A Study of the Marzano Focused School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models and Student Proficiency and Growth in Middle Schools in a Large Suburban School District in South Florida

Abstract

This study examines the impact of the Marzano Focused School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models on student proficiency and growth in middle schools within a large suburban district in South Florida. Using quantitative methods and regression analysis, the research evaluates instructional effectiveness and leadership interventions in educational settings. Findings suggest a significant correlation between instructional practice and student achievement outcomes.
(© 2020 Terrence Narinesingh, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.)

Full text

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
A STUDY OF THE MARZANO FOCUSED SCHOOL LEADER AND TEACHER!
EVALUATION MODELS AND STUDENT PROFICIENCY AND GROWTH IN!
MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN A LARGE SUBURBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT IN SOUTH FLORIDA!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
by!
!
TERRENCE NARINESINGH!
!
!
!
!
Education Specialist!
Florida Atlantic University!
Boca Raton, FL!
2009!
!
!
!
!
Master of Science and Bachelor of Science!
Florida Memorial University!
Miami Gardens, FL!
2007 and 2006!
!
!
!
!
Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the!
University of the Cumberlands!
in partial fulfillment of the requirements!
for the degree of!
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY!
!
2020!

ProQuest Number:
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Published by ProQuest LLC (
ProQuest
). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All Rights Reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
28314465
28314465
2021

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
© 2020 Terrence Narinesingh!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ii!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
iii!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Acknowledgements!
!
!
!
!
I would like to express my gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr. Jessica Nichols, for her
inspirational leadership, and my dissertation committee members, Dr. Jason Creekmore and
Superintendent Dr. DeAnna Miller, for their support and expert feedback throughout the
dissertation process. I would like to thank my colleague, Suzanne Berry, for adding her
leadership experience as Principal in monitoring school leader and teacher progress. I would also
like to thank my administrator colleagues at Broward County Public Schools for their
overwhelming encouragement and continuous motivation to approach the dissertation process
like a marathon with a focus on the finish line.!
Thank you to Mark Howard, Chief of Performance Accountability of the Department of
Research and Evaluation in the School District of Palm Beach County, for overseeing the
research approval process through the Superintendent’s Research Review Committee. I am also
appreciative to Principal Suzanne Berry for sharing her best practices in school leadership. I am
grateful to my family and especially my mother for instilling the importance of education and her
unconditional love. Finally, my heartfelt appreciation goes to my hardworking faculty, staff and
students who propel me every day as a Principal and educational leadership researcher to provide
equitable opportunities for underrepresented students to graduate with college and career
readiness and destined to become future-ready global competitors.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
iv!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Abstract!
!
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the Marzano Focused School Leader
and Teacher Evaluation Models impacted school leader and teacher effectiveness to increase
student proficiency and growth. This quantitative, non-experimental study was conducted using
preexisting data in all middle schools in the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida for
2017-2018. Four research questions guided this study regarding the relationship and!
predictability among the variables of school leader and teacher instructional practice scores,
quantity of observations reported in iObservation® and student proficiency and growth in
Florida Standards Assessment (FSA) Developmental Scale Scores (DSS) scores in English
Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics or corresponding End-of-Course (EOC) assessment.!
The linear regression analyses indicated that instructional practice was a statistically
significant predictor of Grade 6-8 FSA ELA and Mathematics or corresponding EOC
performances. The linear regression analyses indicated that there is a relationship between
student proficiency and growth as measured by the developmental scale mean scores on FSA
ELA and FSA Mathematics or corresponding EOC. These findings were based on data for one
school year, and thus caution must be taken when deducing these findings.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
v!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
TABLE OF CONTENTS!
!
CHAPTER!PAGE!
!
I.!INTRODUCTION……...……………………………………...………….………………...1!
Background .......................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study .........................................................................4
Problem Statement ............................................................................4
Research Questions...........................................................................4
Study Limitations..............................................................................6
Assumptions......................................................................................6
Definitions.........................................................................................6
Summary .........................................................................................11!
!
II.!LITERATURE REVIEW……...…………………………...………….……………….12!
Bridging Historical Achievement Gaps in the United States..........13
Bridging historical achievement gaps in Florida ..........................14
Leadership impact on student proficiency and growth .................17
Leadership impact on instructional practice level……………….17!
Leadership Philosophies .................................................................19
Trait theory....................................................................................20
Situational leadership theory.........................................................20
The path-goal theory of leader effectiveness ................................21
Transactional leadership ...............................................................21
Transformational leadership .........................................................22
Transactional leadership vs. transformational leadership .............24
Servant leadership.........................................................................25!
Qualities of an Effective Leader .....................................................26!
Leadership impact on narrowing historical achievement gaps .....27!
Self-Efficacy in Andragogy ............................................................29
The adult learning theory ..............................................................31
Historical trainings in self-efficacy in andragogy.........................32
Current trainings in self-efficacy in andragogy ............................33
Monitoring school leader and teacher progress ............................34!
Summary .........................................................................................36!
!
III.!METHODS…….……...……………………………………...………….………………...36!
Introduction.....................................................................................36
Research Paradigm..........................................................................38
Research Design..............................................................................39
Data Analysis ..................................................................................40
Summary .........................................................................................40!
!
IV.!ANALYSIS OF DATA …….……...…………………..……………………...…….43!
Introduction.....................................................................................43!
!
!
!
vi!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Population Description................................................................... 43
Testing the Research Questions and Hypotheses........................... 43
Research Question 1 ...................................................................... 43
Research Question 2 ...................................................................... 44
Research Question 3 ...................................................................... 45
Research Question 4 ...................................................................... 45
Summary........................................................................................ 46!
!
V.!SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ….….….47!
Introduction.....................................................................................47
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................47
Summary of the Findings................................................................47
Discussion .......................................................................................48
Implications for Practice .................................................................50
Recommendations for Further Research.........................................51
Conclusion ......................................................................................53!
!
REFERENCES……......……...……………..……...……….….………..……... 54!
!
APPENDIX A: Formal IRB approval ……......……...…………….…....66
APPENDIX B: Permission to use iObservation® items ….…........68
APPENDIX C: Approval from the Superintendent’s Committee...70
APPENDIX D: CITI program course certificate ………....…........73
APPENDIX E: Marzano Focused School Leader Evaluation….....75
APPENDIX F: Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation…….….......98!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
vii!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION!
!
The Race to the Top grant incentivized all U.S. states to focus on educational
transformation and was spawned during the Great Recession from 2007-2009 that affected the
education sector (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). In a critical response, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) regulation was ratified by the U.S. Congress and
intended to energize the economy (Federal Communications Commission, 2009). In order to
stimulate the education sector, the focus was to enhance school leader and teacher effectiveness
to increase student proficiency and growth (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
Consequently, states deliberately created school leader and teacher evaluation systems to assess
the impact of teachers on student achievement (American Institutes for Research, 2020).!
Senate Bill 736 directed all school districts in Florida to create or implement an
evaluation system that calculates a minimum of 50 percent of a teacher’s final evaluation on a
state performance indicator such as the Florida Standards Assessment (FSA), and for non-
assessed subject area teachers, a district-wide common assessment is required (The Florida
Senate, 2011). The School District of Palm Beach County has approved the Marzano Focused
School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models (Florida Department of Education, 2020).!
Florida Standards Assessments form the backbone of the Florida Department of
Education K-12 assessment program that collectively holds districts, schools, teachers,
administrators and students accountable for determining learning proficiency and academic
growth (Florida Department of Education, 2019; Kolen & Brennan, 2004; Livingston, 2004;
Pommerich et al., 2004). Students in Grades 6, 7 and 8 take the Florida Standards Assessment
(FSA) Mathematics or corresponding Mathematics End-of-Course (EOC) assessment, and!
!
!
!
!
1!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
English Language Arts (ELA) assessments that measure student proficiency and growth on the
Florida Standards.!
The FSA ELA assessment consists of a combined score that includes student
performance in both the Writing and Reading sections. Student performance on Florida's
statewide assessments is classified into five achievement levels, where the lowest score in Level!
3 is the passing score for each grade level and subject (Florida Department of Education, 2019).
In compliance with §1008.22(3)(b)2., Florida Statutes (F.S.), middle grades students will not be
tested on both FSA Mathematics and a Mathematics End-of-Course (EOC) assessment. Middle-
grade students enrolled in Algebra 1 or Geometry must take the corresponding EOC assessment,
not the grade-level FSA Mathematics assessment (Florida Department of Education, 2019).!
Historical national initiatives such as Sputnik in 1957, National Defense Education Act
of 1958 (Public Law 85-864), A Nation at Risk in 1983, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, The
Rising Above the Gathering Storm report of 2005 and Race to the Top (RttT) in 2010, have
challenged the rigor and progress of the education system in the United States (Flowers, 2013).
The literature review in Chapter 2 discusses the state model teacher and school leader evaluation
instruments in Florida, which are Marzano focused. Marzano (2012) asserts that evaluations
serve two purposes: measuring the effectiveness of teachers and developing teachers. School
leadership interventions under The Every Student Succeeds Act: Evidence Review
acknowledged the Marzano Focused School Leader Evaluation Model as one of two school
leader evaluation models that achieve the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) standards for
evidence-based leader evaluation systems (Herman et al., 2017; Manna & Petrilli, 2008).
Chapter Four examines the research findings. Chapter Five reviews the relevance and
implications of the study. This study aims to investigate whether the Marzano Focused School!
!
!
!
!
!
2!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models impacted school leader and teacher effectiveness to
increase student achievement and growth more precisely than prior evaluation models.
Background!
The demanding assessment system in Florida is aligned with the instructional process to
ensure that graduating students are college or postsecondary ready for success through rigorous
coursework. The data is disaggregated to determine if the academic goals are being achieved to
drive instruction by school administrators and teachers. The Florida Department of Education
assigns school and district grades to evaluate progress towards educational goals. There is
currently robust research into the accountability system for K-12 students. However, there is a
need for research into the effectiveness of standards-based accountability measures for teachers
and educational leaders.!
The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the Marzano Focused School Leader
and Teacher Evaluation Models impacted school leader and teacher effectiveness to increase
student proficiency and growth more precisely than prior evaluation models. Practitioners need
to implement both models with fidelity in order to ensure effectiveness. With the rigidity of
standards-based accountability in the K-12 school system, the onus is on educators and
administrators to utilize research-based strategies to bridge the achievement gap to ensure that
all students have adequate and equitable access to quality public school education.!
In order to enhance pedagogy and andragogy, deliberate practice needs to
eventuate in a methodical process such as internships and group experiences to share best
practices. This research will be an attempt to add to the body of research into the
effectiveness of implementation and measuring the impact to of the Marzano Focused
School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models, which would help bridge the!
!
!
3!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
achievement gap. There are implications of gaps in academic achievement among racial
and socioeconomic groups in the United States, and thus there is a need for educational
reform initiatives from a socio-educational perspective.!
Purpose of the Study!
!
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the Marzano Focused School
Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models impacted school leader and teacher effectiveness to
increase student proficiency and growth more precisely than prior evaluation models in a large
suburban school district in South Florida.!
Problem Statement!
!
The majority of school districts in Florida utilize the Marzano Focused School Leader
and Teacher Evaluation Models. Practitioners need to implement both models with fidelity in
order to ensure effectiveness. However, there is a lack of research that investigates whether the
Marzano Focused School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models impacted school leader and
teacher effectiveness to increase student proficiency and growth more precisely than prior
evaluation models.!
Research Questions!
!
This research will attempt to answer the following four questions:!
!
