthefivebetween subjectvariables.Thevariablesinth esubscales,leadershipand professionaldevelopment,donotoverlapsuggestingthatwithalargersampleorw ith

PAGE 127

116 morereliablesubscales theremighthavebeen statistical significance. Theprincipalsand assistantprincipalsrespondedsimilarlytothetw oopen endeditems.Thirtypercentof theprincipalsand39%oftheassistantprincipalsreportedthatprofessionaldevelopment wasasupporttotheiruseofdata.Bothgroups,principalsat20%andassistantprincipals at17%,alsolistedthatsupport,pa rticularlyfromthedistrictlevel,supportstheiruseof data.Bothgroupsalsoreportedthattimewastheirmostsignificantbarriertotheuseof data. Summary ThepurposeofthisstudywastoidentifyHeartlandEducationalConsortiumTitle Iprincip alsandassistantprincipalsperceptionsoftheiruseofdataintheirroleas decision makersinraisingstudentachievementwithprimaryemphasisonFloridas DifferentiatedAccountabilityModel. A survey questionnairewascreatedbytheresearchert o surveythe administrators perspectives ontheuseofdatainachievement relateddecisionmaking. Fifty threeofthepotentialfifty fiveparticipantscompletedthe surveyinstrument which wasusedinthedataanalysis.Thisreflectsa96%completionra te.Thirtyprincipals, a 97%responserate,andtwenty threeassistantprincipals, a 96%responserate,completed the surveyinstrument forthestudy. Analysisofthequestionnaire responses resultedintheresearcheridentifyingthe following: S choolim provementwasidentifiedbythegroupastheareainwhichthey usedatamost.

PAGE 128

117 P rofessionaldevelopmentwasidentifiedbythegroupastheareainwhich theyusedataleast. Thesubscaleofprofessionaldevelopmentdoesnotoverlapwiththe bandsforsc hoolimprovement,leadership,ordataskills .Thisindicates thatthemeanforprofessionaldevelopmentdiffersatorbeyondthe.05 alphalevelfromthemeansofeachofthesevariables. Thebandformonitoringprocessesdoesnotoverlapwiththebandfo r schoolimprovement(Figure8).Thisindicatesthatthemeanfor monitoringprocessesdiffersatorbeyondthe.05alphalevelfromthe meanforschoolimprovement.Monitoringprocessesislowerthanthe bandforschoolimprovement. Therewere no statisti callysignificantdifferences betweentheprincipals andassistantprincipalsintheiruse ofdatameasuredbythesubscale s. Principalssuggestedthatprofessionaldevelopmentanddatasourceswere themostsignificantsupportstotheiruseofdata.Trai ningsinitiatedby schoollevelcoaches,districtpersonnel,Heartlandpersonnel,andstate personnelwereallcitedassupportstousingdata.Thedatasource s located inPerformanceMatters,FAIR,FCAT,districtbenchmarkassessments, were mostoftenmen tionedbyadministratorsasasupport fortheiruseof data. AllHeartlanddistrictshaveimplementedthisdatawarehouse website Thistoolallowsadministratorsandprincipalstheabilityto manipulateandanalyzedata.

PAGE 129

118 Assistantprincipalssuggestedt hatprofessionaldevelopmentanddata chatswerethemostsignificantsupportstotheiruseofdata.Likethe principals,theassistantprincipalsreportedprofessionaldevelopmentmost oftenasasupporttodatause.Thirty ninepercentoftheassistant principalsprovidedprofessionaldevelopmentastheirmostsignificant supporttotheuseofdata. Overwhelmingly,timewascitedmostoftenbyprincipalsasabarrierto datause.Thirty twopercentoftheresponsesindicatedtimewasabarrier. Twentyse venpercentofthematchedresponsesconcernedthedata sourcesthatareavailabletoprincipals.Severalprincipalsfeltthatsomeof thedatathattheyrelyonisnotvalidorreliable.Districtbenchmark assessmentsandFAIRassessmentswerecitedasex amplesofdatathat principalsareconcernedabout. Assistantprincipalsreportedtimeasabarriertodatauseevenmorethan principals.Fifty fivepercentofthematchedresponsesreportedtimeasa barriertodatause.

PAGE 130

119 ChapterV SummaryofResult s,Conclusions,Implicationsand RecommendationsforFurtherResearch Introduction Giventheresearchontheuseofdatabyprincipals(Bernhardt,2009,Earl&Katz, 2006,Holcomb,2004,Johnson,2002)andtherequirementsplacedonschoolsbythe Diff erentiatedAccountabilityModel,thisstudycouldbebeneficialtotheHeartland EducationalConsortium(HEC)districtsleadershipandthe / schooladministratorsof thesedistricts,asthereiscurrentlylimitedinformationgatheredorsharedregardingda ta useorbestpracticesamongthesesimilardistricts. Thisquantitative descriptive researchstudy soughtto gatherinformationabout the perceptionsof TitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsintheiruseof datain makingdecisionsto ra isestudentachievement. Thefocusforthestudywasthe perceptionsofdatausagebyprincipalsandassistantprincipalsofelementaryTitleI schoolsinthesixschooldistrictHeartlandEducationalConsortium.Thisstudyfocuses onthe31elementaryTit leIschoolsthatarelocatedintheHeartlandEducational Consortium(H.E.C.).ThedistrictswhichcomprisethisconsortiumareDesoto,Glades, Hardee,Hendry,Highlands,andOkeechobee.Thesedistrictsaresmall,rural communitieswithaslittleastwoT itleIschoolsinGladesandteninHighlands.The averagenumberofTitleIschoolsinthesedistrictsisfive.

PAGE 131

120 ProblemStatement Intheageofaccountabilityandassessment,thereisaneedtoensurethatdata provided,r egardingstudentachievement,a re effectivelyandappropriatelyutilizedby schoolsiteadministratorsinasystematicwaytoimprovestudentachievement. PurposeoftheStudy ThepurposeofthisstudywastoidentifyHeartlandEducationalConsortiumTitle Iprincipalsandassistant principalsperceptionsoftheiruseofdataintheirroleas decision makersinraisingstudentachievement withprimaryemphasisonFloridas DifferentiatedAccountabilityModel. ResearchQuestions The followingresearchquestionswereinvestigated to identifyHECTitleI principalsandassistantprincipalsperceptionsoftheirdatauseintheirroleasdecision makersinraisingstudentachievement. 1. TowhatextentdoHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipals perceivethattheyused atainachievement relateddecisionmaking? 2. Whatpatternsarediscernableintheperceptionsofprincipalsand assistantprincipals acrosstheseveralareasofdatausefor achievement relateddecisionmaking? 3. DotheperceptionsofHECTitleIelementar yprincipalsdifferfromthe perceptionsofHECTitleIelementaryassistantprincipalsintheiruseofdatafor achievement relateddecisionmaking?

PAGE 132

121 4. Whatsupportsandbarrierstodatainachievement relateddecisionmakingusedo HECTitleIelementaryp rincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceivethatthey experience? Researchmethod Aquantitativedescriptive research studywasconductedinwhichacross sectional surveyinstrument wasadministeredtotheTitleIelementaryprincipalsand assistantprin cipalsintheHeartlandConsortium.Across sectional surveyinstrument provides currentinformation regardingdatauseandreveals informationthatmaybe beneficialtotheadministratorsofthesedistricts(Fink,2009). The31principalsand24 assistant principalsofelementaryTitleIschoolsintheHeartlandEducational Consortiumwereaskedtoparticipateinthestudy.Fifty threeofthepotentialfifty five participantscompletedthe surveyinstrument whichwasusedinthedataanalysis.This reflect sa96%completionrate.Thirtyprincipals, a 97%responserate,andtwenty three assistantprincipals, a 96%responserate,completedthe surveyinstrument forthestudy. Inconsideringthe surveyinstrument touseforthisstudy,theresearcher conducted extensivesearchesof the MentalMeasurementsYearbooksearchengineand theTestLink(ETS)searchengine.Inaddition,aninternetsearchwasconductedandan inquiry made to the NationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrin cipals (NAESP ) researchdepa rtmenttodetermine whatinstruments,ifany,wereavailableonthetopicof datausebyprincipalsinachievement relateddecisionmaking.Noneofthesesources resultedinaquestionnaireconsideredsuitableforthisstudybytheresearcher.Asearch of onlinedissertationsresultedinthreedissertationswithasimilartopic butthe survey instrument s werenotspecificenoughtothisstudytobeused.Asaresult,theresearcher

PAGE 133

122 conductedinterviewstohelpintheformulationofthe surveyinstrument Aphone interviewwiththeFloridaDeputyChancellorforSchoolImprovementandStudent Achievementwasconductedtoexplorethestateperspectiveondatausebyschool principals.Anadditionalphoneinterviewwithadistrictlevelaccountabilitydirecto rina largeFloridaschooldistrictwasconductedtogaugewhatconstructsfromadistrict perspectivemightbeconsideredindevelopingaquestionnaire ALikertquestionnairewasdevelopedbytheresearcherusingtheinformation gainedfrominterviews, theDifferentiatedAccountabilityModel,andfromaliterature reviewofdatause. The subscale softheLikertquestionnaireincludeditemsthat representtheconstructsofstudentachievement relateddatauseinrelationtoschool improvement,professiona ldevelopment,dataskills,leadership,andmonitoring processes. Afterthetwopanelsofexpertsreviewedthequestionnairetoimprovethe validity,theresearcheradministeredthe surveyinstrument ,collectedthedata,and completedthedataanalysisin anattempttoanswertheresearchquestions. Theinternalconsistencyofthefiftyitem swasdeterminedbyaCronbach alpha whichisanestimateofinternalconsistency.Thealphacoefficientforthefiftyitemsis .966,suggestingthattheitemshaver elativelyhighinternalconsistency.Areviewof Cronbach alphaofthesubscales indictedthatleadershiphadthehighestreliabilityand dataskillshadtheleastreliability.TheCorrected ItemTotalCorrelationsforthe 50 item questionnaireandeachof the10 itemsubscales didnotrevealanyitemsthatneededto beremovedduetoalowcorrelation. Dataanalysis ofthestructuredresponseitemsofthesurveyinstrument consisted ofthefollowingstatisticalprocedures:overallmeanforthegroup,over allmeanforeach

PAGE 134

123 ofthesubscales, repeatedm easuresANOVA, anda One WayMultivariate Analysis. Responsestotheopen endeditemswereanalyzedthroughtheapplicationofqualitative data reductionprocedures. ResultsandConclusions ResearchQuestion 1 TowhatextentdoHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceive thattheyusedatainachievement relateddecisionmaking? DescriptiveStatist icsincluded themeansfortheperceptionsofadministrators, principalsandassistantpri ncipals,intheiruseofdataintheareasofschoolimprovement, leadership,professionaldevelopment,progressmonitoring,anddataskills.Themeanfor theoverallscoreforthequestionnairewasalsoprovided. Administratorsreportedthattheyusedat amostintheareaofs chool improvement ,(mean=4.408).Afterschoolimprovement,administratorsreportedthat theyusedatamostinachievement relateddecisionmakingintheareaofleadership (mean=4.258). Monitoringprocessesanddataskillshadsimil armeans,4.115and4.189 respectively.The administratorsreportedthattheyusedataleastintheareaof professionaldevelopment ,mean= 3.819.Themeansofschoolimprovement,leadership, anddataskillswerehigherthantheoverallmean ,4.160, forth equestionnaire. Therewastheleastamountofvariabilityintheschoolimprovementscoreswitha standarddeviationof.478andavarianceof.228 T he mostamountofvariabilityinthe responsesofadministrators was intheareaofleadershipwithast andarddeviationof .674andavarianceof.454 Oneexpla nationinthisvariabilitycould bethat100%ofthe assistantprincipalshavefifteenorlessyearsinadmi nistrativeexperience.Thusthe assistantprincipalshavelessexperienceinleadership.

PAGE 135

124 The respondentstendedtoproviderelativelyhighscores ,stronglyagreeoragree, forthe itemsinthequestionnaire resultinginaceilingeffect (Figures2 ,3,4,5,&6 ). A ceilingeffect occurswhenthereisastackingupneartheupperlimit. Skewnes svalues wereoutsidetherangeof+1and 1(Table19).Theskewnessvaluesforthesubscaleswere allnegative,indicatingthatthefreq uencydistributionofthe responsestend ed tohavea longertailonthelowendofthescaleratherthanthehigh end ofthescale(Figures2, 3 ,4,5, &6 ).Thisindicatesanon symmetricdistributionofthedata. T husthe responsestendedtobe morehomogeneo us. HECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceivethattheyuse datainachievement related decisionmakingmostintheareaofschoolimprovementand thenleadership.Theyperceivethattheyusedataleastintheareaofprofessional development. ResearchQuestion2 Whatpatternsaredis cernableintheperceptionsof principalsandassistant principals acrosstheseveralareasofdatauseforachievement relateddecisionmaking? Arepeatedm easuresANOVAwascalculatedtoexamineforstatistical ly significantdifferencesamongthesubscalemeans.Anypatternsamongthegroups perceptionswer erevealedinthisanalysis. TheWilksLambda =.305,F= (4, 49),p =.000 suggeststhatoneormore statistically significantd ifferencesexistamongthefive subscales :schoolimprovement,leadership,professionaldevelopment,monitoring processes,andda taskills. The95%confidencebandsforeachofthefivewithinsubjectvariablesrevealed thatthebandforprofessionaldevelopmentdoesnotoverlapwiththebandsforschool improvement,leadership,ordataskills(Figure 11 ).Thisindicatesthattheme anfor

PAGE 136

125 professionaldevelopmentdiffersatorbeyondthe.05alphalevelfromthemeansofeach ofthesevariables.Thebandformonitoringprocessesdoesnotoverlapwiththebandfor schoolimprovement(Figure 11 ).Thisindicatesthatthemeanformonito ringprocesses differsatorbeyondthe.05alphalevelfromthemeanforschoolimprovement. Dueto theseresults,theresearcherwasabletorejectthenullhypothesesthatthereareno statisticallysignificantpatternsin the perceptionsofprincipals andassistantprincipals acrosstheseveralareasofdatauseforachievement relateddecisionmaking. Figure11.ConfidenceBandsfortheFiveWithinSubjectVariables Thust he findingsfromthestudyrevealed patternstha tarediscernableinthe perceptionsofprincipalsandassistantprincipalsacrosstheseveralareasofdatausefor achi evement relateddecisionmaking. 3.6 4.1 4.6 School Improvement Leadership Professional Development Monitoring Processes DataSkills S c a l e V a l u e s

PAGE 137

126 ResearchQuestion3 DotheperceptionsofHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsdifferfromthepercep tionsof HECTitleIelementaryassistantprincipalsintheiruseofdataforachievement related decisionmaking? Theperceptionsoftheprincipalsandassistantprincipalswereanalyzedusinga One WayMultivariateAnalysis(MANOVA)whichallowedacomp arisonofallofthe subscalemeansoftheprincipalswiththoseoftheassistantprincipals.TheMANOVA analysiscontrolstheerrorrateandallowscorrelationsamongthedependentmeasures (Stevens,1999).Theresultsprovidedinsightintowhetherelemen taryprincipalsand assistantprincipalsdifferedintheirperceptionsofdatause. Therewasnota statistically significantdifferencebetweenthetwogroups onthe overallsetofdependentvariables ,WilksLambda=.803,F=(5,47),p=.060 (Table26 ). How ever,Table28 indicated thatprofessionaldevelopmentandleadershiphavea sign ificancevalueof.003.Table30 andFigure12 displayed 95%confidencebandsfor eachofthefivebetween subjectvariables.The principaland assistantprincipalbands for leadershipandp rofessiona ld evelopmentdonotoverlap,suggesting thatwithalarger sampleorw ithmorereliablesubscales theremighthavebeen astatisticallysignificant differencebetweenthetwoadministrativegroupsonthesesubscales Basedonthi sanalysis,theresearcher failedto rejecttheoverallnullhypotheses ofnodifferencesamongthesetofsubscalesmeansofthetwogroups,principalsand assistantprincipals. Thefindingssuggestthattheperceptionsofprincipalsdonotdiffer fromt heperceptionsofassistantprincipalsintheiruseofdata.

PAGE 138

127 3.5 4 4.5 A P S c h o o l I m p r o v e m e n t P S c h o o l I m p r o v e m e n t A P L e a d e r s h i i p P L e a d e r s h i p A P P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t P P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t A P M o n i t o r i n g P M o n i t o r i n g A P D a t a S k i l l s P D a t a S k i l l s Figure12.95%ConfidenceIntervalsforBetween SubjectVariables ResearchQuestion4 Whatsupportsandbarrierstodatainachievement relateddecisionmakingu sedoHEC TitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceivethattheyexperience? PerceivedSupports Thefindingsfromthe p rincipalssuggestedthatprofessionaldevelopmentand datasourceswerethemostsignificantsupportstotheiruseo fdata.Trainingsinitiatedby schoollevelcoaches,districtpersonnel,Heartlandpersonnel ,andstatepersonnelwereall c itedassupportstousingdata.Principal#24stated, Wevebeenwelltrainedinall areasofdataanalysis. Thedatasourcemos toftenmentionedbyadministratorsasa supportwastheproduct,PerformanceMatters.AllHeartlanddistrictshaveimplemented thisdatawarehousewebsitewhichhostsseveralsourcesofdata ,including FCAT,district b enchmarkassessments,andtheFlorida AssessmentsforInstructioninReading(FAIR). Thistoolallowsadministratorsandprincipalstheabilitytomanipulateandanalyzedata. Principal#2conveyedthat PerformanceMattersdatasystemhasbeenespeciallyhelpful inanalyzingdata.Ithelps toseeschool widetrendsindatabasedonitemanalysis,

PAGE 139

128 benchmarks,etc.Itisverybeneficialinreviewingdatawithteachers. Administrators mentionedthatthedistrictlevelhasprovidedsupportwhichhasenabledthemt ousedata. Principal#7wrote the following ,the d istrictprovidessubs(substitutes)todiscussdata individuallywithteachers. Principal#8statedthatthe districtdirectorhasprovided worksheetsanddatachatsattheschoollevel . Essentially,theygrantoureveryrequest wh enitcomestodatacollection ,commentedPrincipal#12. Assistantprincipalssuggestedthatprofessionaldevelopmentanddatachatswere themostsignificantsupportstotheiruseofdata.Liketheprincipals,theassistant principalsreportedprofessio naldevelopmentmostoftenasasupporttodatause.Thirty ninepercentoftheassistantprincipalsprovidedprofessionaldevelopmentastheirmost significantsupporttotheuseofdata.AP#2commented, Ivebeeninvolvedinacouple oftrainingsonda taanalysisandtheywereveryhelpfulinteachingmehowtolookat FCATdataandtodetermineifastudenthasmadeadequateyearlyprogressandhowto chartparticularteachersstudentstodeterminewhereprofessionaldevelopmentmight beneeded. Two assistantprincipalsc itedtheirownprofessionalreadingandresearchas helpfulinusingdata.Twenty twopercentoftheassistantprincipals reported datachats asasupporttotheiruseofdata.AP#5reported, Asaleadershipteam(principal,AP, and datacoach)wemeetweeklytodiscussdatatrends,analyzedata andplanforways tousethedatatoimproveinstructionalstrategies.Wealsohavetwicemonthlydata meetingswithourteacherstoreviewdata,reviewassessments andplannextsteps. Pe rceivedBarriers Overwhelmingly,timewascitedmostoftenbyprincipalsasabarriertodatause. Thirty twopercentoftheresponsesindicatedtimewasabarrier.Principal#11responded

PAGE 140

129 thatthe mostcriticalbarrierislackoftime .Principal#17con curredbystating, The greatestbarrieristimetodothejobwithadecreasinglossofpersonnel.Inotherwords, theprincipalandhis/hercoreleadershipteamhasincreasingpaperworkandincreasing duties.Thistakesawayfrompivotaltimetoanalyze, discover,implement,andmonitor. Thisdoesgetdone,butnottothehigh levelofpersonalexpectancy.Schoolsneedmore personnelsupport,evenifitappearstobeindirect,suchasparaprofessionals,whocan dotasksthatfree uptimeforleadership teamtododata. Principal#18agreedby writing, Timeisalwaysafactor; however itiswellworththetimeneededtomeetwith eachteacher . Twentysevenpercent ofthematchedresponsesconcernedthedatasourcesthat areavailabletoprincipals.S everalprincipalsfeltthatsomeofthedatathattheyrelyonis notvalidorreliable.DistrictbenchmarkassessmentsandFAIRassessmentswerecitedas examplesofdatathat concern principals Principal#2concluded, Teachersfeeldistrict benchmarka ssessmentsaredifficulttousetorelayresultstostudents.Assessment formatsarenotsimilarandthereismuchdisconnectbetweentests.Teachersfindit difficulttoknowwhetherstudentsareimprovingorregressingasawhole .Principal#3 concurre d, Therehasbeensomeresistancetorelyingondatafromthe3baselinetests weuseforPerformanceMattersbymyteachers.Theyfeelthetestsarepoorlywritten, somequestionsonthetestsarenotaccurate.Theyquestionthevalidityofthesetests. Personally,IlikedthetestsfromKaplanthatweusedinpreviousyearsmuchbetterthan thetestswecurrentlyuse.IfeelthePerformanceMatterswebsiteisdifficulttouse. Seventeenpercentofprincipalsreportedthattheyrequireadditionalsuppor tto usedata.Principals#4and17suggestedthattheyrequiremorepersonnelsupportto

PAGE 141

130 assistteachersandadministratorsfortimetododataandassiststudents.Atleastone principaldoesnothaveacoachattheschoolsitetoassistwithdataanal ysis. A ssistantprincipalsreportedtimeasabarriertodatauseevenmorethan principals.Fifty fivepercent oftheassistantprincipalsmatchedresponsesreportedtime asabarriertodatause.Followingaresomeofthecommentsrelatedtotimeasa barrier: AP#3: AsanAPthegreatestbarrieristime.Iamusuallybeingcalledfromdata meeting s totakecareoffacilityoperationalduties . AP#6: SomebarriersthatIhaveexperiencedis (sic) theamountoftimethat dataanalysisandreflection requires.Althoughitistimely (sic) theinformation thatyougainisbeneficialandusefulinmakingcurriculumbaseddecisions . AP#7: Oneofthebiggestbarrierstoachievementrelateddecisionmakingisnot enoughtimeintheday.Itisdifficultt ofindtimetomeetwiththeLeadership Teamandteacherswithoutpullingthemfromclass. AP#9: Findingtimetoanalyzedataonanongoingbasisanddeterminethe instructionalimplicationsofthatanalysisisabarrierIhaveexperienced.Bythe time dataisreceived,decisionsaremade,andadjustmentsoccuritisoftentime toalreadyassessagain,beforeenoughtimehaspassedtoreasonablyexpecta noticeableimprovement. AP#22: Themostcriticalbarriertodatauseisthelackofuninterrupte dtime withteacherstoanalyzeandmakeinstructionaldecisions. Theassistantprincipalsrespondedthatadditional barrierswerethelackofvalid andreliableassessments tousefordataanalysisandtheir lackofdataskills whichmake itdifficult to makeinformeddecisions.

