Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Education Policy- Doctor of Philosophy 2019 THE MORALIZATION MATRIX: A TOOL FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT By Amieris B. Lavender A DISSERTATION Submitted to ABSTRACT THE MORALIZATION MATRIX: A TOOL FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT By Amieris B. Lavender Over the past twenty years, education reform efforts aimed at teachers, students, principals, curriculum, and school facilities have targeted urban schools. Yet, many social policies fail. Education reforms are more likely to succeed when the culture of an initiative is congruent with the culture of a school. Currently, there is no way for stakeholders to decide if the socio-cultural realities of their school and a policy’s design are well matched. This single-site case study tested whether a quantitative measure could accurately assess a school’s culture. To do so, interviews with school personnel and staff observations were conducted and compared to the assessment results. It was found that survey data was congruent with the data collected qualitatively from staff members. These findings hold promise for the future development and implementation of programs, as well as, principal leadership practice. Copyright by AMIERIS B. LAVENDER 2019 The marathon continues... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank those that have contributed to who I am and will be become: My mother, who raised to me think myself brilliant and value education My father, who encouraged me to question the world Moneick, who has loved me as her own Jarell, Omie, Jared, and Kristal, who keep me humble Alexis Wright, who sees me. I don’t know what I would do without our friendship Julia Anderson & Jaclyn Hawkins, on whose support I can always depend The family I have been graced with in Michigan: Heather, Rafina, and DJ Lauren-Elizabeth Johnson, Dr. Darrius Stanley, and Dr. Justin Coles, who have kept my heart filled with laughter, my eyes with hope, and have loved me through any fears My advisor and mentors, Dr. John T. Yun and Dr. Patricia Marin who met and believed in me so many years ago. I’m endlessly grateful for your support To my committee: Dr. Barbara Schneider, Dr. Chezare Warren, Dr. Terah Venzant Chambers I’m so thankful for your guidance, kindness, and investment in my present and future I made it here by the grace of love v PREFACE The development of my dissertation begins somewhere along the hour and a half drive from Detroit to East Lansing in the spring of 2015. I was finishing my first year as a graduate student in Educational Policy and was a newly hired graduate research assistant working for the College Ambition Program (CAP). At the time, CAP was in fifteen schools throughout mid- Michigan. I was eager to engage in hands-on program implementation research, as such, I tasked myself with visiting each CAP school and interviewing the principal. In these interviews I learned what no policy class in graduate school had ever taught me (yet). I found that the power of human of connection mitigates policy outcomes, and that I would always have to earn relationships with the stakeholders I seek engagement with. This knowledge continues to inform my research and positionality as an implementation scholar and advocate for urban schools and their relationship to school reform and policy change. My most vivid memory from this time was an interview with the principal at a Detroit high school. My interview with principal Tandy (pseudonym) went nothing like I thought it would. It was perhaps the most challenging interview I have ever conducted. What made the interview feel difficult was the way that I felt my intentions in visiting the school were misunderstood by Principal Tandy. My curiosity was interpreted as naivety. My position as a representative of the CAP Program was met with hostility. And where I believed my identity, as a fellow Black woman, would act as a bridge I was treated like an outsider. She showed me crime data She didn’t think I understood the Black Struggle She thought I was one of “them” vi were the sentiments that replayed in my head during the drive from Detroit back to Michigan State University. During the interview, I realized that there was a fundamental misunderstanding between who I was perceived to be by Principal Tandy, due to my place as a researcher and doctoral student, and who I am, which was informed by my background. The chasm was immense and it shocked me. For the first time (that I was aware of) I was seen as the proverbial “them”. The policy agent who had no idea what students face in the inner city. While interviewing Principal Tandy, I quickly realized that in order to learn anything about her, I would have to speak candidly about myself. I began to share my background, who I was, why I chose to study education, and why I wanted to speak to her. It wasn’t until I revealed myself, that I was able to witness (deserve) any form of affability with her. This experience continues to teach me about myself, the nature of conducting research, the development and enactment of policy, what is needed to create effect lasting school reform. It would be dishonest if I did not admit that I took Principal Tandy’s treatment of me personally. In fact, I was deeply offended. However, I had to realize that her understanding of me, was evidence of the fundamental mistrust that many school leaders have for those individuals coming “from the outside” who bring programs, policies, and reforms into urban schools. This distrust is often coaxed by the way that outside people, like me, enter schools, how we approach conversations with school leaders, the types of questions we ask, and our motivations for being in urban schools in the first place. During the series of interviews that I held during that time, I found that many of the principals serving these “high-need urban schools” were women, namely Black women, who found themselves “needing” to fulfill the principal role at their school. These women were not principals on purpose, but by chance, due to the need of their respective school bodies. Some vii were assistant principals, other instructional coaches, or grant writers. Their transitions into leadership were abrupt and unplanned. The principals that I talked to were serving in schools that had seen a new school leader each year, sometimes multiple in a single year. The odds against them as leaders were immense and impacted every aspect of the way that they approached their position and how they decided to lead. Yet, the normative way that many programs and policies are designed, do not take the realities of these leaders’ experiences or easily adaptable to the complex contextual challenges of their schools. As I talked with principals I asked what they thought about policy, what they believed as educators, what their frustrations were. When comparing the critiques that the principals had with the policy design process that I was learning about in my education policy program, I began to wonder how the needs of urban schools could be incorporated in the political realties of policy design and research. I wanted to think of way that programs could be designed to better incorporate the voice and contextual knowledge of school personnel. My dedication to learning more about community voice, policy, and organizational change led me to community psychology, implementation science, organization studies, and was rooted in my training in Feminist Studies. In interrogating the hegemonic system of policy, I was curious about how gender, race, power, capitalism all interact with one another to impact urban schools and the communities they serve and the relationship that education stakeholders have to school reform and policymakers. This study is the beginning of a lifetime’s worth of work. I am proud that this research began in Detroit, Michigan, where my mother was raised. Detroit is home to countless Black people who migrated there for a better life, like my dad’s father. Those who hoped and dreamed, viii traveled to Detroit, built themselves a world and made history. This research honors the relentless healing legacy of Detroit and hopes to contribute to its future. Positionality. Goldbart and Hustler (2005) argue that researchers are the “human instrument” in their studies. As such, the scholar conducting a study “enters a world and see how it works” (p.16). However, the researcher, as a human being brings with them thoughts, beliefs, and emotions to their understandings and analysis of social situations. Much scholarship has explored how to account for bias in research. Reflexivity has emerged as means for researchers to come to know and manage the bias they bring to their research. Johnson et al., (2007) argued that the researcher must have an awareness of self. This self-awareness most often occupies the space of positionality statements in research studies, like the one that follows. In an effort to provide a dynamic conceptualization of gender that would take into account the lived experiences of women and the impact of the environment on the female subject- whilst also providing the woman agency to define and name herself- Linda Alcoff (1988) developed the concept of positionality. When considering the conceptualization of positionality in this way, it is easier to reconcile positionality as two things: conceptualization of self and the reality that our identities are mitigated through the eyes of others and are constantly evolving. Tebaldi (2014) eloquently describes Alcoff’s (1988) concept this way, “The concept of positionality…is a non-essentialist conception of the subject and also inseparable from the external environment that surrounds the subject, taking into account objective, cultural, ideological and economic conditions etc” (Tebaldi, 2014, 88). Put simply, we bring our understandings into particular spaces, and our bodies alter those special realities when we arrive. However, Goldbart & Hustler (2005) argue that good scholarship may not require pursuing a position whereby the researcher does not alter a space (which is unlikely) but instead seeking to ix understanding how individuals a part of the world we study interact with outsiders. This is especially interesting for the context of this research, because these interactions may provide powerful insight into the school culture that I am profiling. As such, I enter urban, predominately Black high schools as a Black woman, expecting to be accepted due to my racial identity, which is often the case. However, as a representative of a large and oppressive institution seeking to do “research”, I am sometimes questioned and limited by my identity as a student/scholar/researcher. Additionally, I am young and I look young. Though age is not a huge means by which I understand myself, it is a large factor in how others view me and therefore impacts me both as an individual and a researcher. Further, while I am passionate about education, I have never been a teacher. Many educators are wary of me for this fact, and often presuppose that my presence is one of judgment or ignorance. In light of all of these ways that my body and station in life may limit me as a researcher, I find it deeply important to be transparent with participants regarding my goals, objectives, and political positions regarding the nature of teaching and urban school reform. As it relates to this study, it is important to note that I created the conceptual framework and assessment upon which this dissertation rests. While bias cannot wholly be avoided in any form of research, testing one’s own framework and assessment introduces a potential conflict of interest. I aimed to dissipate the potential of this bias through a research design that aimed to gather data in ways that would least impact another, as will be explained later. Additionally, I aimed to be transparent and more descriptive of all aspects of the data that were collected, how, under what conditions, and the ways that particular assertions were made. When possible, I utilized the words of participants that informed the generation of key conclusions or themes. Additionally, all areas of incongruence in the data are identified and provided in the study. More x than anything, it is important to note that the purpose of this study, was simply to test if it was possible to characterize a school environment based upon a particular set of factors. The following study, presents a single instance in which this assessment was tested in this manner. Further testing is needed in order to fully understand the promise and limitations of the Moralization Matrix Assessment as a tool for school improvement. xi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Introduction Literature Review Introducing the Conceptual Framework: The Moralization Matrix Outline of the Dissertation Chapter Overview Historical Origins of Policy Implementation Research Political Process and Authority Implementation in Education Ideology Ambiguity and Sense making Governance and Management Implementation in Education Policy and Program Evaluation in Education Escape Easy Measurement Implementation in This Study Institutionalization as Successful Implementation Process of Successful Implementation Social Factors that Impact Successful Implementation Conceptual Framework: The Moralization Matrix Organizational Climate and Effectiveness Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs School Organization Leadership Relational Trust Normalized Attitudes Willingness to Change Disposition Human Capital The Moral Imperative to Change Orientation to Innovation Race Consciousness Methodology Chapter Overview Introduction Case Study Research in Education Policy Justification of Use of Case Study Quantitative and Qualitative Methods Approach Research Design xii xv xvii 1 4 9 11 11 13 16 17 18 22 24 25 27 30 30 31 34 39 39 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 49 51 55 55 56 61 63 64 71 Quantitative Data Collection Piloting Administering the Survey Qualitative Data Collection Interviews Research Diary and School Observations Approach to Data Analysis Transcription Coding Trustworthiness: Justifying Claims in Qualitative Research Approach to Quantitative Analysis Moralization Profiles Choosing the Case Findings Chapter Overview The Case Site: Spencer Elementary Participants Meeting Principal Mills Results Survey Demographics Organizational Climate and Effectiveness Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Physical Safety The Emotional Toll School Organization Communication Systems Build Culture Leadership Social Justice Provocateur Supportive Critique Contentious Relationships Relational Trust Normalized Attitudes Willingness to Change Disposition “They just want them out” “I’m not doing no home visit” Human Capital The Moral Imperative to Change Orientation to Innovation Race Consciousness Parental Involvement Part Two: Research Question Two: Principal Interview Data Sharing the Data xiii 73 73 74 75 75 76 77 80 80 