1. What is the relationship between student proficiency and growth as!
!
measured by the developmental scale mean scores on FSA English!
!
Language Arts for sixth-grade, seventh-grade, and eighth-grade students, and
the instructional practice school level mean of teacher performance as
measured by the Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model?!
!
!
!
!
!
4!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
2. What is the relationship between student proficiency and growth as
measured by the developmental scale mean scores on FSA Mathematics or
corresponding EOC assessment for sixth-grade, seventh grade and eighth-
grade students, and the instructional practice school level mean of teacher
performance as measured by Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model?!
3. What is the relationship between the usage/number of Standard Observations
on the Marzano iObservation® system used by school leaders in middle
schools in a large suburban school district in South Florida, and student
proficiency and growth as measured by the developmental scale mean scores
on FSA English Language Arts for sixth-grade, seventh-grade and eighth-
grade students?!
4. What is the relationship between the usage/number of Standard Observations
on the Marzano iObservation® system used by school leaders in middle
schools in a large suburban school district in South Florida, and student
proficiency and growth as measured by the developmental scale mean scores
on FSA Mathematics or corresponding EOC assessment for sixth-grade,
seventh-grade and eighth-grade students?!
Study Limitations!
!
Limitations to the study included the following:!
!
1.!This study was limited by the precision of data return by a large suburban!
!
school district in South Florida, utilization of the Marzano Focused School
Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models and its inter-rater reliability, and the
expertise of evaluators.!
!
!
!
5!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
2.!This study was limited to the 2017-2018 academic year of the Marzano!
!
Focused School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models in the School
District of Palm Beach County. Therefore, the results may not be
generalizable to larger populations.!
Assumptions!
!
The research made the following assumptions:!
!
1. This study was conducted to observe the 2017-2018 school leader, teacher,
and student data from all middle schools in the School District of Palm Beach
County.!
2. The target population for this study incorporated all administrators and
teachers assigned to teach English Language Arts and/or Mathematics in all
middle schools in the School District of Palm Beach County for the 2017-
2018 school year.!
3. All school leaders and teachers were trained in the use of the Marzano
Focused School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models including the
Marzano iObservation® system.!
Definitions!
!
The following definitions were used in the study:!
!
Andragogy. “the art and science of helping adults learn” that is often a student-directed form of!
!
learning” (Knowles, 1980, p. 43; Merriam et al., 2007).!
!
Charter Schools. “Charter schools are non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations that have a contract or
charter to provide the same educational services to students as district public schools. They are!
!
!
!
!
6!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
nonsectarian public schools that operate with freedom from many of the regulations that apply to
traditional public schools. Charter schools must hire certified teachers, just like traditional!
district schools” (Florida Consortium of Public Charter Schools, 2020).!
!
Developmental Scale Mean Scores (DSMS). “A category of scale score utilized in 2019 to
establish a student’s annual progress from one grade level to another. Florida Standards
Assessments (FSA) English Language Arts scale scores range from (259-403), FSA Mathematics
scale scores range from (260-393), and the End-of-Course assessment scale scores range from
(425-575) for each achievement level” (Florida Department of Education, 2019).!
Florida Standards Assessments (FSA). “The Florida Standards in Mathematics and English
Language Arts were approved by the Florida State Board of Education in February 2014 and
were implemented in grades K–12 in the 2014–2015 school year. All Florida schools teach the
Florida Standards, and students were assessed through the statewide Florida Standards
Assessments (FSA). Data from the FSAs will provide information to parents, teachers,
policymakers, and the general public regarding how well students are learning the Florida
Standards” (Florida Department of Education, 2019).!
End-of-Course (EOC) Assessments. “EOC assessments are computer-based, criterion-
referenced assessments that measure the Florida Standards (FS) or the Next Generation Sunshine
State Standards (NGSSS) for specific courses, as outlined in their course descriptions. In 2011,
Algebra 1 (NGSSS) was the first course to undergo the implementation of a statewide EOC
assessment. Over the next few years, it was followed by Biology 1, Geometry, U.S. History, and
Civics, all of which are aligned to the NGSSS” (Florida Department of Education, 2020).
Leadership. “A process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a!
!
!
!
!
!
7!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
common goal” (Northouse, 2016, p. 3).!
!
Marzano Focused School Leader Evaluation Model. “Streamlines the school leader
evaluation process by introducing six domains and elements to make deeper connections
between instructional and organizational leadership and balance these interconnected
responsibilities. Based on the review of the research literature, 24 categories of principal actions
and behaviors were identified. These 24 categories were organized into five domains: (1) a data-
driven focus on student achievement, (2) continuous improvement of instruction, (3) a
guaranteed and viable curriculum, (4) cooperation and collaboration, and (5) school climate”
(Marzano, 2019).!
Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model. “Organized into four domains consisting of 60
elements that build on each other to support growth, with a focus on Domain 1: Classroom
Strategies and Behaviors. The model as a whole creates an innovative framework!
for evaluation to support professional development and performance of teachers.” (Marzano,!
!
2019).!
!
Marzano iObservation® System. “An instructional and leadership improvement system. It
collects, manages, and reports longitudinal data from classroom walkthroughs, teacher
evaluations, and teacher observations. Teacher growth and leadership practices inform
professional development differentiated to individual learning needs for every teacher and leader
to increase his/her classroom effectiveness each year” (Marzano, 2019).!
Marzano iObservation® Usage/Number of Standard Observations. “Term used in Marzano
iObservation® reports that represents all formal, informal, or walkthrough observations
performed by an administrator on a teacher” (Marzano, 2019).!
!
!
!
!
!
8!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Pedagogy. “The art and science of helping children learn” and is viewed as a teacher-directed
form of learning (Knowles, 1980, p. 43; Merriam et al., 2007).!
School Leader. A school administrator (who may be an Assistant Principal or Principal)
specifically hired to supervise teachers in a K-12 school setting. (Carbaugh et al., 2015)
Self-Efficacy. An individual’s confidence in his or her ability to influence the individuals or
circumstances around them (Bandura, 1977).!
Servant Leadership. Servant leaders are goal-oriented, and coach subordinates towards goal
attainment. The leader gains respect and trust from subordinates, leads by example, and
communicates effectively in a positive work environment (Maxwell, 2005, p. 213).
Situational Leadership. A leadership style that requires the leader to evaluate followers and
assess their commitment to a goal, their skills, and motivation toward reaching goals and then
adjust their directive behaviors and supportive behaviors accordingly to adjust for each
follower’s needs (Blanchard, 1985; Northouse, 2016).!
Student Growth. “In order to compare students' growth, a teacher first selects two classes that
are learning the same material and then uses the target instructional strategy with only one of
those classes. Alternatively, if the method mentioned earlier is not possible, the teacher can split
a class into two groups and use the instructional strategy with only one group. A student growth
percentile (SGP) describes a student's growth compared to other students with similar prior test
scores (their academic peers)” (Marzano, 2019).!
Student Proficiency. “Student proficiency is whether or not students have scored at a level that
indicates that they consistently demonstrate mastery of the content standards and are well
prepared for the next grade or course” (Marzano, 2019).!
!
!
!
!
!
9!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
The Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. The Path-Goal Theory of Leader
Effectiveness incorporates leader and motivational research by suggesting that leaders have an
impact on results through motivation in terms of outcome and gratification (House, 1996).
Trait theory. In the trait theory, certain traits were prevalent in effective leadership, and there
was the belief that traits were contingent on the environment. (Northouse, 2018).!
Transactional Leadership. “Leadership style that focuses on the exchange between leaders and
followers and is influential over the follower through exchanges that might be valuable to the
follower” (Burns, 1978).!
Transformational Leadership. “The process whereby a person engages with others and creates
a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower”
(Northouse, 2016, p. 162), to “tap the motives of followers in order to better reach the goals of
leaders and followers” (Burns, 1978, p. 18).!
Value-Added Model (VAM): “A value-added model (VAM) measures the impact of teaching
on student learning by accounting for other factors that may impact the learning process. These
models do not evaluate teachers based on a single year of student performance or proficiency or
evaluate teachers based on simple comparison of growth from one year to the next. VAM levels
the playing field by accounting for differences in the proficiency and characteristics of students
assigned to teachers. It is designed to mitigate the influence of differences among the entering
classes so that schools and teachers do not have advantages or disadvantages simply as a result!
of the students who attend a school or are assigned to a class” (Florida Department of Education,!
!
2020).!
!
Value-Added Model (VAM) Score: “Using the developmental scale of the assessment, the
value-added score reflects the average amount of learning growth of students above or below the!
!
!
10!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
expected learning growth of similar students in the state, using the factors accounted for in the!
!
model” (Florida Department of Education, 2020).!
!
Summary!
!
This chapter examined the study's background, purpose, problem statement, research
questions, limitations, and assumptions, in addition to meaningful definitions for
understanding. The literature review in Chapter Two is connected to the purpose of the study.
Chapter Three elucidates the methodology and procedures used to conduct the study. Chapter
Four examines the research findings, followed by Chapter Five, which reviews the relevance
and implications of the study and has recommendations for future research.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
11!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
CHAPTER II—LITERATURE REVIEW!
!
Introduction!
!
Based on meta-analyses, average effects of specific instructional strategies increase
student proficiency and growth (Marzano et al., 2001). When the desired effects of instructional
strategies are achieved such as summarizing and note-taking, identifying similarities and
differences, and reinforcing effort and giving recognition, percentile gains of 29-45 points can
be yielded (Marzano et al., 2001). The purpose of school leader and teacher evaluation systems
are to give feedback for enhancing professional practice (McGahie, 1991; Carbaugh et al.,
2015). Performance improvement pertains to the individualized growth factor and includes
assisting teachers to learn content, reflect, and enhance their pedagogy. The performance
improvement function is formative in classification and implies the necessity for constant
professional development (Iwanicki, 1990).!
On the contrary, the accountability function reveals an assurance to the goals of expertise
and quality performance and is usually viewed as summative in relation to assessing educational
efficacy (McGahie, 1991). A value-added assessment structure quantifies student learning over a
period based on a projected growth rate (Misco, 2008). The preliminary goal of value-added
assessment models (VAM) was to encourage positive shifts in instructional practice (Amrein-
Beardsley, 2008). “A value-added model (VAM) measures the impact of teaching on student
learning by accounting for other factors that may impact the learning process. These models do
not evaluate teachers based on a single year of student performance or proficiency or evaluate
teachers based on simple comparison of growth from one year to the next. VAM levels the
playing field by accounting for differences in the proficiency and characteristics of students
assigned to teachers. It is designed to mitigate the influence of differences among the entering!
!
!
12!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
classes so that schools and teachers do not have advantages or disadvantages simply as a result!
!
of the students who attend a school or are assigned to a class” (Florida Department of Education,!
!
2020). Several estimates are complex and may not consider factors that are outside of a
teacher’s control regarding student learning (Harris, 2010). Throughout the United States,
school accountability is a regular topic among elected representatives at the national and local
levels. Stakeholders are seeking school reform to reflect elevated standards for school leaders
and teachers and increases in student proficiency and growth.!
This introduction has provided a synopsis and frame of reference for the literature
review. The chapter consists of nine components focused on: (a) bridging historical
achievement gaps in the United States, (b) bridging historical achievement gaps in Florida, (c)
leadership impact on student proficiency and growth, (d) leadership impact on instructional
practice level, (e) leadership philosophies, (f) leadership impact on narrowing historical
achievement gaps, (g) historical trainings in self-efficacy in andragogy, (h) current trainings in
self-efficacy in andragogy, and (i) monitoring school leader and teacher progress.!