PAGE 142

131 Implications andRecommendations ResearchQuestion1 TowhatextentdoHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceive thattheyusedatainachievement relateddecisionmaking? Th eresultsfromtheanalysis of thedescriptivestatistics revealthatthereare differencesinthe perceptionsofadministratorsregardingtheextenttowhichthey use data.Administratorsreportthattheyusedatamostintheareaofsc hoolimprovement. Purposefuldatacollectiona ndanalysiswhicharetiedtotheidentifiedneedsandgoalsof theschoolhelpadministratorsrealizehowprocessesimpactstudents,andindicate if schoolgoalsareaccomplished (Bernhardt,2004;Englert,Fries,Goodwin,&Martin Glenn,2003). Thefindin gsfromthestudysuggest thatan implication isthat administrators mayfeelmore comfortableintheiruseofdataintheareaofschool improvement.Theresearcherrecommendsthatadministrators should continue touse data intheareaofschoolimproveme nt. Specifically,administrators shouldcontinuetowork with leadershipteam s, schoolstaff s,and School AdvisoryC ouncil s toidentifyschool improvementstrategiesusingmultiplesourcesofdataandanalyzingtrends. Afterschoolimprovement,administra torsreportedthattheyusedatamostinthe areaofleadership. Thisfindingimpliesthatadministratorsmaybelievethatthedata providesomeoftheknowledgetheyneedtobeeffectiveleaders. Aprimaryroleofthe leadershipoftheschoolistomainta inacultureinwhichdatacanbecollected,analyzed, andusedforimprovement.Theleadershipmustalsodevelopstrategiesfor communicatingtheprocess,purposeandresultsofdataanalysistoallstakeholders (Englert,Fries,Goodwin,&Martin Glenn,2 003) Theresearcherrecommendsthat ad ministrators continuetoprovidedata driven leadership Becauseofthevariabilityin

PAGE 143

132 theres ponsestotheleadershipsubscale arecommendation for d istrictpersonnelisto provideopportunitiesforprincipalsand assistantprincipalsto expandtheirleadership in thisarea. Establishingavisionfordataanalysis withstaffandcommunicatingstudent achievementdatawithparents arespecificleadershipskillswhichcouldbeexpanded by administrators Inorderto bealeadertoday,Bennis(1999)suggeststhatleadersshouldbe competentinreviewingthevisionfrequently. Data drivendecisionmakingisnotonly aboutthedatabutthevisionandleadership(Bernhardt,2009). Datadrivendecision makingandinstruc tionalleadershiparenotmutuallyexclusive(Creighton,2007). A leadersvisionplanisapracticalguidetohelpleadersunderstandone'sownvisionandto leadothersthroughthestepstoimplementthatplan(Nanus,1992). Thefindingsfromthestudys uggestthata dministrators may use datainthearea ofprofessionaldevelopmenttheleast. Interestingly,theadministratorslistedprofessional developmentasthegreatestsupporttothe ir useofdataintheopen endeditem. ).The contradictoryfindin gsimplythatadministratorsshouldreevaluatehowtheyusedatain theareaofprofessionaldevelopment. Holcomb(2004)concludesthatp rincipalshave rarelyhadtraininginhowtoinvolvestaffindatadrivendecisionmaking.Thedata trainingthatteac hershavehadintheirteacherdegreeprogramsoftenisabarrier .M ost teachersonlylearnedenoughstatisticstopassthecourseresultinginthechallengeto unlearnthenegativefeeling sthatteachershaveofdata. Timeforcollaborativeworkon data isoverwhelmingtoschoolleaders.Thebarriersoflackoftrainingandtimecanbe resolvedwithareevaluationofthepracticesformeetingsandprofessionaldevelopment (Holcomb,2004 Thoughadministratorsreportthatprofessionaldevelopmentisasup port

PAGE 144

133 totheiruseofdata,theresearchersuggeststhatschooldistricts strengthenthetechnical assistance andtraining thattheyprovidetoadministratorsforanalyzing reportsfromthe FloridaAssessmentsforInstructioninReading( FAIR ) and thedata in Performance Matters :FCATanddistrictbenchmarkassessments Furthermore, districtpersonnel shouldreevaluatetheirprofessionaldevelopmentprogramsforadministrators. Thefindingsfurtherimplythata dministrators may feellesscomfortableinusi ng datain monitoringprocessesanddataskills. Theresearcherrecommendsthatthe Heartlanddistrictsreexamineandstrengthentheirprofessionaldevelopmentprogram s for administratorsby providing : A needsassessment toascertaintheprofessionaldevel opmentneedsof administrators intheareaofdatause; T raininginnavigatingthewebsite PerformanceMatters and understandingandanalyzingthereportsprovidedbythistool; T raininginunderstandingandanalyzingthereportsfortheFlorida Assessm entsforInstructioninReading; A dministratorswithtechnicalassistanceonperformingdatachatswith teachers,modelingdatachatsforteachers,andmonitoringthe implementationofdatachats; T rainingandassistanceinestablishingand effectivelyfa cilitatingdata teams; Coachingandtechnicalassistanceinunderstanding thestatisticalskills necessarytounderstanddata.

PAGE 145

134 ResearchQuestion2 Whatpatternsaredi scernableintheperceptionsof principalsandassistantprincipals acrossthe severa lareasofdatausefor achievement relateddecisionmaking? Theresultsindicatedthatadministratorsusedataleastintheareaofprofessional developmentcomparedtoallotherareas.The95%confidencebandforprofessional developmentdoesnotoverlap withthebandsforschoolimprovement,leadership,ordata skills(Figure8).Professionaldevelopmentisactuallylowerthantheb andsfortheother threesubscales .Thisindicatesthatthemeanforprofessionaldevelopmentdiffersator beyondthe.05 alphalevelfromthemeansofeachofthesevariables.Thust he perceptions ofadministrators differedstatisticallysignificantly intheareaofprofessional d evelopment fromtheareasofleadershipordataskills. Thisfurthervalidatesthe implicationt hat administrators feelleastcomfortableinusingdatainprofessional development. Theperceptionsofadministratorsintheareaofmonitoringprocessesdiffered statistically significantlyfromtheareaofschoolimprovement. This implies thatfurther dialogueandtechnicalassistanceshouldbeprovidedtoschooladministratorstoassist withmonitoring studentachievement data. Theresearcherrecommendsthat administratorscontinuetomonitorstudentandteacherperformancebasedonmultiple sourcesof studentachievementdata. Thefindingsfurtherimplythattechnicalassistance shouldbeprovidedtoadministratorsinmonitoringstudentachievementdatato determineinterventionsthatarerequiredforstudents.

PAGE 146

135 ResearchQuestion3 Dotheperceptio nsofHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsdifferfromtheperceptionsof HECTitleIelementaryassistantprincipalsintheiruseofdataforachievement related decisionmaking? Therewasnostatistical lysignificantdifference betweenthegroupsintheir perceptionsofdatause;however, t hevariablesinthesubscales,leadership and professionaldevelopment,did notoverlap suggestingthatwithalargersampleorw ith morereliablesubscales theremighthavebeenstatistica l significance. Thisimpliesth at the recommendations made bytheresearchershouldbeappropriateforboththe principalsandtheassistantprincipals. ResearchQuestion4 Whatsupportsandbarrierstodatainachievement relateddecisionmakingusedoHEC TitleIelementaryprincipa lsandassistantprincipalsperceivethattheyexperience? Principalsreportedthatprofessionaldevelopmentanddatasourceswerethemost significantsupportstotheiruseofdata.Assistantprincipalssuggestedthatprofessional developmentanddatach atswerethemostsignificantsupportstotheiruseofdata. While professionaldevelopmentisreportedasthegreatestsupportbyadministrators,ithad the lowestmeanofthesubscales intheanalysisoftheLikertitems. Thecontradictory results betwe en thedescriptivestatistics andtheopen endeditemimply that administrators may seeprofessionaldevelopmentasasupporttotheiruseofdatabutalsofeelless comfortableusingdatainthisarea.Theresearcherrecommendsthat furtherdialogue shoul doccurindistrictsregarding theuseofdataintheareaof professional development.

PAGE 147

136 Thedatasourcemostoftenmentionedbyadministratorsasasupport of theiruse ofdata wastheproduct,PerformanceMatters. Thisimpliesthatadministratorsareusi ng theavailabledata,particularlyFAIRandthedatastoredinPerformanceMatters. All Heartlanddistrictshaveimplementedthisdatawarehousewebsitewhichhostssever al sourcesofdataincluding FCAT,districtbenchmarkassessments, and FAIR. Thisto ol allowsadministratorsandprincipalstheabilitytomanipulateandanalyzedata. The researcherrecommends thatdistrictpersonnel should continuetosupportschoollevel administrator swiththe s e datatool s Overwhelmingly,timewascitedmostoftenb yprincipalsandassistantprincipals asabarriertodatause. Administratorsmentionedthattheydonthavetimetoanalyze dataanddetermineinstructionalchanges.Theyalsoreportedthattheydonthavetimeto meetwithschoolstafftoanalyzedata. Theimplicationis schooladministratorsmaybe spendingtoomuchtimeinthemanagerialroleandnotenoughtimeintheinstructional role.Schooladministratorsneedtoreexaminetheirresponsibilitiesanddaytodaytasks inordertofindtimefordat aanalysis.D istrictpersonnelshould supportschoollevel administrators in findingtime toanalyzedata consider ing strategieswhicheliminate timeasafactorinusingdata. TheresearcherrecommendsthattheHeartlanddistricts providetechnicalassi stancetoschooladministratorsintimemanagementandconsider anyinterventionswhichsupportadministratorsindataanalysis. Administratorsreportedthat theyfeelthatsomeoftheirdata,particularlydistrict benchmarkassessments,arenotvalidor reliable. Thisimpliesthattheassessmentsneed tobereviewedforvalidityandreliabilityortheadministratorsneedfurthertechnical assistanceinthe FCATTestItemSpecifications .Theresearcherrecommendsthatdistrict

PAGE 148

137 personnelanalyzeandalignt hebenchmarkassessmentstothe FCATTestItem Specifications aswellasprovidetrainingtoschooladministratorsinthetestitem specifications. RecommendationsforFurtherResearch ThisstudysobjectivewastoidentifyHeartlandEducationalConsortiu mTitleI principalsandassistantprincipalsperceptionsoftheiruseofdataintheirroleas decision makersinraisingstudentachievementwithprimaryemphasisonFloridas DifferentiatedAccountabilityModel. Thelimitedsizeofthesamplecould provideaneedtoreplicatethestudyonamore comprehensivebasiswithalargersamplesize.Alargersamplemightprovideinsightinto statisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweentheperceptionsofassistantprincipalsand principals intheiruseofd ata Toprovideadditionalevidenceofthevalidityofthesurveyinstrument,the researcherrecommendsafuturestudytoexamineitsinternalfactorstructurethroughthe applicationofExploratoryFactorAnalysis(EFA).Suchastudycouldprovide inform ationastothenumberandnatureofidentifiableconstructscomprisingthe instrument,andtherelationshipsamonganysuchconstructs. ThisstudyprovidedinsightintotheuseofdatabyelementaryTitleIadministrators. Itmightalsoproveinteresting tostudytheuseofdatabyadministratorsatthesecondary level sincetheyfacesimilaraccountabilitymandatesastheelementaryadministrators. A studywhichexplorestheperceptionsofurbanTitleIelementaryadministratorsuseofdata isalsoare commendationforfurtherresearch. Since theproperuseofdatabyprincipalsisaneffectivestrategyforraising studentachievement(Bernhardt,2009;Earl&Katz,2006;Holcomb,2004;Johnson,

PAGE 149

138 2002), f urtherresearchshouldbeconductedregardingthe relationshipbetween the administratorsuseofdataandtheresultsfromFloridasaccountabilitysystem, the DifferentiatedAccountability Model FloridasDifferentiatedAccountabilityModelisa consolidationoffederalandstateaccountabilitysystems forthesakeofidentifyinglow performingschools.BoththefederalNCLBlegislationandthestatesformerschool accountabilitysystem,commonlyreferredtoasFloridasSchoolGrades,weremergedto createaseamlessaccountabilitysystemforFlorida sschools.

PAGE 150

139 References Abr a mson,P.(2000).HowSchoolSizeAffectsAcademicAchievement. School PlanningandManagement,39(5). Anderson,B.,(1993).Thestagesofsystemicchange. EducationalLeadership, 51(1), 1 6. Aud,S.,Hussar,W.,Pla nty,M.,&Snyder,T.(2010). Theconditionofeducation. NationalCenterforEducationStatistics. NCES2010 028.Onlineat: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028.pdf NCES2010 028 Bass,B.M.(1990).StogdillHandbookofLeadership:ATheoryandResearch ,2 nd edition.NewYork,NY:FreeBook. Bennis,W.,(2000).Greatgroupsandleaders. Career DevelopmentInternational,5, (2),112 115. Bennis,W.G.(1959),``Leadershiptheoryandadministrativebehavior:theproblemof authority'',Administrative ScienceQuarterly,Vol.4,pp.259 60. Bennis,W.,(1999).Theendofleadership:exemplaryleadershipisimpossiblewithout fullinclusion,initiatives,andcooperationoffollowers., Organizational Dynamics,28 ,(1)71 79. Bernhardt,V.L.(2004). Data analysisforcontinuousschoolimprovement. Larchmont, NewYork:EyeonEducation,Inc.

PAGE 151

140 Bernhardt,V.L.(2009). Data,dataeverywhere:Bringingallthedatatogetherfor continuousschoolimprovement. Larchmont,NewYork:EyeonEducation,Inc. Blak e,R.R.,&McCanse,A.A.(1991). Leadershipdilemmas gridsolutions. Houston, TX: GulfPublishing. Bickel,R.&Howley,C.B.(2002).TheInfluenceofScale. AmericanSchoolBoard Journal.189(3). Blake,R.R.,&Mouton,J.S.(1964). Themanagerial grid. Houston,TX:GulfPublishing. Blas,J.,&Blas,J.(1999).Effectiveinstructionalleadership:Teachers'perspectiveson howprincipalspromoteteachingandlearninginschools. Journalof EducationalAdministration, 38(2). Bolman,L.G.&Deal, T.(2008). Reframingorganizations:Artistry,choice,and leadership. SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBass. Borman,G.&Dowling,M.(2010).Schoolsandinequality:Amultilevelanalysisof Colemansequalityofeducationalopportunitydata. TeachersColleg eRecord, 112(5). Bulach,C.(2001).A4 stepprocessforidentifyingandreshapingschoolculture. PrincipalLeadership, 1(8),48 51. Bulach,C.(2001).Reshapingschoolculturetoimpower (sic)itspartners. TheEducation Digest, 76(1),8 11. Burns ,J.(1978). Leadership. Harper&Row, Bolman L.G.,&Deal,T.E.(2008). ReframingOrganizations. SanFrancisco, CA:JosseyBass.

PAGE 152

141 Breiter,A.,&Light,D.(2006).DataforSchoolImprovement:Factorsfordesigning effectiveinformationsystemsto supportdecision makinginschools. Educational Technology&Society ,9(3),206 217. Cairns,R.B.,Cairns,B.D.,&Neckerman,H.J.(1989).Earlyschooldropout: configurationsanddeterminants. ChildDevelopment ,60,1437 1452. Caldwell,G.,&Ginthie r,D.(1996).Differencesinlearningstylesoflowsocioeconomic statusforlowandhighachievers. Education,117 (1),141 147. Checkley,K.(2000).Newskillsforanewage. EducationUpdate, 42(3).1 9. Chemers,M.M.,&Ayman,R.(1993).SanDiego,CA :AcademicPress. Cohen,L.,Manion,L.,Morrison,K.R.B.(2003). Researchmethodsineducation,5 th edition. NewYork,NY:Routledge Falmer. Conley,D.,&Goldman,P.(1994 ).Facilitativeleadership:Howprincipalsleadwithout dominating. OregonSc hoolStudyCouncilBulletin.37(9),1 43. Creighton,T.B.(2001).DataanalysisinAdministratorshands:Anoxymoron? School Administrator, 58(4). Creighton,T.B.(2007). Schoolsanddata:Theeducatorsguideforusingdatato improvedecisionma king ThousandOaks,California:CorwinPress. Creswell,J.W.(2005). Educationalresearch:Planning,conducting,andevaluating quantitativeandqualitativeresearch .Columbus,OH:Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Czaja,R.&Blair,J.(2005). Designing S urveyinstrument s:Aguidetodecisionsand procedures. ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications,Inc.

PAGE 153

142 Daly,A.J.(2009,April).Rigidresponseinanageofaccountability:Thepotentialof Leadershipandtrust. EducationalAdministration, 45(2),168 216 DuFour,R.(2004).LeadingEdge:Cultureshiftdoesntoccurovernight orwithout conflict. JournalofStaffDevelopment, 25(4). Edmonds,R.R.(1982). Programsofschoolimprovement:Anoverview. PaperpresentedattheNationalInvitationalConf erence, ResearchonTeaching: ImplicationsforPractice. Warrenton,VA. Earl,L.M.,&Katz,S.(2006). Leadingschoolsinadata richworld:Harnessingdata forschoolimprovement. ThousandOaks,California:CorwinPress. Englert,K.,Fries,D.,Good win,B.,Martin Glenn,M.,&Michael,S.(2004). Understandinghowprincipalsusedatainanewenvironmentofaccountability. Aurora,CO:Mid continentResearchforEducationandLearning. Englert,K.,Fries,D.,Goodwin,B.,Martin Glenn,M (2003 ). Understanding howsuperintendents usedatainanewenvironmentofaccountability. Aurora, CO:Mid continentResearchforEducationandLearning. Fiedler,F.E.(1967). Atheoryofleadershipeffectiveness. NewYork:McGraw Hill. Fink,A.(2009). How toconduct surveyinstrument s:Astep by stepguide. Thousand Oaks,CA:SagePublications,Inc. Fullan,M.(2009).Leadershipdevelopment:Thelargercontext. EducationalLeadership, 67(2). Fullan,M.(2001). Leadinginacultureofchange. SanFranc isco,California:Jossey Bass. Fullan,M.(2002).Thechange. EducationalLeadership, 59(8).