82 84 86 88 91 91 92 97 99 101 103 103 103 107 111 115 118 120 122 125 131 133 138 140 140 145 149 152 156 161 161 165 168 172 172 174 174 176 177 179 179 180 180 181 182 183 183 189 189 190 193 193 194 195 197 198 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 213 215 216 221 Organizational Climate and Effectiveness Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs School Organization Leadership Relational Trust Normalized Attitudes Willingness to Change Disposition Human Capital The Moral Imperative to Change Orientation to Innovation Race Consciousness Discussion Chapter Overview Research Question #1 The Extent Research Question #2 Parameters of Use: The Moralization Matrix Survey The Principle of Negative Interpretation Parameter of Use: Data Sharing Refusing the Enthusiastic Parameter of Use: Considering Leadership Parameter of Use: Current Practice and Potential Futures Scholarly Purpose of the Dissertation Conceptually Practically Implications and Contribution of the Dissertation Reason #1: School Level Approach Reason #2: Pragmatism Limitations Conclusion REFERENCES xiv LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Constructs and Dimensions Table 2: Definitions and Guiding Literature Table 3: Sample Key Words and Codes Table 4: Research City and Site Demographics Table 5: Research City Education Table 6: Teaching Experience of Interview Participants Table 7: Survey Results: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Table 8: Interview Results Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Table 9: Survey Results: School Organization Table 10: Interview Results: School Organization Table 11: Survey Results: Leadership Table 12: Interview Results: Leadership Table 13: Survey Results: Relational Trust Table 14: Interview Results: Relational Trust Table 15: Survey Results: Willingness to Change Table 16: Interview Results: Willingness to Change Table 17: Survey Results: Disposition Table 18: Interview Results: Disposition Table 19: Survey Results: Human Capital Table 20: Interview Results: Human Capital Table 21: Survey Results: Orientation to Innovation xv 35 36 80 93 94 99 103 106 115 117 123 124 134 135 140 141 146 146 156 157 161 Table 22: Interview Results: Orientation to Innovation Table 23: Survey Results: Race Consciousness Table 24: Interview Results: Race Consciousness 162 165 165 xvi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Figure 2: Data Collection Process Figure 3: Approach to Data Analysis Figure 4: Quantitative and Qualitative Relationship Figure 5: Racial Background of Survey Respondents Figure 6: Age of Survey Respondents Figure 7: Teaching Experience of Survey Respondents 40 73 77 79 95 96 97 xvii Introduction Education is a multi-billion dollar enterprise in America. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that the United States government expended $634 billion on primary and secondary education in the 2013-14 fiscal year alone (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). In addition to government spending, foundations contribute a substantial amount of private dollars to education initiatives. According to the Foundation Center, more than 900 foundations spent over $4 billion on education initiatives for youth and young adults in 2012 (foundationcenter.com). Nevertheless, despite the noted increase in education spending in both public and private sectors, the educational outcomes for students, as measured by test scores such as the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), have not shown substantial improvement (though there has been some increase in the test scores of racial subgroups) (Lips & Watkins, 2008). The stagnant nature of national test score performance has led to an increase in multi-sector education reform efforts aimed at teachers, students, principals, curriculum, and school facilities, most of which have targeted large cities and predominately urban schools (Reckhow & Weir 2011). However, the success of the aforementioned efforts to improve educational attainment, may depend less upon developing new programs and innovations, but rather ascertaining a greater understanding of when, where, and under what conditions reforms are successful. In Show me the Evidence: Obama’s Fight for Rigor and Results in Social Policy, Ron Haskins and Greg Margolis (2014) contend that nine out of ten social policies fail. They argue that that this widespread failure has given rise to the current evidence-based movement that evaluates programs for their impact in order to more effectively allocate scarce resources. Under this regime, programmatic success becomes the primary criterion that determines whether programs are replicated or defunded (Haskins & Margolis, 2014). To the chagrin of 1 implementation scholars, and the detriment of students, when one policy fails, another replaces it. These new initiatives most often suffer from similar challenges and are supplanted by another, thereby creating a cyclical culture of policy failure within urban schools (Payne 2008). Unquestionably we should evaluate programs and should work to judiciously fund programs. However, the evidence-based movement perpetuates and legitimizes the pursuit of a “perfect policy”. The quest for finding a single policy that can act as a panacea to the complex challenges that urban schools face negates years of education research and implementation science. The current evaluative and evidence-based trend in policy centralizes issues of outcomes and solutions, while paying little attention to how context of environments can inform the development of programs themselves. In an effort to better the education outcomes for students, we must challenge this trend and instead devote time to understanding, and attending to, the role that context plays in the success and challenges of education policy. Decades of research on implementation have evidenced that environmental and sociocultural context of organizations impacts the uptake and sustainability of interventions (Aladjem & Borman 2006; Durak & Dupre, 2008; Elmore, 1980; Goggin, 1986;). In their book, Effective Implementation in Practice: Integrating Public Policy and Management, Sandfort & Moulton (2014) posit that “evidence based interventions will affect results only if there is research examining implementation processes” (p.56). According to the authors, without understanding the process by which programs were adopted in organizations, practitioners are left, not with questions of what works, but how, where, and under what conditions? Many implementation researchers contend for the need to evaluate implementation processes and behaviors a part from programmatic outcomes (Goggin, 1986; Durak & Dupre, 2008). The need to better understand implementation processes, is interconnected with call made by Proctor et al. (2009) who assert, “There are more evidence-based treatments than evidence-based 2 implementations strategies”. Implementation strategies as defined by the authors, are “deliberate and purposeful efforts to improve the uptake and sustainability of treatment interventions” (p.5). Based upon the research above and in an effort to bolster the impact, replication, and scalability of evidence-based programs and innovations, education researchers must work to develop frameworks and tools that are able to measure and efficiently ascertain key markers of a school’s cultural context that may impact their ability to implement programs successfully or not. To provide contextual background on the organization charged with implementing reforms, school- level data, regarding resources, class size, education level of teachers, and experience of the leader is often coupled with demographic information of students that include race, socioeconomic status (SES), and gender. Although this information in integral in understanding a part of a school’s environment, it does little to explain the nuanced, subjective, and relational characteristics of school personnel in the building. Currently, there lacks a common language or mechanism by which this latter form of school context can be described. As it stands in the field of education research, our understandings of the socio-cultural nature of a school’s context is wholly dependent upon the subjective depictions of researchers, who describe the culture, leadership, teachers, and student body in differing ways. In effect, there is no common language, mechanism, or approach by which socio-cultural context of implementing organizations, or processes can be described (Baier et al., 1986; McDonald, 2014; Proctor et al., 2011). Often times, these contextual descriptions may not provide a nuanced depiction of schools, depending instead upon sharing anecdotes and factors that researchers, themselves, find important to their particular study. As such, when decision-makers seek out evidence-based interventions, they are limited in their understanding of their school’s cultural similarity with those schools that successfully implemented a program beyond demographic data. In an effort to improve success when programs are replicated or taken to scale, it may prove 3 helpful to have a tool that can describe a school’s context across the relational dimensions that matter most for implementation, in addition to their demographical information. The following study seeks to contribute to this need by providing context-focused implementation conceptual framework called the Moralization Matrix. Introducing the Conceptual Framework: The Moralization Matrix The Moralization Matrix was developed in response to what Meyers, Durlak, and Wandersman (2012) refer to as the “Quality Implementation Framework”. The Quality Implementation Framework contends that that quality implementation must begin with an assessment of the environment in which a program will be enacted. The authors call for a fit/resource, a need, and a capacity/readiness assessment. The Moralization Matrix acts as an assessment that specifically addresses fit/need issues within organizations that impact the outcomes of school reforms. The Moralization Matrix is comprised of nine dimensions that are known to impact or impede successful implementation. For the purpose of this study, successful implementation is defined, via Normative Process Theory, that asserts that implementation is successful when the procedures involved in its enactment become institutionalized and a part of the routine of the organization. To that end, the factors that comprise the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework, are those that are identified as impacting the uptake, sustainability, and normalization of novel interventions. In short, the Quality Implementation Framework informed the need for the creation of education-specific implementation assessment. Normative Process Theory, provided a lens upon which factors would be chosen for the framework and assessment. The assessment and framework are linked via the concept of demoralization, which was put forth by Charles Payne (2008). The Moralization Matrix builds explicitly upon the work of Charles Payne (2008) who identified the “social barriers and micro political barriers” to change in what he refers to as 4 demoralized schools. Payne (2008) argues that many interventions fail in demoralized schools due to an organizational climate that is not conducive to change. In his view, the normalized attitudes amongst school personnel, the immediate physical and emotional needs of faculty, orientation to innovation, and leadership form critical barriers to change if they are not addressed. Payne (2008) described normalized attitudes, immediate physical and emotional needs of faculty, orientation to innovation, and leadership as factors impacting school reform. Following the review of research in community psychology, implementation science, organization studies, and education reform literature, I identified five additional elements: relational trust, willingness to change, , human capital, school organization, and race consciousness as integral to school- level policy implementation processes. Implementation science and education reform literature posits that successful implementation requires that an organizational environment be willing to change (Achinstein & Ogawa 2006, Cohen 1990, Odden 1991,), have trust (Schneider 2001, Van den Heuvel, S., Schalk, R., & Assen, M. (2015).), human capital/capacity (Cohen & Ball 1990, Ford 2007, Hill 2001, Mirra & Rogers 2016, Schultz 1961), and that the organizational structure and bureaucracy be conducive to the change in behavior being asked of constituents (Bryk et al 2010, Honig 2006, Weatherly & Lipsky 1977). Additionally, the role that structural racism has within communities of color, the American education system as a whole, and urban schools in particular have been identified by numerous scholars (Bell 1980, Chapman & Donnor 2015, Ledesma 2013, Lipman Orfield & Frankenburg 2014, Tuck 2013). The nine aforementioned factors were coded and divided into three constructs. The three constructs and their accompanying elements form what I refer to as the Moralization Matrix. 5 The Moralization Matrix is comprised of nine factors divided across three constructs: Organizational Climate and Effectiveness, Normalized Attitudes, and the Moral Imperative to Change. These three constructs form a technical core of education policy implementation. The Technical Core, according to Spillane et al (2011), is the organizational activity where the “product” of the organization is produced. When used in the context of education, the technical core typically refers to the teaching and learning within classrooms (Spillane, Parise, & Sherer, 2011). However, when applied to the education program implementation process, I argue that the nine factors a part of the Moralization Matrix act as a technical core, as they are imperative preconditions to successful policy implementation and as such inform the program implementation “product”. The desired product of policy implementation is, of course, successful implementation, which in this study was constructed as the institutionalization and legitimization of reform efforts into the daily routines of school organizations as described in Normative Process Theory. The elements within the three constructs that comprise the Moralization Matrix are always operating and impacting the implementation of numerous programs and reforms within urban schools in various ways. However, the ways in which these factors most often influence or impede program implementation varies based upon the program type, timing, and current school climate. In an effort to better understand the impact of these factors, the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework must be further developed and tested. The central purpose of this project was to ascertain the degree to which a quantitative tool could capture the socio-cultural essence of a school community. While it is understood that contextual environments of schools matter, currently, there are few ways for decision-makers to efficiently and effectively gather information about the nuances of the organizational nature of schools as it relates to implementation behaviors. 