Bridging Historical Achievement Gaps in the United States!
!
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (Public Law 89-10) was
legislated to target students from low-socioeconomic families (Pugh-Walker, 2016). The ESEA
(1965) strived to narrow the achievement gap of low-socioeconomic students who were
academically underperforming as compared to their peers. This report cited the systemic cause
of learning and achievement differences among students on fiscal imbalance and limited
accessibility to resources. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983)
focused on public apprehensiveness and viewpoint that the education system in the United
States was impaired. A pivotal domain in this report was centered on “assessing the quality of!
!
!
13!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
teaching and learning” in our schools (p.31). This was in opposition to holding fiscal disparities
such as the ESEA accountable in the 1983 report that directed disparagement on the education
system as a whole (Flowers, 2013; Herman et al., 2017; Pugh-Walker, 2016).!
In order to narrow the historical achievement gaps in the United States, there needed to
be a focus on leadership philosophies and development in addition to teacher development. This
ensured that the positive impact of effective leadership on teacher growth is evident. It has been
widely recognized that school leaders (principals) play a significant part in efforts to enhance
teaching and learning (Fink & Resnick, 2001; Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano et al., 2005;
Nelson et al., 2004; O'Day, 2002; Smylie et al., 2003; Spillane et al., 2002; Woody et al., 2004).
Schools that work (that are successful by different measures) have leadership that promotes
meaningful staff development (Marzano et al., 2005). The meta-analysis of seventy studies of
student achievement and leadership was a sizeable quantitative study that examined the effects
of certain leadership practices (Marzano et al., 2005; Waters et al., 2003). The results confirm
that the school (principal) leadership is positively correlated with student achievement with an
average effect size of .25. Knowledge of curriculum and instruction, which encompasses
assessment procedures and coaching teachers on enhancing pedagogy, also had an effect size of!
.25.!
!
Bridging historical achievement gaps in Florida.!
!
Since 1999, Florida has implemented education reform initiatives that consists of charter
schools, virtual learning, public-school choice, private-school choice, merit-based pay for
performance, alternative teacher certification programs, school and district grading systems that
include graduation rates and standardized assessments (Florida Department of Education, 2020).
Charter schools are public schools of choice that have autonomy in innovation where programs!
!
!
14!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
cater to diverse groups of students (Florida Department of Education, 2019). Florida has the third
largest charter school enrollment in the U.S. and in 2017-18, 654 charter schools educated
282,924 students in 46 counties (Florida Consortium of Public Charter Schools, 2020). Florida is
a frontrunner in online learning as more than 71,000 students in the state take courses online, and
successful completion of an online course is a high school graduation requirement (Florida
Department of Education, 2020).!
Students in low-performing Florida public schools have the option to relocate to a higher-
performing public school of their parents’ selection and students with disabilities are eligible for
the McKay Scholarship that offers vouchers to attend a private school (Florida Department of
Education, 2020). Florida is a trailblazer on teacher salary reform using student performance to
offer the maximum raises to teachers with optimal results or most improvement from their
students comparable to how the private sector would offer performance reviews with bonuses.
The pay for performance reward system in Florida awards bonuses for teachers who attain
student gains and proficiency and also teachers who increase the number of students who pass
advanced placement courses, which has led to an increase in both student passing and
participation rates on advanced placement exams (Florida Department of Education, 2020).!
Prior to 2011, the state adopted teacher evaluation system in Florida was the Florida
Performance Measurement System (FPMS). The FPMS was the main instrument for teacher
evaluation and gave a valid and reliable method to observe teacher behaviors (Lavely et al.,
1994). Peterson, Kromrey, Micceri, & Smith (1987) affirmed that the FPMS instrument was!
valid and reliable and permitted objective “coding and analysis of lessons” (p. 144). However, on
the FPMS instrument, teachers were rated as either effective or less effective, but not ineffective.!
!
!
!
!
!
15!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
As a result, the FPMS was not a growth model and lacked a focus on student proficiency and
growth. Further, MacMillan and Pendlebury (1985) opine that the Florida Performance
Measurement System was a widespread effort to transform research on instruction into real-
world application for professional development, assessing, and compensating teachers but
missed the target because of an absence of the intrinsic values in instruction that neglected the
passion of teaching.!
“Section 1012.34, Florida statutes requires that school districts implement personnel
evaluations that are based on several criteria, one of which is the performance of each educator's
students. The law allows the commissioner to select a statewide model that is based on learning
growth, so that educators can be credited with improving student learning regardless of how
much the student knows when he/she first enters a teacher's classroom using a measure that is
consistent across districts. There are a number of ways to measure learning growth. The Student
Growth Implementation Committee recommended, and the Commissioner of Education
approved using a value-added model (VAM) to measure learning growth for purposes of teacher
evaluation, in part because of the model's capacity to reflect an individual educator's!
contribution to that learning growth. VAM results, along with the other components in districts'
personnel evaluation systems, provide a tool for districts to more accurately evaluate teacher and
principal performance” (Florida Department of Education, 2020).!
For a majority of teachers, the student proficiency and growth portion of the total
evaluation is based on student achievement on local assessments created or chosen by the
teacher, school leader or district. While these assessments create student data, they are not used
to yield VAM scores. A minor group of teachers’ evaluations are centered on their students’
performance on a statewide End-of-Course (EOC) assessment. These include Algebra 1,!
!
!
16!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Geometry, Civics, Biology 1 and U.S. History. In these circumstances, the state provides raw
student growth scores to districts for these courses but does not provide VAM scores.!
Samuel (2015) asserts that the Marzano Focused Teacher framework that was state adopted in!
!
2011 is formulated on the research of Dr. Robert J. Marzano. Dr. Marzano is the author of over!
!
150 articles and 30 books on the vast field of education to work alongside educators to interpret
and address unique needs and goals for enhancing the future of their students (Marzano
Research, 2019). Marzano (2012) concludes that teacher evaluation models have two paramount
purposes, which are assessing and improving teachers.!
Leadership impact on student proficiency and growth.!
!
The Marzano Focused School Leadership Evaluation Model is grounded on thorough
research in effective educational leadership. Blase and Blase (2000) postulate that effective
school leaders offer opportunities through professional development that infuse the study of
professional literature and successful programs, implementation of new skills, peer coaching,
utilize action research concentrated on student data, and monitor the effect of innovative
strategies on students. The Marzano Focused School Leadership framework stems from surveys
on school leader competencies that influence student proficiency and growth. Superior results
are attained when principals inspire school staff to dynamically analyze data for improving
results (Zmuda et al., 2004).!
Leadership impact on instructional practice level.!
!
The research base of the Marzano School Focused Leader Evaluation Model is
extensive. Carbaugh et al. (2015) postulate that the research defining the Marzano Focused
School Leader Evaluation Model was extracted from four critical contemporary and historical
research documents about school leadership:!
!
!
17!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(1) The Wallace Study conducted and issued conjointly by the Center for Applied
Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI) at the University of Minnesota and the
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto (Louis, Leithwood,
Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010);!
(2) The 2011 study of What Works in Oklahoma Schools (Marzano Research Laboratory,
2011) conducted by Marzano Research Laboratory with the Oklahoma State Department of
Education over the 2009-2010 and the 2010-2011 school years;!
(3) The Marzano, Waters, and McNulty meta-analysis of school leadership published in!
!
2005 in School Leadership that Works; and!
!
(4) The Marzano study of school effectiveness published in 2003 in What Works in!
!
Schools.!
!
The report sponsored by the Wallace Foundation, Learning from Leadership:
Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning, is the pivotal analysis of the relationship
between school leader actions and behaviors and student academic achievement. The report
ratified through quantitative data that effective school leadership is interrelated to student
achievement and determined that school leaders (principals) assume the predominant role in
leadership, while "collective leadership" shared among stakeholders such as teachers are
contributing roles. It was also discovered that instructional leadership aimed at pedagogical
improvement has a substantial ancillary impact on student proficiency and growth.!
Furthermore, the researchers noted that there are leadership effects on student learning
because effective leadership bolsters teacher commitment in the professional community and
enhances the school climate, which results in instructional practices that are linked to student
proficiency and growth. The report established that school leaders have a philosophical!
!
!
18!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
influence on school culture and that continuous student learning culture produces results in
improved student achievement (Carbaugh et al., 2015).!
The Marzano Focused School Leadership Evaluation Model classifies twenty-one
elements of principal activities and behaviors that have been ordered into six domains.
Accompanying scales with exemplary evidence of success have been established. “When
principals and school administrators empower and support teachers and promote a school-wide
emphasis on student academic growth, the quality of achievement for students, teachers,
schools, and communities improves" (Marzano et al., 2005). Thus, it is essential to develop
effective educational leaders with leadership philosophies that focus on improving student
academic achievement.!
According to Carbaugh et al. (2015), a summary of the domains and elements are as!
!
follows:!
!
§ Domain 1 – A Data-Driven Focus on School Improvement (3 elements)!
!
§!Domain 2 – Instruction of a Viable and Guaranteed Curriculum (5
elements)!
§ Domain 3 – Continuous Development of Teachers and Staff (3 elements)!
!
§ Domain 4 – Community of Care and Collaboration (4 elements)!
!
§ Domain 5 – Core Values (3 elements)!
!
§ Domain 6 – Resource Management (3 elements)!
!
Leadership Philosophies!
!
Trait theory.!
!
There has been a constant debate on classifying leadership as a trait, skill, or behavior.!
!
According to Bryman (1992), researchers have shifted to their focus on the impact of traits. In!
!
!
!
19!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
the trait theory, certain traits were prevalent in effective leadership, and there was the belief that
traits were contingent on the environment. There is a robust body of knowledge that supports the
research of the trait theory (Northouse, 2018). As a result, it has the most acclaim and gained the
title of the oldest body of research. The presence of personality traits as an emergent research
concept emphasizes primarily on the traits displayed with the leader at the epicenter of the
leadership process. Principals are in a strategic position to encourage teacher effectiveness
through observations and conversations with teachers (Cooper et al., 2005). However, the pitfall
in the trait theory is the uncertainty of how to enact school leadership practices on the spot to
resolve issues that arise.!
Situational leadership theory.!
!
The Situational Leadership Theory presumes that the effectiveness of a leader is
influenced by the potential and eagerness of the subordinates to finish assigned responsibilities
(Blanchard, 1985). Thus, the Situational Leadership Theory is an infusion of job-oriented and
personnel-oriented qualities that are determined by the issue and participating subordinates.
School leaders of high-achieving schools exude confidence that their schools can achieve their
goals (Cotton, 2003). Northouse (2018) asserts that the Situational Leadership Theory prioritizes
the ability of the leader to “match their style to the competence and commitment of their
subordinates" (p. 95). Thus, the subordinates' readiness level increases to adjusts to the leader's
approach and inclination to lead, which are essential characteristics of effective leadership.!
The situational leadership theory can be applied to school leadership at the beginning of
the school year. If a school leader were to utilize the situational leadership theory, there would
be a need to get a feeling of the school’s surroundings. Schools usually have new and returning
faculty and staff so the school leader would need to modify how to lead familiar and non-!
!
!
20!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
familiar people. The school leader might want to take a mild approach to change until specific
subordinate strengths and areas of growth are identified. As the school year progresses and the
school leader becomes more familiar with the faculty and staff, the leadership style may change
to further propel the faculty and staff. The school leader’s leadership style may vary between the
beginning of the school year and towards the end as well as between diagnostic assessment and
high-stakes standardized testing periods.!
The path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.!
!
The Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness incorporates leader and motivational
research (House, 1996). This model suggests that leaders have an impact on results through
motivation in terms of outcome and gratification. House (1996) engineered four concepts. The
first concept postulated that leaders motivate subordinates by expanding the results from targets
and streamlining the strategies to achieve the desired results. School leaders should observe
classrooms to effectively oversee and support curriculum implementation and instructional
practices (Fink & Resnick, 2001; Ruebling et al., 2004). The second concept involves providing
clarity in the path-goal relationship in order for the leader's actions to impact motivating
subordinates to fulfill their duties. The third concept advances that if the path-goal relationship
has clarity, then controls will negatively impact the fulfillment of subordinates. The fourth
concept assumes that the behavior of the leader focuses on expanding output if satisfaction was
connected to targets.!
Transactional leadership.!
!
The base of Transactional Leadership is built on participant interchanges, where the
focus is the relationship between the leader and follower (Northouse, 2018). The Transactional
Leadership Theory highlights task-linked exchanges and perks between the leader and the!
!
!
21!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
subordinate. It is essential to differentiate between management and leadership to grasp an
understanding of the transactional leadership theory. Moreover, there are two meaningful kinds
of transactional leadership actions: contingent-reward and management by exception.!
Contingent-rewards actions equate to affirmative criticisms from the leader to the
subordinate, whereas contingent retribution entails different kinds of dissenting feedback from
the leader to the subordinate. Contingent-rewards actions are the arrangement development
between the leader and the subordinate to arrive at an approval upon restitution (Northouse,
2018). Further, Northouse (2018) points out that transactional leaders apply the contingent-
rewards practice such as incentives, employee appreciation, and the point system to honor
subordinates. Principals need to utilize the capability of teacher leaders in their schools to
augment improvement efforts and outcomes (Marks & Printy, 2003). Transactional leaders
expend sustaining elevated organizational security. Also, transactional leaders seek minor
rivalries because of the elevated magnitude of environmental durability.!
Transformational leadership.!
!
Burns (1978) differentiated between transactional and transformative leadership.
According to Burns (1978), transformative leadership happens “when one or more persons
engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of
motivation and morality" (p. 20). Transformational leaders impact effective change in
individuals while using charismatic qualities and behaviors (Northouse, 2018). Thus, leaders
who display transformational leadership traits have a robust collection of personal values and
are useful in motivating people to sustain the greater good over self-interests (Northouse, 2018).
Transformational leaders focus their energies on the pleasure of the desires of their subordinates!
!
!
!
!
!
22!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
and their personal desires, and as a result, act as agents to ensure that those desires and needs
come to fruition.!
Transformational leaders satisfy lower-level needs, in the beginning, to eventually
satisfy higher needs later on. Consequently, the leader and subordinate are liberated to "better
selves" and thus, transformational leaders exude ethical leadership to the society level at large
but also the organizational and individualized levels (Burns, 1978, pp. 29-46). Leadership was
perceived as an ethical process since the interaction between the leader and subordinates
contributes to ethical goals and values to ensure a symbiotic relationship where the leader's and
subordinates' authentic somatic, intellectual, metaphysical, and fiscal needs are met.
Transformational leadership can be displayed by everyone, regardless of organizational or
positional power. Transformational leadership encompasses the peer influence of the leader or
subordinate and happens in simple daily routines (Burns, 1978).!
Transformational leaders are generally distinguished based on the leader's effect on
subordinates (Bass, 1985). This results in the subordinates enduring grandiose emotions of faith,
respect, and devotion toward the leader that surpass initial expectations. Transformational
leaders motivate subordinates to become task-oriented and focus on the achievement of the
upper-level group or organizational goals above individualized interests. Effective school!
leaders also function as participatory learners with their staff (Prestine & Nelson, 2003). The
leader stimulates highly emotive connections with subordinates to foster a secure connection.
Bass (1985) distinguishes two transactional leadership characteristics: management by exception
and contingent reward, in addition to four primary elements of transformational leadership:
idealized influence or charisma, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and indi-
vidualized consideration.!
!
!
23!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Transactional leadership vs. transformational leadership.!
!
Burns (1978) deduced that transactional leadership and transformational leadership are at
divergent sides of a continuum. On the contrary, Bass (1985) proposed that transformational
leadership supplements the outcome of transactional leadership. As a result, the augmentation
effect advanced that through assessing transformational leadership actions, a higher level of
accuracy can be attained in forecasting applicable criteria than only trusting in transactional
leadership. The abstractions of transformational leadership suggested by Burns (1978) and Bass
(1985) have similarities. For instance, each theory analyzed the interest domains of leaders. Bass
focused on job groupings, whereas Burns focused on global leaders. Further, each researcher!
was convinced that change in the leader and subordinate results from transformation.!
!
While there were several similarities, Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) had extreme
differences in viewpoints. Burns (1978) viewed transformational leadership at the divergent side
of a continuum from transactional leadership. In contrast, Bass (1985) opines that leaders!
display a series of patterns of transactional and transformative leadership at different levels.
Transactional leaders improve the confidence of subordinates by increasing how much results
are worth, elevating the value of outcomes, adjusting a subordinate's level of needs, or
emphasizing an unparalleled interest. Besides, the measure for deciding leader effectiveness is
varied. Burns (1978) investigates global leaders and marginalizes his discerning of
transformational leaders to sophisticated individuals that surpass relativistic morals, allure the
upper-level needs of subordinates, and participate in activities that improve humanity.!
On the contrary, Bass (1985) scrutinizes all leaders who focus on group or organizational
outcomes and states that transformational leaders need motivational techniques to improve the
goal attainment of subordinates. Furthermore, there is a disparity in transformational leadership!
!
!
24!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
eligibility. Burns (1978) declares that transformational actions occur if it is advantageous to
society. However, Bass (1985) expounds that transformational leadership actions increase
results that surpass goals and expectations, and a transformational leader is the catalyst for this
improvement in results. Moreover, there are differences in frames of reference, ethics, and
global viewpoints. Bass (1985) focuses on increasing outcomes through the use of higher value
strategies. In contrast, Burns (1978) upstages relativistic results-based values and group or
organizational margins by enticing layers of moral progress.!
Servant leadership.!
!
Servant leaders are goal-oriented and coach subordinates towards goal attainment. The
leader gains respect and trust from subordinates, leads by example, and communicates
effectively in a positive work environment (Maxwell, 2005, p. 213). “Servant leadership is the
natural feeling that one has of desiring to serve others. It seeks to develop individuals who
ensure that others’ needs are met, and advocates a group-oriented approach to decision-making
as a means of strengthening institutions and society” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 13).!
Servant leadership can build from accomplishments in the business sector. Bass (2000)
opined that servant leadership has home in educational settings because servant leadership is
centered on cooperation and society, and embroiling others in decision-making is powerfully
based in ethical and caring conduct that improves the development on people in the educational
setting. Credence in the views of servant leadership as a real-world approach for school
communities has increased among educators in the past twenty years (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002).
Crippen (2005) contends that although several studies have examined the servant leadership
philosophy, the body of research associated with servant leadership in the educational setting is
comparatively insignificant. In the era of accountability, school leaders must place much more!
!
!
25!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
importance on cooperation, cultivating professional development, building leadership capacity
in faculty and staff in addition to aligning resources to maximize student impact and
achievement (King, 2002). Sergiovanni (2001) and Lambert (2004) assert that faculty desire
leadership that emphasizes servant leadership over supervision and can be a change agent in
overall school transformation the age of accountability where educators and school leaders are
driven by student-based results.!
Nevertheless, a school that is underperforming or plagued by calamity would require a
more transactional style of leadership that is commanding and orderly to steady it before starting
to foster an egalitarian school culture. Although time-consuming and at times exhausting for the
leader, it encourages a growth mindset for subordinates who follow the leader and has the!
utmost confidence in their superior's leadership ability. The servant leadership methodology
reinforces the school leader as the instructional leadership expert of the school and impactful to
educational transformation. School leaders need to cultivate leadership development in
subordinates to maximize resources to increase student achievement. The servant school leader
is an important component of school effectiveness. Effective school leaders model behaviors
that they expect to be emulated by their staff (Marzano et al., 2005).!
Qualities of an Effective Leader!
!
Maxwell (2005) proposed seven elements to transmit a clear vision to subordinates:
clarity, connection, purpose, goals, challenges, stories, and passion. Principals need to have a
clear vision for their schools (Manasse, 1985; Zmuda et al., 2004). An effective leader needs
clarity in communication. According to Maxwell (2005), if the vision is unclear, the
subordinates will not be clear on their tasks and noted the importance of aspiring people to
understand what they are doing. An effective leader supports consistency in the instructional!
!
!
26!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
program where teachers and students follow a shared curriculum framework (Leithwood &!
!
Riehl, 2003). There also has to be a secure connection to the vision, and although it is forward-
thinking, the past of the organization needs to be understood to "validate those people who have
worked hard and sacrificed to build what already exists" (Maxwell, 2005, p. 250).!
Another essential quality of an effective leader is purpose. The vision should be
challenging and have a purpose to keep the focus to make changes along the way. "Purpose tells
them (followers) why they should go" (Maxwell, 2005, p. 250). Creating goals is also a vital
component in effectively communicating the vision. "If vision doesn't require people to stretch,
they may wonder if it is worthy of their dedication" (Maxwell, 2005, p. 251). An exigent vision
inspires subordinates to have a growth mindset and compels the inactive subordinates to leave.
Principals of academically high performing schools communicate to all stakeholders that
learning is the school's most urgent mission (Cotton, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005).!
Storytelling is a forum for leaders to communicate the vision effectively. Stories that
encompass bring a vision to fruition give subordinates a means to relate the vision to their
personal lives and make it more meaningful. Passion is the last facet of effectively
communicating a vision. "It can make the vision come to life and help gain the assistance of
those still on the fence" (Maxwell, 2005, p. 251). It is imperative in navigating challenging
issues but promotes a climate of hard work and endurance.!
Leadership impact on narrowing historical achievement gaps.!
!
Leadership is intricate to define and growing in popularity around the world. The
majority of leadership definitions include the common thread that "leadership is an influence
process that assists groups of individuals towards goal attainment" (Northouse, 2018, p. 15). The
notion of what makes an effective leader is evolving, and businesses are continually searching!
!
!
27!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
for leaders to enhance their companies and increase productivity. Degree programs in leadership
serve to equip aspiring leaders with skills to navigate complex situations to meet organizational
goals. Accomplishing school goals involves individual and shared efforts (Kyrtheotis &!
Pashiardis, 1998b).!
!
Further, Burns (1978) proposed transformative leadership and stated that leadership is
evident "when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers
raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality" (p. 83). Thus, transformative
leadership is an agent for immense organizational and personnel change. Effective leadership is
vital to increase workers' expertise in knowledge, problem-solving, and charisma to increase
output. Thus, leadership is credited as a critical component to organizational affluence,
mediocrity, or collapse (March & Weil, 2005; Northouse, 2018). An understanding of leadership
as a process is essential in developing leadership skills for all employees. Ruben and Gigliotti
(2017) postulate that leadership is influential and affective between the leader and the
employees. Professional development opportunities serve to foster professional expertise. It is
understood that some individuals, because of their past experiences, maybe better suited for
specific leadership positions. However, professional leadership development and college-level
leadership courses can be used to improve the leadership skills of all leaders regardless of past
experiences.!
There are ramifications of gaps in academic achievement among racial and
socioeconomic groups in the United States. There must be an understanding of the historical
perspective in order to discuss improvement efforts within the social, educational context to
influence educational reform efforts involving school accountability. D'Amico (2001) proposed
that the achievement gap is evident in a multitude of educational success indicators that include!