PAGE 154

143 Fullan,M.,Cuttress,C.,&Kilcher,A.(2005).8Forcesforleadersofchange:Presence ofthecoreconceptsdoesnotguaranteesuccess,buttheirabsenceen suresfailure. StaffDevelopment, 26(4). Fullan,M.&Hargreaves ,A.(1996). Whatsworthfightingforinyourschool? New York,NY:TeachersCollegePress. Gall,M.,Borg,W.,&Gall,J.(1996). Educationalresearch:Anintroduction,sixth edition. WhitePlanes,NY:LongmanPublishers. Getzels,J.(1968). EducationalAdministrationasaSocialProcess:Theory,Research, Practice. NewYork:Harper&Row. Glass,C.V.,&Hopkins,K.D.(1996). StatisticalMethodsinEducationandPsychology (3rdE d.).Boston,MA:Allyn&Bacon. Gliem,J.A.,&Gliem,R.R.(2003) Calculating,Interpreting,andReportingCronbachs AlphaReliabilityCoefficientforLikert TypeScales PresentedattheMidwest Research to PracticeConferenceinAdult,Continuing ,and CommunityEducation,TheOhioStateUniversity,Columbus,OH,October8 10, 2003. Gorton,R.,&Alston,J.(2009). Schoolleadershipandadministration:Important concepts,casestudies,&simulations. NewYork,NewYork:McGraw Hill. GovernmentP rogramSummaries.(2010).DepartmentofEducationFederalTitleI Programs.FloridaLegislaturesOfficeofProgramPolicyAnalysis& GovernmentAccountability.Onlineat http://www.oppaga.state. fl.us/profiles/2021/

PAGE 155

144 Hallinger,P.(2005).Instructionalleadershipandtheschoolprincipal:Apassingfancy t hat refusestofadeaway. LeadershipandPolicyinSchools, 4,221 239. Hallinger,P.(2003,November).Leadingeducationalchange:Reflecti onsonthepractice ofinstructionalandtransformationalleadership. CambridgeJournalofEducation, 33(3). Hallinger,P.(1992). SchoolLeadershipDevelopment:AnIntroduction. Educationand UrbanSociety, 24(300). Hallinger,P.&Leithwood,K.(1 998).Unseenforces:Theimpactof socialcultureonleadership. PeabodyJournalofEducation ,73(2),126 151. Hallinger,P.&Murphy,J.(1985).Assessingtheinstructionalmanagementbehaviorof principals, TheElementarySchoolJournal ,86,(2),pp.21 7 247. Hamilton,L.,Halverson,R.,Jackson,S.,Mandinach,E.,Supovitz,J.,&Wayman,J. (2009). Usingstudentachievementdatatosupportinstructionaldecisionm aking ( NCEE2009 4067U.S.DEPARTMENTOFEDUCATION)Retrievedfrom NationalCenter forEducationEvaluationandRegionalAssistance.Instituteof EducationSciences(IES).Retrievedfrom http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/dddm_pg_092909.pdf Haycock,K.(2001).Closingtheachievementgap. EducationalLeadership,58 (6),1 9). Heider,F.(1958). ThePsychologyofInterpersonalRelations. NewYork:Wiley. Herman,J.L.,Yamashiro,K.,Lefkowitz,S.,&Trusela,L.A.(2008). Exploringdatause andschoolperformanceinanurbanpublicschooldistrict. NationalCenterfor Re searchonEvaluation,Standards,andStudentTesting. (CRESST Report742 )

PAGE 156

145 Herman,J.&Gribbons,B.(2001). Lessonslearnedinusingdatatosupportschool inquiryandcontinuousimprovement:FinalreporttotheStuartFoundation. CenterfortheStu dyofEvaluation.NationalCenterforResearchonEvaluation, Standards,andStudentTesting.(CSETechnicalReport535). Hersey,P.&Blanchard,K.(1993 ). Managementoforganizationalbehavior ,sixth edition Englewood Cliffs,NewJersey:Prentice H all,Inc. Holcomb,E.L.(1999). Gettingexcitedaboutdata. ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress, Inc. Holcomb,E.L.(2004). Gettingexcitedaboutdata:Combiningpeople,passion,and prooftomaximizestudentachievement. ThousandOaks,California:Corw in Press. Irby,B.J.,Brown,J.A.D.,&Trautman,D.(2002).Thesynergisticleadershiptheory. JournalofEducationalAdministration, 40(4),304 322. Jackson,K.M.&Trochim,W.M.K.(2002,October).Conceptmappingasan alternativeapproach fortheanalysisofopen ended surveyinstrument responses. OrganizationalResearchMethods, 5(4). Jorgensen,M.&Hoffman,J.(2003). Historyofthenochildleftbehindactof2001. San Antonio ,Texas :Pearson. Johnson,R.S.(2002). Usingdatato closetheachievementgap:Howtomeasureequity in OurSchools. ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress,Inc.

PAGE 157

146 Khanna,R.,Trousdale,D.,Penuel,W.R.,&Kell,J.(1999 ,April ). Supportingdatause amongadministrators:Resultsfromadataplanningmodel. Pa perpresentedat theAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation. Montreal,Quebec,Canada. Ladson Billings,G.2001. CrossingOvertoCanaan:TheJourneyofNew T eachersin DiverseClassrooms. SanFrancisco:Jossey Bass. LearningPo intsAssociates. (2004). GuidetoU singDatainSchoolImprovement Efforts : ACompilationofKnowledgeFromDataRetreatsandDataUseatLearningPoint Associates Onlineat http://www .learningpt.org/pdfs/datause/guidebook.pdf Leithwood,K.(1994).Leadershipforschoolrestructuring. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 30(4),pp.498 515. Leithwood,K.&Wahlstrom.(2008,October).Linkingleadershiptostudentlearning: Introd uction. EducationalAdministrationQuarterly, 44(4)pp455 457. Lewin,K.,Lippitt,R.,&White,R.K.(1939). Patternsofaggressivebehaviorin experimentallycreatedsocialclimates. JournalofSocialPsychology,10,271 301. Lewis,A.C.(1997).Ena blingallstudentstolearn. PhiDeltaKappan,78 (10)735 737. Lezotte,L.( 2009 ). Effectiveschools:Past,presentandfuture. Onlineat: http://www.aepweb.org/sum mit/09_Presentations/Effective_Schools_Lezotte.pdf Lorey,T.(2005).Principalsuseofstudentachievementdatatoimproveschoolsand influencechange.(DoctoralDissertation).AvailablefromProQuestDisserta t ions andThesesdatabase.(UMINo.3199 444).

PAGE 158

147 Marks,H.M.,&Printy,S.M.(2003). Principalleadershipandschoolperformance:An integrationoftransformationalandinstructionalleadership. Educational AdministrationQuarterly 2003;39;370 Marsh,J.A.,Pane,J.F.,&Hamilton,L.S.(200 6). MakingSenseofData Driven DecisionMakinginEducation: EvidencefromRecentRANDResearch .Onlineat www.rand.org McGregor,D.(1960). Thehumansideofenterprise. NewYork:McGraw HillBook Company,INC. Mar riott,D.(2001).Managingschoolculture. Principal, 81(1),75 77. MontgomeryA.,&Crittenden,K.(1977).Improvingcodingreliabilityforopen ended questions .PublicOpinionQuarterly.41(2)235 243. Moser C .& Kalton G .( 1977 ) SurveyMethods inSoc ialInvestigation ,London: Heinemann NationalCenterofChildreninPoverty.(2006).WhoareAmericaspoorchildren?The officialstory.NewYork,NY:NationalCenterforChildreninPoverty.Onlineat: http://nccp.org/publications/pub_684.html NationalConferenceofStateLegislatures.2002. www.ncsl.org Nanus,B.(1992). Visionaryleadership. SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey Bass. Olson, L.(2000).Newthinkingonwhatmakesaleader,Leadership:Aspecialreport. EditorialProjectsinEducation,Inc. 19(19),page1,14 15.Onlineat http://.nais.org/career/article.cfm? ItemNumber=146731 Ouchi,W.(1981). TheoryZ:HowAmericanBusinesscanmeettheJapeneseChallenge. NewYork,NewYork:AvonBooks.

PAGE 159

148 Perry,L.B.&McConney,A.( 2003 ).Doestheses oftheschoolmatter?Anexamination ofsocioeconomicstatusandstud entachievementusingPISA2003. Teachers CollegeBoard, 112(4)April2010,pp1137 1162. Polnick,B.,&Edmonson,S.(2005).Expandingdataanalysisskillsineducational leaders:Implicationsforpreparationprograms. Scholar PractitionerQuarterl y 3(1)2005. Potter,J.(2001).Creatingapassionforchange theartofintelligentleadership. Industrial andCommercialTraining, 33(2),54 59. Robinson,V.M.J.,Lloyd,C.A.,&Rowe,K.J.(2008). TheImpactofLeadershipon StudentOutcomes:An Analysisofthe DifferentialEffectsof LeadershipTypes. EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,44(5)635 674. Ravitch,D.(1995). NationalstandardsinAmericaneducation. Washington,DC: BrookingsInstitution. Rumberger,R.,&Palardy,G.J.(2005).D oesSegregationStillMatter?Theimpact ofstudentcompositiononacademicachievementinhighschool. Teachers CollegeRecord ,107(9),September2005,pp.1999 2045. Sarason,S.(1995).Somereactionstowhatwehavelearned. PhiDeltaKappan, 77,84 85. Sarason,S.B.(1982 ).Thecultureoftheschoolandtheproblemofchange. Boston,MA: AllynandBacon. Schein,E.(1996).KurtLewinsChangeTheoryinthefieldand intheclassroom:Notestowardamodelofmanagedlearning, SystemsPrac t ice,9 (1),27 47.

PAGE 160

149 Schmoker,M.(2003).Firstthingsfirst:Demystifyingdataanalysis. Educational Leadership, xx,(x). Schmoker,M.(2006). Resultsnow:Howwecanachieveunprecedentedimprovementsin teachingandlearning. Alexandria,Virginia:ASCD. Schmoker,M.(1999). Results:Thekeytocontinuousschoolimprovement. Alexandria, Virginia:ASCD. Sergiovanni,T.(1996).Leadershipbasicsforprincipalsandtheirstaff. TheEducational Forum, 60,267 270. Shapiro,A.(2008). Theeffectiveconstr uctivistleader:Aguidetothesuccessful approaches. Lanham,MD: Rowman&LittlefieldPublishingGroup,Inc. Shapiro,A.,Benja min,W.,Hunt,J.,(1995 ). Curriculumandschooling:Apractitioners guide .PalmSprings,CA:ETCPublications. Short, P.,Greer,J.,&William,M.(1994).Creatingempoweredschools:Lessonsin change. JournalofEducationalAdministration, 32(4),38 52. Slavin,R.(1998).Caneducationreducesocialinequity? EducationalLeadership,55 (4), 1 6. SPSSInc.(2010). (Ve rsion19.0)[Computersoftware]. Chicago,IL. Stevens,J.(1999). IntermediateStatistics .Mahwah,NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaum Associates. Strauss,A.,&Corbin,J.(1990). Basicsofqualitativeresearch:groundedtheoryprocedures andtechniques. New buryPark,California:SAGEPublications,Inc. Tannenbaum,R.&Schmidt,W.H.(1958).Howtochoosealeadershippattern. Harvard BusinessReview, 37,March April.

PAGE 161

150 Taylor,B.,Pearson,P.,Clark,K.,&Walpole,S.(2000)Effectiveschoolsand accompli shedteachers:Lessonsaboutprimary gradereadinginstructioninlow incomeschools. TheElementarySchoolJournal,101 (2),1 35. Taylor,F.W.(1911). ThePrinciplesofScientificManagement. NewYorkandLondon: Harper&BrothersPublishers. Teske, P.,&Schneider,M.(1999).Theimportanceofleadership:Theroleofschool principals.ThePriceWaterhouseCoopersEndowmentfortheBusinessof Government. ThePrincipalsPartnership.() UsingDataforSchoolImprovement.SponsoredbyUnion Pacifi cFoundation.Retrievedonlinefrom http://principalspartnership.com Toll,C.(2001).Criticalandpostmodernperspectivesonschoolchange. Journalof CurriculumandSupervision, 16(4),345 367. Turnbull ,B.,Welsh,M.,Heid,C.,Davis,W.,&Ratnofsky,A.(1999).Thelongitudinal evaluationofschoolchangeandperformanceinTitleIschools.(No.EA 96008001).WashingtonDC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation. U.S.DepartmentofEducation.(1999). Promising results,continuingchallenges:The finalreportofthenationalassessmentofTitleI U.S.DepartmentofEducation.(2001).PublicLawprintofPL107 110,theNoChild LeftBehindActof2001.Retrievedonlinefrom http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html )

PAGE 162

151 Usdan,M.,McCloud,B.,&Podmostko,M.(2000).InstituteforEducationalLeadership. Leadershipforstudentlearning:Reinventingtheprincipalship. School Leadership forthe21 st Century Initiative:AReportoftheTaskForceonthePrincipalship. On Lineat www.iel.org Vroom,V.H.,&Yetton,P.W.(1973)Leadershipanddecision making.Pittsburgh: UniversityofPitt sburghPress. Wagner,T.(2004). Thechallengeofchangeleadership .EducationWeek,24(9),40 41. Wasley,P.,&Lear,R.(2001). HelpingallStudentsAchieve. EducationalLeadership, 58(6). Williamson,R., & Blackburn,B.(2009)Morethannumbers. Prin cipalLeadership, 10(4). Woodbury,S.,Gess Newsome,J.(2002).Overcomingtheparadoxofchangewithout difference:Amodelofchangeinthearenaoffundamentalschoolreform. EducationalPolicy16(5), 764 783. Yeagley,R .(2003).Thedemandsofdata under nclb. SchoolAdministrator,60(11),22

PAGE 163

152 Appendices

PAGE 164

153 AppendixA Interviewwith theFloridaDeputyChancellorforSchoolImprovementandStudent Achievement Interviewer:Isthereastatedefinitionofstudentachievementdata? Intervie wee:IdontknowifthereisacleardefinitionbutIthinkaworkingdefinitionwould certainlystartwithFCATandthenIthinkthatitwouldprobablybethemostsignificantstudent achievementdatathatwehaveinFloridaandthenIwouldsayfromth ereIthinkgenerally speakingIthinkthestatehasbeenlookingatDIBELSdata,FAIRnowforreadinghasbegunto bepartoftheconversationwithdataandIalsothinkoverthepastcoupleofyearsbecauseofDA andtherequirementsinDAarestartingt ogivemoreco nversationsaboutbaseline,mid yeardata intheformofinterimassessmentsthatarecreatedorputtogetheratthelocallevel. Interviewer:Isthereanystateboardpolicylanguageregardingstudentachievementdata? Interviewee:Well ,basedonwhatIsaid,basedontheworkingdefinitionofstudent achievement, Iwouldsaythat instateboardrule,thereislanguagealongthelinesofD ifferentiated Accountability.T hereislanguageintherefortherequirementsofbaselineandmidyea r assessmentsinmath,reading,science,andwritingforstudentswhoareleveloneandtwo.Sothat isarequirementsotoansweryourquestion,theanswerwouldbeyesbutitlinkstoDifferentiated Accountability. Interviewer:Whatstudentachievemen tdatadoesthestateprovidetodistrictsandtoschools, e speciallytoprincipalsandAP s? Interviewee:Theonlything thatImawareofistheFCAT.TheFCATdataandthenfromthere, thatisreallyit.Obviously FAIRissomethingthatthestateputt ogetherthroughtheFlorida ComprehensiveReadi ngCenterandthatisreallyit, FairandFCAT.Essentially ,thatdataset that isgivenfromthedepartment. Interviewer:Whatdoesthestateexpect districts todowiththedata? Interviewee:WellI thinktheexpectationisthatyouusethedataonacoupleoflevelsThe mostimportantbeingtoanalyzestudentdeficiencies,torecognizetheareaswherestudentsare stillstrugglingbasedonthestandardsandthebenchmarks.Andthenusethatdatato informyour interventionsandthentheothersupportsystemsthatareneededtomovestudentstoproficiency. Sothatsmainlyaroundstudentachievementdataandthenthereisobviouslydataaround attendanceandsuspensionbutjustintheconversationof studentachievementitwouldbeto informinterventionsforadditionalsupportsforstudentsandthenIwouldalsosayIthinkan expectationisthatdataisusedtodetermine (Atthispoint,thecallwasdroppedandtheconversationended.Itbeganwith thefollowing) Interviewee:Obviouslytodetermineinterventionsforstudentsandwhatthedeficienciesarebut alsotodeterminehowtheygoaboutre teachingthosedeficiencies,insmallergroupsorinan

PAGE 165

154 extendeddaysituationandbeyondthestudent ,Ithinkthattheexpectationisthatdataisusedto identifythehighestperformingteacherssothoseteachersthathavereallyeffectivelymoved studentachievementespeciallyintheareaoflearninggainsinmathandreadingsothatthe strongerteach ersarepairedwiththeweakerstudentsandalsosothatthestrongestteachersare recruitedtoworkwiththelowestperformingschools.Ithinkthattheexpectationisalsotothat thehigherperformingadministratorsareidentifiedandhopefullyincenti v ize dtogotolower performingschools.Andthenjustgenerallyspeakingthatawardsaregiventohigherperforming teachersandadministratorsbutnotinaIdontthinkthatthereisjustonewayofdoingthatI thinkitneedstobeaprocessofawardi ngteachersandadministratorshastogobeyonddatabutat leastapartoftheequationofdeterminingwhoareyourhigherperformingteachersand administratorsandthenhowdoyougoaboutprovidingthemwiththerightincentivethatcan rewardthemto continuetheirgoodwork. Interviewer:Whatdoesthestateexpectschoolsorprincipalstodowiththedata? Interviewee:ItprobablyechoeswhatIalreadysaidaroundidentifyingstudentdeficiencies.One thingIdidntsayinmylastresponsewasIt hinktheuseofdataisalsoimportantinidentifying teachersthatarestruggling,whetherthatisthroughinterimassessmentsoralsotheFCAT.Itis clearthatcertainteachersaredoingmuchbetterthanothersbutalsocertainteachersare strugglings othroughinterimassessmentsdatanotonlycanyouidentifystudentsthatare strugglingandmightneedassistancebutalsoteachersmayneedcertainassistancewith generallywhatishappeningintheclassroombutmaybeparticularlyontheteachingof certain standardsorbenchmarks.Ithinkthattheexpectation,againIthinkIexplainedthatatthedistrict levelistoidentifyyourhigherperformingprincipals,administratorsandteachersproviding support.Attheschoollevel,IthinkthatIwouldt hinkatthedistrictlevelitismoreimportantfor thedistricttothinkaboutsupportingteachers.Generallysupportingadministratorswherethe datadoesntlooks ogood,studentsarestruggling toprovidetherightsystemsandresourcesto supportfo rst udentsbutitsreallythe roleoftheschooltodrilldowntothestudentlevel.To ensurethattherightsupportsystemsareinplaceforstudentsothatswhereIseethe responsibilityoftheschoolbeingasfarasdataandIwouldalsosaythat Ithinkthatatthelevel oftheschool,itisimportantforschoolstousedata,particularlywherestudentsarestruggling, butalsousethatasawaytotalktoparents,aboutparticularlywhatstandardswith,what conceptsandhowthoseconceptscanb ereinforcedathomethrougheverydayconversationsbut alsot hroughremediationathome.I ftheparentdoesntfeelcomfortabledoingthat thenhowhe orshecansup portthestudentatschoolor afterschoolservices. Interviewer:Whatexpectationd oesthestatehaveofdistrictstosupporttheuseofstudent achievementdatabyschoolprincipals? Interviewee:Ithinkitstartsbydistrictsensuringthatprincipalsunderstandhowtheirschoolsare gradedIthinkyouwouldbesurprised,notasmuch now, butIwouldcertainlysaymaybe three yearsago,manyprincipalsdidntevenunderstandwhatproficiencymeant,whatarethe accountabilityfactorsaboutproficiencylearninggains.howarelearninggainscalculated/SoA. makingsurethateveryone isclearonhowschoolsaregradedandIthinkevendeeperthanthat whataretheitemspecsontheFCAT,howarecertainstandardstaughtandhowarecertain standardstranslatedtoabenchmark.Andthenteachingprincipalshowtoanalyzedatathrough in terimassessments.Whatkindof datashouldyoubelookingat?W ha tprogressshouldyoube (sic)seeing? Howdoyoucon ductadatachatwithateacher? Howdoyoulookatthebaseline andmid year assessments? Howdoyouasktherightquestio nstoknowtha ttheteachersare usingtheirdatatore teach.Howdoyoutalktotheteacheraboutwhatsupporttheyneed from

PAGE 166

155 anotherteacheroracoach? Tohelpagroupofteachersoranindividualteacherinaclassroom. Thatistheexpectationfromthestateasfa rastrainingisconcerned. Theotherissueorexpectationattheschoollevelisthatteachesusedatatore teaching opportunitiesbutalsototalktoteachersabouttheirdata.Weliveinaworldofover testingright nowbecausewedontknowhowtot ierourassessments,wedontknowh owtoeliminate duplicationof assessments.Alotofourassessmentsareduplicatingthemselvesandthatswhen yougettothepointoftestingforthesakeoftesting.Idontthinkstudentsreallyunderstandthe roleo fFCAT.Theydontreallyunderstandwhyinterimassessmentsareimportant.Andthen studentsjust sitdownandtaketests butw enevertalktothemabouthowtheydidonthetest howweexpectthemtoperformonthetest.Wedontgobacktore teachth etestandnotinthe waythatyouranswershouldbeA.ButYouselectedcandthatwasthewronganswerandtoget intothethoughtprocessofwhythestudentspickedCinsteadofAandhavingthatasateachable momenttore teachconceptsthatwerepre viouslytaughtsoIthinkallofthatgoesintotraining forprincipalsbutteachersaswell. Interviewer:Whatresourcesdoesthestateprovidetoprincipalstosupportdatausebyprincipals? Interviewee:IthinkthattheStatehasdoneamuchbet terjobofprovidingdirectsupporttolow performingschools.SopartofDAandbreakingthesta teupintoregionsandhavinga regional executivedirectorandateamofspecialistsistobuildthecapacityofprincipalsandoneofthe areasthattheyfoc usonisdatauseanddatadisaggregationandusingthatdatatoinform instructionandinterventionsoIthinkwevedoneamuchbetterjobonthatlevel.State wide, otherthanprovidingthedatatodistricts,wealsocreatedSuns hineConnections,which the hope ofSunshineConnectionswastointegratedatasothatschoolsanddistrictsdidnthavetogoto multiplewebsitestogettrenddata. Ithinkwevetriedtohelpby creatingtheDARTwhichisa wayforaschooltoinputtheirdataandthendisagg regatedlookatstateaverages,pinpointthe benchmarksanddeficienciesthatcanthenhelpcreatetheinstructionalfocuscalendarstoguide instruction.Ithinkwevealsotriedtohelpwithanalyzingdataandusingdatatoguide instructionbyreformin gth esiptomakeitmorebasedond ata,IsolatingquestionsthatForce schoolstoanalyzedataandcreategoalsthataredatabasedandthencreatestrategiesthatare linkedtodata.ButIdontthinkthestatehasdonealotstatewide.Ithinkourwo rkhasbecome morerefinedtothelowpe rformingschoolsandindirectly thedistrictsbutIstillthinkwehave worktodotodosomethingstatewideinbuildingcapacityinanalyzingdata.Ithinkourhopeis atthestateleve l to getmoreofthiswithth eRace TotheTopbycreatingmoreintegrateddata systems.Idontthinkyoucantalkaboutanalyzingdataunlessyouhaveasoliddata infrastructuresystemandstillinFloridawehavesomuchofadisintegrateddatasystemwhere itsnotcompletelyali gnedanditsnotinoneplacewherealldistrictsandschoolscangotosee studentdata,districtda taorschoolleveldata.Itisstilldisintegrated(sic) Youstillhavealot inconsistencyacrossdistrictswhichjustleadstoconfusiontoteachers,pr incipalsandparentsand students.SoIthinkonegoalofRaceToTheTopismoreintegratedsystemandwithan integratedsystemitleadstoIthinkmorecoherencyandthenitmakestrainingmucheasier becauseyouhavethatconsistencytobuildoffan dtoreferbackto.