6 The purpose of the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework is to provide a common language upon which school organizational characteristics, needs, strengths, and areas of growth can be described, and programs can be chosen. The purpose of the Moralization Matrix Assessment is to provide school leaders with a data report that profiles their school based upon the nine factors that comprise the conceptual framework. This Moralization report acts as a guide for school leaders to enact change in their community and better understand the needs and beliefs of their staff. The elements of the conceptual framework can be utilized as a means to code and evaluate potential programs for the school-level social capital they require. The data provided from this assessment will allow decision makers to quantitatively identify, the humanistic, cultural, and hard to describe aspects of a school’s contextual environment and then match it with programs that match the attributes of their school. For instance, a school leader may want to enact collaborative, team-teaching in their school, but they may be unsure if their staff is ready. After identifying the program(s) they are interested in, a school leader could use the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework to code and analyze the particular social-relational needs each program requires. In this case, a general collaborative and team-teaching program, would, at the very least, necessitate that school personnel exhibit high ratings on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, School Organization, Relational Trust, Willingness to Change, Human Capital, and Orientation to Innovation. A leader could use the scores generated by the Moralization Assessment to ascertain the strengths of their teachers currently, and identify areas where growth is needed in order to implement particular programs. This cultural matching for a given program can take place prior to expenditure, dissemination, or programmatic enactment. If it is found, that a school may not have the social capacity to enact a reform, this information provides school leaders with data regarding the areas they may need to target their resources for staff development. The ability to evaluate schools and programs across the same set of research-based 7 dimensions that are crucial for implementation, presents a new possibility for the way that programs are chosen for school improvement. In order to better understand the utility of the conceptual framework and assessment testing is required. The central purpose of this dissertation was to test the extent to which, if at all, the Moralization Matrix Assessment can accurately characterize the socio-cultural context of a school. In order to understand the scope of what the quantitative assessment collected regarding school culture, the survey data was compared with observational, teacher, and principal interview data regarding school climate and culture across the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework. The research questions that guide this scholarly inquiry are outlined below: 1. To what extent are the data collected from the Moralization Matrix survey congruent with the socio-cultural context described by teachers in their interviews? a. How do the findings from the Moralization survey and teacher interviews differ? 2. How well does the quantitative and qualitative data collected in the Moralization Matrix align with principal beliefs about their school community? a. How would a school leader utilize the data collected from the Moralization Matrix survey and interviews? Case study methodology was utilized to answer the two aforementioned research question. Case studies unearth the complexities of a particular bounded instance, occurrence, or situation and link that information to a broader, or more global phenomenon (Yin, 2014). In this study, the boundaries of the case are set around the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework. The complexities and the dynamics embedded within each element of the Moralization Matrix will be described in depth within the findings. The “thick” description of each Matrix element area will lead to the triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data. This 8 triangulation informs the ability to interrogate the similarities and differences between the findings that can be generated from the survey and those that can be gleaned from interviews. The phenomenon of interest in this study, was examining the contributions and limitations of differing that interview and survey data provide concerning a single school site. The type of data that case studies provide is often described as rich, thick, complex, content-dependent, and detailed knowledge (Flyvberg 2011; Ruddin, 2006; Yin 2014). It was for the depth of description, and the focus on understanding and reporting participant beliefs that contribute to the construct of social realities (Stark & Torrance, 2005), and triangulating data collected via divergent methods, that a case study approach was selected for this dissertation that focuses on profiling a school’s implementation climate. The following dissertation will explore, in greater depth, the literature that informed the creation of the Moralization Matrix, the methodology and methods that guided the testing of the conceptual framework and assessment, results from the case study research and implications of the findings. Below is an outline of the dissertation and subsequent chapters. Outline of the Dissertation Chapter two provides a literature review that outlines relevant policy, implementation, and education reform research and will introduce the nine factors that are a part of the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework. A brief literature review will be provided for each factor that explores its relationship to the research literature, the way it has impacted implementation, and the way it has been experienced in the context of educational organizations. Chapter three is dedicated to Methodology and Methods of the research study. Here, study design will be described and the benefit of conducting a case study of an instrument such as the Moralization Matrix is of value. The method by which interview, observational, and survey data 9 were collected will also be explicated. For ease of understanding, each chapter beginning with the Methodology chapter will begin with a “Chapter Overview” section that provides a summary of what will be discussed in the following section. The research findings, along with answers to the two research questions above, will be provided in chapter four. The dissertation will conclude with Chapter five and a discussion of the overview of research, implications, limitations, and future directions for research. 10 Chapter Overview Literature Review This chapter will provide a historical background for the origins of policy implementation research in general, as well as an analysis of contemporary studies of implementation in the field of education. My analysis will follow the conceptualization of three diverging approaches to studies of implementation put forth by policy implementation scholars, Jodi Sandfort and Stephanie Moulton (2015) in their book, Effective Implementation in Practice: Integrating Public Policy and Management, they are briefly outline below. At the close of the chapter a literature review of the nine dimensions that comprise the Moralization Matrix will be provided. • Political Processes and Authority: A linear approach, conceptualized as a series of stages, with a top- down focus on “political control, power, and authority” for policy outcomes (p.37). • Governance and Management: Issues of power and control: asserts that there ' a difference “between political process to pass legislation and the administrative process to make government function” (p. 43). • Policy and Program Evaluation: Concerned with illustrating the effects of specific policy and program interventions through the use of “rational analysis to provide objective evidence of what works” (p. 53). In the field of education, Political Process Scholars may leverage framing and sense making theories to study the relationship between policy design, intent, and interpretation. Governance and Management research seeks to codify particular organizational structures, management, and governance tools with their programmatic outcomes (Berman & McLaughlin, 1974). Program 11 and Policy Evaluation, is founded in practice, rather than academic scholarship (Sandfort & Moulton, 2015) and is primarily concerned with ascertaining the measurable impact of education interventions. As will be seen, Political Process and Authority, Governance and Management, and Program and Policy Evaluation research all provide valuable perspectives regarding factors that impact the implementation of education reforms. Following the aforementioned overview, this chapter will contend with the growing body of case study school reform research that provides in depth analysis of major education reform movements that have taken place in urban school districts across the United States. These case studies depict how constructs like trust, politics, structural racism, and moral all converge to impact both implementation outcomes and innovation outcomes. An overarching limitation of the scholarship that will be reviewed, is that they discuss issues of implementation but do not always include a study of actions and processes of behavioral change that occurred at the school-level (Michie et al., 2009), as such they are not truly studying implementation, as outlined by Blasé et al., (2015). There are few such studies that integrate the explicit study of implementation processes (Weiss, 1998; Sandfort & Moutlon, 2015). This gap is exacerbated by the methodological approaches to studies of education policy implementation that seek to inform policy design, (which is, and should continue to be, the purpose of scholarship in an applied field, such as Education Policy). My research contributes to filling this gap by providing a tool that can measure implementation contexts, which can be incorporated by researchers in their studies. The integration of context into policy choice and design is just a small mechanism that can lead to bettering our methods of studying and understanding of programmatic outcomes of education reforms at the school level. 12 Historical Origins of Policy Implementation Research Political Process and Authority and Implementation scholarship in education is informed by the historical origins of implementation research, as such I begin with a brief overview of this traditional approach to studying implementation, which has its roots in policy research. Many discussions of implementation in Political Process and Authority can be characterized by top- down or bottom-up approaches to policy. This is because traditional policy researchers often consider implementation as a stage within a broader policymaking process. The policymaking process as Kingdon (2003) delineates is comprised of the following stages: setting the agenda, specification of choices, authoritative choice/vote, and implementing the decision (p.3). Mazmanian and Sabatier (1981) define implementation as something that "takes place between the formal enactment of a program by a legislative body...and its intended and unintended impacts" (p.xi). The conceptualization of implementation as a part of the policymaking process is not surprising. Policy researchers began studying implementation as a result of disappointing results of the Great Society Programs of 1964-65 (Fixsen, 2009; Sandfort & Moulton, 2015). The goals of the Great Society Programs were lofty: "ending poverty, reducing crime, abolishing inequality, and improving the environment" (https://www.history.com/topics/great-society). As such, implementation research has always been an interdisciplinary, multi-faceted, and collaborative political issue. Head Start and the Education and Secondary Education Act (1965), are two enduring features of the education reform initiatives sparked by Lyndon B. Johnson. Ironically, it was the perceived failure of many of these reforms that sparked the development of policy implementation research in the eighties. 13 Due to their focus on the supposed failure of programs, the first generation of implementation scholars are widely understood as having a rather negative view of the potential of policy to effect change due to various problems of implementation (Sabatier 1986, Goggin 1986). The view of the first generation of scholars can be summed up by Eugene Bardach, (as cited in Goggin 1986), who stated, “The best policy is bound to go awry (p.328). The failure of policy, in their view, was related to the unpredictability of organizational environments and the unwillingness or lack of cooperation of individuals (Sandfort & Moulton 2014)). Baier, March, Saetren (1986) concluded that two major implementation problems were: “bureaucratic incompetence”, as it relates to skills, technology of organizations and “conflict of interest between policymakers and bureaucratic agents” (p.198). The authors note that individuals within organizations answer to a variety of pressures, as such they are not subject to following a singular policy directive. They furthered, “bureaucrats are self-interested actors, they evade control” (p.198). The nihilistic understanding of bureaucrats has pervaded the implementation science literature, with Lipsky (1971) terming the individual actors responsible for implementing change, as street-level bureaucrats, who according to Lipsky (1971), are self-serving, incapable, or disinterested actors that must be coerced by policy levers such as mandates and incentives in order to enact change. The second generation of implementation scholars were also top-down focused (Sabatier 1986). However, these researchers were more interested in the “variation of implementation success across programs (Sabatier 1986). According to Goggin (1986), the second wave of implementation science delivered a behavioral theory focused on: “the form and content of the policy itself, the capacity of the organization responsible, and the qualifications of people in charge” (P.329) furthermore, arguing, “implementation behaviors are shaped by the decision 14 making environment, the type of policy at stake, and the characteristics of both the implementation organization and the people who manage the program (p.330)”. The second generation of implementation scholars produced a more favorable and nuanced view of bureaucrats and bureaucracies. This scholarship sought to uncover the specific contextual challenges that individuals face within their organizational environments that either disallow them from fully following policy, undermine their actions, or the illustrate how the mismatch