!
!
28!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
grades, test scores, dropout rates, college entrance/completion rates, and in every kind of school
district and socioeconomic group.!
Recent reconstructing initiatives reverberate with the sentiments of a parent whose
description of the school system as an assembly line "of uncompleted Ford cars in the factory,
moving always on, with a screw put in or a burr tightened as they pass—standardized,
mechanical, pitiful" (Haley, 1924, quoted in Darling-Hammond, 1997, p. 41). In reviewing the
historical literature, Dewey (1938) explains the elements that have a direct effect on the daily
interactions of teachers and students. Dewey opines that there is a need for teachers to have a
high level of community involvement to enrich learning interactions to make them increasingly
rigorous and meaningful. Dewey recommends that the interconnection between the knowledge
of experience and new knowledge is significant and relevant to the learning process.!
Self-Efficacy in Andragogy!
!
Adult learning opportunities have a plethora of definitions. Belanger and Tuijnman
(1997) propose that adult learning opportunities are optional and lifelong. On the contrary,
Cervero (1989) argues that adult learning opportunities are central to professional development
or training. According to Kim, Hagedorn, Williamson, and Chapman (2004), adult learning
opportunities, as defined by The National Center for Education Statistics, are two-fold: about
optional and lifelong learning opportunities in addition to ongoing professional growth courses.!
Clardy (2005) interprets andragogy as educational practices pertinent to adults.
Andragogy serves as a configuration for choosing instructional experiences to equip aspiring
leaders with the tools to be effective leaders. According to McCauley, Hammer, & Hinojosa
(2017), “they offer examples of leadership instructional tools that align with andragogical
assumptions and provide suggestions for scaling these assignments and activities to address!
!
!
29!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
students' learning needs at different stages of adulthood.” Thus, the aspiring leader is scaffolded
to gauge their current leadership level and engage their leadership knowledge and skills to
promote active learning and relevant experiences. Principals need to tap the expertise of teacher
leaders in their schools in order to enhance improvement efforts and results (Marks & Printy,
2003).!
An emotional connection facilitates remembrance so that aspiring leaders can reflect on
their teaching practice. It can be debated that adults have specific learning habits, which can
impact their learning. It is always a good idea to share how the activity would enhance their
overall self-learning and ensure that it is adult appropriate and where the content and learning
goals align with each other.!
Knowles (1968, p. 351) suggested that andragogy is "a new label and a new
technology" to differentiate it from early childhood education. This was oppositional to
pedagogy since it encompassed the methodology of adult learning. Knowles (1980, p. 44-45)
espouses the following:!
1. “As a person matures, his or her self-concept moves from that of a dependent!
!
personality toward one of a self-directing human being.!
!
2. An adult accumulates a growing reservoir of experience, which is a precious!
!
resource for learning.!
!
3. The readiness of an adult to learn is closely related to the developmental tasks!
!
of his or her social role.!
!
4. There is a change in time perspective as people mature - from future!
!
application of knowledge to immediacy of application. Thus, an adult is more!
!
problem-centered than subject-centered in learning."!
!
!
!
30!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
In subsequent publications, Knowles made an addendum by adding two more!
!
presumptions:!
!
5. “The most potent motivations are internal rather than external (Knowles, 1984,!
!
p. 12).!
!
6. Adults need to know why they need to learn something (Knowles, 1984).”!
!
However, even though andragogy is a base for understanding adult learners, some are
not proponents of this theory. Merriam (2001) discusses two of these critiques: firstly, it is
debatable if it is categorically a theory of adult learning and, secondly, the likelihood if the!
beliefs apply to all adults throughout that time. After being criticized, Knowles (1984) conceded
that andragogy was not a learning theory; instead, it is a "model of assumptions about learning
or a conceptual framework that serves as a basis for an emergent theory." In other words, there
is a possibility that adult learners can be instructor-dependent for direction based on their
mastery.!
The adult learning theory.!
!
The Adult Learning Theory offers presumptions for understanding the optimal learning
environment for adults (Zuga, 1999). There must be a comprehensive understanding of how
adults learn in terms of knowledge acquisition and enjoyment of learning to create the most
meaningful climate for learning. It is equally important to ensure that the instructional level
adheres to the andragogical framework and meets the needs of adult learners. Nesbit (2001)
supports Knowles' model of andragogy in that adult learners have specific demands as when
contrasted to younger students, but Merriam (2001) argues that andragogy neglects to recognize
the sociocultural influence on the adult learner.!
!
!
!
!
!
31!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
According to Stokes (2006), there is an excess of 90 million adult learners who are 25
years or older that are enrolled in higher education. This is in direct response to the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2004) report that estimated that within the
next twenty years, 80% of all new jobs would need a higher education credential. Learners need
to find their best learning environment to effectively adhere to the cultural, fiscal, and
competitive needs of the US.!
Historical trainings in self-efficacy in andragogy.!
!
In the dynamic fields of educational leadership for school leaders and pedagogy for
educators, there needs to be a paradigm shift from traditional pedagogy and andragogy to more
innovative ways to engage the 21st-century technology-savvy student and adult learner. Kerka
(1999) proposed that younger generations of students and teachers made the internet a norm and
were on the cutting edge of self-directed learning.!
According to Merriam et al. (2007), "the linear models often reflect more traditional
ways of thinking about teaching." Today, there is an increased rigor and transformative learning
paradigm shift of the elevated Florida Standards for aspiring administrators. The school grade
calculation infuses the new Florida Standards Assessments (FSA), where every school is
assigned a letter grade of A, B, C, D, or F annually, based on various grading criteria (Florida
Department of Education, 2019). Merriam et al. (2007) "offered a detailed discussion of its key
components: the centrality of experience, the process of critical reflection, and transformative
learning's link to adult development."!
Instruction must be differentiated for students to be accommodated at their readiness
level. Teacher professional development provides more significant opportunities for dialogue,
reflection, and online learning plans that cater to reflective practice and self-directed learning of!
!
!
32!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
teachers. Merriam et al. (2007) support this reflection-on-action to process a situation after it has
occurred to determine if the best possible solution was reached.!
Current trainings in self-efficacy in andragogy.!
!
In the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida, USA, the Deliberate Practice
framework is utilized for instructional staff and educational leaders via the Professional Growth
Plan (PGP). Deliberate Practice is a means for teachers and educational leaders to enhance their
expertise through structured, reflective, and collaborative activities. It involves a systematic
approach of formulating personal goals, focused practice with prescriptive feedback, observing
and discussing best practices in teaching and leadership practices, and progress monitoring (The
School District of Palm Beach County, Professional Development Deliberate Practice, 2019).
Thus, Deliberate Practice challenges teachers and educational leaders to attain innovative levels
of mastery by increasing the rigor of current practices to achieve the desired effect. Effective
principals rely on the expertise of teacher leaders to enhance school effectiveness (Leithwood et
al., 2004). All instructional staff and educational leaders in a district must have similar
descriptions of effective teaching methodologies.!
Besides, all educational leaders should have effective leadership methodologies. This
conventional description must not be confined to a checklist of strategies for classroom and
building utilization and should be broad enough to reflect the variety of actions that can impact
student learning in a positive manner (City et al., 2009; Marzano, 2010). It is recommended that
instructional staff, with the support of an educational leader, chooses a couple of strategies to
improve, and one routine, content, and enacted on the spot strategy should be chosen yearly for
improvement. It is also recommended that the educational leader, with the support of a higher
rank educational leader (such as a Principal if the educational leader is an Assistant Principal!
!
!
33!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
and an Area Superintendent if the educational leader is a Principal), also chooses a couple of
strategies to improve, and one routine, content and enacted on the spot strategy should be chosen
yearly for improvement.!
Monitoring school leader and teacher progress.!
!
According to Marzano (2007), monitoring teacher and educational leader progress in the
chosen strategies call for a description of performance levels regarding the strategies. Each scale
delineates five performance levels: Not using (1), Beginning (2), Developing (3), Applying (4),
and Innovating (5). "Not using" means that the strategy is necessary, but the teacher or
educational leader is not utilizing the strategy. "Beginning" means that the teacher or!
educational leader is misusing the strategy or with errors. "Developing" means that the teacher!
!
or educational leader is using the strategy appropriately but in an automated manner. "Applying"
means that the target level for expertise has been reached by the teacher or educational leader
without errors while simultaneously monitoring for the desired effect on teachers or students.
"Innovative" means that the strategy has reached the desired effect and tailored to the unique
needs of every teacher or student. The performance system must contain a developmental scale
or rubric to progress monitor school leader and teacher development (Marzano et al., 2011).!
This last component of deliberate practice aims to reveal other teaching and leadership
strategies for non-evaluative comparisons for professional growth. This includes instructional
rounds in classrooms or the use of videotaping innovative use of specific strategies that have
achieved the desired effect and giving teachers and educational leaders the time to collaborate
on what effective strategies look like and create a plan of action to foster an atmosphere of
continual learning and improvement. In order for pedagogy and andragogy to be improved,
deliberate practice must occur in a systematic way (Marzano, 2010). Clardy (2005) proposes!
!
!
34!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
that there is an adult-child assistive relationship to bring the child to maturity in pedagogy. In
contrast, one adult helps in the self-actualization and growth of an adult learner.!
Knowles (1984) found the Eight Process-Components of an Andragogical Process
Design, which focuses on having the adult learner involved in her/his self-directed learning plan.
This breaks from the corporate model of efficiency, where profit and output supersede the
learners' self-esteem and self-actualization. Merriam et al. (2007) agree with Maslow's hierarchy
of needs, where the motivation to learn is intrinsic and the desire for self-actualization.!
Adult learners can execute their professional development plans aligned with the
Principles of Andragogy and promote experiential learning through internships and group
experiences such as collaborative workshops to share best practices. According to Merriam et al.
(2007), earlier theories such as the behaviorist orientation that learning consists of numerous
single theories and forms the basis of adult learning, and the humanist orientation that looks at
the viewpoint of human growth potential.!
Knowles (1996) proposes that in a productive learning environment, continuous informal!
!
observations and useful descriptive feedback should be time-sensitive and targeted to remove
the stigma of stressful evaluations and may involve the use of evaluative questionnaires. For
educational leaders, this is extremely important because ineffective strategies and procedures
can be quickly eliminated, and the focus on student achievement and improving school climate
will occur.!
The learning contract is a crucial way of holding all stakeholders mutually accountable
for progress monitoring of goals to promote institutional effectiveness, where the instructor acts
in the role of advisor. "The learning contract is a means of reconciling [these] imposed
requirements from institutions and society with the learners' need to be self-directing. It enables!
!
!
35!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
them to blend these requirements in with their personal goals and objectives, to choose their
own ways of achieving them, and to measure their own progress toward achieving them"
(Knowles, 1975, p. 130).!
Henschke (2011) also agrees that the process of self-direction to be learned and
practiced. Suzanne Berry, Principal of Wynnebrook Elementary School in West Palm Beach,
Florida, USA, concurs that the self-directing strategy is highly effective with 100% of teachers
at her school and that the teachers have been trained on progress monitoring their own goals and
objectives. As a result, Wynnebrook Elementary School has been an A-rated school for 16 years
with an enrollment of 908 students, a 92% minority student population, and a 94% free and
reduced lunch rate (S. Berry, personal communication, July 2, 2019).!