PAGE 167

156 A ppendixB Interviewwith aLargeS chool D istrictAccountabilityContact Interviewer:Whatstudentachievementdatadoesthest ateprovidetoschooldistrictsor schools? Interviewee:Allthemandatedteststhatthestate givesustheyprovideusthestudentdatafor beginningwiththeFLKRSadministrationatthebeginningoftheyearwhichincludesthe ECHOS,theearlychildhoodobservationsystemandthefirstadministrationoftheFair,Allthat dataisprovidedtous.T hereisCELLA,thereisFCAT,thereis (sic) AlternateAssessment.All thatdataisprovidedtothedistrict.Andthedistrictinturnprovidesittotheschools.Allofthat data,alloftheFCATdata,isalsoprovidedontheDOEwebsite,theaggregates, the account abilitypiecethatusestheFCAT aggregateddatatoprovideschoolgradesandAYPand makeDifferentiatedAccountability designationsandthatisprovidedondoewebsiteforanyone toaccess. Interviewer:Whatdoesthestateexpectdistrict stodowiththedata? Interviewee:Theyexpectdistrictstoanalyzethedataandalsotoprovideittotheschools.and.to makeinstructionaldecisionsbasedondatadrivendecisionsbasedonwhattheyfindsothat studentscanhavebestthebestinstru ctionalopportunities. Interviewer:Whatdoesthestateexpectschools(principals)todowiththedata? Interviewee:Drivetheirschoolimprovementplandeterminewhatisgoingtobeusedatthe school,workwiththeirschoolleadershipteam,workw it htheparents,allstakeholders(sic) to makedata drivendecisionsfortheschool. Its allabouttheSchoolImprovementPlan. Interviewer:Whenyousay,determinewhatisgoingtobeusedattheschool ,d oyoumean programsandinterventions? Inte rviewee:Programsandinterventionsandanythingandeverythingbecauserememberthere aregoalsforattendance,therearegoalsforsuspension,therearegoalsforparentinvolvement. Therearentjustgoalsforreading,math,science,andwriting. In terviewer :Whatdoes yourschooldistrictexpectschools(principals)todowiththedata? Interviewer:Alloftheaboveandmore.Wehaveadatawarehousethatwascreatedinhouse wheretheteachersandadministratorshave24/7accesstothedata.Righ tnowwealreadyhave thestudentsrolledoversoteachersandprincipalscanseethestudentsthataregoingtobe comingtothematthebeginningofschoolanditisbrokendownbyeverywhichwaythatyou couldpossiblythinkofanditalsoshowsthemt hekidsthattheyhadlastyearwhattheirlearning gainslooklike.Soyoucouldactuallycomparehowyourkidsdid.ifyoureateacherorif youreaprincipalletssay,becauseyouareaddressingprincipalshere.Ifyoureaprincipalyou canlookat allofyourteacherslearninggainsandyoucandothatovertime.So,youcanseeif theyaregoingintherightdirectionorarelearninggainsgoinginthewrongdirection Youcould lookatYoucansliceanddicethedataanywayyouwanttoanditsa vailabletothem24/7 whichiswhyImsayingitsalloftheaboveandmore.

PAGE 168

157 Interviewer:Whatstudentachievementdatadoesyourdistrictprovidetoschools(principals)? Interviewer:Allthatweget,weprovidebacktotheschoolsan dmorebecause wealsouseour progressmonitoringandthatisalsoincludedisinthedatawarehouse. Interviewer:Youaregoingtoanewprogressmonitoringassessment,arentyou? Interviewee:Yes,itsgoingtobeDiscoveryandthatisalsogoingtobeinIDEAS. Interviewer:IsIDEASana cronym? Interviewee:.ItisInteractiveDataEvaluationandAssessmentSystems. Interviewer:Whatstudentachievementdataisgeneratedatyourschoolsitesandusedbythe principals? Interviewee:Welltheattendance,th esuspension,thediscipline ,teacherattendance.Al tha tis pickedupatschoolsite. Anythingthatwedonotgetdigitallythatistestrelatedispickedupby theschoolsiteandusedbytheprincipal. Interviewer:Wouldtheschoolsbedoinganyother progressmonitoringattheschoolsitesthatis notgeneratedbythestatewithFAIRoryourDiscoveryprogram?Otherthantextbook assessments? Interviewee:Yes,butthatwedontpickthatupbecausetheyusethatforRTI.AndwiththeRTI piece nextyearwiththisDiscoverythatweareusingnotonlywillwehavetheprogress monitoringpiecesbutwerealsogoingtohaveitembanksthatteacherscanactuallygoinand selecttheitemsthattheywantfortheRTIpiecesbecausetheyneedmorefreq uentprogress monitoringforthosestudents. Interviewer:Whattrainingisprovidedfromthedistrictleveltosupporttheuseofdataby principals? Interviewee:ok,wehavev ariouspiecesbecausewetraintheadministrators,wetraintheAIFs, those areourcoachesandthecoachesaretrainedeverysinglemonthindataanalysisandhowto getthedataandhowtousethedata.Theyaresupposedtobethesupportfortheadministrators. Theyalsogettrainingonmembershipfixesandassessmentfixesbe causeweexpectthe principalstoberesponsibleforthat.Todothatandgetitright. Interviewer:WhenyousaythatAIFsarethesupport,theyhelpmakesurethattheprincipalsget thedata? Interviewee:Thatsthroughouttheyear.TheAIFsarethr oughouttheyear.Theyaretheonesthat a retryingtohelptheprincipal. Theyarepartoftheleadershipteam,forexampletheycametothe schoolimprovementplantrainingsbecausetheyhadanassignmentwhenwefirstgotthe templatetolookatlongitu dinaldatatobringtothetableforthediscussionwhentheywere workingontheirschoolimprovementplan. Interviewer:WhatdoesAIFstandfor?

PAGE 169

158 Interviewee:AcademicInterventionFacilitator Interviewer:Howdoprincipalsusedatainyourdistrict ? Interviewee:Theyhavetouseittojustifyjustaboutanything.Theyuseittomakedecisionson whatprogramstheyaregoingtouse,whatprogramstheyaregoingkeep,whattheyaregoingto toss,whatinterventions,placement,scheduling,everything Interviewer:Isyourdistrictmoresite basedmanagedordistrictmanagedasfarasprograms? Interviewee:Ithinkitsacombinationbecausethedistrictwillsaythesearethethingsthatyou canchoosefromandthentheychoosefromthere.Thedi strictistryingtogetthemtoreduce becausetherewassomuchstuffoutthereandtherewasnowaytoknowwhatwasgoodandwhat wasbad.whatwasgoodandwhatwasbad,whatwasineffectiveandwhatwaseffective. Interviewer:Doesyourdistricth aveanybestpracticesinprincipaldatause? Interviewee:TheuseofIDEAs,thedatawarehouse, andhowtoobtainallofthatdatatomake decisionsbasedonit.Ithinkthatweareoneofthefewonesinthestatethathavethat,likewhat wehave,wit hallofthoseyearsofdatainitsothatyoucanmakeyourdecisionsontrends,not justasnapshot.DataDayisdoneatthebeginningoftheday.Lastyear,wetalkedaboutdatayear becausewewantdatachatstobecontinuousthroughouttheyear.Andn owthisyearweregoing tohaveearlyreleasedaysandweexpectdatachatstobetakingplaceduringthoseearlyrelease days.ButatthebeginningoftheyearwehaveaDataDaywhereitisexclusivelyforanalyzing yourdata.Theschoolsreceiveaguid e,wepro videthempowerpointsandall theadministrators havetodoisjustmakesurethatthisgoesoffwithoutahitchbecausewhatwewanttheteachers todoatthispointistoanalyze.firstofall,DataDaydoesntbeginonDataDay.Itbegins be foreDataDayassoonastheygetthereandtheyreanalyzingthestudentsthattheyhadfrom lastyear,tofigureoutwhattheydidrightwhattheydidwrong,whatworked,whatdidntwork andthentheylookatthisyearsstudentstomakedeterminations onwhattheyaregoingtodo withthisyearsstudentsbasedontheexperiencetheyhadfromlastyearsstudents. Interviewer:Whataretheobstaclestodatausebyprincipals? Interviewee:Fear..teachers,principalswhoarenotmathoriented,doyo uwantto callit that.Peoplethatare, youknowhowyouhaveleftbrainandrightbrain.Thepeoplethat havealittlebitoffearofthemathaspectofittendtobealittlebitmorecautiousandit mighttakethemalittlelongertogetonboard.Eve ry year,youknowthisfromyour c ountyprobablyyouhavethesamesituation,whereeveryyearwehave alotof retirementsand thenthatjuststartsthedominoeffectandthenyouwindupgettingnew principalsintonewslotsandAPsmovingintoprincipal shipsandteachersmovinginto APslotssoourtrainingiscontinuouseverysingleyear.Whenwethinkwehaveitwe stillhavetogobacktothedrawingboardandstartfromscratchbecauseyouhaveto makesurethateverybodyisatleastgettingthebasi cs.Nowtherearesomethatlovethis stuffandyouknow,takeitandflywithit.Andtherearesomethatittakesthemalittle bitlongertoreallygetonboardtounderstandhowtouseitandhowitsgoingtohelp themtomakebetterdecisions. Inte rviewer:Anyotherobstaclesbesidesfear? Interviewee:Fearoftheunknownisalwaystheworst,youknowfearofchange.Otherobstacles? Time,becausethereisjustfinitetimeandinfinitetimeofanalysisthatyoucoulddo.

PAGE 170

159 Appendix C #1 Panel ofExperts:ContentValidation DataUsebyPrincipalsandAssistantPrincipals inAchi evement RelatedDecision Making Questionnaire Directions: Thankyouforparticipatingasamemberofthepanelofexpertstoprovidefeedbackon thisquestionnair e.This surveyinstrument willbeadministeredtoTitleI elementary principalsandassistantprincipalsintheHeartlandEducationalConsortium. Forthepurposeofthis surveyinstrument ,studentachievementdataisdefinedasdata thatisreferenced inthe DifferentiatedAccountabilitysStrategiesandSupport document. Ihaveincludedacopyofthe DifferentiatedAccountabilitysStrategiesandSupport documentforyourreference. Afterreadingeachiteminthequestionnaire,providefeedbac konea chitemsclarity, construct,redundancy,bias,anddouble barreledcharacteristic. Anadditionalfourquestionsaskyourfeedbackonanyitemsthatshouldbeincludedor omitted,thelengthofthequestionnaire,andanyadditionalfeedbackthatyouwoul dlike toshare.

PAGE 171

160 Clarity: Definition: Questionsareclear,succinct,andunambiguous. Directions: Rateeachitemaccordingtotheclarityofhowtheitemiswritten. 1= clear 2=somewhatunclear 3= unclear Construct : Directions:Ratee achitemaccord ingtotheconstruct whichitbestrepresents. 1=schoolimprovement 2=professionaldevelopment 3=leadership 4=monitoringprocesses 5=dataskills Redundancy: Definition: Theitemcontentisrepetitious. Directions:Rateeachitemaccordingtowhethert heitemisredundant. 1= itemstandsaloneandisnotrepeatedasanother 2=itemissomewhatlikeanotheritem 3=item istoocloseinmeaningtoanotheritem *Ifyourateanitemas2or3,indicatewhichitem#itmostcloselyresembles. Bias: Defi nition: Biased item sare writteninsuchawaythatleadsthe respondenttoapreferred response Directions:Rateeachitemaccordingto bias. 1= itemdoesnotleadtherespondenttoapreferredresponse 2= itemissomewhatwrittentoleadtherespondent toapreferredresponse 3= itemiswrittentoleadtherespondenttoapreferredresponse Double barreleditems: Definition:Double barreleditemshavetwopartsthatrespondentsmayfeeldifferently about.Forexample, IlikelivinginFloridabecauseo fthebeachesandthetouristsites. ArespondentmightlikelivinginFloridabecauseofthebeachesbutmayfeeldifferently aboutthetouristsites.Thisitemwouldbeconsidereddouble barreled. Directions:Rateeachitemaccordingtoitsdouble b arreledcharacteristic. 1= itemonly referstoonepart 2=itemsomewhat referstotwoparts 3= itemreferstotwoparts

PAGE 172

161 PartI:LikertScale Directions:Rateeachstatementonthefollowingscalebycirclingthemostappropriate response. Clarity: Construct: 1=school improvement 2=professional development 3=leadership 4=monitoring processes 5=dataskills Redundancy: Bias: Double barreled SchoolImprovement: Items1 12referencetheprincipalsandassistantprincipalsuseofdatainthearea ofschoolimprovement. 1)Iusemultiplesourcesofstudent achievementdatatoidentifyschool improvementstrategies. 1 23 12345 12 3 Item#:____ 1 2 3 123 2)Iworkwiththeschoolleadership teamtoanalyzestuden tachievement datatoidentifyschoolimprovement strategies. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 3)Iworkwiththeentireschoolstaffto analyzestudentachievementdatato identifyschoolimprovementstrategies. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 4)IconsultwiththeSchoolAdvisory Council(SAC)toanalyzestudent achievementdatatoidentifyschool improvementstrategies. 123 12345 123 Item#: ____ 123 123

PAGE 173

162 Clarity: Construct: 1=school improvement 2=professional development 3=leadership 4=monitoring processes 5=dataskills Redundancy: Bias: Double barreled 5)Ianalyzethestudentachievement dataonthe SchoolImprovement BaselineReport. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 6)Ianalyzethestudentachievement dataontheSchoolImprovementMid yearreport. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 7)Ianalyzetrendsindataovertimeto determinetheneedsofstudents. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 8)Icanmatchinterventionstothe needsofstudentsafterananalysisof studentachievemen tdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 9)Iimplementthecurriculumthatis requiredafterananalysisofstudent achievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 10)I analyzestudentachievementdata todetermineifstrategieswritteninthe previousyearsSchoolImprovement Planwereeffective. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 11)Iunderstandifwhatwearedoing ismakinga differenceinstudent achievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123

PAGE 174

163 Clarity: Construct: 1=school improvement 2=professional development 3=leadership 4=monitoring processes 5=dataskills Redundancy: B ias: Double barreled 12)Iunderstandtherootcausesof studentachievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 ProfessionalDevelopment:Items1 12referencetheprincipalsandassistantprincipalsuseof datainthe areaofprofessionaldevelopment. 13)Ileadtraininginstudent achievementdataanalysiswithmy staff. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 14)Iensurethatprofessional developmentforstaffisd etermined afterananalysisofstudentachievement data. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 15)Imeetwithmyacademiccoachto planprofessionaldevelopmentwhichis drivenbyananalysisofstudent achievementdat a. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 16)IhaveestablishedProfessional LearningCommunitieswhichanalyze studentachievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 17)I ensurethatteachershavebeen providedtraininginleadingdatachats withstudents. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123

PAGE 175

164 Clarity: Construct: 1=school improvement 2=professional development 3=leadership 4=moni toring processes 5=dataskills Redundancy: Bias: Double barreled 18)IensurethatteachersIndividual ProfessionalDevelopmentPlans (IPDPs)arecreatedusingstudent achievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 1 23 19)Ihavereceivedadequatetraining inanalyzingstudentachievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 20)Ihavereceivedadequatetraining inanalyzingFloridaAssessmentsfor InstructioninRea ding(FAIR)reports. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 21)Ihavemodeledadatachatfor teachers. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 22)Ireviewstudentworktodetermine p rofessionaldevelopmentneedsofthe staff. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 23)Icoachteachersintheanalysisof studentachievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123

PAGE 176

165 Clarity: Construct: 1=school improvement 2=professional development 3=leadership 4=monitoring processes 5=dataskills Redundancy: Bias: Double barreled 24)Ihavereceivedadequatetrainingin usingPerformanceMatterstoanalyze s tudentachievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 Leadership:Items25 36referencetheprincipalsandassistantprincipalsuseofdataintheareaof leadership. 25)Ireviewstudentachievementdata w itheachteacherinaone on one meeting. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 26)Imakedecisionsbasedonstudent achievementdataanalysis. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 27)Iprovidetimeforteachersto analyzestudentachievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 28)Ileadstudentachievementdata analysisattheschool. 123 12345 123 Item#:_ ___ 123 123 29)Ivaluedataasausefultoolfor instructionalleadership. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123

PAGE 177

166 Clarity: Construct: 1=school improvement 2=professional development 3=leadership 4= monitoring processes 5=dataskills Redundancy: Bias: Double barreled 30)Ihaveestablishedaschoolteamto analyzestudentachievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 31)Ileadteacherstomake inst ructionaldecisionsbasedonstudent achievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 32)Iguideteachersindataanalysisthat hasthemostreturnoninvestmentfor increasedstudentachievement. 123 1 2345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 33)Ihaveestablishedaprocessto gatherstudentachievementdataina systematicway. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 34)Isharestudentachievement r elated decision makingwithaleadership team. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 35)Ihaveestablishedavisionfordata analysiswithstaff. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 36)Icommunicatestudentachievement datawithparents. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123

PAGE 178

167 Clarity: Construct: 1=school improvement 2=professional development 3=leadership 4=monitoring processes 5=dataski lls Redundancy: Bias: Double barreled MonitoringProcesses:Items37 48referencetheprincipalsandassistantprincipalsuseofdatainthearea ofmonitoringprocesses. 37)Imonitorstudentachievementdata todeterminetheinterventionsthat are requiredforstudents. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 38)Imonitordisaggregatedstudent achievementdatatomeasurestudent learning. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 39)IinspectwhatIexpect. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 40)Imonitorwhetherteachershave datachatswithstudents. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 41)Imonitor theimplementationof schoolimprovementstrategiesbasedon studentachievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 42)Imonitorteacherperformance basedonmultiplesourcesofstudent achievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123

PAGE 179

168 Clarity: Construct: 1=school improvement 2=professional development 3=leadership 4=monitoring processes 5=dataskills Redundancy: Bias: Double barreled 43)Imonitorstudent performance basedonmultiplesourcesofstudent achievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 44)Imonitortheeffectivenessof instructionalprogramsbasedonstudent achievementdata. 123 123 45 123 Item#:____ 123 123 45)Ireviewstudentachievementdata fromFloridasContinuous ImprovementModel(FCIM)mini assessments. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 46)Ireviewstudent achievementdata onaweeklybasis. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 47)Ireviewstudentachievementdata withtheleadershipteam. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 48)Ire viewstudentachievementdata withtheSchoolAdvisoryCouncil (SAC). 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123

PAGE 180

169 Clarity: Construct: 1=school improvement 2=professional development 3=leadership 4=monitoring processe s 5=dataskills Redundancy: Bias: Double barreled DataSkills:Items49 60referencetheprincipalsandassistantprincipalsdataskills. 49)IunderstandhowAdequateYearly Progress(AYP)iscalculated. 123 12345 123 I tem#:____ 123 123 50)Iunderstandhowtheschoolgrade iscalculated. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 51)Ifeelcomfortableanalyzing studentachievementdata. 123 12345 12 3 Item#:____ 123 123 52)IamabletoanalyzeFlorida AssessmentsforInstructioninReading (FAIR)reports. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 53)Ihavetechnologyskillstodisplay studentachieve mentdataforanalysis. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 54)Ihavethestatisticalskillsto analyzestudentachievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 55)Igen eratehypothesesafteran analysisofstudentachievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123