between space, time, place, and policy can impact implementation (Goggin 1986, Sabatier 1986, Sandfort & Moulton 2014). Though these implementation scientists sought to better understand the contextual environments of agents and agencies, it was still largely based upon a top-down, hierarchal, and governance based understanding of implementation (Elmore, 1980; Sabatier, 1986; Sandfort & Moulton 2014). The third wave of implementation scientists, developed in the seventies and eighties, were known as the “bottom-uppers” (Sabatier 1986). Bottom-up researchers believed that policy design should begin with analysis of the organizations responsible with implementing a particular policy directive. Berman (1978) argued that implementation challenges arise when policies are introduced into varying implementation settings. Richard Elmore (1980) argued, “most of what happens in the implementation process cannot be explained by the intentions and directions of the policymakers” (p.603). Matland (1995) offered that the implementing environment, could wield the greatest influence on implementation outcomes. Education scholars have illustrated how compounding and contradictory policies at the local, state, and national level often cause stakeholders to “choose” what and how they implement particular policies, which can lead to innovations being enacted outside of the intent of policymakers (Bryk et al., 2010). To improve implementation, Elmore (1980) argued for backward mapping which 15 “stressed the dispersal of control and concentrates on factors that can be indirectly influenced by policymakers” (p.605). Bottom-uppers believed that if bureaucratic agents were engaged in the policy development process, they would be more invested in implementing a policy directive (Elmore 1980). Whereas top-down policymaking typically creates a distinction between policy formation and implementation, bottom-up policymaking is, itself, a policy development methodology (Sabatier 1986). The perspective of bottom-uppers and backward- mapping was that the complexity of organizations, that is often constrained and seen as impediments to top- down policy directives, can be harnessed and used as an asset to the policy development process if it is understood by policymakers (Elmore 1980). In public policy, the impacts of implementation are analyzed via considerations of top- down or bottom- up authority, with failure being attributed to a poor policy design or theory of change (Pressman & Wildavdsky, 1973; Sandfort & Moutlon, 2015) or the actions and capabilities of those responsible for implementing the policy (Lipsky, 1971). Political process scholarship produced lists of variables that impact implementation. O’toole’s (1986) review of implementation studies identified over three hundred key variables for implementation. These variables often had an explicit focus on policy design and local actors (Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1981; Sandfort & Moulton, 2015). Political Process and Authority scholars most often note the limitations of directives, alone, to change the behavior of individuals (Baier et al., 1986). Issues of capacity, willingness to change or “buy-in”, ideological differences are notable factors that emerge from second-generation scholarship and inform my research. Political Process and Authority Implementation in Education Portz (1996) argues that interventions come to the forefront of the policy agenda when several conditions are met: 1. They are championed by a strong political leader(s), 2. They are 16 attached to a clear problem, 3. They have a viable solution. This problem defining process of policymaking necessitates that problems are convincingly framed. Framing is an essential to the policymaking process. Frame Analysis is founded within public policy, Van Hulst and Yanow (2016), write "It [frame analysis] is an important analytic "tool" for those seeking to understand... issues in the mismatch between administrators' implementation of legislated policies and policy intent (p.92). However, it is in the concise nature, in which complex educational challenges are described, and the simplistic solutions that are attributed to them that framing impacts policy designs, and ultimately, implementation (Dery, 2000). Cynthia Coburn (2006) argued that framing informs the way solutions are devised and applied, "policy problems do not exist as a social fact... rather they are constructed as policymakers and constituents interpret a particular aspect of the social world as problematic (p.343). Additionally, this view of policy failure as an issue of implementation, presupposes that the policies themselves are well written, matched, and appropriate for their given environment (Sandfort & Moulton 2014). Pressman and Wildvasky (1973) argue, “Policies are hypotheses based on a theory of causation” in this way, implementation failure means that the links in the theory of causation are insufficiently connected or that the theory of change embedded within the policy is problematic. For instance, Dumas and Anderson (2014) contend that without addressing ideologies that inform the theory of causation embedded within policies, we are likely to “address poverty not as a structural problem, but rather as a cultural one” (P. 7). Ideologies inform how a policy problem is defined and framed in order to generate interest in the political sphere and support of the citizenry. Ideology. In 1985, Purkey and Smith, asserted, “Genuine reform...is predicated on finding solutions to relatively complex problems and devising policies that will implant those solutions across the spectrum of schools that make up public education. There are 17 not now, as there have never been, simple answers to the questions of what is wrong with our schools and how they can be change” (p.352). The role of political elites and the general public have been a staying feature in public policy research (Sabatier, 1991). Shaker and Heilman (2004) assert that current educational initiatives are based more in ideology than research. This is corroborated in the work of Jack Schneider (2011), who explicated the power of political framing in his analysis of the Excellence for All educational reform movement, which was largely funded by the philanthropic contributions of Bill and Melinda Gates. Through his scholarship, Schneider (2011) illustrated how "history and current events, social conditions, political alignment, leadership, and rhetoric, collectively impact the education policymaking environment" (p.5). Education policy scholars such as Dumas and Anderson (2014) continue to challenge the simplistic framing of educational problems, calling for the end to "research reductionism" the authors write, "Engaging education as a complex set of interconnected interests, phenomena, and challenges is simply more honest, and promises to spark the kind of innovation that ultimately improves education and enters the policy ecology in more complex ways" (p.9). The ecological view for policy, according to Weaver-Hightower (2008) asserts, "each policy exists within a complex system that reflects varied international, national, regional, and local dynamics" (p.153). Dupre & Durak (2008) that successful implementation required a "multi-level ecological perspective" (p.335). This multi-level perspective calls for understand how framing takes place at the district and school level. Ambiguity and Sense making. Baier, March, and Saetran (1986) argue that the policymaking process directly impacts the ability for actors to implement reforms. They assert 18 that policies are written in a vague and ambiguous manner in order to be passed in legislative bodies. This ambiguity requires implementers to infer policy meaning and can lead to discrepancy between policy intent and adoption (Dery, 2000; Matland, 1995). However, Eugene Bardach (2012), in his guide to “smart practices” argued that top-down innovations should not be described in a prescriptive manner, asserting that ambiguity provides local implementers the opportunity to buy-in and applies practices more fluidly to their context. The ambiguity of policies, themselves has lead to research on the sense making process of educational stakeholders. Spillane and Callahan (2000) argue that “it is not only the designing of policy (e.g. its authority, consistency, clarity, policy levers) that influence what implementers do or do not do by way of implementing policy, but also implementers knowledge and beliefs which they use to make sense of the policy message (p.405). Scholars have documented the essential role of principals in framing and sense making also happens at the district and school-level. Where Spillane and Callahan (2000) focus on the "situated", or nested nature of the process by which individuals come to understand policies via their prior beliefs and current contexts. Utilizing a constant comparative case study methodology, the authors argued that the success of "Science for All Americans" (1988) standards was mitigated by the ability for district officials to decipher the intent of a policy and then rightfully "adopt and adapt" the policy in their context (p.405). Coburn (2006) asserts that sense making is also "collective", meaning that it relational and mediated by the environment. Coburn (2006) writes, Sense making provides evidence that local interpretation shapes the direction of policy implementation. It suggests that local actors in schools actively construct their understandings of policies by interpreting them 19 through a lens of their preexisting beliefs and practice. How they construct such understandings shapes their decisions and actions as they enact policy in their schools and classrooms (p.344). In education, Political Process and Authority scholars have argued that policy failure can be explained by the unwillingness of education stakeholders to enact policies (Cohen & Ball, 1990). In studies of change initiatives, the unwillingness or inability of individuals to enact a policy has been shown to influence reform efforts and their subsequent outcomes (Bryk et al., 2010; Foster-Fishman and Watson, 2012; Schneider & Ingram, 1990; Shea et al, 2014). This top- down view often sees the context, relationships, and organizations as impediments or after thoughts of the policy process. Perceiving organizations as inherent barriers to policy disallows policymakers from harnessing the institutional strength and knowledge embedded within individuals and organizations tasked with implementing change (Elmore, 1980). Schneider & Ingram (1990) state that policies are intended to rely on citizens to take the action necessary to achieve policy goals, as such, people aren’t the inhibitors of, but co-producers of policy (Schneider & Ingram 1990). In their research on school reform policy implementation, the authors argue that the purpose of this co-production is that it permits stakeholders to make localized decisions that connect policy to practice and local culture (Schneider & Ingram 1990). Schneider & Ingram’s (1990) perspective on local culture is furthered by Datnow and Hubbard (2001) who assert that the local culture of schools is mediated by those who act within and upon the education system at the local, state, and national level, these “policymakers or educators have ideologies, beliefs and values about education, teaching, schooling, and life in general [that] influence their actions” 20 (Datnow & Hubbard 2001). The ideology-based actions must be attended to in order to best understand implementation processes within organizations, especially schools. In the same way that Datnow & Hubbard (2001) argue that the ideological cultures of schools must be known, so too, does Achinstein and Ogawa (2006) that teacher belief systems also impact the enactment of reform. In their study of teacher resistance to policy enactment, the authors sought to study what influences a teacher’s unwillingness to implement policy, their findings challenge the notion that teachers resist policies due to a psychological deficiency. They contend, instead, that resistance could be a well-informed political act, due to a moral discrepancy with policy. This scholarship is poignant, as it reminds readers that that the schooling of children, is a moral endeavor. As such, the ideological belief systems of teachers as it relates to education reform, in general, and particular education policies that may directly conflict with what teachers believe about equality and learning, may directly impact their implementation behaviors. The limitation of the Political Process approach is that it does not consider organizational-level implementation processes and can contribute to linear and mechanistic understandings of implementation, which is an inherently dynamic process (Sandfort & Moulton, 2015). When implementation is seen as a stage within a broader policymaking process, rather than a process in and of itself, it often works to reinforce the belief that policymakers control organization, which Elmore (1980) calls a "noble lie". The result of viewing implementation as an issue of authoritative control results in the development of policy mechanisms that seek to constrain and constrict the actions of individuals and organizations (Baier et al 1986, McDonnell et al., 1987):). This form of policy design seeks to wield the power of large governmental or organizational bodies over smaller ones, in an effort to control the actions of individuals and 21 deliver the desired results of policy directives (Sandfort & Moulton 2014), which will be explored in the following section. Governance and Management Implementation in Education The "noble lie" has tangible impacts on policy design, which seem informed by an underlying belief that the actors need to be controlled (Dupre & Durak, 2008; Gamoran & Dreeben, R, 1986 Harris, 2004) and constrained via policy levers (Schneider and Ingram, 1990) or accountability measures (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006) or prescriptive policy (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006). This most often leads to a policy environment in which curriculum, content, and pedagogical practices are increasingly dictated by top-down directives (Achinsetin & Ogawa, 2006). Governance and Management scholarship is a vast umbrella that applies a multi-level lens to measure the effectiveness of array of governance tools, market-based approaches on programmatic outcomes, as well as management styles (Sandfort and Moulton, 2015). Governance tools are mechanisms used by top-down authorities to incentivize implementing organizations and individuals to change their daily behavior in ways that are congruent with policy objectives (McDonnell et al., 1987; Sandfort & Moulton, 2015). Governance tools are also referred to as policy levers (Schneider and Ingram, 1990) and can include: mandates, incentives, contracts, and accountability measures (Sandfort & Moulton, 2015). Schneider and Ingram (1990) put forth a behavioral theory of policy tools. Their research categorized policy tools as either: Authority, Incentive, and Capacity instruments. In their testing of the efficacy of policy levers, Febey et al (2008) concluded that the state political culture: be it decentralized, centralized, or independent, influenced the impact that particular policy levers would have on implementation practice. 