Further, Suzanne Berry states that in the role of advisor, teachers are more receptive to
the mutual agreement and feel like it is more of a partnership rather than a directive when it
comes to taking ownership of their learning that will ultimately positively impact student
achievement. Informal observations are a quick way of determining the pulse of the complexity
level of instruction in classrooms. Teachers welcome the descriptive feedback with tips on how
to improve to achieve the desired effect (S. Berry, personal communication, July 2, 2019).!
Summary!
!
The literature on leadership impact on student proficiency, growth and instructional
practice level postulate that the implementation of the Marzano Focused School Leader and
Teacher Evaluation Models have an impact on school leader and teacher effectiveness more
precisely than prior models of school leader and teacher evaluation (Blase & Blase, 2000;
Zmuda et al., 2004; Carbaugh et al., 2015). A vast majority of Florida school districts apply the
Marzano Focused School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models. Practitioners need to!
!
!
36!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
implement the model with fidelity in order for it to be effective. With the rigidity of standards-
based accountability in the K-12 school system, the onus is on educators and administrators to
utilize research-based strategies to bridge the achievement gap to ensure that all students have
adequate and equitable access to quality public school education.!
It is critical to have a comprehensive understanding of adult knowledge acquisition and
learning satisfaction levels to foster a relevant culture of andragogy. This can be facilitated by
collaborating on an action plan for continuous improvement in learning to promote student
achievement. In order to enhance pedagogy and andragogy, deliberate practice needs to
eventuate in a methodical process such as internships and group experiences to share best
practices. There are implications of gaps in academic achievement among racial and
socioeconomic groups in the United States. There is a need for educational reform initiatives
from a socio-educational perspective and the need to investigate whether the Marzano Focused
School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models impacted school leader and teacher effectiveness
to increase student achievement and growth more precisely than prior evaluation models.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
37!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
CHAPTER III—METHODS!
!
Introduction!
!
The previous chapter examined leadership theories and concepts that have been studied
in tandem with the Marzano Focused School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models. The
literature discussed in the previous chapter is centered on a broad examination of the existing
literature in school administrator leadership. It is intended to be utilized with the Marzano
Focused Teacher Evaluation Model, which is based on the comprehensive instructional model,
the Art and Science of Teaching (Marzano, 2007; Marzano et al., 2011).!
The initial stage in the evaluation model was an analysis of the research on school
administrator competence. Based on the findings of the review of the research literature,
particular school leader actions and behaviors were recognized that have a relationship with
student achievement. The purpose of this study was to determine if the Marzano Focused
School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models enhanced the capability to establish school
leader and teacher effectiveness more precisely than prior models of school leader and teacher
evaluation. The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the study analyzed data to add to
preceding literature on the effectiveness of the Marzano Focused School Leader and Teacher
Evaluation Models. This chapter focused on the research paradigm, research design, data
collection, and data analysis.!
Research Paradigm!
!
This research study will use a quantitative methodology to explain, study details,
variables, sampling procedures, and data collection further. This quantitative, non-
experimental study will be conducted using data obtained from the Florida Standards
Assessments (FSA) Test Score Report for Grades 6-8 in all middle schools in the School!
!
!
38!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
District of Palm Beach County for the school year 2017-2018. Detailed school leader and
teacher data are reported in iObservation® after the observation, and it is determined if the
desired effect of the instructional practice was achieved or if there needs to be additional
strategies implemented to achieve the desired effect. Prescriptive feedback for instructional
improvement is given to the school leader and teacher.!
Research Design!
!
A quantitative methodology and non-experimental design were selected since the
educational leadership researcher wanted to investigate whether there was a relationship
between (a) two variables, student proficiency and growth, and teacher evaluation
performance and (b) student proficiency and growth and usage/number of standard
observations accounted for in the Marzano iObservation® system.!
The target population for this study will include pre-existing data of all students who
were enrolled in Grades 6-8 in all middle schools in the School District of Palm Beach County
(approximately 43,553 based on October 2017 Full-Time Equivalent or FTE) for the school
year 2017-2018 (Florida Department of Education, 2020).!
Additionally, the study will encompass existing data of all teachers assigned to teach
English Language Arts and/or Mathematics in Grades 6-8 in all middle schools in the School
District of Palm Beach County for the school year 2017-2018. Existing data will show that
school leaders conduct teacher observations in the fall and continue in the spring of the
academic year. Teachers are assessed through formal observations, informal observations,
and walkthroughs based on various dominant elements within the design questions and
domains. Data from the school year 2017-2018 will be accumulated from the student
assessment window, which runs from February - April 2018. The data were reported in May-!
!
!
39!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
June 2018. The observation data are released by the summer and reflect the students who were!
!
in the classes in the 2017-2018 school year.!
!
Data Analysis!
!
For Research Questions 1-2, a Pearson r will be performed to determine the
relationship between the variables of student achievement (English Language Arts and
Mathematics DSS scores) and teacher evaluation performance scores. A linear regression will
also be performed to examine predictability between the two variables: Predictor = teacher
instructional practice evaluation score and criterion = student achievement DSS score
(Steinberg, 2011; Spatz, 2011). For Research Questions 3-4, a Pearson r will be performed to
determine the relationship between the variables of student achievement (English Language
Arts and Mathematics DSS scores) and usage rates/number of standard observations computed
on the Marzano iObservation® system. A linear regression will also be performed to determine
predictability between the two variables: predictor = iObservation® usage/number of standard
observations and criterion = student achievement DSS scores (Steinberg, 2011; Spatz, 2011).!
Summary!
!
This chapter described the research paradigm, research design, data collection, and!
!
data analysis used in the study. A quantitative methodology and non-experimental design were
selected. Prior to beginning the research, the researcher will present a proposal and obtain
formal approval from the IRB at the University of the Cumberlands (Appendix A). Permission
to use the Marzano items will be obtained from Dr. Robert J. Marzano and Learning Sciences
International (LSI) (Appendices B, D and E). Approval from the Superintendent’s Research
Review Committee (made up of the Departments of Research and Evaluation and Professional!
!
!
!
!
!
40!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Growth) will be acquired from the School District of Palm Beach County (Appendix C) to!
!
conduct the study,!
!
Independent variables are teacher instructional practice performance level and the
quantity of standard observations computed on the Marzano iObservation® system. The FSA
corresponding grade level mean Developmental Scale Score (DSS) was the dependent variable
for each of the research questions in this study. A Pearson r will be performed to determine the
relationship between the variables of student achievement English Language Arts and
Mathematics school level mean scores, and the school level mean of teacher performance to
test whether a statistically significant difference exists. Linear regression will also be
performed to verify predictability between the predictor of teacher instructional practice score
and the criterion of student achievement scores.!
Student historical data will be accessed through the Department of Research and
Evaluation in School District of Palm Beach County. Teacher and administrator evaluation
data through the Marzano iObservation® system will be accessed through the Professional
Growth Department in the School District of Palm Beach County. Due to the use of teacher
and administrator evaluations, the study is delimited to school-level data. All information will
have teacher and administrator identifiers redacted due to contractual issues and
confidentiality. The educational leadership researcher will not be conducting observations.
The Professional Growth Department in the School District of Palm Beach County will assist
in the retrieval of usage/numbers of standard observations stored in the Marzano
iObservation® system.!
The methods used to perform the study have been discussed in this chapter. There are!
!
detailed descriptions of the research paradigm, research design and data analyses. Chapter 4!
!
!
!
!
41!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
encompasses the results of the Pearson r and Linear Regression analyses conducted to respond
to the research questions. Chapter 5 offers a summary of the study findings, research
implications, and recommendations for additional study.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
42!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
CHAPTER IV—ANALYSIS OF DATA!
!
Introduction!
!
The study was conducted to investigate whether the Marzano Focused School Leader
and Teacher Evaluation Models impacted school leader and teacher effectiveness to increase
student proficiency and growth more precisely than prior evaluation models in three large
suburban school districts in South Florida. The data analysis is accessible in this chapter. This
chapter is apportioned into three parts: (a) Population Description, (b) Testing the Research
Questions and Hypotheses Questions 1-4, and (c) Summary.!
Population Description!
!
The target population for this study will include pre-existing data of all students who
were enrolled in Grades 6-8 in all middle schools in the School District of Palm Beach County
(approximately 43,553 based on October 2017 Full-Time Equivalent or FTE) for the school
year 2017-2018 (Florida Department of Education, 2020).!
Testing the Research Questions and Hypotheses!
!
1.!What is the relationship between student proficiency and growth as!
!
measured by the developmental scale mean scores on FSA English Language Arts for sixth-
grade, seventh-grade, and eighth-grade students, and the instructional practice school level
mean of teacher performance as measured by the Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model?!
H01.!There is a relationship between student proficiency and growth as!
!
measured by the developmental scale mean scores on FSA English Language Arts for sixth-
grade, seventh-grade, and eighth-grade students, and the instructional practice school level
mean of teacher performance as measured by the Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model.!
!
!
!
!
!
43!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
In order to determine the predictive relationship of instructional practice school level mean of
teacher performance on FSA English Language Arts for sixth-grade, seventh-grade, and eighth-
grade students, a regression analysis was utilized. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient was
found to be 0.318. There is a correlation. The p-value was found to be less than 0.00001, which
is less than 0.05. Thus, we reject the null hypothesis and accept that a positive correlation exists
between the average instructional practice scores and the mean scale score.!
2.!What is the relationship between student proficiency and growth as!
!
measured by the developmental scale mean scores on FSA Mathematics or corresponding EOC
assessment for sixth-grade, seventh grade and eighth-grade students, and the instructional
practice school level mean of teacher performance as measured by Marzano Focused Teacher
Evaluation Model?!
H02.!There is a relationship between student proficiency and growth as!
!
measured by the developmental scale mean scores on FSA Mathematics or corresponding EOC
assessment for sixth-grade, seventh grade and eighth-grade students, and the instructional
practice school level mean of teacher performance as measured by Marzano Focused Teacher
Evaluation Model. In order to determine the predictive relationship of instructional practice
school level mean of teacher performance on FSA Math or corresponding EOC for sixth-grade,
seventh-grade, and eighth-grade students, a regression analysis was utilized. The Pearson’s
correlation coefficient was found to be 0.159. There is a linear regression. The p-value was
found to be less than 0.00001 and thus the test was statistically significant. Thus, we reject the
null hypothesis. Hence there exists a weak positive correlation between the average
instructional practice scores and the mean scale score for FSA Mathematics or corresponding
EOC assessment.!
!
!
!
44!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
3.!What is the relationship between student proficiency and growth as!
!
measured by the developmental scale mean scores on FSA English Language Arts for sixth-
grade, seventh-grade and eighth-grade students and the usage/number of Standard Observations
on the Marzano iObservation® system used by school leaders in middle schools in a large
suburban school district in South Florida?!
H03.!There is a relationship between student proficiency and growth as!
!
measured by the developmental scale mean scores on FSA English Language Arts for sixth-
grade, seventh-grade and eighth-grade students and the usage/number of Standard Observations
on the Marzano iObservation® system used by school leaders in middle schools in a large
suburban school district in South Florida. There is a weak positive correlation between
usage/number of standard observations because the Pearson’s correlation coefficient was found
to be 0.198. There is a linear regression. The p-value was found to be less than 0.00001, which
is less than 0.05. Thus, the test was statistically significant. Hence, there is a weak positive
correlation between the usage/number of standard observations and the mean scale score in
ELA.!
4.!What is the relationship between student proficiency and growth as!
!
measured by the developmental scale mean scores on FSA Mathematics or corresponding EOC
assessment for sixth-grade, seventh-grade and eighth-grade students and the usage/number of
Standard Observations on the Marzano iObservation® system used by school leaders in middle
schools in a large suburban school district in South Florida?!