PAGE 181

170 Clarity: Construct: 1=school improvement 2=professional development 3=leadership 4=monitoring processes 5=dat askills Redundancy: Bias: Double barreled 56)Ianalyzestudentachievementdata touncoverpatterns. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 57)Iamabletonavigatethereportsin PerformanceMatterstoanalyzest udent achievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 58)Iexaminestudentworkwith teachers. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 59)Iinfluenceteacherswithstudent achi evementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123 60)Ischeduletimetoanalyzestudent achievementdata. 123 12345 123 Item#:____ 123 123

PAGE 182

171 PartII:Open endedquestions: Dir ections : Afterreadingeachitem in PartII,providefeedbackoneachitemsclarity, bias,anddouble barreledcharacteristic. Clarity: Definition: Questionsareclear,succinct,andunambiguous. Directions:Rateeachitemaccordingtotheclarityofh owtheitemiswritten. 1=clear 2=somewhatunclear 3=unclear Bias: Definition:Biaseditemsarewritteninsuchawaythatleadstherespondenttoapreferred response. Directions:Rateeachitemaccordingtobias. 1=itemdoesnotleadtheresponde nttoapreferredresponse 2=itemissomewhatwrittentoleadtherespondenttoapreferredresponse 3=itemiswrittentoleadtherespondenttoapreferredresponse Double barreleditems: Definition:Double barreleditemshavetwopartsthatrespondents mayfeeldifferently about.Forexample,IlikelivinginFloridabecauseofthebeachesandthetouristsites. ArespondentmightlikelivinginFloridabecauseofthebeachesbutmayfeeldifferently aboutthetouristsites.Thisitemwouldbeconside reddouble barreled. Directions:Rateeachitemaccordingtoitsdouble barreledcharacteristic. 1=itemonlyreferstoonepart 2=itemsomewhatreferstotwoparts 3=itemreferstotwoparts

PAGE 183

172 1. Whatsupportstodatauseinachievement related decisionmakinghaveyou experiencedinyourcurrentroleas a principalorassistantprincipal? Brieflyindicate whichsupport(s)havebeenthemostbeneficialinyourrole. Clarity: Bias: Double barreled 123 123 123 2. W hatbarrierstodatauseinachievement relateddecisionmakinghaveyou experiencedinyourcurrentroleasprincipalorassistantprincipal? Brieflyindicate whichbarrier(s)havebeenmostcriticalinyourrole. Clarity: Bias: Double barreled 123 123 123

PAGE 184

173 PartIII:Demographicdata : Directions: Afterreadingeachitem in PartIII,providefeedbackoneachitemsclarity. Clarity: Definition: Questionsareclear,succinct,andunambiguous. Directions:Rateeachi temaccordingtotheclarityofhowtheitemiswritten. 1=clear 2=somewhatunclear 3=unclear Directions:Pleaseindicateyouradministrativetitle,administrativeexperienceinyourcurrent role,administrativeexperienceinFlorida,andschoolsDAde signationbymarkingan X in theappropriate : AdministrativeTitle :(Indicateyourcurrentrole,PrincipalorAssistantPrincipal): Principal AssistantPrincipal Clarity: 123 Administrati veExperience:(Indicatethetotalnumberofyearsinyourcurrentroleasa principalORasanassistantprincipal.) 0 5years 6 10years 11 15years 16 20years 21 25y ears 26+years Clarity: 123

PAGE 185

174 AdministrativeExperience:(Indicatethetotalnumberofyearsthatyouhavebeenan administrator(principaland/orassistantprincipal)inFlorida.) 0 5years 6 10years 11 15years 16 20years 21 25years 26+years Clarity: 123 DifferentiatedAccountabilitymatrixdesignation:(IndicatetheDAdesignationforyour schoolforthe 2010 2011schoolyearasaresultof2009 2010data) PreventI CorrectI PreventII CorrectII Intervene No DAstatus Clarity: 12 3

PAGE 186

175 PartIV: SurveyI nstrument A dministration Directions:Answereachquestiontoprovidefeedbackonthe surveyinstrument 1. Arethere anyitemsomittedfromthisquestionnairethatyouwouldlike considered? 2. Arethereanyitemsinthequestionn airethatyouwouldconsideromitting? 3. Isthelengthofthequestionnaireappropriate? 4. Doyouhaveanyadditionalfeedbackregardingthequestionnaire?

PAGE 187

176 AppendixD Feedbackf romthe #1PanelofExperts : ContentValidation PartI:Like rtScale : Item # Feedbackfromthepanel 1 2 OneexpertindicatedDouble barreled=3 3 OneexpertindicatedRedundancy=2,oneexpertindicatedDouble barreled=3 4 OneexpertindicatedDouble barreled=3 5 Oneexpertindicatedconstruct#5 6 Oneexpe rtindicatedconstruct#5 7 Oneexpertindicatedconstruct#5 8 Oneexpertindicatedconstruct#5 9 TwoexpertsindicatedClarity=2 ,Oneexpertcommented :(requiredby whom?) 10 11 TwoexpertsindicatedClarity=2 12 Oneexpertindicatedconstruct #5 13 14 15 16 Oneexpertindicatedconstruct#3 17 Oneexpertindicatedconstruct#3 18 OneexpertindicatedRedundancy=2(item#14) 19 OneexpertindicatedClarity=2, Oneexpertcommented :(adequate?) 20 OneexpertindicatedClarity=2, One expertcommented :(adequate?) 21 Oneexpertindicatedconstruct#3 22 23 Oneexpertindicatedconstruct#5 24 OneexpertindicatedClarity= 2,Oneexpertcommented :(adequate? ),One expert indicatedRedundancy=2(item#19) 25 26 Oneexpert indi catedRedundancy=2(item#9) 27 28 Oneexpert indicatedRedundancy=2(item#13) 29 Oneexpert indicated Redundancy=maybea2 30 31 Oneexpert indicatedRedundancy=2(item#29) 32 Oneexpert indi catedClarity=2,Twoexperts indicatedRedundancy=2( both referredtoitem#31)

PAGE 188

177 33 34 TwoexpertsindicatedRedundancy=2(item#30)(item#2) 35 OneexpertindicatedClarit y=2,Oneexpertcommented :(visionprocess?) 36 37 38 39 TwoexpertsindicatedClarity=2,OneexpertindicatedClarity=3,One expert indicatedRedundancy=2(items#37and#38) 40 OneexpertindicatedRedundancy=2(item#40) 41 Oneexpertindicatedconstruct#1 42 43 44 Oneexpertindicatedconstructs#3and#4 45 46 47 TwoexpertsindicatedRedundancy=2(item#2) 48 TwoexpertsindicatedRedundancy=2(item#4) ,Oneexpertindicatedconstructs #3and#4 49 50 51 OneexpertindicatedClarity=2,OneexpertindicatedBias=2 52 53 OneexpertindicatedClarity=2 54 OneexpertindicatedBias=2 55 56 57 Oneexper tindicatedClarity=3,OneexpertindicatedRedundancy=2(item#53), Oneexpertcommented:(technologyexpertise,notdataskills) 58 OneexpertindicatedRedundancy=2(item#25) ,Oneexpertindicatedconstruct #3 59 OneexpertindicatedClarity=2,One expertindicatedClarity=3,Oneexpert indicatedConstruct=3,Oneexpertcommented:(todowhat?) ,Oneexpert indicatedconstruct#3 60 OneexpertindicatedClarity=1,OneexpertindicatedClarity=3,Oneexpert indicatedRedundancy=2(item#25),Oneex pertcommented:(time management,notdataskills),Oneexpertcommented:(scheduletimefor myself?Teachers?)

PAGE 189

178 PartII:Open endedquestions: Item # Feedbackfromexperts 1 OneexpertindicatedDouble barreled=2 2 OneexpertindicatedDouble bar reled=2 PartIII:Demographicdata: Item # Feedbackfromexperts 1 2 OneexpertindicatedClarity=2 3 4 Oneexpertcommented:(addDontknow) PartIV: Surveyinstrument administration : Item # Panelquestionsandf eedback 1 Arethereany itemsomittedfromthisquestionnairethatyouwouldlike considered? No,N/A,No,None,N/A 2 Arethereanyitemsinthequestionnairethatyouwouldconsideromitting? No, N/A,No,maybe#59,N/A 3 Isthelengthofthequestionnaireappropriate?Yes,m aybeshorter,Yes,50will beperfect.Minimalextendedresponseisgood.Youwillgetmore comprehensiveanswers;Yes 4 Doyouhaveanyadditionalfeedbackregardingthequestionnaire?Iwould changesomeofthenumberstohavequestionsclosertogether. Questions19& 20 Iwouldputas#13and#14.#24 moveto#15.#59 Iinfluenceteacherswith studentachievementdata.(todowhat?);noneatthistime;No;None;N/A

PAGE 190

179 AppendixE SurveyInstrumentSentto the #1PanelofExpertst oReviewEdits L ikertScale Directions:Rateeachstatementonthefollowingscalebycirclingthemostappropriate response. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree SchoolImprovement:Items1 12referencetheprincipalsandassistan tprincipalsuseofdatain theareaofschoolimprovement. 1)Iusemultiplesourcesof studentachievementdatato identifyschoolimprovement strategies. 1 2 3 4 5 2)Iworkwiththeschool leadershipteamtoanalyze studentachievementdatato id entifyschoolimprovement strategies. 1 2 3 4 5 3)Iworkwiththeentireschool stafftoanalyzestudent achievementdatatoidentify schoolimprovementstrategies. 1 2 3 4 5 4)IconsultwiththeSchool AdvisoryCouncil(SAC)to analyzestudentac hievementdata toidentifyschoolimprovement strategies. 1 2 3 4 5 5)Ianalyzethestudent achievementdataontheSchool ImprovementBaselineReport. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 191

180 6)Ianalyzethestudent achievementdataontheSchool ImprovementMid yearreport. 1 2 3 4 5 7)Ianalyzetrendsindataover timetodeterminetheneedsof students. 1 2 3 4 5 8)Icanmatchinterventionsto theneedsofstudentsafteran analysisofstudentachievement data. 1 2 3 4 5 9)Iimplementthecurriculum that is required necessary after an analysisofstudentachievement data. 1 2 3 4 5 10)Ianalyzestudent achievementdatatodetermineif strategieswrittenintheprevious yearsSchoolImprovementPlan wereeffective. 1 2 3 4 5 11)Iunderstandifwhatweare doin gismakingadifferencein studentachievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 12)Iunderstandtherootcauses ofstudentachievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 ProfessionalDevelopment:Items13 24referencetheprincipalsandassistantprincipalsuseof datainthearea ofprofessionaldevelopment. 13)Ihavereceivedadequate traininginanalyzingstudent achievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 14)Ihavereceivedadequate traininginanalyzingFlorida AssessmentsforInstructionin 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 192

181 Reading(FAIR)reports. 15)I havereceivedadequate traininginusingPerformance Matterstoanalyzestudent achievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 16)Imeetwithmyacademic coachtoplanprofessional developmentwhichisdrivenby ananalysisofstudent achievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 17)Ihaveestablished ProfessionalLearning Communitieswhichanalyze studentachievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 18)Ileadtraininginstudent achievementdataanalysiswith mystaff. 1 2 3 4 5 19)Iensurethatteachers IndividualProfessional Develop mentPlans(IPDPs)are createdusingstudent achievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 20)Iensurethatprofessional developmentforstaffis determinedafterananalysisof studentachievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 21)Iensurethatteachershave beenprovidedtraini nginleading datachatswithstudents. 1 2 3 4 5 22)Ihavemodeledadatachat forteachers. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 193

182 23)Icoachteachersinthe analysisofstudentachievement data. 1 2 3 4 5 24)Ireviewstudentworkto determineprofessional developmentne edsofthestaff. 1 2 3 4 5 Leadership:Items25 36referencetheprincipalsandassistantprincipalsuseofdatainthearea ofleadership. 25)Ireviewstudent achievementdatawitheach teacherinaone on onemeeting. 1 2 3 4 5 26)Imakedeci sionsbasedon studentachievementdata analysis. 1 2 3 4 5 27)Iprovidetimeforteachersto analyzestudentachievement data. 1 2 3 4 5 28)Ileadstudentachievement dataanalysisattheschool. 1 2 3 4 5 29)Ivaluedataasausefultool for instructionalleadership. 1 2 3 4 5 30)Ihaveestablishedaschool teamtoanalyzestudent achievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 31)Ileadteacherstomake instructionaldecisionsbasedon studentachievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 32)Iguideteachersindata analysisthathasthemostreturn 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 194

183 oninvestmentforincreased studentachievement. 33)Ihaveestablishedaprocess togatherstudentachievement datainasystematicway. 1 2 3 4 5 34)Isharestudentachievement relateddecision makingwit ha leadershipteam. 1 2 3 4 5 35)Ihaveestablishedavisionfor dataanalysiswithstaff. 1 2 3 4 5 36)Icommunicatestudent achievementdatawithparents. 1 2 3 4 5 MonitoringProcesses:Items37 48referencetheprincipalsandassistantprin cipalsuseofdata intheareaofmonitoringprocesses. 37)Imonitorstudent achievementdatatodetermine theinterventionsthatarerequired forstudents. 1 2 3 4 5 38)Imonitordisaggregated studentachievementdatato measurestudentlearning. 1 2 3 4 5 39)IinspectwhatIexpect. 1 2 3 4 5 40)Imonitorwhetherteachers havedatachatswithstudents. 1 2 3 4 5 41)Imonitorthe implementationofschool improvementstrategiesbasedon studentachievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 42)Imonitor teacher performancebasedonmultiple sourcesofstudentachievement 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 195

184 data. 43)Imonitorstudent performancebasedonmultiple sourcesofstudentachievement data. 1 2 3 4 5 44)Imonitortheeffectiveness ofinstructionalprogramsbased o nstudentachievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 45)Ireviewstudentachievement datafromFloridasContinuous ImprovementModel(FCIM) mini assessments. 1 2 3 4 5 46)Ireviewstudentachievement dataonaweeklybasis. 1 2 3 4 5 47)Ireviewstudentachieve ment data throughouttheyear withthe leadershipteam. 1 2 3 4 5 48)Ireviewstudentachievement data throughouttheyear withthe SchoolAdvisoryCouncil(SAC). 1 2 3 4 5 DataSkills:Items49 60referencetheprincipalsandassistantprincipals useofdatainthearea ofdataskills. 49)IunderstandhowAdequate YearlyProgress(AYP)is calculated. 1 2 3 4 5 50)Iunderstandhowtheschool gradeiscalculated. 1 2 3 4 5 51)Ifeelcomfortableanalyzing studentachievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 52)IamabletoanalyzeFlorida 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 196

185 AssessmentsforInstructionin Reading(FAIR)reports. 53)Ihavetechnologyskillsto displaystudentachievementdata foranalysis. 1 2 3 4 5 54)Ihavethestatisticalskillsto analyzestudentachiev ement data. 1 2 3 4 5 55)Igeneratehypothesesafter ananalysisofstudent achievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 56)Ianalyzestudent achievementdatatouncover patterns. 1 2 3 4 5 57)Iamabletonavigatethe reportsinPerformanceMattersto analyzes tudentachievement data. 1 2 3 4 5 58)Iexaminestudentworkwith teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 59)I influenceteachers tochange instructionalpractices with studentachievementdata. 1 2 3 4 5 60)Ischeduletime forme to analyzestudentachievement data. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 197

186 Appendix F Directionsfor the #2 PanelofExperts :HighlyIneffective Directions: Thankyouforparticipatingasamemberofthepanelofexpertstoprovidefeedbackon thisquestionnaire.This surveyinstrument willbeadministeredtoTit leIelementary principalsandassistantprincipalsintheHeartlandConsortium. Forthepurposeofthis surveyinstrument ,studentachievementdataisdefinedasdata thatisreferencedinthe DifferentiatedAccountabilitysStrategiesandSupport docum ent. Asyoucompletethisquestionnaire,pleasedosointheroleofahighlyineffectiveTitleI elementaryprincipalorassistantprincipalwhousesdataineffectivelytoraisestudent achievement.Pleaseindicatetheextenttowhicheachofthefollow ingstatements characterizesyourperceptionasahighlyineffectiveprincipalorassistantprincipalby circlingthemostappropriateresponse. Uponcompletion,pleaseindicatebymarkingthroughtwoitemsineachsection:(2items fromSchoolImproveme nt,2itemsfromProfessionalDevelopment,2itemsfrom Leadership,2itemsfromMonitoringProcesses,and2itemsfromDataSkills)thatshould beremovedfromthequestionnaireforatotalof10items.Consider theitemsimportance inthesection,its clarity,orwhetheritisredundantwhenconsideringitemsforremoval. Redundancy: Definition:Theitemcontentisrepetitious. Clarity: Definition : Questionsareclear,succinct,andunambiguous.

PAGE 198

187 Appendix G Directionsfor the#2Panelo fExperts : HighlyEffective Directions: Thankyouforparticipatingasamemberofthepanelofexpertstoprovidefeedbackon thisquestionnaire.This surveyinstrument willbeadministeredtoTitleIelementary principalsandassistantprincipalsin theHeartlandConsortium. Forthepurposeofthis surveyinstrument ,studentachievementdataisdefinedasdata thatisreferencedinthe DifferentiatedAccountabilitysStrategiesandSupport document. Asyoucompletethisquestionnaire,pleasedos ointheroleofahighlyeffectiveTitleI elementaryprincipalorassistantprincipalwhousesdataeffectivelytoraisestudent achievement.Pleaseindicatetheextenttowhicheachofthefollowingstatements characterizesyourperceptionasahighlye ffectiveprincipalorassistantprincipalby circlingthemostappropriateresponse. Uponcompletion,pleaseindicatebymarkingthroughtwoitemsineachsection:(2items fromSchoolImprovement,2itemsfromProfessionalDevelopment,2itemsfrom Lea dership,2itemsfromMonitoringProcesses,and2itemsfromDataSkills)thatshould beremovedfromthequestionnaireforatotalof10items.Considertheitemsimportance inthesection,itsclarity,orwhetheritisredundantwhenconsideringitemsf orremoval. Redundancy: Definition:Theitemcontentisrepetitious. Clarity: Definition: Questions areclear,succinct,andunambiguous.

PAGE 199

188 AppendixH Results fromthe #2PanelofExperts:TestforaShifti nAmbiguity Item# Highly effective # 1 Highly effective #2 Highly ineffective #1 Highly ineffective #2 1 1 1 5 4 2 1 1 4 4 3 2 1 4 5 4 2 1 3 3 5 1 1 5 4 6 1 1 5 4 7 1 1 5 3 8 1 1 4 4 9 3 1 3 4 10 1 1 5 3 11 1 1 4 4 12 2 1 5 4 13 2 1 4 4 14 2 1 4 4 15 2 1 5 4 16 1 1 5 4 17 2 1 4 4 18 2 1 4 4 19 2 1 5 4 20 1 1 5 4 21 2 1 3 3 22 2 1 4 4 23 2 1 5 4 24 2 1 5 4 25 2 1 3 4 26 2 1 4 4 27 1 1 5 4 28 1 1 5 4 29 1 1 5 3 30 1 1 4 4 31 1 1 4 3 32 1 1 3 4

PAGE 200

189 33 2 1 5 3 34 1 1 4 5 35 2 1 3 4 36 2 1 5 3 37 1 1 4 4 38 1 1 4 3 39 1 1 3 3 40 2 1 3 4 41 1 1 5 4 42 1 1 4 3 43 2 1 5 3 44 1 1 4 4 45 2 1 3 4 46 2 1 5 4 47 1 1 5 3 48 1 1 5 4 49 1 1 4 4 50 2 1 4 4 51 1 1 5 3 52 2 1 5 4 53 2 1 5 4 54 2 1 4 3 55 1 1 5 4 56 1 1 4 3 57 2 1 5 4 58 2 1 5 4 59 1 1 4 4 6 0 2 1 5 3

PAGE 201

190 AppendixI Feedbackfrom #1ExpertPanels:ItemstoDelete Panel#1 Panel#2 Researcher Total Tallies Item# #1 #2 #3 H.E. #1 H.E. #2 H.I. #1 H.I. #2 S c h o o l I m p r o v e m e n t 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 10 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 5 12 1 1 1 1 1 5 P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 1 19 20 1 1 21 22 1 1 2 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 24 1 1 1 1 1 5 L e a d e r s h i p 25 1 1 26 1 1 27 1 1 28 1 1 29 1 1 2 30 1 1 31

PAGE 202

191 32 1 1 1 1 3 33 1 1 34 1 1 1 3 35 1 1 36 M o n i t o r i n g P r o c e s s e s 37 1 1 1 3 38 1 1 39 1 1 1 1 4 40 1 1 41 42 43 1 1 1 3 44 1 1 45 46 1 1 1 1 4 47 48 D a t a S k i l l s 49 50 51 1 1 1 1 4 52 1 1 53 54 1 1 55 1 1 56 1 1 57 58 1 1 2 59 60 1 1 1 1 1 1 5

PAGE 203

192 A p pendix J StudyInformationSharedwith the Respondentsby the Researcher PerceptionsbyHeartlandEducationalConsortium(H.E.C.)Element aryTitleISchool PrincipalsandAssistantPrincipals:DataUseinTheirRoleasAchievement Related DecisionMakers by SherriAlbritton ProblemStatement: Intheageofaccountabilityandassessment,thereisaneedtoensurethatdata provided,regar dingstudentachievement,iseffectivelyandappropriatelyutilizedby schoolsiteadministratorsinasystematicwaytoimprovestudentachievement. PurposeoftheStudy: ThepurposeofthisstudyistoidentifyHeartlandEducationalConsortiumTitleI principalsandassistantprincipalsperceptionsoftheiruseofdataintheirroleas decision makersinraisingstudentachievementwithprimaryemphasisonFloridas DifferentiatedAccountabilityModel. ResearchQuestions: Thepurposeofthisstudy istoidentifyHECTitleIprincipalsandassistant principalsperceptionsoftheirdatauseintheirroleasdecision makersinraisingstudent achievement. 1. TowhatextentdoHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceive thatthey usedatainachievement relateddecisionmaking?