22 Studies of incentives and mandates in education policy research are abundant. While Purkey and Smith (1985) lauded the promise of balancing incentives and mandates at the district level in order to engender teacher collaboration and responsiveness to reform. Teacher collaboration and collegiality is a necessary component of education reforms, especially those that call for learning communities and shared leadership amongst staff (Kelchtermans, 2006). Van Meter (1994), in a study of Kentucky’s school based management reform; found that the use of mandates in decentralization plans was incongruent with the nature of local governance. Hanushek (1996) in his study on educational inputs found that incentivizing teachers with higher pay did not lead to greater student achievement. The accountability movement, prompted in part by the No Child Left Behind Act, posited that tying teacher’s pay or careers to student outcomes would raise student achievement. Several scholars have tested this market-based approach, Jacob (2005) utilizes panel to test the efficacy of accountability measures embedded within No Child Left Behind. His research concluded, that accountability resulted in large gains on high-stakes test, but those gains were reflected on low-stakes exams. He concludes, that accountability measures didn’t result in increasing student learning, but instead teaching of skills and content specific to tests. Meier and colleagues (2003) claimed four levels of governance hold school districts accountable, according the school board, the superintendent, the principal and central office administrators, and the teachers themselves. As such, education policy researchers, often urge for schools to be conceptualized as multi-level organizations. Bryk and colleagues (2010) asserted that the overall structure and bureaucratic organization of schools impacted their ability to reform. It is the contention of the authors that paperwork processes, coherence between state and 23 district processes, and school-level policies contribute the effective organization of schools, which thereby contributes to their ability to successfully implement reforms. Authority tools, often frame fidelity of implementation as paramount to the success of policy initiatives. Achinsten & Ogawa (2006) contend, however, that political atmospheres that focus on fidelity lead to a "technical and moralistic" environment. According to Elmore (1980), "The harder we try to use conventional tools of hierarchal control, the less likely we are able to achieve" (p.607). Improving schools, it has been found, requires a shift from attempting to control the actions of individuals, and instead, view organizations as complex systems (Leithwood et al., 2009). Sandfort & Moulton (2015) contend that the determination of policy tools is not inherently rational, but functions as a response to political pressures and error in practice. Thus the value in categorization may be limited. Governance and Management perspectives on implementation provide rich information on the efficacy of particular tools and designs leveraged within hierarchal organizations in order to lead to favorable implementation outcomes. However, the categorizing and testing of particular levers, does not inherently equate to a study of implementation processes. Moreover, in order to rightfully understand the outcomes of particular levers, governance structures as organizational level, factors such as those explored in the next section are crucial. Policy and Program Evaluation in Education There is immense promise of the “simplicity and precision” employed by quantitative policy analysis which has allowed researchers to make causational or, at least, correlational arguments regarding a variety of educational issues, ranging from: curricular initiatives, like Reading First (Bean et al., 2015), to whole school interventions, such as Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) (Aladejem & Borman, 2006; Bean et al., 2015; Vernez & Goldhaber, 2006), 24 federal reforms and student achievement (Dee & Jacob, 2011), principal leadership styles (Hallinger et al., 1996; Harris, 2004; Horng & Loeb, 2010), voucher programs (Carlson et al, 2013; Witte et al., 2014;), optimal schooling and classroom environments, like class size for students (Hanushek 1996, Krueger 1999), spending (Lips et al., 2008; Martorell et al., 2015), the impact that teacher education and teacher compensation (Chetty, friedmand & rockoff 2014) has on achievement, the effect of neighborhoods on student achievement (Leventhal et al., 2000), the relationship between peers and educational outcomes (Burke & Sass 2006) the import of school resources (Coleman 1966, Hanushek 1996), the impact of charter schools on student achievement (Imberman 2011, Abdulkadiroglu et al, 2003), the relationship between ability tracking and student achievement (Duflo, Dupas, Kremer 2012, Imberman, Kugler, sacerdote 2012, Carrel, Fullerton, and West 2009, Bui, Craig, Imberman 2014). However, predominant econometric evaluations of policies, do not equate studies of implementation, often reducing complex social problems to variables. Elmore (1980) argued, that the complexities of organizations, for many policymakers are seen as "barriers" to implementation, rather than "instruments" to be utilized during the policy process (p.606). Fullan (1992) argued that many education reforms fail because their approaches do not reflect the complex problems they are seeking to change. Datnow et al., (2001) declared that culture impacted policy outcomes. Dupre & Durak (2008) claimed that the ability to have a widespread understanding of implementation outcomes could only come to be if researchers report implementation behaviors and processes, consistently in the field. The following section explores the promise of qualitative studies of school reform policy implementation. Escape Easy Measurement. MacDonald et al. (2014), Henig et al., (2001), Russakoff (2015), Sizemore (2008), Schneider (2011) consider how broader local, state, and national 25 politics and systems impact large-scale reform efforts. School reform policy implementation largely ignores issues of race (Henig et al, 2001; Sizemore; 2008). However, race and racism is key factor in determining how constituents relate to reformers (Russakoff, 2015), how political actors from different background are able to work with one another (Henig et al., 2001), and, at times, if not considered can be used to undermine reform efforts (Sizemore, 2008). Scholars who urge for policymakers to contend with issues of race and racism in school reform assert that because education is viewed as a "redistributive" as opposed to economic any form of investment is understood as taking from the rich and giving to the poor (Henig et al., 2001, p.16). Henig and colleagues (2001) argue that school reform research often "deemphasizes the importance of politics and coalition building in the viability of reform" (p.8). It is their assertion that reforms are successful as a result of the civic capacity that is built among local actors. This is furthered by the case study research conducted by McDonald (2014) on the Annenberg Challenge of 1993, within New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Oakland. The authors argue that school reform is, necessarily a political endeavor and undermining the socio-political nature of school reforms works to the detriment of reform implementation. According to the authors, large-scale reforms are able to persist as long as they are within political action-space, which requires: professional capacity, civic capacity, and money. Schneider (2011) reasons that reformers, wielding money and "commonsense theories about schools" (p.138) were able to lead to major school curriculum, school size, and teacher certification reforms with no one politically responsible to restore or reconcile the damage the disruptive nature of the reforms caused when they were abandoned. Russakoff (2015) found that race, political ambitions of stakeholders, fiscal nepotism, resulted in underwhelming results of 26 school reform efforts in Newark, New Jersey, following Mark Zuckerberg's million dollar investment in public schools. The Chicago School Reform of 1988, the Annenberg Challenge of 1993, Mark Zuckerberg's million dollar "prize", and the "Excellence for All" Era all represent major school reform efforts, often prompted by philanthropic organizations. Each of these reform efforts were all radical attempts to improve student outcomes by amending school governance, curriculum, size, or staffing in major cities across the United States. They were multifaceted, layered, dynamic, met with hostility, often returned less than stellar results, and were subsequently abandoned. In the wake of their implementation, scholars have endeavored to re-tell the processes, challenges, pitfalls, and victories, of these reforms. The qualitative approach of this scholarship holds promise not only for the future of evaluation research, but also school reform design and implementation studies. Implementation in This Study I utilized Blasé’s et al (2015) education-based definition of implementation as “the specific, observable actions and methods associated with reliably using evidence-based programs to benefit students in typical education settings (p.4)”. The “observable actions and methods”, in the scope of this paper are referred to as processes. Implementation processes are at times codified as stages (Fixsen et al., 2009; Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Meyers et al., 2012; Rogers, 2003; Sabatier, 1986). Stages are the ongoing practices that occur at the individual, organizational, and political levels that contribute to the behavioral change required by educational initiatives. Reforms, innovations, policies, programs, and interventions are used synonymously to describe any effort to induce change in school organizations. Outcomes, results, and effects are 27 also used interchangeably. However, following others in the field of Implementation Science research, I make a distinction between intervention outcomes and implementation outcomes (Blasé et al., 2015; Dupre & Durak, 2008; Goggin, 1986; Proctor et al., 2011). Whereas programmatic outcomes are the measurable impact that interventions have on a particular educational target i.e. student achievement, attendance, dropout rates, or absenteeism. Proctor et al., (2011) define implementation outcomes as “the effects of deliberate and purposeful actions to implement new treatments, practices, and services” (p.65). Nevertheless, while effective implementation is a prerequisite to positive innovation outcomes (Proctor et al., 2011), quality implementation does not guarantee that interventions will be successful at effecting change (Goggin, 1986). However, the only way that the benefits of a program can be truly assessed is to understand the degree to which the innovation was implemented with congruence to the intent of policymakers. Informed by the aforementioned definitions and research literature, I define school reform policy implementation research as the study of the multi-level processes that occur when an educational organization endeavors to improve the educational outcomes of its students. In this study implementation was understood as an active process that’s intent is to create change in a given environment (Fixsen et al 2009, Greenhalgh et al 2004). This follows the definition of effective implementation forwarded by Sandfort & Moulton (2014), whereby effective implementation is the “deliberate, institutionally sanctioned change, motivated by a policy or a program oriented toward creating public value results on purpose” (p.11). Simply put, I am not only interested in implementation processes in general, but the process by which successful implementation is achieved for a given initiative. The definition of successful implementation utilized in this study is informed by Normative Process Theory, which asserts 28 that implementation is successful when, once novel innovations become embedded within the daily and usual actions of an organization (May & Finch 2009). In their work Proctor et al (2009) find that there are eight implementation outcomes required for successful implementation: acceptability: organizational actors thought that the terms and requirements of a policy were acceptable; adoption: actors chose to intentionally adopt the policy; appropriateness: they found the policy appropriate or a fit for their given context; costs: organizational body believed they would be able to shoulder the costs of implementation and sustaining it; feasibility: they believed that the intervention would be feasible; fidelity: if, after all these are considered if the policy or program was implemented with fidelity; penetration: The policy penetrated the daily activities of the organization; sustainability: The intervention was able to be sustained within the organizational context. Proctor et al. (2010) generated these terms in an effort to give researchers a common language with which they could discuss implementation outcomes, be they success or failure (Proctor et al 2010). This study rests upon the aforementioned terms in an effort to discuss successful implementation. In the context of this study, successful implementation is concerned with the sustainability of reforms and the factors that impact successful uptake of reforms at each stage of the policy implementation process with schools. Research on policy implementation has produced wide ranging views of policy design, implementation processes, and conceptual frameworks that seek to define and refine scholarly understandings of constructs that contribute to or impede successful policy implementation. The breadth of literature surrounding implementation and school policy implementation research would not be feasible or appropriate to address in the context of this study. As such, this review of implementation research was guided by a set of simple questions that seek to provide the 29 historical context for implementation research and the current studies across disciplines that have informed my dissertation. The questions are as follows: What are the predominant ways that implementation been defined, characterized, and framed in research? What have dominant perspectives on implementation said about the school-level or organizational-level factors that impact the ability for organizations to implement programs successfully? There are three comprise the understanding of implementation that inform this dissertation research: defining successful implementation, the process by which successful implementation is reached, and social factors that impact an institution’s ability to implement innovations effectively. Institutionalization as Successful Implementation. Normative Process Theory informs my definition of successful implementation. Normalization Process Theory is primarily concerned with the process by which the institutionalization of change occurs. Institutionalization, as defined by Carl May and Tracy Finch (2009) is: “the routinization of practices of different kinds in everyday social life”. According to May & Finch (2009) the rise of institutionalization began in Sociology in the fifties and Sixties and has since become embedded within what they refer to as “social influence theories” of organizational innovation and change, such as Everett Rogers’ (1995) “Diffusion of Innovations theory (May & Finch, 2009. 