H04.!There is no relationship between student proficiency and growth as!
!
measured by the developmental scale mean scores on FSA Mathematics or corresponding EOC
assessment for sixth-grade, seventh-grade and eighth-grade students and the usage/number of!
!
!
!
45!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Standard Observations on the Marzano iObservation® system used by school leaders in middle
schools in a large suburban school district in South Florida. There is a weak positive correlation
between usage/number of standard observations because the Pearson’s correlation coefficient
was found to be 0.123. There is a linear regression. The p-value was found to be less than
0.00001, which is less than .05. Thus, the test was statistically significant. Hence, there is a
weak positive correlation between the usage/number of standard observations and the mean
scale score in Math or the corresponding EOC.!
Summary!
!
The data analysis has been discussed in this chapter with a population description,
proceeded by the presentation of results of the Pearson r, and linear regression analyses used to
answer the 4 research questions. Chapter 5 consists of an introduction, study summary,
discussion of the findings, practical implications, and suggestions for additional study.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
46!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
CHAPTER V—SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction!
The standardized assessment system in Florida is closely associated with the
curriculum to ensure that rigorous coursework is taught, and student achievement occurs
(Florida Department of Education, 2020). This study adds to the research base of the
accountability system for K-12 students and assesses the effectiveness of standards-based
accountability measures for teachers and educational leaders. Teacher Evaluation systems are
intended to enable school leaders to differentiate between levels of teacher performance
impartially and empirically, and equally important is the practice of enhancing pedagogy to
enact instructional changes to meet the rigor of high-stakes assessments (Marzano et al., 2005;
Waters et al., 2003).!
This chapter consists of a summary, conclusions of the study, relevance and
implications for future study. The summary is ordered by grade level that allows the summary
of the findings related to the English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Florida
Standards Assessment (FSA) or corresponding End-of-Course (EOC) developmental scale!
scores (DSS) and instructional practice and observation mean data analysis for Grades 6, 7 and!
!
8. Practical implications and proposals for future study are presented.!
!
Purpose of the Study!
!
This study aims to investigate whether the Marzano Focused School Leader and
Teacher Evaluation Models impacted school leader and teacher effectiveness increased student
achievement and growth more precisely than prior evaluation models.!
Summary of the Findings!
!
!
!
!
!
!
47!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Grade 6, 7 and 8: FSA ELA DSS and Instructional Practice Mean!
!
It was determined that the linear regression analysis indicated that instructional
practice was a statistically significant predictor of Grade 6, 7 and 8 FSA ELA performance.
There is a weak positive correlation between usage/number of standard observations.!
Grade 6, 7 and 8: FSA Mathematics or Corresponding EOC DSS and Instructional
Practice Mean!
It was determined that the linear regression analysis indicated that instructional practice
was a statistically significant predictor of Grade 6, 7 and 8 FSA Mathematics or corresponding
EOC performance.!
Grade 6, 7 and 8: FSA ELA DSS and Observation Mean!
!
It was determined that the linear regression analysis indicated there is a relationship
between student proficiency and growth as measured by the developmental scale mean scores
on FSA ELA. There is a weak positive correlation between usage/number of standard
observations.!
Grade 6, 7 and 8: FSA Mathematics or Corresponding EOC DSS and Observation
Mean!
It was determined that the linear regression analysis indicated there is a relationship
between student proficiency and growth as measured by the developmental scale mean scores
on FSA Mathematics or corresponding EOC assessment.!
Discussion!
!
It was determined that the linear regression analysis indicated that instructional
practice was a statistically significant predictor of Grade 6, 7 and 8 FSA ELA performance. It
was determined that the linear regression analysis indicated that instructional practice was a!
!
!
48!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
statistically significant predictor of Grade 6, 7 and 8 FSA. It was determined that the linear
regression analysis indicated there is a relationship between student proficiency and growth as
measured by the developmental scale mean scores on FSA Mathematics or corresponding
EOC assessment strong positive correlation between usage/number of standard observations.
These findings were based on preexisting data for one school year, and thus caution must be
taken when deducing these findings.!
Many researchers support the findings of the study. Teacher and school leader
evaluations have a trifold function: (1) to develop teacher instructional practice, (2) to enhance
school leader observations and inter-rater reliability, and (3) to increase student proficiency
and growth (Donaldson & Papay, 2014; Marzano & Toth, 2013). The Marzano Focused
Teacher Evaluation model is an appraisal system established on impartial standards-based
approaches and its system creates consistency for participants and streamlines teacher
evaluation (Marzano et al., 2005). This interactive approach accentuates discernible elements
with specific confirmations of efficacy to conclude scores and give prescriptive feedback for
instructional improvement. A deficiency in thorough and consistent training of evaluators can
skew the objectivity and reliability of any teacher and school leader evaluation system
(Stumbo & McWalters, 2011).!
The impact of effective school leadership on student proficiency and growth is evident
in the high level of engagement in professional learning communities that fosters collaboration
and enhances a student-focused culture (Marzano, 2007; Marzano et al., 2011). A positive
culture that is supportive at the individual classroom as well as the school improvement level
leads to increases in student achievement. Danielson (2011) asserts that even when evaluators!
!
!
!
!
!
49!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
are correctly trained, they still need multiple opportunities to exercise their skills and calibrate
their findings with peer school leaders to confirm inter-rater reliability. School leaders and
teachers require high-quality professional development on the evaluation processes to
guarantee that evaluations are accurate and impactful to pedagogy and student results
(Donaldson, 2009). It is critical that as the education profession evolves, new research-based
strategies are developed to ensure students are college and career ready. Teachers and school
leaders need to have a growth mindset when it comes to attaining feedback on pedagogy and
reflection on leadership practices to reach the desired effect to impact teacher, school leader
and school improvement goals (Marzano et al., 2005; Nelson et al., 2004; O'Day, 2002;
Smylie et al., 2003).!
Implications for Practice!
!
This study generated results that disclosed partial evidence of statistical significance
among observation, instructional practice, and FSA English Language Arts and Mathematics
or corresponding EOC performance. These findings can be purposeful and form the
framework of continuous professional development and training for school leaders and
teachers.!
Recommendations for implementation are:!
!
1.!Progress monitor FSA and EOC data in correlation to instructional
practice scores at the specific class level for statistical significance and
predictability between instructional practice scores and student
proficiency and growth.!
2.!Develop intentional pathways whereby school leaders can conduct!
!
!
!
!
!
!
50!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
administrative learning walks to calibrate teacher evaluation and
provide targeted and reflective feedback for instructional improvement
to achieve the desired effect of elements.!
3.!Observe class level data by grade level and instructional practice scores
to continuously monitor data trends for targeted instruction for
instructional remediation or acceleration.!
4.!Provide ongoing professional development and training for school
leaders on inter-rater reliability and teachers on deliberate practice to
improve pedagogy.!
Recommendations for Further Research!
!
Based on the data analysis from the study, the following recommendations are!
!
suggested for subsequent research:!
!
1.!Conduct a quantitative study focused on improving student performance
to investigate if there is an improvement in FSA ELA and Math or
corresponding EOC scores through the implementation of deliberate
practice of the Marzano Focused School Leader and Teacher Evaluation
Models.!
2.!A brief overview of the data highlighted a low level of variability
between the majority of teachers scoring a 3.0 (effective) and 4.0
(highly effective) on the Marzano Focused School Leader for deliberate
practice on a 4.0 scale. Thus, further studies need to be done to
determine focused professional development and perhaps incorporate a!
!
!
!
!
!
51!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
deliberate practice scale from 0 to 10 to make the scoring more
quantitative instead of relying on the school leader’s subjectivity.!
3.!Increase the length of the study to examine longitudinal data from the
last five years to observe data trends.!
4.!Conduct a study that is qualitative in nature to investigate the
implementation of the Marzano Focused School Leader and Teacher
Evaluation Models and address concerns from labor groups such as
teacher unions and school leader professional associations regarding the
evaluation process and inter-rater reliability to meet the needs of the
adult learner.!
5.!Conduct a study involving comparable suburban districts with similar
demographics that utilize the Marzano Focused School Leader and
Teacher Evaluation Models.!
6.!Conduct a quantitative study incorporating the elementary
and high school levels to investigate if there is an
improvement in FSA ELA and Math or corresponding EOC
scores through the implementation of the Marzano Focused
School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models.!
7.!Conduct a quantitative study to investigate if there is an improvement in
other assessed content areas such as FSA Civics, and Biology 1, and US
History EOC scores through the implementation of the Marzano Focused
School Leader and Teacher Evaluation Models.!
!
!
!
!
!
52!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
8.!Conduct a study to determine if the pay for performance reward system in
Florida that awards bonuses for teachers who attain student gains and
proficiency and also teachers who increase the number of students who
pass advanced placement courses, produces highly effective teachers.!
Conclusion!
!
It is essential that teacher observation promotes pedagogical improvement where
prescriptive feedback leads to enhance educational practitioners. School leaders require a
standards-based evaluation system that provides inter-rater reliability and fosters deliberate
practice. Although the formal, informal and walkthroughs on iObservation® are a critical part of
the evaluation process, it must be considered that the pre-planning conference, post-conference
and student interviews work in tandem to provide a holistic view of pedagogy, adult learning,
school leadership and their combined impact on student growth and proficiency to ensure that
students are college and career ready.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
53!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
References!
!
American Institutes for Research (2020). Measuring the Impact of Teacher and Leader
Evaluation Systems on Student Learning and Performance.
https://www.air.org/project/measuring-impact-teacher-and-leader-evaluation-systems-
student-learning-and-performance!
Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2008). Methodological concerns about the education value-added!
!
assessment system. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 65-75!
!
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.!
!
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.!
!
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.!
!
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership!
!
Studies, 7(3), 1840.!
!
Belanger, P. & Tuijnman, A. (1997). New Patterns of Adult Learning: A Six-country
Comparative Study. Elsevier Science, Inc. which? Group & Organization Management,
6(4), 439-455.!
Blanchard, K. H. (1985). A situational approach to managing people. Blanchard Training and!
!
Development.!
!
Blase, J. & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers' perspectives on how
principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 130-141.!
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row Publishers.!
!
!
!
!
!
54!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Carbaugh, B. G., Marzano, R. J., & Toth, M. D. (2015). School leadership for results: Shifting!
!
the focus of leadership evaluation. Learning Sciences International.!
!
Cervero, R. M. (1989). Continuing Education for the Professions. In S.B. Merriam and P.M.
Cunningham (Eds.). Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education. Jossey- Bass
Publishers.!
City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education:!
!
A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Harvard University Press.!
!
Clardy, A. (2005). Andragogy: Adult learning and education at its best? Retrieved from ERIC!
!
database. (ED 492132)!
!
Cooper, B. S., Ehrensal, P. A., & Bromme, M. (2005, January/March). School-level politics and!
!
professional development: Traps in evaluating the quality of practicing!
!
teachers. Educational Policy, 19(1), 112–125.!
!
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: what the research says. Association for!
!
Supervision and Curriculum Development.!
!
Crippen, C. (2005). The democratic school: First to serve, then to lead. Canadian!
!
Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, x(47), x-x.!
!
D'Amico, J. J. (2001). A closer look at the minority achievement gap. ERS Spectrum, 19(2), 4-!
!
10.!
!
Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 35-!
!
39.!
!
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work.!
!
Jossey-Bass.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
55!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. Collier-MacMillan Canada Ltd.!
!