PAGE 204

193 2. Whatpatternsarediscernableintheperceptionsofprincipalsand assistantprincipalsacrosstheseveralareasofdatausefor achievement relateddecisionmaking? 3. DotheperceptionsofHECTitleIele mentaryprincipalsdifferfromtheperceptionsof HECTitleIelementaryassistantprincipalsintheiruseofdataforachievement related decisionmaking? 4. Whatsupportsandbarrierstodatauseinachievement relateddecisionmakingdoHEC TitleIelemen taryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceivethattheyexperience?

PAGE 205

1 94 Appendix K InformedConsent InformedConsenttoParticipateinResearch InformationtoConsiderBeforeTakingPartinthisResearchStudy IRBStudy#PRO00003080 Youare beingaskedtotakepartinaresearchstudy.Researchstudiesincludeonlypeople whochoosetotakepart.Thisdocumentiscalledaninformedconsentform.Pleaseread thisinformationcarefullyandtakeyourtimemakingyourdecision.Asktheresearche rto discussthisconsentformwithyou,pleaseaskhim/hertoexplainanywordsor informationyoudonotclearlyunderstand.Thenatureofthestudyandotherimportant informationaboutthestudyarelistedbelow. Youareaskedtotakepartinaresear chstudycalle d: PerceptionsbyHeartlandEducationalConsortium(H.E.C.)ElementaryTitleISchool PrincipalsandAssistantPrincipals:DataUseinTheirRoleasAchievement Related DecisionMakers ThepersonwhoisinchargeofthisresearchstudyisS herriAlbritton Thispersonis calledthePrincipalInvestigator. However,otherresearchstaffmaybeinvolvedandcan actonbehalfofthepersonincharge. SherriAlbritton isbeingguidedinthisresearchby StevePermuth,Ph.D. Theresearchwillb econductedattheHeartlandSchoolDistrictsofDesoto,Glades, Hardee,Hendry,Highlands,andOkeechobee. Purposeofthestudy ThepurposeofthisstudyistoidentifyHeartlandEducationalConsortiumTitleI principalsandassistantprincipalsper ceptionsoftheiruseofdataintheirroleas decision makersinraisingstudentachievementwithprimaryemphasison FloridasDifferentiatedAccountabilityModel.

PAGE 206

195 StudyProcedures Ifyoutakepartinthisstudy,youwillbeaskedto: Completeaquest ionnairewhichwilltakeapproximately30minutestocomplete. Thequestionnaireiscomprisedofthreeparts.ThefirstpartwillbeaLikert questionnairecomprisedofitemscreatedbytheresearcherasaresultofthe interviews,therequirementsofFlor idasDifferentiatedAccountabilityModel, andareviewoftheliteratureonstudentachievement relateddatauseby principals.Thesecondsectionofthequestionnairewillcontaintwoopenended questionsregardingthesupportsandbarriersofdatausei nstudentachievement decisionmakingbyschoolprincipalsandassistantprincipals.Thethirdpartwill containdemographicquestionsonadministrativetitle,administrativeexperience, andschoolsDAdesignation.Categoricalresponsechoiceswillbepro videdfor eachofthesecategories,thusensuringparticipantsthatthe surveyinstrument is anonymous.Theresearchwillbeconductedbytheresearcherinaface to face meetingwiththeTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsinthe consor tium. Surveyinstrument swillbemailedtothoserespondentsnotableto participateintheface to facemeeting. TotalNumberofParticipants About54individualswilltakepartinthisstudy. Alternatives Youdonothavetoparticipateinthisresearc hstudy Benefits Thepotentialbenefitsofparticipatinginthisresearchstudyinclude: Informationtobesharedwiththedistrictleadershipwhomayuseittoguide administrativetrainingorprofessionaldevelopment. RisksorDiscomfort Thisresearch isconsideredtobeminimalrisk.Thatmeansthattherisksassociatedwith thisstudyarethesameaswhatyoufaceeveryday.Therearenoknownadditionalrisks tothosewhotakepartinthisstudy. Compensation Youwillreceivenopaymentorother compensationfortakingpartinthisstudy. VoluntaryParticipation/Withdrawal Youshouldonlytakepartinthisstudyifyouwanttovolunteer.Youshouldnotfeelthat thereisanypressuretotakepartinthestudy.Youarefreetoparticipateinth isresearch orwithdrawatanytime.Therewillbenopenaltyorlossofbenefitsyouareentitledto receiveifyoustoptakingpartinthisstu dy.Adecisionnottoparticipateortowithdraw yourparticipationwillnotaffectyouremploymentstatus.

PAGE 207

196 PrivacyandConfidentiality Wewillkeepyourstudyrecordsprivateandconfidentia l. Certainpeoplemayneedto seeyourstudyrecords.Bylaw,anyonewhol ooksatyourrecordsmustkeepthem completelyconfidential.Theonlypeoplewhowillbeallowe dtoseetheserecordsare: Theresearchteam,includingthePrincipalInvestigator,studycoordinator,andall otherresearchsta ff Certaingovernmentanduniversitypeoplewhoneedtoknowmoreaboutthe study.For example,individualswhoprovideov ersightonthisstudymayneedto lookatyourrecords.Thisisdonetomakesurethatwearedoingthestudyinthe rightway.Theyalsoneedtomakesurethatweareprotectingyourrightsand yoursafety. TheUSFInstitutionalReviewBoard(IRB)and itsrelatedstaffwhohave oversightresponsibilitiesforthisstudy,staffintheUSFOfficeofResearchand Innovation,USFDivisionofResearchIntegrityandCompliance,andotherUSF officeswhooverseethisresearch. Wemaypublishwhatwelearnfrom thisstudy.Ifwedo,wewillnotincludeyourname. Wewillnotpublishanythingthatwouldletpeopleknowwhoyouare. ConsenttoTakePartinthisResearchStudy Iunderstandthatbycompletingtheattached/enclosedquestionnaire,Iamagreeingto takepartinthisresearchstudy.

PAGE 208

197 Appendix L CoverL etterfortheQuestionnaire DataUsebyPrincipalsandAssistantPrincipalsin Achievement RelatedDecisionMakingQuestionnaire SherriAlbr itton P.O.Box371 Wauchula,Florida33873 salbritton@hardee.k12.fl.us 863 767 0662 DearHECTitleIelementaryprincipalorassistantprincipal: IamtheDirectorofStudentAcademicServicesandFede ralProgramsinHardeedistrict andadoctoralstudentatUniversityofSouthFlorida,Tampa,Florida.Aspartofmy doctoralprogram,Iamconductingresearchonprincipalsandassistantprincipals perceptionsofdatauseinachievement relateddecision making(IRB#Pro00003080). Permissiontoconductthisstudyhasbeengrantedbyyoursuperintendentbutyour participationisvoluntary. Iwouldliketorequestyourparticipationbyaskingyoutocompleteabriefquestionnaire. The surveyinstrumen t shouldtakenomorethan20 30minutestocomplete.Your personalanonymitywillbeensuredasnoschoolordistrictwillbeidentifiedinreporting. ThepurposeofthisstudyistoidentifyHeartlandEducationalConsortiumTitleI principalsandassi stantprincipalsperceptionsoftheiruseofdataintheirroleas decision makersinraisingstudentachievementwithprimaryemphasisonFloridas DifferentiatedAccountabilityModel. ThepurposeofthisstudyistoidentifyHECTitleIprincipalsa ndassistantprincipals perceptionsoftheirdatauseintheirroleasdecision makersinraisingstudent achievement. 1. TowhatextentdoHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipals perceivethattheyusedatainachievement relateddecision making? 2. Whatpatternsarediscernableintheperceptionsofprincipalsand assistantprincipalsacrosstheseveralareasofdatausefor achievement relateddecisionmaking?

PAGE 209

198 3. DotheperceptionsofHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsdifferfromthe percep tionsofHECTitleIelementaryassistantprincipalsintheiruseofdatafor achievement relateddecisionmaking? 4. Whatsupportsandbarrierstodatauseinachievement relateddecisionmakingdo HECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipals perceivethatthey experience? Ifyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthisstudy,youmaycontacttheresearcher,Sherri Albritton,at(863) 767 0662orcontactmyfacultyadvisor,Dr.StevenPermuth,atthe UniversityofSouthFloridaLeadershipDevelopme ntDepartmentofEducation.Hecan bereachedat(813) 974 1287. Sincerely, SherriAlbritton HardeeDirectorofStudentAcademicServicesandFederalPrograms USFdoctoralcandidate

PAGE 210

199 AppendixM CoverLetterWhen MailingtheQuestionnaire: Data UsebyPrincipalsandAssistantPrincipalsin Achievement RelatedDecisionMakingQuestionnaire SherriAlbritton P.O.Box371 Wauchula,Florida33873 salbritton@hardee.k12.fl.us 863 767 0662 date DearHECTitleIelementaryprincipalorassistantprincipal: IamtheDirectorofStudentAcademicServicesandFederalProgramsinHardeedistrict andadoctoralstudentatUniversityofSouthFlorida,T ampa,Florida.Aspartofmy doctoralprogram,Iamconductingresearchonprincipalsandassistantprincipals perceptions ofdatauseinachievement relateddecisionmaking(IRB#Pro00003080). Permissiontoconductthisstudyhasbeengrantedbyyo ursuperintendentbutyour participationisvoluntary. Iwouldliketorequestyourparticipationbyaskingyoutocompleteabriefquestionnaire. Thesurveyshouldtakeno morethan20 30minutestocomplete.Yourpersonal anonymitywillbeensuredas noschoolordistrictwillbeidentifiedinreporting. ThepurposeofthisstudyistoidentifyHeartlandEducationalConsortiumTitleI principalsandassistantprincipalsperceptionsoftheiruseofdataintheirroleas decision makersinraisings tudentachievementwithprimaryemphasisonFloridas DifferentiatedAccountabilityModel. ThepurposeofthisstudyistoidentifyHECTitleIprincipalsandassistantprincipals perceptionsoftheirdatauseintheirroleasdecision makersinraisi ngstudent achievement. 1. TowhatextentdoHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipals perceivethattheyusedatainachievement relateddecisionmaking? 2. Whatpatternsarediscernableintheperceptionsofprincipalsand

PAGE 211

200 assistantprincipa lsacrosstheseveralareasofdatausefor achievement relateddecisionmaking? 3. DotheperceptionsofHECTitleIelementaryprincipalsdifferfromthe perceptionsofHECTitleIelementaryassistantprincipalsintheiruseofdatafor achievement relate ddecisionmaking? 4. Whatsupportsandbarrierstodatauseinachievement relateddecisionmakingdo HECTitleIelementaryprincipalsandassistantprincipalsperceivethatthey experience? Enclosedyouwillfindthe DataUsebyPrincipalsandAssistant Principalsin Achievement RelatedDecisionMakingQuestionnaire andastamped,addressedenvelope forreturn.Afteryourcompletionofthequestionnaire,pleasereturninthestamped, addressedenvelope.Yourquickresponseisgreatlyappreciated. Ifyo uhaveanyquestionsregardingthisstudy,youmaycontacttheresearcher,Sherri Albritton,at(863) 767 0662orcontactmyfacultyadvisor,Dr.StevenPermuth,atthe UniversityofSouthFloridaLeadershipDevelopmentDepartmentofEducation.Hecan ber eachedat(813) 974 1287. Sincerely, SherriAlbritton DirectorofStudentAcademicServicesandFederalPrograms USFdoctoralcandidate

PAGE 212

201 AppendixN DataUsebyPrincipalsandAssistantPrincipalsin Achievement RelatedDecisionMakingQuestionnaire Directions: Thankyouforparticipatinginthisvoluntarystudy.This surveyinstrument isdesignedto determineyourperceptionasaprincipalorassistantprincipalondatausein achievement relateddecisionmaking.Forthepurposeofthis surveyin strument ,student achievementdataisdefinedasdatathatisreferencedinthe Differentiated AccountabilitysStrategiesandSupport document. Yourhonestresponsesareimportant. Inordertoprovideanonymousresponses,pleasedo notwriteyournameo nthe surveyinstrument .However,othergeneralinformation requestedonthe surveyinstrument isnecessaryinordertorunthestatisticalanalysis requiredforthestudy. Pleasebeassuredthatyourresponseswillbeconfidentialand reportedonlyinthe aggregate.Noschoolordistrictwillbeidentified. PartI:Pleaseindicatetheextenttowhicheachofthefollowingstatementscharacterizes yourperceptionastheprincipalorassistantprincipalby circling themostappropriate response. PartII: PleaseprovideabriefbutthoroughresponsetothetwoOpen Endeditems. PartIII:Pleaseindicateyouradministrativetitle,administrativeexperienceinyour currentrole,administrativeexperienceinFlorida,andyourschoolsDAdesignationby mark ingan X intheappropriate

PAGE 213

202 PartI:LikertScale Directions:Rateeachstatementonthefollowingscalebycirclingthemostappropriate response. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree SchoolImp rovement: Items1 10referencetheprincipalsandassistantprincipalsuseof dataintheareaofschoolimprovement. 1)Iusemultiplesourcesof studentachievementdatato identifyschoolimprovement strategies. 5 4 3 2 1 2)Iworkwiththeschoo l leadershipteamtoanalyze studentachievementdatato identifyschoolimprovement strategies. 5 4 3 2 1 3)Iworkwiththeentireschool stafftoanalyzestudent achievementdatatoidentify schoolimprovementstrategies. 5 4 3 2 1 4)Iconsultw iththeSchool AdvisoryCouncil(SAC)to analyzestudentachievementdata toidentifyschoolimprovement strategies. 5 4 3 2 1 5)Ianalyzethestudent achievementdataontheSchool ImprovementBaselineReport. 5 4 3 2 1 6)Ianalyzethestudent ac hievementdataontheSchool ImprovementMid yearreport. 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 214

203 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 7)Ianalyzetrendsindataover timetodeterminetheneedsof students. 5 4 3 2 1 8)Icanmatchinterv entionsto theneedsofstudentsafteran analysisofstudentachievement data. 5 4 3 2 1 9)Iimplementthecurriculum thatis necessaryafter ananalysis ofstudentachievementdata. 5 4 3 2 1 10)Ianalyzestudent achievementdatatodetermineif s trategieswrittenintheprevious yearsSchoolImprovementPlan wereeffective. 5 4 3 2 1 ProfessionalDevelopment: Items11 20referencetheprincipalsandassistant principalsuseofdataintheareaofprofessionaldevelopment. 11)Ihavereceiv edadequate traininginanalyzingstudent achievementdata. 5 4 3 2 1 12)Ihavereceivedadequate traininginanalyzingFlorida AssessmentsforInstructionin Reading(FAIR)reports. 5 4 3 2 1 13)Ihavereceivedadequate traininginusingPerforman ce Matterstoanalyzestudent achievementdata. 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 215

204 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 14)Imeetwithmyacademic coachtoplanprofessional developmentwhichisdrivenby ananalysisofstudent achievem entdata. 5 4 3 2 1 15) Ihaveestablished ProfessionalLearning Communitieswhichanalyze studentachievementdata. 5 4 3 2 1 16)Ileadtraininginstudent achievementdataanalysiswith mystaff. 5 4 3 2 1 17)Iensurethatteachers Individu alProfessional DevelopmentPlans(IPDPs)are createdusingstudent achievementdata. 5 4 3 2 1 18)Iensurethatprofessional developmentforstaffis determinedafterananalysisof studentachievementdata. 5 4 3 2 1 19)Iensurethatteachersha ve beenprovidedtraininginleading datachatswithstudents. 5 4 3 2 1 20)Ihavemodeledadatachat forteachers. 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 216

205 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Leadership: Items21 30referencethe principalsandassistantprincipalsuseofdatainthe areaofleadership. 21)Ireviewstudent achievementdatawitheach teacherinaone on onemeeting. 5 4 3 2 1 22)Imakedecisionsbasedon studentachievementdata analysis. 5 4 3 2 1 23) Iprovidetimeforteachersto analyzestudentachievement data. 5 4 3 2 1 24)Ileadstudentachievement dataanalysisattheschool. 5 4 3 2 1 25)Ivaluedataasausefultool forinstructionalleadership. 5 4 3 2 1 26)Ihaveestablishedasc hool teamtoanalyzestudent achievementdata. 5 4 3 2 1 27)Ileadteacherstomake instructionaldecisionsbasedon studentachievementdata. 5 4 3 2 1 28)Ihaveestablisheda processtogatherstudent achievementdataina systematicway. 5 4 3 2 1 29)Ihaveestablishedavisionfor dataanalysiswithstaff. 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 217

206 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 30)Icommunicatestudent achievementdatawithparents. 5 4 3 2 1 MonitoringProcesses: It ems31 40referencetheprincipalsandassistantprincipalsuse ofdataintheareaofmonitoringprocesses. 31)Imonitorstudent achievementdatatodetermine theinterventionsthatarerequired forstudents. 5 4 3 2 1 32)Imonitordisaggregated studentachievementdatato measurestudentlearning. 5 4 3 2 1 33)Imonitorwhetherteachers havedatachatswithstudents. 5 4 3 2 1 34)Imonitorthe implementationofschool improvementstrategiesbasedon studentachievementdata. 5 4 3 2 1 3 5)Imonitorteacher performancebasedonmultiple sourcesofstudentachievement data. 5 4 3 2 1 36)Imonitorstudent performancebasedonmultiple sourcesofstudentachievement data. 5 4 3 2 1 37)Imonitortheeffectiveness ofinstructionalpro gramsbased onstudentachievementdata. 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 218

207 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 38)Ireviewstudentachievement datafromFloridasContinuous ImprovementModel(FCIM) mini assessments. 5 4 3 2 1 3 9)Ireviewstudentachievement datathroughouttheyearwiththe leadershipteam. 5 4 3 2 1 40)Ireviewstudentachievement datathroughouttheyearwiththe SchoolAdvisoryCouncil(SAC). 5 4 3 2 1 DataSkills: Items41 50referencetheprincipal sandassistantprincipalsuseofdatainthe areaofdataskills. 41)IunderstandhowAdequate YearlyProgress(AYP)is calculated. 5 4 3 2 1 42)Iunderstandhowtheschool gradeiscalculated. 5 4 3 2 1 43)IamabletoanalyzeFlorida Assessmen tsforInstructionin Reading(FAIR)reports. 5 4 3 2 1 44)Ihavetechnologyskillsto displaystudentachievementdata foranalysis. 5 4 3 2 1 45)Ihavethestatisticalskillsto analyzestudentachievement data. 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 219

208 Strongly Agree A gree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 46)Igeneratehypothesesafter ananalysisofstudent achievementdata. 5 4 3 2 1 47)Ianalyzestudent achievementdatatouncover patterns. 5 4 3 2 1 48)Iamabletonavigatethe repor tsinPerformanceMattersto analyzestudentachievement data. 5 4 3 2 1 49)Iexaminestudentworkwith teachers. 5 4 3 2 1 50)Iinfluence teacherstochange instructionalpracticeswith studentachievementdata. 5 4 3 2 1

PAGE 220

209 PartII:Open endedqu estions: Directions : Respondtoeachquestionasthoroughlyaspossiblewithoutidentifying yourself,school,ordistrict. 1. Whatsupportstodatauseinachievement relateddecisionmakinghaveyou experiencedinyourcurrentroleasprincipalorassistan tprincipal?Brieflyindicate whichsupport(s)havebeenthemostbeneficialinyourrole. 2. Whatbarrierstodatauseinachievement relateddecisionmakinghaveyou experiencedinyourcurrentroleasprincipalorassistantprincipal?Brieflyi ndicate whichbarrier(s)have beenmostcriticalinyourrole.