536). May and Finch (2009) argue that implementation is made possible through the institutionalization of policy directed change, which occurs when policy directives become embedded within the fabric of an organization through the action of individual actors (p.544). Process of Successful Implementation. My project follows the Quality Implementation Framework developed by Meyer and colleagues. In 2012, Meyer et al developed an implementation framework developed via a synthesis of 25 implementation frameworks. Meyers et al (2012) describe policy implementation as a process that takes place in 14 steps and in four 30 distinct phases: (initial considerations regarding the host setting, creating a structure for implementation, ongoing structure once implementation begins, improving future applications) (Meyer et al, 2012, 7). In phase one or “initial considerations regarding the host setting” of the Quality Implementation Framework, the authors describe three key assessment strategies they believe must be conducted in order for quality implementation to be achieved. Termed “assessment strategies” the authors argue that implementation process must incorporate: 1. A needs/ resource assessment 2. A fit assessment 3. A capacity/readiness assessment (Meyers et al, 2012, p.7). Recognizing the importance of incorporating assessment into the implementation process, my research seeks to develop a tool that can readily measure and assess the contextual environment of schools. The Moralization Matrix specifically seeks to identify the prevalence of factors known to contribute to or inhibit the success of implementation of reforms in urban school environments as noted by education researchers. My project asks: can a tool be developed to measure the “unobservable” factors that impact policy and program implementation? Social Factors that Impact Successful Implementation. Research has repeatedly shown that teaching is value-laden and demanding work. The challenge of teaching is amplified for teachers who serve in urban environments. Cochran et al (as quoted by Grant & Gibson 2011) assert that an image of a professional teacher is one who is “knowledgeable, reflective, and collaborative”. While their image of an effective teacher of children of color is one who “constructs pedagogy that is culturally relevant, multicultural but also socially reconstructionist, anti-racist, anti-assimilationist, and/or aimed at social justice (Grant & Gibson 2011). Not only are the expectations of urban teachers different than their rural or suburban counterparts, scholars 31 have also noted that the social challenges that take place in the urban communities that surround urban schools are often brought into the school (Howard 2010). In their article, which focuses on the “Overwhelming Need” within urban schools, Mirra & Rogers (2016) write, We argue for the need to… name social and political inequality in the United States as the foundation for a more complex ecological understanding of teacher working conditions. We purposely choose to focus on the effects of inequality rather than poverty alone because naming inequality highlights the differential student experiences within public institutions that are meant to provide opportunities to all. Inequality contributes to instability and precariousness in the lives of young people and broadens social welfare demands in schools; as such, we see it as a key driver shaping teaching and learning (Mirra & Rogers, 2016, 2). The responsibility of urban schools to fulfill the social needs of their students is not new, scholars have argued that teachers and schools become responsible for not just educating students, but supporting them socially and emotionally. As written by Henig et al (1999): “Schools and teachers are not responsible for the economic and family problems that are sources of the deepest indignities facing inner city children… but schools are relied upon to heal the wounds imposed by inequalities in more privates spheres… schools succumb to the same inequalities” Henig et al (1999). Increasingly, political pundits and scholars have highlighted the relationship between public and private inequalities. “Waiting for Superman” (Guggenheim 2010), and “A National Disgrace (Rather 2011) represent a growing body of expose style documentaries and literature that seek to highlight the disparities in the American education system between urban schools and their rural and suburban counterparts. These media often attend to the socio-economic and racial demographic of cities in 32 an effort to situate the educational shortcomings of urban schools within a broader social, historical, economic, and political landscape. Historicizing the plight of urban schools is not new or limited to films. Scholars such as Thomas Sugrue (1996) have posited that issues of residential segregation, strategic government divestment in cities and, ultimately, racism impacted the institutional systems that operated within Detroit, which led to the demise of the city. Jonathon Kozol has made a career of writing books such as, The Shame of Nation (Kozol 2005), which chronicles the stark disparities between opportunities, resources, and facilities afforded to students in suburban schools versus those in urban environments. Pauline Lipman (2011) conducts research in major cities such as Chicago and contends that neoliberal thinking works to displace, divest, and under-educate people of color living within the nation’s major cities. Lipman argues that the by disenfranchising urban communities, neoliberalism destabilizes urban schools. In his book, So Much Reform, So little Change, Charles Payne (2008) argues that many urban schools are under-resourced and are subject to immense political pressures, increased governance and oversight, drastic and frequent policy reforms, teacher and staff turnover, high student mobility, and innumerable local social challenges that impact their ability to operate as an effective organizational environments (Payne 2008). Payne (2008) provides vignettes from his experiences with these types of urban schools, which he refers to as demoralized, as a means to explain why some reforms, no matter their merit, fail to succeed in the places that need change the most. The Moralization Matrix explored and tested in this study was influenced by the insights that Payne (2008) provides. Payne (2008) argues that within demoralized schools there are both social barriers (p.26) and micro-political barriers to school change (P. 40). The Matrix seeks to 33 improve schools by first identifying the interpersonal, relational, and organizational challenges that may be impeding the ability of schools to operate effectively and successfully. Greenhalgh et al (2005), Fixsen & colleagues (2005) and Durak & Dupre (2008) all conducted interdisciplinary reviews of implementation studies. They all found that the study of implementation required an ecological framework (Dupre & Durak 2008). Durak & Dupre (2008) stated that there was a need for a “multi-level ecological framework for understanding implementation and that such a framework should consider variables related to the characteristics of innovations, communities and individuals…” (P.340). When schools are considered as living ecologies, as advocated by the aforementioned scholars, we are brought to the notion that every ecological system has the propensity to heal itself. In this view, in order to better an ecological system, the force or factor that is obstructing change from happening naturally must be removed. The Moralization Matrix presents itself as a mechanism by which school leaders, policymakers, and those interested in effecting change can identify and improve upon the factors that are impeding a school’s ability to successfully implement change. However, it is important to note that the Matrix was also designed to ascertain the strengths within school communities as well. Measuring for strength is crucial, as it provides the opportunity to leverage the talents and skills already operating within school personnel in order to improve educational outcomes and deliver the urban school renewal that students deserve. By using the Moralization Matrix as a diagnostic tool, policymakers will be better able to develop and tailor reforms and initiatives to schools based upon the interpersonal and relational health of school organizations. The Moralization Matrix will discussed next. Conceptual Framework: The Moralization Matrix Charles Payne and his book intellectually inspired the Moralization Matrix, 34 So Much Reform, So Little Change: The Persistence of Failure in Urban Schools. According to Payne (2008), many urban schools, after years of policy churn and broken political promises, fail to believe that change is possible. As a result they become less willing to change their own behavior, which is a necessary antecedent to reform. Payne (2008) argues that this lack Organization Climate and Effectiveness Maslow’s Hierarchy The Moral Imperative of Change Orientation to Innovation Normalized Attitudes Willingness to Change Human Capacity Race Consciousness Disposition School Organization Leadership Relational Trust Table 1: Constructs and Dimensions of willingness and belief in change contributes to widespread organizational dysfunction in schools, which further perpetuates dismal student outcomes and undermines reform efforts, no matter how well meaning, he terms this phenomenon, “demoralization”. The development of the Moralization Matrix was an effort towards creating and refining a behavioral theory of policy implementation and change for schools. The conceptual framework has a focus on understanding how the confluence of interconnected elements work together to impact individual policy implementation behaviors, and in turn, informs a school-wide culture and orientation to policy- driven change efforts. It should be noted that Moralization, as conceptualized in this study, differs from moralize- and the act of moralization, therein which Miriam-Webster defines in the following ways: 1) To explain or interpret morally. 2) To give a moral quality or direction to; to improve the morals of 3) To make moral reflections Though, the Moralization Matrix does have a moral component to it, the conceptual framework, as a whole is not concerned with determining or measuring right or wrong. The following 35 chapter defines and outlines each of the three constructs a part of the Moralization Matrix. The table notes the elements that comprise each of the three predominate constructs, the guiding definition, and its purpose for inclusion in the Matrix. Definition/ Guiding Literature Maslow (1943, 1954) A psychological theory of human development. Maslow’s Hierarchy “Our most basic need is for physical survival, and this will be the first thing that motivates our behavior. Once that level is fulfilled the next level up is what on”. motivates and us, so a that argues (2008) Payne schools’ organizational network can have demoralizing effects on teachers. He proposes that if schools are not running effectively, teaching and learning cannot be effective either. Bryk et al (2010) argue that effecting change in urban schools requires coherently functioning processes and systems. Principals are an integral aspect of a school community (Bryk et al., 2010; Donaldson, 2013; Hallinger et al., 1996; Marks & Printy, 2003). They have been noted as the second most important factor affecting student achievement, after teachers themselves (Cohen et al., 2009). Bryk & Schneider (2002) argue that the ability for school personnel to trust one another directly impacts their ability to do their best work for children. According to the authors, Relational Trust is the “glue” that keeps school reform together" doesn’t physiological Purpose I am arguing that if a teacher feel healthy, safe, cared for, have their esteem needs met, they will not be able to self-actualize and excel in their role as teachers. As such, one of the first steps in effecting change within a school is accounting for the and emotional needs of one’s staff Organizational effectiveness and management directly impacts school culture and teacher attitudes regarding the way is valued within their school. teacher Ascertaining understanding regarding their principal is critical for preparing for programs and innovations that may require that staff members have high esteem or trust in their school leadership Understanding if teachers trust their colleagues is an integral aspect of change- making work. their work Maslow's Hierarchy School Organization Leadership Relational Trust Table 2: Definitions and Guiding Literature 36 Table 2: (cont’d) Willingness to Change "Resistance to change is one of the most cited reasons for innovation failure” (Burnes 2014) Additionally, policy failure is typically attributed to “...the unwillingness or lack of cooperation of individuals (Sandfort & Moulton 2014).Achinstein & Ogawa (2006) challenged the notion that to a psychological deficiency, they assert that resistance could be a political act, due to a moral discrepancy with policy. Implementation requires the “cognitive participation” or buy-in of members of an organization, (May & Finch, 2009, p.543). teachers resist policies due Disposition Human Capital A school’s culture and climate impacts student outcomes, teacher job satisfaction, school to parent relationships, and can prevent school violence (Cohen et al., 2009; Macneil et al., 2009; Thapa et al., 2013; Welsh, 2000). A healthy school climate and culture is an integral aspect in the effective implementation of policies and programs within schools (Donaldson, 2013; Payne 2008, Thapa et al., 2013). “Changing implementation practice requires shifting the power and cultural dynamics to allow new ideas to be accepted and perceived at legitimate” (Sandfort 83). Teacher’s professional capacity to teach and learn is crucial to school improvement efforts (Thapa et al, 2013). Foster-Fishman & Watson (2011) asserts that capacity is major part of ability for systems to enact change. It has been argued that organizations improve with the capacity of their workers (Donaldson, 2013). Additionally, lack of capacity can cause some reform efforts to