Donaldson, M.L. (2009). So long Lake Wobegon?; Using teacher evaluation to raise teacher
quality. Retrieved from Center for American Progress website:
http://www.americanprogress.org!
Donaldson, M. L., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Teacher evaluation reform: Policy lessons for school!
!
principals. Principal’s Research Review, 9(5), 1-8.!
!
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L No. 89-10, §!
!
Federal Communications Commission (2009). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of!
!
2009. https://www.fcc.gov/general/american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act-2009!
!
Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta!
!
Kappan, 82(8), 578-606.!
!
Florida Consortium of Public Charter Schools (2020). Learn about Florida's Charter Schools.!
!
https://www.floridacharterschools.org!
!
Florida Department of Education (2019). 2017-18 Guide to Calculating School and District
Grades.
http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/18534/urlt/SchoolGradesCalcGuide18.pdf!
Florida Department of Education (2020). Approved District Performance Evaluation Systems.
http://www.fldoe.org/teaching/performance-evaluation/approved-dis-performance-
evaluation-sy/!
Florida Department of Education (2020). Data Publications and Reports:!
!
Enrollment/Membership by District by Grade 2017-18, Final Survey 2.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
56!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/data-sys/edu-info-accountability-services/pk-12-!
!
public-school-data-pubs-reports/archive.stml!
!
Florida Department of Education (2020). Performance Evaluation.!
!
http://fldoe.org/teaching/performance-evaluation/!
!
Flowers, A. (2013). A study of the Marzano teacher evaluation model and student
achievement at 24 elementary schools in a large suburban school district in Central
Florida. (Doctoral dissertation). Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
(https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/2625)!
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant-leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate!
!
power and greatness. Paulist Press.!
!
Harris, D. (2010). Clear away the smoke and mirrors of value added. Kappan, 91(8), 66-69.!
!
Henschke, J. A. (2011). Trust in learning-makes all the difference: If absent, nothing else makes
a difference. Documents at the American Association for Adult and Continuing
Education Conference, Clearwater Beach, FL.!
Herman, R., Gates, S. M., Chavez-Herreias, E. R., & Harris, M. (2017). School leadership!
!
interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act. RAND Corporation.!
!
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory.!
!
Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323-352.!
!
Iwanicki, E. F. (1990). Teacher evaluation for school improvement. In J. Millman!
!
and L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing
elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 158–171). Sage.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
57!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Kerka, S. (1999). Self-directed learning. Myths and Realities No. 3 Columbus, OH: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 435 834)!
Kim, K., Hagedorn, M., Williamson, J., & Chapman, C. (2004). Participation in Adult Education
and Lifelong Learning: 2000-01. National Household Education Surveys of 2001. NCES
2004-050. US Department of Education.!
King, D. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 61-!
!
63.!
!
Knowles, M. S. (1968). Andragogy, not pedagogy. Adult leadership, 16(10), 350-352, 386.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Hall Regents.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy!
(2nd ed.). Cambridge Books.!
!
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult!
!
learning. Jossey-Bass.!
!
Knowles, M. S. (1996). Adult learning. In R. L. Craig (Ed.), The ASTD training and
development handbook: A guide to human resources development (4th ed., pp. 253-265).
McGraw-Hill.!
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking. Springer.!
!
Kythreotis, A., & Pashiardis, P. (1998b). Researching the characteristics of effective primary
schools in Cyprus: A qualitative approach. Educational Management and Administration,
26(2), 117–130.!
Lambert, W. E. (2004). Servant leadership qualities of principals, organizational climate,!
!
!
!
!
!
!
58!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
and student achievement: A correlational study. Ed.D. dissertation, Nova
Southeastern University, United States. Dissertation Abstracts International
(Publication No. AAT 3165799).!
Lavely, C., Berger, N., & Blackman, J. (1994) Contemporary teacher classroom performance!
!
observation instruments. Education, 114(4), 618-624.!
!
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. Learning From Research Project: University of Minnesota,
Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CAREI); Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto (OISEUT); and The Wallace
Foundation.!
Leithwood, K.A. & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.!
!
Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University.!
!
Livingston, S. A. (2004). Equating test scores (without IRT). Educational Testing Service (ETS).!
!
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links!
!
to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. The Wallace Foundation.!
!
MacMillan, C. J. B. & Pendlebury, S. (1985). The Florida Performance Measurement System: A!
!
Consideration. Teachers College Record, 87(1), 67-78.!
!
Manasse, A.L. (1985). Vision and leadership: Paying attention to intention. Peabody Journal of!
!
Education, 63(1), 150-173.!
!
Manna, P. & Petrilli, M. J. (2008). “Double Standard? ‘Scientifically Based Research’ and the!
!
No Child Left Behind Act.” In F. M. Hess, ed. When Research Matters: How Scholarship
Influences Education Policy. Harvard Education Press.!
!
!
!
!
59!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
March, J. G., & Weil, T. (2005). On leadership. Blackwell.!
!
Marks, H. M. & Printy, M.S. (2003) Principal Leadership and School Performance: An
Integration of Transformational and Instructional Leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39, 370-397.!
Marzano, R. J., & Toth, M. D. (2013). Teacher evaluation that makes a difference: A new model!
!
for teacher growth and student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.!
!
Marzano Research. (2019). Marzano, R. J. https://www.marzanoresearch.com!
!
Marzano Research Laboratory. (2011). What works in Oklahoma schools: Phase I state report.!
!
Author.!
!
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective!
!
instruction. ASCD.!
!
Marzano, R. J. (2010). The art and science of teaching/What teachers gain from deliberate practice.!
!
Educational Leadership, 68(4), 82-85.!
!
Marzano, R. J. (2012). The two purposes of teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3),!
!
14-19.!
!
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Association for!
!
Supervision and Curriculum Development.!
!
Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art!
!
and science of teaching. ASCD.!
!
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.!
!
!
!
!
!
60!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From!
!
research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.!
!
Maxwell, J. C. (2005). The 360-degree leader, developing your influence from anywhere in the!
!
organization. Thomas Nelson Inc.!
!
McCauley, K. D., Hammer, E., & Hinojosa, A. S. (2017). An andragogical approach to teaching.!
!
Management Teaching Review, 2(4), 312-324.!
!
McGahie, W. C. (1991). Professional competence evaluation. Educational Researcher, 20, 3–9.!
!
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self‐directed learning: Pillars of adult Learning theory. New!
!
!
directions for adult and continuing education, 2001(89), 3-14.!
!
Merriam, S., Caffarella, R., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in Adulthood, 3rd ed. Jossey-!
!
Bass.!
!
Misco, T. (2008). Was that a result of my teaching? A brief explanation of value added assessment.!
!
The Clearing House, 92(7), 11-14.!
!
A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. (1983). National Commission on
Excellence in Education. U.S. Government.!
National Defense Education Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-864, § 72 Stat. 1580 (2019).!
!
Nelson, B. S., Benson, S., & Reed, K. M. (2004). Leadership Content Knowledge: A Construct
for Illuminating New Forms of Instructional Leadership. Paper presented at the National
Council of Supervisors of Mathematics.!
Nesbit, T. (2001). Extending graduate education to non-traditional learners. Vancouver, BC:!
!
Centre for Credit & Integrated Studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED!
!
452 75)!
!
!
!
!
61!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
O'Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard!
Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.!
!
Peterson, D., Kromrey, J., Micceri, T., & Smith, O. (1987). Florida performance!
!
measurement system: An example of its application. Journal of Educational Research,!
!
80(3), 141-148.!
!
Pommerich, M., Hanson, B., Harris, D., & Sconing, J. (2004). Issues in conducting!
!
linkage between distinct tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28(4), 247–273.!
!
Prestine, N. & Nelson, B. S. (2003). How Can Educational Leaders Support and Promote Teaching
and Learning? In W. A. Firestone & C. A. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for research in
educational leadership (pp. 46-60). Teacher's College Press.!
Pugh-Walker, J. P (2016). The Impact of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) on Equitable Title
I Services for Nonpublic School Students. Dissertations. 117.!
Ruben, B. D. & Gigliotti, R. A. (2017). Communications: Sine qua non of Organizational
leadership theory and practice. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(1),
12-30.!
Ruebling, C., Stow, S., Kayona, F. & Clarke, N. (2004). Instructional Leadership: An Essential!
!
Ingredient for Improving Student Learning. The Educational Forum, 68, 243-253.!
!
Samuel, A. (2015). The effects of the Marzano observation system training on the self-efficacy of
teacher observers (Doctoral dissertation). Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
(https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/1200)!
!
!
!
!
!
62!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J.C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and
application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 9(2), 5744 (Document ID: 275645021).!
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). Leadership: What’s in it for schools? Taylor & Francis.!
!
Smylie, M. A., Wenzel, S. A., & Fendt, C. R. (2003). The Chicago Annenberg Challenge:
Lessons on Leadership for School Development. In J. M. A. Datnow (Ed.), Leadership
Lessons from Comprehensive School Reforms. Corwin Press, Inc.!
Spatz, C. (2019). Exploring Statistics: Tales of Distributions. Outcrop Publishers.!
!
Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J.!
!
(2002). Managing in the middle: school leaders and the enactment of accountability
policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731-762.!
Steinberg, W. J. (2011). Statistics alive! (2nd Ed.). SAGE.!
!
Stokes, P. J. (2006). Hidden in plain sight: Adult learners forge a new tradition in higher!
!
education. (Issue Paper No. 11). Retrieved July, 1, 2019!
!
from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/stokes.pdf!
!
Student Assessment Program for Public Schools of 2013, § 1008.22(3)(b)2., Florida Statutes!
!
(2019).!
!
Stumbo, C. & McWalters, P. (2010). Measuring effectiveness: What will it take? Educational!
!
Leadership, 68(4).!
!
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-10 § 79 (2019).
The Florida Senate. (2011). CS/CS/SB 736: Education Personnel.!
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0736/BillText/er/PDF!
!
!
!
!
!
63!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
The School District of Palm Beach County (n.d.). Professional/Leadership Development.!
!
https://www.palmbeachschools.org/careers/professional-leadership_development!
!
The U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Race to the Top Assessment Program.!
!
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/index.html!
!
The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor and Statistics. (2004). http://www.bls.gov/cps
The Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better!
teaching and learning. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-
center/Documents/The-School-Principal- as- Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-
Teaching-and-Learning-2nd-Ed.pdf!
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balance Leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent
Regional Educational Lab.!
Woody, E. L., Buttles, M., Kafka, J., Park, S., & Russell, J. (2004). Voices from the Field:
Educators Respond to Accountability. University of California, Berkeley, Stanford
University, University of California, Davis.!
Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of!
!
continuous improvement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.!
!
Zuga, K. F. (1999). Addressing women’s way of knowing to improve the Technology education!
!
environment for all students. Journal of Technology Education, 10(2).!
!
!
!
!
!
!
64!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
APPENDIX A:!
!
Formal IRB Approval!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
65!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
66!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
APPENDIX B:!
!
Permission to use iObservation® items!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
67!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
68!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
APPENDIX C:!
!
Approval from the Superintendent’s Committee!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
69!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
70!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
71!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
APPENDIX D:!
!
CITI program course certificate!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
72!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
73!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
APPENDIX E:!
!
Marzano Focused School Leader Evaluation!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
74!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
75!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
76!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
77!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
78!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
79!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
80!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
81!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
82!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
83!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
84!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
85!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
86!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
87!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
88!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
89!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
90!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
91!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
92!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
93!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
94!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
95!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
96!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
APPENDIX F:!
!
Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
97!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
98!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
99!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
100!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
101!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
102!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
103!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
104!