PAGE 221

210 PartIII:Demographicdata : Directions: Pleaseindicateyouradministrativetitle,administrativeexperienceinyour currentrole,administrativeexperienceinFlorida,andschoolsD Adesignationby markingan X intheappropriate : AdministrativeTitle : (Indicateyourcurrentrole,PrincipalorAssistantPrincipal.): Principal AssistantPrincipal AdministrativeExperience : (Indi catethetotalnumberofyearsinyour currentrole asaprincipalORasanassistantprincipal.) 0 15years 16+years AdministrativeExperience : (Indicatethetotalnumberofyearsthatyouhavebeen anadministrator( pr incipaland/orassistantprincipal ) inFlorida .) 0 15years 16+years DifferentiatedAccountabilitymatrixdesignation: (IndicatetheDAcategoryfor yourschoolforthe2010 2011schoolyearasaresultof2009 2010dat a) CategoryI:( PreventIorCorrectI)or NO DAdesignation CategoryII: PreventIIorCorrectIIorIntervene

PAGE 222

211 AppendixO Open endedResponsesfrom the PrincipalsandAssistantPrincipals: SupportsandBarriers toDataUse Open endedresponsesfromPrincipals 1. Whatsupportstodatauseinachievement relateddecisionmakinghaveyou experiencedinyourcurrentroleasprincipalorassistantprincipal?Briefly indicatewhichsupport(s)havebeenthemostbenefic ialinyourrole. P 1:noresponse P 2:PerformanceMattersdatasystemhasbeenespeciallyhelpfulinanalyzingstudent d ata.Ithelpstoseeschool widetrendsindatabasedonitemanalysis,benchmarks,etc.It isverybeneficialinreviewingdatawi thteachers.FCRRisalsoveryhelpful.Themost beneficialpieceisthedirectlinktoinstructionalmaterialsandcenters. P 3:Ilikethefactthatwehavemultiplesourcesofdatathatareavailableandcanbe analyzedusingcomputerprograms Success Maker3,FAIR,PerformanceMatters,etc. P 4:TheimplementationofPerformanceMattershasbeenthebestprogramtobeableto putallofourassessmentstogethertobeabletolookatthedatabydifferentcategories includingschool,grade,classroo m,andteacher.Wehavecreateddatateamswiththe supportoffundingtobeabletogiveteachersanopportunitytolookatdatabeyondtheir gradeleveltohelpwithimprovingtheirmethodstoraiseinstructiontomeetstandardsof upcominggradesorto knowwheretheirstudentsstrengthsandweaknessesarecoming intothegrade P 5:ThebiggestsupporthasbeenPerformanceMatters.Ithashelpedourschoolcompile thedata.Ithascreatedaforumtousetechnologyduringourdatameetings.Seeingthe d ataonPrometheanboardhelpspointoutsuccessesanddifficulties. P 6:Thirdpartyassessmentprograms Kaplan,SchoolNet,PerformanceMatters. TrainingonFAIR,PMRN,andotherwebsitesthatprovidedata. P 7:Districtprovidessubstodiscussdata individuallywithteachers. P 8:HECworkshopsprovided,DistrictDirectorhasprovidedworksheetsanddatachats attheschoollevel.Discussionswithschool siteleadershipteam.

PAGE 223

212 P 9:Havingadatadrivendistricthasbeenhelpful.Havingadataexp ertwhoclosely monitorsandsharesFCATTestSpecsandotherrelatedFCATissueshavemadeallthe difference.HavingPerformanceMattershasalsohelpedwitheaseofexaminingand organizingdata. P 10:Myacademiccoachhasbeeninvaluabletomeing ettingthedataorganizedinsuch awaythatIcanmakeleadershipdecisionsfortheschool. P 11:PerformanceMatterstraining,CompassLearningtraining,Mimiotraining,District Datatraining,Success makertraining,100 BookChallengetraining.Distr ictData trainingwasmosthelpful. P 12:Thedistricthasbeenverysupportivetoourschool.Wehavebeengrantedalmost unlimitedaccesstoPerformanceMattersandtrainingfromBruceandLisaShinatthe consortium.Essentially,theygrantourevery requestwhenitcomestodatacollection. P 13:Useoftechnologytocollect,disaggregateanddistributedatainformation,district leveltrainingfornewprograms(Prof.Dev.),FCIMtrainingbythestate,Professional reading P 14:Scheduledprogress monitoringcalendarsetinthesummerbeforetheschoolyear. Teamapproachinproblemsolvingplanfromvariouslevelsandexpertise.Scheduled schoolwide,gradelevel,andindividualmeetingstoanalyzedata. P 15:StatelevelRTItraining in3years. Admintraining local(none10 11)upuntilthis yearwehaddayPDmonthly.DebriefingbyLRT,TRT,guidanceteamtokeepme current.Monthlyresourceteammeetingofsupportstaff.Individualreadingweb searches/dialogs. P 16:Instructionisdatadri venatmyschool.Teachersaretrainedindataanalysis, assessmentsareuniformdistrictwide.IPDPs,Performanceappraisals,parent conferences,progressmonitoringmeetings,andresponsetointerventionarealldata driven.Instructionisindividualized andtailoredtoclassandstudentneedsbasedondata. P 17:abilitytomanipulatedatahasimprovedovertheyear P 18:9weekdatameetingsareheldwitheachteacher.Thepurposeistoreviewstudent dataofeachchildanddiscusspossiblechangesi ninstructionifneeded.Theprincipal, assistantprincipal,guidancecounselor,readingandmathresourceteachersareonthis datateam.Teamdecisionsaremadeandresourcesandschoolsupportisgiven. P 19:Readingcoacheshaveheldseveraltraining sonFAIRandPerformanceMatters. WorkshopsheldatDObyMISstaff.Feelourdistricthasbeenuptodataandontopof dataanalysis. P 20:Supportfromcountyadministration.Someworkshops.

PAGE 224

213 P 21:PerformanceMatters,FAIR,PMRN,Focus,Folio P 22: noresponse P 23:Mymostbeneficialsupporthasbeenthetrainingwehavereceivedthrough LiteracyFirstandtheassessmentswhichgowiththeprogram,includingphonemic awareness,phonics,fluency,andcomprehension.Theteachersreceiveprintouts showing theareasthestudentshavemasteredandthosestillneedingfurtherwork. P 24:ProfessionalDevelopment Wevebeenwelltrainedinallareasofdataanalysis. P 25:Bylookingatthedatatoidentifyareasofweaknesswhichbycollaborationw ith otherschoolsitesandotherteachersbeingabletotargetstrategiesandmaterialsthathave givenspecificresultsontheareasofweakness. P 26:Identifyingthebottom25%ofourstudentpopulationandworkingwithgrade levelsandteacherstoim plementinstructionalstrategiesthatwouldhopefullyproduce studentgrowth. P 27:PerformanceMattershasbeenmostbeneficial.Districtsupport(financial)forthe hiringofsubssowecanmorethoroughlyconductquarterlyprogressmonitoring conferen ceswithteachers.Ongoingtrainingforteachersindataanalysisandtheuseof PerformanceMattersasaninstructionaltoolaswellasdatawarehouse. P 28:TheprofessionaldevelopmentandtrainingIhavereceivedfromthedistrict,FAIR, Performance Matters,andCompassLearning.Iattendedaweeklongleadership conferencethreeyearsago.Alloftheseopportunitieshaveenhancedby(my)abilityto makedecisionsonstudentachievementandhowthedatashouldbeimplemented. P 29:WeuseFCATdata fromStateofFloridaaswellasdistrictprovideddataanddata comparisons.Inaddition,weuseTextbook datacollectiontools.Ourdistrictalso providesmeasurementinstrumentsforScienceandWriting.FAIRresults(progress monitoring)areanalyzed3 timesayear.Progressmonitoringmeetingswithclassroom teachersareheld3timesface to faceandoneononewithadministrativeteam. P 30:Overthepastseveralyears,wehave usedKaplan,SchoolNetandnow Achievementmatterstomonitorstudenta chievement.Thesedatagatheringtoolsprovide criticalinformationthatinformsinstructionatmyschool.Fork 2,wefindSTAREarly Literacyagreattooltoinforminstruction. Open endedresponsesfromAssistantPrincipals 1. Whatsupportstodatause inachievement relateddecisionmakinghaveyou experiencedinyourcurrentroleasprincipalorassistantprincipal?Briefly indicatewhichsupport(s)havebeenthemostbeneficialinyourrole. AP 1:TrainingsofferedthroughourDistrict/HEC;onsitet rainingfromprincipal.FAIR

PAGE 225

214 AP 2:Ivebeeninvolvedinacoupleoftrainingsondataanalysisandtheywerevery helpfulinteachingmehowtolookatFCATdataandtodetermineifastudenthasmade adequateyearlyprogressandhowtochartparticular teachersstudentstodetermine whereprofessionaldevelopmentmightbeneeded. AP 3:DatachatsusingLiteracyFirst,GoMath,a ndMockFCATdataconductedby the Literacycoachandtheprincipalseemtobeverybe neficial.Thesedatachatsare conducte dwithteachersindividually. AP 4:noresponse AP 5:Asaleadershipteam(principal,AP,anddatacoach)wemeetweeklytodiscuss datatrends,analyzedataandplanforwaystousethedatatoimproveinstructional strategies.Wealsohavetwicemont hlydatameetingswithourteacherstoreviewdata, reviewassessmentsandplannextsteps. AP 6:IhavebeentrainedandeducatedonPMRN,FAIR,BME,andBenchmark Assessments.Allofthisdataiscompiledtogethertodeterminethestrategiesthatare e ffectiveforstudentgrowth.Thebenchmarkassessmentshavebeenthemostusefulin monitoringstudentprogress. AP 7:OntheFAIRassessment,wenoticedwewereweakinreadingcomprehension. TheweaknessinR.C.ledustoimplementanewR.C.program. PerformanceMatters BenchmarkAssessmentshavebeenbeneficialtotrackstudentachievementinreading andmath. AP 8:Districtleveldatachats.Theseopportunitiesarethemostbeneficialbecausean outsidepairofeyesarelookingatthesamenumbers withoutthevestedinterestyouhave inyourownschool.Ithelpstoviewthedatamoreobjectively. AP 9:TheHeartlandEducationalConsortiumhasprovidedseveralbeneficial professionaldevelopmentopportunitieswhichIhavebenefittedfromincludingt raining andfollowuptraininginanalyzingFAIRresults,FCATresults,andPerformance Matters.ThemostbeneficialsupportIhavereceivedhascomefromtheschooldistrict level.Fromthedistrictwereceivenotonlytraininginhowtoanalyzeandutili zedatabut alsoopportunitiesformeaningfuldialoguewithdistrictstaffregardingactualschooldata withreportsgeneratedbydistrictstaff. AP 10:Mydistricthiredaconsultantwhohasassistedmewithunderstandinghowto figureAYPandtoanalyz etheschoolReportcard.Myprincipalisaprimarysupport modelingallthesituationslistedinyourquestions. AP 11:HEChasbeenveryhelpfulbyprovidingoverthephonetrainingaswellasface to facetraining.IhavelearnedalotinPerformance Mattersandamabletonotonlyview BenchmarktestsasapredictoronwhatwewilldoonFCAT,butcreateandinsertour ownweeklyassessmentsthatteststudentperformanceonspecific benchmarks.With thisinformation,teacherscanviewwhatbenchmarks needmore instructionaltime.

PAGE 226

215 AP 12:ThesupportsIhavereceivedhavebeenminimal.Myownresearchandskills haveaidedmeinsupportingstaff. AP 13:Thedistricthassupportedallleaderswithtryingtofindacommondatabasefor alldata.This allowsschoolleaderstoseeallstudentsdata.Itallowsforamorecloser analysisofdata.ProgressMonitoringandidentifyingTier2RTIstudentsbecauseofthis supportisverypositivetowardshelpingstudentachievement. Ap 14:seequestion4 AP 15:Workshopsrelatedtotheinstrumentsofassessment(mosthelpfulbutnot sufficient). AP 16:Usingdatainachievement relateddecisionmakingoccursinprogress monitoring,datachatswithteachers,leadershipteammeetings,SAC,PTO,etc.The schoo lthatIcurrentlyworkforhasexperiencedsuccessfultestscores,schoolgrading andmetAYPmorethananyschoolinourdistrict.Teachers,staff,parents,andguidance relyheavilyonthisdatatomakeinstructionaldecisionsforourstudents. AP 17: Staffdevelopment,moniesforsubstohaveleadershiplearntogether,assistance fromdistrictresourceteachers AP 18:Supportstodatauseinachievement relateddecisionmakingincludeagreat groupofteacherswhounderstandtheneedfordatatodri veinstruction.Aprogress monitoringteamwhomeetsnotonly3xyeartomonitorprogressofallstudentsbutwe alsomeetadditionaltimestomonitorTierIand2students.Italsohelpfulthatwehave suchavarietyofdatatoanalyzetomakedecisions. AP 19:noresponse AP 20:OurdistrictMISdepartmenthasbeenveryhelpfulwithdisaggregationofdata sourcessuchasFCAT. AP 21:ThemostbeneficialsupportdataistheFAIRandPerformanceMatters.These twoassessmentsprovideawealthofstude ntachievementdataneededtodrive instruction,implementinterventions,promotion,retention,parentconferences,andto prepareforweeklyandannualtesting.RTIprovidesgreatdatainprovidingcurriculum interventionsindeterminingacademicneedsor weaknesses. AP 22:In servicefromthedistrictandfromeducationalconsortiumhavesupportedmy rolethemost.Readingprofessionaltextshasbeenacomplementarysupporttothein serviceopportunities. AP 23:Benchmarkassessments(3xayear).Ite manalysisonclassroom assessments/curriculum basedassessments,attendance,annualstateassessments.A

PAGE 227

216 collaborativeeffortonbothadministratorsandteachers,usingallofthedataelements listed,havebeenbeneficial. Open endedresponsesfromPri ncipals 2. Whatbarrierstodatauseinachievement relateddecisionmakinghaveyou experiencedinyourcurrentroleasprincipalorassistantprincipal?Brieflyindicate whichbarrier(s)havemostcriticalinyourrole. P1:Barriersinclude Skywardda tasystemtoocomplicatedtorunreports,FAIR howtest isgenerated?PerformanceMatters testdataskewed(griddedresponse) P2:Teachersfeeldistrictbenchmarkassessmentsaredifficulttousetorelayresultsto students.Assessmentformatsarenots imilarandthereismuchdisconnectbetweentests. Teachersfinditdifficulttoknowwhetherstudentsareimprovingorregressingasa whole.AlthoughtrainedonPerformanceMatters,teachersneedadditionaltimeto processtheirclassroomdataandeffect ivelyplaninterventionstrategies.Teachersalso needmorespecifictrainingonitemanalysis. P 3:Therehasbeensomeresistancetorelyingondatafromthe3baselinetestsweuse forPerformanceMattersbymyteachers.Theyfeelthetestsarepoorly written,some questionsonthetestsarenotaccurate.Theyquestionthevalidityofthesetests. Personally,IlikedthetestsfromKaplanthatweusedinpreviousyearsmuchbetterthan thetestswecurrentlyuse.IfeelthePerformanceMatterswebsite isdifficulttouse. P 4:Thebarriersincluderesourcesespeciallypersonneltobeabletotargetsmallgroup instructionforstudentsincategorieswheretheyarenotontarget.Anotherbarrieris tryingtochangethewayseasonedteachersthinkand focusonstandardsratherthan teachingabookfromcovertocover. P 5:Thebiggestbarrierformehasbeencompilingallthedataanddeterminingwhich direction,interventiontoutilizetodirectclassroominstruction.Pinpointingspecific studentdi fficultiesandcreatingthetimeandresourcestogetthestudentthat individualizedinstruction. P 6:Changingassessmentsonaannualbasisreducesthevalidityofanyformof comparison.Oursystem(technology)hascausedapostponient(sic)inbeing ableto accessdataonthePerformanceMatterswebsite.Therewasverylittleusefuldistrictlevel supportfortheseprograms(technicalsupport). P 7:Time,ChangesfromDIBELStoFAIR(gleanedmoreinfofromDIBELS) P 8:Decidingthepriorityinthe responsetodata,assistingtheclassroomteacherin makinginstructionaladjustmentstomeettheneeded(sic)ofstudents.

PAGE 228

217 P 9:Nothavingbenchmarksthatare100%accurateandformulatedlikeatrueFCAThas beenaslightbarrierasteacherstendtod isregardthedatawhenerrorsarediscovered. P 10:Thetypesofmeasuresareconstantlychanging.Wearebasingsomanyimportant decisionsbasedonFAIRandPerformanceMatterstestsandnew readingseriesthatare toonewtobereliable. P 11:Avai labilityoftime,Advancedtrainingatconferences,etc.,Keepingupwith newertrends.Mostcriticalbarrierislackoftime. P 12:Wehavehadtoomanydatacollectiontoolsrecently:KaplansoldouttoSchool Net.SchoolNetinouropinionwasinadeq uate.NowwehavePerformanceMatters whichwelike.Itshardtokeepthemomentumgoingwhenwechangetheprogramso often.IhopePerformancemattersstaysinbusinessforawhile. P 13:ExcessivetimespentonSIPandmid yearreportswhichkeepme fromtimein classroomsasinstructionalleadersofmyschool. P 14:Inputtingthedataandtimeandassigningstaff.Technologicalbarriers.Lackof knowledgeconcerningsomespecificskillanalysisdata. P 15:Timetoworkwithteacherssotheycana nalyzedataandplan.ThePDCAprocess breaksdownatCheck/Act. P 16:Teachersunderstandtheimportanceofdatadriveninstruction,butthetimefor givingtheassessmentstakesawayfromtimeforinstruction,especiallyintheprimary gradeswherei thastobedoneindividuallyorinsmallgroups.Meetingthevariedneeds ofallstudentsbasedondataisdifficulttomanageandmakesurethattheotherstudents areengagedinmeaningfullearningactivitieswhiletheteacherisworkingwithsmall grou ps. P 17:Thegreatestbarrieristimetodothejobwithadecreasinglossofpersonnel.In other words,theprincipalandhis/hercoreleadershipteamhasincreasingpaperworkand increasingduties.Thistakesawayfrompivotaltimetoanalyze,discov er,implement,and monitor.Thisdoesgetdone,butnottothehigh levelofpersonalexpectancy.Schools needmorepersonnelsupport,evenifitappearstobeindirect,suchasparaprofessionals, whocandotasksthatfree uptimeforleadershipteamto dodata. P 18:Timeisalwaysafactor;howeveritiswellworththetimeneededtomeetwitheach teacher. P 19:Timeandenergy P 20:Technologynotworking.Resistanttochange(mostcritical).Someworkshopsdo notaddressissues.