take longer than expected ( Borman et al., 2006). & Moulton, 2014, 37 to change, Knowing if an individual is willing to change is important. However, understanding their perception of their colleagues is crucial. If they don’t believe their is colleagues or willing they may be less willing to amend own behaviors. Payne (2008) argues that teachers’ willingness to change is often mitigated by their perception of the expectations and attitudes of school personnel.. fellow leader their this The purpose of construct is to rate school personnel’s perception of their schools organizational members. If teachers do not believe that they themselves, or their are capable of changing , then they will be less likely to implement new programs. colleagues Table 2: (cont’d) Orientation to Innovation Race Consciousness Payne (2008) argues that schools that are prone to policy churn may stop believing that policies can actually influence teaching and learning. Sandfort & Moulton assert that “Implementation systems require convincing people that change envisioned by a policy is justifiable (and possible) to achieve different results” (Sandfort & Moulton, 201, p.68) Sizemore (2008) argues that major reform efforts targeted at improving the educational outcomes for black students are foiled by institutional and structural racism. Henig et al., (1999): School reform downplays the significance of race (p.7) as it relates to the ability for stakeholders to build coalitions within schools and their surrounding communities. Noguera & Wing (2008): argue that embedded structural racism within schools undermined educational attempts at providing equal educational opportunities for students. Thus, we have ascertain teacher understanding of how racism operates within the lives of students and within their school community. purpose of The this construct is to understand a teacher’s orientation to programs and innovations in general. Understanding if that reforms actually change their schools is key for the successful uptake of reforms teachers believe can is Race Consciousness important to understand in schools that are serving a population of students of color and/or implement policies that are targeting racial inequity The Moralization Matrix addresses school-level factors that have a direct impact on Moralization. I define moralized schools as those that have teachers that are motivated, willing to change, believe that change can make things better, and are able to work together to achieve classroom and school level goals. In this study Moralization is conceptualized as the confluence of three constructs: Organizational Effectiveness, Normalized Attitudes, and the Moral Imperative of Change. I propose that the ability to identify teacher perception and attitudes regarding their organizational effectiveness and climate, normalized attitudes, and the moral imperative to change amongst themselves, colleagues, and leaders is critical to the success of 38 program implementation. My research argues that in order to harness the benefits promised of educational interventions, school leaders must navigate the complexities of the factors that impact teachers’ ability to teach and work together effectively in their schools. The Moralization Matrix was developed in order to facilitate a dialogue amongst policymakers, school leaders, and teachers. Organizational Climate and Effectiveness The Organizational Climate and Effectiveness construct forms the basis of the Moralization Matrix. The needs of teachers, the cohesive nature of a school, and leadership set the tone for the normalized attitudes and behaviors that are fostered and developed within a school. The Moral Imperative to Change, then, is based upon the organizational climate and the behaviors and attitudes that become commonplace within an urban school. In short, the Organizational Climate and Effectiveness of a school informs the normalized behavior of veteran teachers, and in turn, sets the tone for incoming faculty. The Organization Climate and Effectiveness Construct has four elements: 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of School Reform 2. School Organization 3. Leadership 4. Relational Trust Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, a motivational theory developed by American psychologist, Abraham Maslow, in 1943. Maslow (1943) posited that human motivation was guided by our needs, and once each “level” or hierarchy of needs was achieved, humans would be motivated to fulfill the next. The original five-stage hierarchy is presented below: 39 1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep. 2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, freedom from fear. 3. Love and belongingness needs - friendship, intimacy, affection and love, - from work group, family, friends, romantic relationships. 4. Esteem needs - achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, self- respect, and respect from others. 5. Self-Actualization needs - realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences. (McLeod 2007) Figure 1: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs In Maslow’s (1943) conceptualization, self-actualization was the highest level of human motivation. Some may find the adaptation of Maslow’s Hierarchy (1943) ill fitting for the context of schools. However, in my view, moralization and motivation and intricately connected concepts. When one has the morale to change, they are also motivated. As such, it was of keen importance in this study, to understand how individuals are motivated. Though, Maslow was more concerned with individual growth, this study adapts his theory, to ask, what needs must teachers have fulfilled in order to be change agents in their school? 40 My adaptation, of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, is concerned with the physiological, safety, and emotional needs of teachers. It is not hard to suppose, that the ability for teachers to feel physically safe in their classrooms and schools impacts the way they educate students. Moreover, the school climate and culture amongst faculty also may be correlated to a teacher’s investment in bettering their schools. Measuring for this need, can allow reformers and leaders the opportunity to respond to present dangers or obstacles that could be demoralizing to teachers. The self-actualization phase of the hierarchy is conceptualized as the ability for teachers to feel able to strive to be the best they can be. This also means that they are engaged and active change agents within their schools. In short I am arguing that if a teacher doesn’t feel healthy, safe, cared for, and have their esteem needs met, they will not be able to excel in their role as teachers or agents of reform. As such, one of the first steps in effecting change within a school is accounting for the physiological and emotional needs of one’s staff and subsequently, attending and responding to these needs. Testing for these needs establish a “baseline” for faculty in a building. Before seeking to make a given change(s) within a building, a leader must know if their staff is having their basic needs met. School Organization. Education scholar, Anthony Bryk considers the way a school’s organizational structure impacts its ability to successfully implement and sustain education reforms. In Organizing Schools for Change, Bryk and colleagues (2010), argue that the bureaucratic processes of schools have a direct impact on teacher compliance with educational interventions. The authors argue that if paperwork processes are disorganized or cumbersome, they impede the actual instructional and developmental time that teachers have (Bryk et al. 2010). Research has found that even when people are willing to change, if the process is made 41 too difficult they will not be able to do so in a timely or effective manner (Bryk et al. 2010). Put simply, individuals work better in organizations that operate efficiently and effectively. As such, teacher perception of organizational effectiveness is a crucial foundation to enacting school change. Bryk et al. (2011) argued in “Seeing the System” that organizations should work to map the processes and plans for change. This begins with identifying a critical problem of the organization and creating “fishbone” diagrams about all the factors and personnel that impact that issue. The authors argue that this process allows for the elucidation of challenges and better coordination of solutions (Bryk et al., 2011, 66). Ultimately, Bryk et al. (2011) argue, “Improving productivity in complex systems is not principally about incentivizing more individual effort, preaching better intentions, or even enhancing individual competence, rather it is about designing better processes for carrying out common work problem…”(p.61). What the aforementioned scholarship illustrates is that before individuals can be expected to change or improve, they must perceive that their organization is responsive, coherent, and efficient. It is the lack of organizational cohesion and coherence that can serve to demoralize teachers and undermine educational reform efforts. Leadership. Leadership is the next measure in the Organizational Climate and Effectiveness Construct. Principals are an integral aspect of a school community (Bryk et al., 2010; Donaldson, 2013; Hallinger et al., 1996; Marks & Printy, 2003). They have been noted as the second most important factor affecting student achievement, after teachers themselves (Cohen et al., 2009). It must be noted, however that no research study has been able to find direct links between student outcomes and school leaders (Donaldson, 2013; Hallinger et.al, 1996). There is evidence that principal leadership has a strong indirect impact on student 42 outcomes by creating and maintaining a positive culture and climate within their school (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Bryk et al., 2010; Cohen et al., 2009; Leithwood et al., 2009; Marks & Printy, 2003). A school’s culture and climate impacts student outcomes, teacher job satisfaction, school to parent relationships, and can prevent school violence (Cohen et al., 2009; Macneil et al., 2009; Thapa et al., 2013; Welsh, 2000). Furthermore, a healthy school climate and culture is an integral aspect in the effective implementation of policies and programs within schools (Donaldson, 2013; Payne 2008, Thapa et al., 2013). Thus principals, as creators, facilitators, and purveyors of climate have an essential, though indirect, role in supporting and sustaining effective educational climates within their schools. This construct considers leadership as the entity that provides guidance and maintains the structure of the school environment. Leadership provides cohesion to the individual efforts of teachers, counselors, paraprofessionals, and support staff. Ascertaining teacher understanding regarding their principal is critical for programs and school reform. Relational Trust. The role of trust in education reform has been noted in organization studies and education reform literature. Forsyth, Adams, et al. (2011), succinctly asserted that schools would be unable to improve themselves without what they call “collective trust”. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000) explored the “nature, meaning, and measurement of trust”, and argued that a lack of trust is an impediment to school reforms (p.548). They found that willingness to risk vulnerability, confidence, benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, and openness were all facets of trust (p.556). Tschannen and Hoy (2000) compiled numerous definitions of trust in an effort to create “facets of trust”. The authors quote Baier (1986) to state that “trust is reliance on other’s competence and their willingness to look after rather than harm what is entrusted to their care”. In many ways, trust is characterized as a form of dependence on 43 one’s colleagues. As such, Tschannen and Hoy (2000) assert, “trust is necessary for effective cooperation and community, the foundation for cohesive and productive relationship in organizations” (p.549). The focus on measuring or developing trust cannot be done without noting, as does Tschannen & Hoy (2000), “distrust is not necessarily an irrational or unwise response, but may be based on knowledge, expertise, and real differences in values (p.550). As such, any effort to reform schools must also be interested in healing the wounds of distrust, creating trust where this none, or maintaining the trust within given environments. It is crucial that a tool be developed that can feasibly and quantitatively value the levels of trust within school communities. Though my research focuses on the perspectives of teachers, it is important to note that there have been scholars who have argued that trust is crucial not just among teachers and principals, but also amongst students, parents, and the community (Bryan 2005). Goddard, Tschannen, Hoy (2001) found that the level of trust that teachers had for their students and parents was a strong predictor of student achievement. In this vein, Cook-Sather (2002) argued that incorporating student voices and perspectives in school reform efforts has the potential to present positive change in education reform. In their 2008 study, Wahlstom and Louis sought to identify the connection between shared leadership practices and trust and self-efficacy. The authors found that when there is professional community and shared leadership, trust in the school principal loses importance. Both Cook-Sather (2002) and Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) hold robust possibilities for urban communities who suffer heightened principal turnover. Informed by these studies, the importance of building trust among teachers, staff, students, and community becomes an increasingly powerful proxy for change making. Though there are numerous definitions of trust, I utilize the definition put forth by 44 Anthony Bryk and Barbara Schneider in their 2002 book, Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. Bryk & Schneider (2002) argue that the ability for school personnel to trust one another directly impacts their ability to do their best work for children. According to the authors, Relational trust represents an intermediate case between the material and instrumental exchanges at work in contractual trust and unquestioning beliefs operative in organic trust. Like contractual trust, relational trust requires that the expectations held among members of a social network or organization be regularly validated by actions (Bryk & Schneider, 2002, p.21) Later in Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010) argued that the factors that support or undermine school improvement are professional capacity, order, safety, norms, parent-school-community ties, instructional guidance; relational trust is the “glue” that binds these processes (Bryk et al. 2010). Normalized Attitudes Understanding the moralization of a school requires disaggregating teacher attitudes regarding themselves, their colleagues, and their leaders. Payne (2008) argues that teachers’ willingness to change is mitigated by their perceptions of the normalized attitudes or disposition of their colleagues. Though the entire Moralization Matrix is based upon teacher perception, the Normalized Attitude Construct is the only construct that asks teachers to place their attitudes in relation to those of their colleagues and leaders. The Normalized Attitudes measure is based on relational data that asks teachers to rate themselves, their colleagues, and their leaders on the same categories. This allows teachers to describe and locate themselves in a continuum on the normalized attitudes within their school. Normalized Attitudes construct is comprised of the 45 three following factors. 