PAGE 229

218 P 21:Identif yingcoresissuesanddeficiencies.Implementingcoreandsupportprograms withfidelityacrossgradelevels.Encouragingtoanalyzealldatathatiscollectedand makingthebestinformeddecisionthatisbestforstudentindividualneedand implementing theindividualneedsbyeachteacherandsupportstaff. P 22:Timetolearnnewsoftwareinordertoreviewassessmentdata,ie,Performance Matters.Newsoftwarenotworkingwellwithdistrictsoftware. P 23:Themainbarriertodatauseisthetimei tconsumesgivingtheassessments. Teacherslosequiteabitofinstructionaltimewhengivingassessments. P 24:Time! P 25:Oneofthebarriersincluderesistancetochange.Ithasgottenbetterbutatfirst changinginstructionalstrategieschangesw erenothappening.Nowaftermanin services, etc.teachersaresharing,usingbestpracticesandarewillingtomodeltogroupsforthe purposeofchanginginstruction. P 26:Someofthedata(ex. FAIRandPerformanceMatters)isquestionable??Notsure PMisbasedonstandards?Sohowreliableisthedatewereceive? P 27:Thebiggestbarrieristimeforeverythingtodo. P 28:ThemostcriticalbarrierIhaveexperiencedisnotalloftheteachersareusingthe dataonadailybasistodrivetheir differentiatedinstruction. P 29:Timeforstaffdevelopmenttotrainteachersindatacollectionaswellasdata analysisisverylimited.Weneedmultipledaysthroughouttheyearandresourcesto bringinexpertsortrainfromwithinontopicssuchas dataanalysis,bestpractices,and paradigmshift.Lackofresourcesandtimecontinuetobemajorbarriersaswellas havingtrueexpertiseavailablefortraining(continuous). P 30:Wedonothaveareadingcoachoranyothercoachpositionsatmysch ool. Therefore,thebulkoftheanalysisfallsonme.Idoitforschool wideinfo.,thenmeet withteachersforaccountabilitypurposestomakesuretheyredoingitcorrectlyand usingitforinstructionalpurposes.Imnotinclassroomsenough. Open e ndedresponsesfromAssistantPrincipals 2. Whatbarrierstodatauseinachievement relateddecision makinghaveyou experiencedin yourcurrentroleasprincipalorassistantprincipal?Brieflyindicate whichbarrier(s)havemostcriticalinyourrole. AP 1:*Opportunity.AsAP,myroletomaintainfacilities,controldiscipline,provide substitutestaff/faculty,andaddressconcernsofparentsandcommunitylimitsmy opportunitytowork withallteachers/gradelevelsasaleaderindecisionmaking,

PAGE 230

219 h owever,Iamabl etobeameansofsupport.*PD(sic) leadbyprincipal.Idonot. *LeadershipQs(questions) Principalleads/Iworkwithourgradelevel.*Monitoring limited AP 2:Themostcriticalbarrierwouldbemylackoftrainingandknowledge.Ho weverI amnotinvolvedinSchoolImprovementPlan,curriculumdevelopment,orprofessional development.WhattrainingandknowledgeIvehadhasnotbeenutilizedinorderto retainorimprove. AP 3:AsanAPthegreatestbarrieristime.Iamusuallyb eingcalledfromdatameeting totakecareoffacilityoperationalduties.OtherbarriersIvenoticedaretechnology relatedfailures. AP 4:noresponse AP 5:Thebarrierformewaslackofexperienceinanalyzingthedata.Thesupportofthe leadershi pteamhasenabledmetobetterunderstand,analyzeandputtopracticalusedata inourschool. AP 6:SomebarriersthatIhaveexperiencedistheamountoftimethatdataanalysisand reflectionrequires.Althoughitistimelytheinformationthatyou gainisbeneficialand usefulinmakingcurriculumbaseddecisions. AP 7:Oneofthebiggestbarrierstoachievementrelateddecisionmakingisnotenough timeintheday.ItisdifficulttofindtimetomeetwiththeLeadershipTeamandteachers without pullingthemfromclass.Anotherbarrieristryingtoorganizedatawhereitcanbe retrievedeasily.Ithinksometimeswegetlostinthelargeamountofdata. AP 8: Time .Teachertraining.Confidenceinthereliabilityofformativeassessmenttools. T hebiggestbarrieristime.Collectingthedatatakesalotoftimebyitself. Getting/makingthetimetocollectit,analyzeitandthenorganizeformeaningful discussionswithfacultyisverydifficult andpresentsthemostsignificantbarrier. AP 9: Findingtimetoanalyzedataonanongoingbasisanddeterminetheinstructional implicationsofthatanalysisisabarrierIhaveexperienced.Bythetimedataisreceived, decisionsaremade,andadjustmentsoccuritisoftentimetoalreadyassessagai n,before enoughtimehaspassedtoreasonablyexpectanoticeableimprovement.The assessmentscontentalsovariesandthecontentthatwastargetedbasedontheprevious analysismaynotbeagainassessedwhichmakesitdifficulttoascertainifgrowth has occurred.Timeconstraints,howeverwouldbethemostcritical. AP 10:Thelackofreliabledataatkindergartenthrough2 nd grade.AlthoughFAIRis available,itisteacheradministered. AP 11:ThebarriersinthebeginningwasunderstandinghowP erformanceMatters worked.Wehadissueswithcreating/scanningtests,gettingdatatoshowineachclass

PAGE 231

220 andgettingallthestudentsassignedtoclasses.Duetothis,teachersdidnotbelieveinthe system.Nowthateverythingisworking,teachers/staff aremuchhappier. AP 12:Timeforanalysisandacompleteunderstandinghavebeenbarriers. AP 13:Acommonbarrieristheminimalcomfortareaofinterpretingdatathatthe regularclassroomteacherisabletodo.Classroomteachersneedmorechances tostudy lessons,developlessons,andteachlessons.Thiswillthenresultingreaterstudent achievementandteacherinstructions.Teacherswillthenbeabletoappreciateand understandthedatatheyhavetointerpret. AP 14:seequestion4. AP 15: Thepd(professionaldevelopment)associatedwiththeinstrumentsofassessment. Technologynotworking. AP 16:Barrierstodatauseincludeusingdifferentdatacollectiontoolsandproviding timefortrainingontheuseofthetools.Teachers/school professionalsbecome comfortableandfamiliarwithatoolanditsalignmentwithhighstakestestingandthen mustbegintheprocessanewwhenthetoolchanges. AP 17:Time.Limitedresourcesforsomeprograms. AP 18:Barrierstodatauseinachievemen trelateddecisionmakingincludesnotbeing abletobreakdownsomedatafurtherorthesimplicityofwhatthedatarepresents(e.g, PRS FAIR 1 st basedsolelyonabilitytoreadawordlistinasetamountoftime.A barrierfacedwithonlyacoupleofte achersisgettingthemtounderstandtheimportance ofongoingdataanalysis. AP 19:noresponse AP 20:Toomanyassessmentsandmanyarenotvaluedasreliableorvalid.Idonotfeel FAIRdrivesinstructioninthesamecaliberastheLiteracy1 st Pas tandPhonics assessments.Asadistrictwestilldonothaveadatawarehousesystemthatiseasytouse andatruereflectionofstudentachievement. AP 21:Thebiggestbarrierisprobablytimeandresourcestoprovideteachersand studentsintheclas sroom.Timeisahugefactorbecausestudentsaretestedonitemsthey arenotfamiliarwithonPerformanceMatters.Mathtextanditemsontestarenot matched.Students(teachers)andstudentsbecomefrustrated. AP 22:Themostcriticalbarriertodata useisthelackofuninterruptedtimewithteachers toanalyzeandmakeinstructionaldecisions. AP 23:Teacherssometimesfeelasthoughthebenchmarkassessmentsarenotconsistent; therefore,thevalidityandattimesthefidelity,becomebarrierswh endiscussingdataasa

PAGE 232

221 whole.Ifeelthatthisisacriticalpieceofinformationwhendiscussingoverallgrowthof aschoolbutitoftenbecomessomewhatofabarrier.

PAGE 233

222 AppendixP InitialCodingbytheResearcherandthe2 nd CodertothePrincipals responses: Open EndedItemRegardingSupportstoDataUse Researcher 2ndcoder 1 NoResponse NoResponse 2 PM PM 3 multipledatasources multipledatasources 4 PM,datateams, PM,datateams 5 PM,datateams, PM 6 multipledatasources,PD thirdpartyassessmentprograms,training 7 districtsupport Subs 8 PD,districtsupport HECworkshops,worksheets,datachats 9 districtsupport datadrivendistrict,dataexpert,PM 10 academiccoach personnel academiccoach 11 PM,PD,multiplesour cesof data training 12 distsupport PM,training 13 distsupport technology,training,professionalreading 14 teammeetings PM,calendar,teammeetings 15 PD,teammeetings training,teammeetings 16 PD,assessments,datadriven training,datadriv eninstruction 17 dataskills data 18 datameetings datameetings 19 coach,PD Trainings 20 districtsupport workshops,support 21 multipledatasources PM,FAIR,PMRN,Folio

PAGE 234

223 22 Noresponse Noresponse 23 PD Training 24 PD Trained 25 dataskill s datacollaboration 26 dataskills identifyingbottom25%,implement instructionalstrategies 27 PM,districtsupport,PD, PM,districtsupport,training 28 PM PD,training 29 datameetings,districtsupport data,measurementinstruments,progress m onitoring 30 multipledatasources datatools

PAGE 235

224 AppendixQ InitialCodingbytheResearcherandthe2 nd codertotheAssistantPrinci palResponses: Open EndedItemR egardingSupportstoDataUse Principal # Researcher 2ndcoder 1 PD T rainings 2 PD T rainings 3 datachats datachats 4 Noresponse Noresponse 5 datachats meetings,reviewdataassess 6 PD,assessments trainedbenchmarks 7 Assessments PM,benchmarkassessments 8 datachats datachats 9 PD,datachats training,meaningfuldi alogue 10 districtsupport,personnel consultantprincipal 11 PD,HECsupport training,PM 12 personalresearch selfresearch 13 districtsupport commondatabase,progress monitoring 14 Noresponse Noresponse 15 PD W orkshops 16 datachats progr essmonitoring,datachats meetings 17 PD,districtsupport staffdevelopment,resourceteachers 18 knowledge,datachats,available data teachers,progressmonitoring, variedofdata 19 Noresponse Noresponse 20 districtsupport MIS 21 availabled ata FAIR,PM

PAGE 236

225 22 PD,personalreading In service,professionaltexts 23 availabledata BMassessments,Itemanalysis, collaborativeeffort

PAGE 237

226 AppendixR InitialCodingbytheResearcherandthe2 nd codertothePrincipalR esponses:Open End edItem R egardingBarrierstoDataUse Principal# Researcher 2 nd coder 1 tests(data),datasystems complicateddatasystem, FAIR,PM 2 tests(data),training,time BMassess.,time,training 3 test,datasystem validityoftests,PMwebsite 4 attitude,resou rces, personnel personnel,seasonedteachers 5 dataknowledge compilingdata,time, resources 6 tests,datasystem, technology,technical support assessments,technology,PM website,districtsupport 7 test,time time,changesfromDIBELS toFAIR 8 dat aknowledge Prioritizingresponse 9 Test Benchmarks 10 Test assistingteacher,changing measures 11 time,PD time,training 12 datasystems toomanytools,change,PM 13 Time time 14 dataknowledge time,technologyknowledge 15 Time time 16 Time t ime,variedneeds 17 time,personnel,support time,support 18 Time time, 19 time,energy time,energy

PAGE 238

227 20 technology,change technology,resistant, workshops 21 dataanalysisskills implementing 22 time,datasystem(PM) time,PMsoftware 23 Time t ime 24 Time time 25 resistancetochange resistancetochange 26 Test data,PM 27 Time time 28 useofdata usingthedata 29 time,professionaldev. time,resources 30 personnel,coach lackofcoach

PAGE 239

228 AppendixS InitialCodingbytheResearc herandthe2 nd codertotheAssistantPrinci palResponses: Open EndedItemR egardingBarrierstoDataUse Assistant Principal # Researcher 2ndcoder 1 time,opportunity opportunity 2 PD,knowledge lackoftraining 3 time, time,technologyfailures 4 Noresponse Noresponse 5 Knowledge experience 6 Time time 7 time,toomuchdata,organize data time,easyretrieval 8 PD,tests,time time,confidence 9 time,dataknowledge time,assessments 10 Data reliabledata 11 Technology understanding PM 12 Time time,understanding 13 dataskills minimalcomfortinterpreting data 14 Noresponse Noresponse 15 PD PD,technology 16 time,PD differentdata,collection tools,timefortraining 17 time,resources time 18 data,assessments data 19 Noresponse Noresponse

PAGE 240

229 20 Tests assessments 21 time,resources, frustration(attitude) time,resources 22 Time time 23 BMassessments validityandfidelityofdata

PAGE 241

230 AppendixT Classificationof ItemsbyInitialCoding:Principals Responsest o S upports toDataUse Researcher Coder#2 Initialcoding Itemnumbers Initialcoding Itemnumbers Performance Matters 2,4,5,11,27,28 Performance Matters 2,4, 5,9,12,14,27,28 Multipledata sources 3,6,11,21,30 Multipledata sources 3,21 Datat eams 4,5 Datateams 4 Professional Development 6,8,11,15,16,19, 23,24,27 Thirdparty assessment programs 6 Districtsupport 7,8,9,12,13,20,27,29 training 6,11,12,13,15,16, 19,23,24,27,28 Academiccoach 10,19 substitutes 7 Teammeetings 14,15 HECworks hops 8 A ssessments 16 worksheets 8 Datadriven 16 Datachats 8 Dataskills 17,25,26 Datadrivendistrict 9 Datameetings 29 Dataexpert 9 Academiccoach 10

PAGE 242

231 technology 13 Professional reading 13 calendar 14 Teammeetings 14,15 Datadri ven instruction 16 D ata 17 workshops 20 support 20 Datacollaboration 25 Identifyingbottom 25% 26 Districtsupport 27 Datatools 30 Datameasurement instruments 29 Progress monitoring 29

PAGE 243

232 AppendixU ResearcherandCoderCatego rie s: PrincipalsResponsestoSupportstoDataUse Researcher Coder#2 Categoryname Item#s Categoryname Item#s Professional Development 6,8,11,15,16,19,23,24,27 Training 6,11,12,13,15,16,19,23,24,27,28,8,13,20 Support 7,8,9,12,13,20,27,29,10,19 Su pport 7,8,10,13,20,27 DataChats 4,5,14,15,29 DataMeetings 4,8,14,15,25 Assessment 2,4,5,11,27,28,16 PerformanceMatters 2,4,5,9,12,14,27,28 KnowledgeofData 16,17,25,26 DataSkills 9,16,17,26,29 DataSources 3,6,11,21,30 MultipleData Sources 3,21 ,6,30,29

PAGE 244

233 AppendixV CrossTabu lationofCodersCategories: Principal s Responsesto Supports toDataUse Coder#2 R e s e a r c h e r T r a i n i n g S u p p o r t D a t a m e e t i n g s P e r f o r m a n c e M a t t e r s D a t a S k i l l s M u l t i p l e D a t a S o u r c e s u n m a t c h e d t o t a l Profession al Development 9 9 Support 1 6 1 1 1 10 DataChats 3 1 4 Assessment 5 2 7 Knowledgeof data 1 3 4 DataSources 4 1 5 Unmatched 3 3 6 Totalmatched andunmatched 13 6 4 8 5 5 4 45

PAGE 245

234 Appen dixW Classificati onof ItemsbyInitialCoding:AssistantPrincipalsResponsestoSupportsto DataUse Researcher Coder#2 Initialcoding Itemnumbers Initialcoding Itemnumbers Professional Development 1,2,6,9,11,15,17,22 T raining 1,2,9,11 Datachats 3,5,8,9,16, 18 Datachats 3,8,16 A ssessments 6,7 meetings 5 Districtsupport 10,13,17,20 Reviewdata assessments 5 Personnel 10 Trainedbenchmarks 6 HECsupport 11 Performance Matters 7,11 Personalresearch 12 Benchmark Assessments 7,23 Knowledge 18 Meaningful d ialogue 8 Availabledata 18,21,23 Consultantprincipal 10 Personalreading 22 Self research 12 Commondatabase 13 Progressmonitoring 13,16,18 workshops 15 Staffdevelopment 17 Resourceteachers 17 teachers 18 Varietydata 18 MIS 20 FAIR,PM 21 inservice 22 Professionaltexts 22 Itemanalysis 23 Collaborativeeffort 23

PAGE 246

235 AppendixX ResearcherandCoderCategories : AssistantPrincipalsResponsestoSupportsto DataUse Researcher Coder#2 Categoryname Item #s Categoryname Item#s Professional Development 1,2,6,9,11,15,17,22,12 training 1,2,9,11,12,15,17,2 2,6 DataChats 3,5,8,9,16,18 Datachats 3,8,16,5,23,18 Support 10,13,17,20,11 Progress monitoring 13,16,18,5 Dataskills 18 Datasources 18,21,7,23,11 Availabledata 6,7,18,21,23 support 20,17,10,13

PAGE 247

236 AppendixY CrossTabulationofCodersCategories : AssistantPrincipal sResponsesto Supports to DataUse Coder#2 r e s e a r c h e r Training Data Chats Data Sources Support Progress Monitoring T otal Professional Development 9 9 DataChats 5 1 6 Support 4 1 5 DataSkills 1 1 Availabledata 4 4 1 1 4 6 Total 9 6 5 4 4 3 31

PAGE 248

237 AppendixZ ClassificationofItemsbyInitialCoding:PrincipalsResponsestoB arrierstoDataUse Researcher Coder#2 Initialcoding Itemnumbers Initialcoding Itemnumbers Tests(data) 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,26 Complicated datasystem 1 Datasystems 1,3,6,12,22 FAIR, Performance Matters 1,3,6,12,22,26 Training/Professional developm ent 2,11,29 Benchmark Assessments 2,9 Time 2,7,11,13,15,16,17,18,19, 22,23,24,29 Time 2,5,7,11,13,14,15,16,17,18 ,19,22,23,24,27,28,29 Attitude 4 training 2,11,20 Resources 4 Validityof tests 3 Personnel 4,17,30 personnel 4 Dataknowledge 5,8, 14 Seasoned teachers 4 T echnology 6,20 Compilingdata 5 Technicalsupport 6 resources 5,29 Support 17 assessments 6 Energy 19 technology 6,20 C hange 20,25 Districtsupport 6 Dataanalysisskills 21 change 7,12 Useofdata 28 prioritizing 8 Chan ging measures 10 Assisting teachers 10 Toomanytools 12 Technology knowledge 14 Variedneeds 16 support 17 energy 19 resistant 20 implementing 21 Resistantto change 25 data 26 Usingthedata 28 Lackofcoach 30

PAGE 249

238 Appe ndixAA ResearcherandCoderCategories :PrincipalsResponsestoBarrierstoDataU se Researcher Coder#2 Categoryname Item#s Categoryname Item#s DataSource 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,26 Assessments 1,3,6,12,22,26,2,9 DataSystem 1,3,6,12,22 DataSystem 1 Professional Development 2,11,29 Training 2,11,20 T ime 2,7,11,13,15,16,17,18,19,22,23,24,29 time 2,5,7,11,13,14,15,16,17, 18, 19,22, 23,24,27,28,29,8 C hange 20,25,4,10,7,12 support 4,17,6,30,10,29 S upport 4,17,30,6,29 change 4,25,20,7,12,10 T echnolog y 6,20,14 Dataknowledge 5,26,28 Useofdata 21,28,5,8,14 technology 6,20,14

PAGE 250

239 AppendixBB CrossTabulationofCodersCategories : Principal sResponsesto Barriers toDataUse Coder#2 R e s e a r c h e r Assess ments Data system Train ing time Support C hange Data Know ledge Tech nology total DataSource 6 2 8 DataSystem 4 1 5 Professional Develop ment 2 1 1 4 Time 13 13 Change 6 6 Support 4 4 technology 3 3 Useofdata 2 3 5 2 1 4 2 1 1 11 Total 12 1 3 17 7 6 3 4 6 59

PAGE 251

240 AppendixCC ClassificationofItemsbyInitialCoding:AssistantPrincipalsResponsestoBarriersto DataUse Researcher Coder#2 Initialcoding Itemnumbers Initialcoding Itemnumbers T ime 1,3 ,6,7,8,9,12,16,17,21,22 opportunity 1 O pportunity 1 training 2,15 Professionaldevelopment 2,8,15,16 time 3,6,7,8,9,12,16,17,21,22 Dataknowledge 2,5,9 technology 3,15 Toomuchdata 7 experience 5 Organizedata 7 Easyretrieval 7 Tests/assessments 8, 18,20 confidence 8 T echnology 11 assessments 9,20 Dataskills 13 Reliabledata 10 R esources 17,21 UnderstandingPerformanceMatters 11 D ata 10,18 understanding 12 Frustration(attitude) 21 Minimalcomfortinterpretingdata 13 Benchmarkassessments 23 Differentdata 16 Collectiontools 16 data 18 resources 21 Validityandfidelityofdata 23

PAGE 252

241 AppendixDD ResearcherandCoderCategories : AssistantPrincipalsResponsestoBarrierstoData Use Researcher Coder#2 Categoryname Item# s Categoryname Item#s T ime 1,3,6,7,8,9,12,16,17,21,22 Time 1,3,6,7,8,9,12,16,17,21,22 ProfessionalDevelopment 2,8,15,16 Training 2,15 Assessments 8,18,20,23 Assessments 23,9,20,8,10 Dataskills 13,7,2,5,9 Dataskills 13,12,5,11,7 D ata 10,18,7,11 resources 21 R esources 17,21 technology 3,15 Data 16

PAGE 253

242 AppendixEE CrossTabulationofCodersCategories : AssistantPrincipal s Responsesto Barriers to DataUse Coder#2 R e s e a r c h e r Time Training Assessments Data Skills Resources Tech nology Data total Time 11 11 Professional Develop ment 2 2 4 Assess ments 3 1 4 DataSkills 3 1 4 Data 1 1 2 4 resources 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 5 Total 11 2 5 5 1 2 1 7 34


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2011 flu ob 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004828
035
(OCoLC)
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
Albritton, Sherri
0 245
Perceptions by heartland educational consortium (h.e.c.) elementary title i school principals and assistant principals :
h [electronic resource] /
b data use in their role as achievement-related decision makers
by Sherri Albritton.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2011.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 253 pages.
Includes vita.
502
Disseration
(Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
520
ABSTRACT: In the age of accountability and assessment, there is a need to ensure that data provided regarding student achievement can be effectively and appropriately utilized by school site administrators in a systematic way to improve student achievement. This study identified Heartland Educational Consortium Title I principals' and assistant principals' perceptions of their use of data as decision-makers in raising student achievement, with primary emphasis on Florida's Differentiated Accountability Model. Quantitative results revealed statistically significant differences in data use by administrators. Use of data by administrators for professional development was statistically significantly different from school improvement, leadership, or data skills. Data monitoring processes differed statistically significantly from school improvement. School improvement was identified by administrators as the area in which they use data most. Professional development was identified by the administrators as the area in which they use data least. No statistically significant differences occurred between principals and assistant principals in use of data measured by subscales. Principals and assistant principals suggested that professional development, provided by school, district, and state personnel, supported their use of data. Overwhelmingly, time was cited most often by principals and assistant principals as a barrier to data use. Findings suggest that administrators should continue to use data for achievement-related decision making for school improvement. Specifically, administrators should continue to work with leadership teams, school staffs, and School Advisory Councils to identify school improvement strategies using multiple sources of data and analyzing trends. Contradictory findings imply that administrators reevaluate how they use data for professional development. School district personnel should reevaluate their professional development programs for administrators. An additional implication from the findings is that district personnel must support school level administrators in "finding time" to analyze data. District administrators should consider strategies for school level administrators which eliminate time as a factor mitigating using data. The limited sample size provides a need to replicate with a larger size. A larger sample might provide insight into statistically significant differences between perceptions of assistant principals and principals.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor:
Permuth, Steve .
653
Administration
Education
Federal
Leadership
Rural
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Educational leadership
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.4828