1. Willingness to Change 2. Disposition 3. Human Capacity Willingness to Change. Shea et al. (2014) argue that willingness to change is “the extent to which organization members are psychologically and behaviorally prepared to implement organizational change (p.2). The authors further that willingness to change is characterized by the following: 1. Change commitment and shared resolve to implement a change. 2. Change efficacy: organization members believe in the collective capacity to implement a change. In the Moralization Matrix, willingness to change is characterized by a lack of resistance to change-making efforts. Noting the importance of lack of resistance is crucial. Resistance to change has been noted as one of the most cited reasons for innovation failure (Burnes 2014; Sandfort & Moulton 2014). There are many reasons why a teacher may be resistant to change, however. Achinstein & Ogawa (2006) have noted that, at times, teacher’s resistance to reforms is an ideological protest against “prescriptive and control-oriented education policies”. In their case studies of the implementation of a math curriculum, Cohen, Ball, and Wilson (1990) argue that teachers may resist implementing a policy due to a lack of capacity or training, or because they may not be agree with the curriculum they are being asked to enact. Mayrowetz’s (2009) research identified that teachers implementation may be hindered by the nature of “converging policies” that require them to “choose” which parts of policies they can feasibly adopt. This results in policies that are not enacted with fidelity and thereby, undermines the outcomes of 46 reforms. It has been noted by Cohen (1990) that willingness to change may be upended if teachers lack the capacity to implement a policy as intended. Traditionally policymakers have developed policy tools and levers- such as mandates and incentives in order to control or coerce change behavior in teachers (Schneider & Ingram 1990). However, these mechanisms, are built upon human behavioral assumptions; and while they can be successful, the assumptions of a given policy tool, must be rightly aligned with a given context in order to produce desired results. As such, policymakers require a mechanism by which they can rightfully identify the willingness to change of policy actors. It is important to measure willingness to change as a relational construct, because fellow faculty members and school leaders have an impact on the teaching and learning that occurs within individual classrooms (Supovitz & May 2010, Payne (2008). or as Payne (2008) posits, if teachers don’t believe their colleagues will implement a policy, and that they will “get away” with not enacting change, they are less likely to participate in change-making efforts (Payne 2008). Disposition. A school’s culture and climate impacts student outcomes, teacher job satisfaction, school to parent relationships, and can prevent school violence (Cohen et al., 2009; Macneil et al., 2009; Thapa et al., 2013; Welsh, 2000). A healthy school climate and culture is an integral aspect in the effective implementation of policies and programs within schools (Donaldson, 2013; Payne 2008, Thapa et al., 2013). Much of individual human behavior within organizations is guided by what one thinks their colleagues are doing “and getting away with” (Payne 2008) this often amplified by how leaders hold themselves and their faculty members accountable. These behaviors inform a settled culture of work that may be in conducive to change, as Sandfort and Moulton (2014) write, “Changing implementation practice requires shifting the power and cultural dynamics to allow new ideas to be accepted and perceived at 47 legitimate” (P.83).The disposition construct contends with the “felt” understanding of personnel regarding the expectations and attitudes of the colleagues. This factor is key in understanding implementation practice. Sandfort and Moulton (2014) argue that culture “requires a qualitative felt understanding of the dynamics on the ground” (p.91). The disposition element aims to understand what a school might feel like to teachers by gathering their perceptions regarding their colleague and leaders styles of work, behaviors, and expectations. Human Capital. Capacity building, as a mechanism for education reform, has been a noted policy approach. “[Capacity] can be defined as the necessary motivation and ability to identify, select, plan, implement, evaluate and sustain effective interventions” (Durak & Dupre, 2008, 335). Linda Darling- Hammond (2003) noted that capacity had to be developed amongst teachers in order for school-based transformation to take place. Darling- Hammond & McLaughlin (1995) argued that professional development had to continuously maintained, even in the face of increasing educational reforms. In his assessment of the Chicago School Reform, Hess (1999) listed expectations, opportunity, capacity, and will as four essential components to change. Borko & Wolfe (2003) argued that reform efforts were correlated to a school’s capacity. The need for capacity has led to an enduring commitment to providing teachers with mandated professional development. This is understandable as teacher professional capacity to teach and learn is crucial to school improvement efforts (Thapa et al., 2013). Additionally, Foster-Fishman & Watson (2011) asserted that capacity is a major part of the ability of organizational systems to enact change. Human Capacity, is more than simply, being able to enact the parameters of a policy, Spillane et al. (1997) argued that there were three dimensions to capacity: human capital, social capital, and financial resources. As such, we must understand if teachers believe that they 48 have capacity, as well as understand if they believe that their colleagues have capacity as well. This study, however does not attend to the issue of financial resources. The Moral Imperative to Change The final construct, the moral imperative of change is designed to ascertain information regarding attitudes around issues of education innovation and racism. The Moral Imperative to Change measures for teachers’ belief in innovation and the ability for reforms to improve educational outcomes for students. Payne (2008) argues that schools that are prone to high rates of policy churn may stop believing that policies can actually influence the teaching. Additionally, much reform research has explicated how issues of racial difference can manifest distrust and undermines the promise of education reform initiatives (Henig, 1999; Sizemore, 2008; Russakoff, 2015). And learning that takes place within their schools. Orientation to Innovation. Research on defining successful implementation is furthered by scholarship that explores the conditions of the organizational environment that contribute to successful implementation. These conditions most often focus on the technical and bureaucratic organization of the environment. In 1991 Odden presented a set of eight elements that impacted education reform at the governmental and organizational level: “Ambitious policy change, micro-implementation (local change), the decision to implement high quality proven programs, involving teachers in the implementation design process with intensive assistance provided, central office commitment and support, teacher participation throughout design and implementation, extensive, intensive ongoing training for teachers, and teacher commitment.” Henig et al (1999) posited that successful reform requires selectivity, institutional capacity, sufficient political support to maintain positive momentum and that, ”highly touted reforms require political, social, and institutional preconditions that make change possible” (p.14). Fixsen 49 et al (2009) reasoned that there were Core Implementation Components: staff selection, pre- service and in-service training, ongoing coaching and consultation, staff evaluation, decision support data systems, facilitative administrative support, and systems interventions. Greenhalgh and colleagues (2004) argued that organization studies most often focused on the needs and drivers that effected change in business organizations. In their work, however, they argued that organization studies that focused on issues of implementation should center the “context and culture” of organizations (Greenhalgh et al 2004). According to Greenhalgh (2004), the focus of context organization studies of implementation is on what the authors describe as “softer, nonstructural aspects”. These “softer” aspects include: “Prevailing culture and climate, relation to leadership style, power balances, social relations, attitude to risk taking” (Greenhalgh et al, 2004, 591). While there is both overlap and dissonance between the constructs these studies present, they all share a common understanding that there are preconditions, processes, and supports that should be in place in order to facilitate successful implementation. What the aforementioned scholarship highlights is that implementation is made successful through a confluence of factors, some of which are included within the Moralization Matrix. Many scholars allude to the importance of incorporating teachers in change- making efforts (Odden, 1991;Fixsen et al., 2009). This is often advocated for as “buy-in”. As previously noted, the importance of teacher engagement in innovations is essential for successful implementation. However, in an effort to better engage teachers, it is beneficial for stakeholders to have an understanding of where teachers stand on the issue and possibility of enacting change. Payne (2008) argues that schools that are prone to high rates of policy reform and change may stop believing that policies can actually influence the teaching and learning that takes place within their schools. Therefore, the purpose of the innovation and implementation factor is to 50 gather data on the attitudes that faculty have in regard to change making. This measure pulls from Greenhalgh and colleagues (2004) and focuses on teacher “attitude to risk taking” and their belief that change is necessary and possible within their given environment. Race Consciousness. Structural Racism is described by Powell (2007) as the “interaction of multiple institutions in an ongoing process of producing racialized outcomes” (Powell, 2007). Informed by a dynamic and complex systems theory approach, Powell (2007) asserts that we must consider the importance of structures, and how “individual and institutional behavior” interacts with one another to produce “unintended consequences” (Powell 2007). Schools are direct reflections of the values of their society. As such, if education is bore into a society that has historically disenfranchised minoritzed children- simply because of their culture or color of their skin, as is the case in the United States that history is embedded within the culture and fabric of education as an institution. Ultimately, Powell (2007) asserts that stereotypical assumptions and dispositions impact the subconscious of individuals and their political actions within structures. Therefore, according to Powell (2007), individualized approaches to racism alone cannot interrupt the ways that racism operates within systems (Powell 2007). Much of Powell’s (2007) argument rests upon the notion that structures are subconsciously or unintentionally, racist. Though race is often a demographic variable in administrative and panel data sets, in education policy, racism, is not often addressed in education policy research or design. Understanding the historical context of residential segregation, political and economic divestment and white flight in urban centers allows policymakers a societal context in which their policies exist. Henig et al. (1999) argue that racial backlash often exhibited via black/white racial lines occurs because “education is seen not as economic development but as redistributive. 51 Redistributive programs pose challenges as they seem to be taking resources from the wealthier and giving to the poor (p.16)”. Unfortunately, due to historical inequality, the lines between who is wealthy and who is poor can be drawn across racial lines. This causes issues of education to not only be socio-economic, but to also reflect issues of race. In order to better educate students of color, and enact change with the American education system, we must acknowledge as researchers, reformers, and citizens, that schools are and remain influenced by both historical and contemporary racial inequities. Understanding the relationship between individual bias of citizens, lawmakers, leaders, and structural racism is of upmost importance for developing policies that can have positive impacts on the experiences of students of color within schools and their communities. Despite the well-documented history of the impact that racism has had on communities of color, education reformers typically “downplay the significance of race (Henig et al. 1999). According to Henig and colleagues (1999), Americans “either deem [race] an artifact of the past or are too timid to openly address a potent, painful, and divisive issue” (p.6). However, ignoring race in policy design perpetuates inequity. Chapman & Donner (2015) argue that the seemingly colorblind ideology that undergirds market-based policy reform works to perpetuate inequality of educational opportunities and increase racial segregation. Focusing on education reforms that rely on markets, such as charter schools, Chapman and Donner (2015) found that the promise of a policy designed to provide more educational options for students of color, actually worked to create racially segregated school environments. Current research that seeks to unearth how racial biases impact education policy tends to focus on in-school or site specific discrimination. Scholars such as Noguera and Wing (2006) focused their research on how the individual racism and bias of school leaders and teachers, 52 work to undermine the espoused desire for educational equity in a large comprehensive Berkeley High School (Noguera & Wing 2006). Further research on bias and its impact on K-12 policy have explored the nature of teacher hiring and firing (Carnevale & Rose 2003). Others have argued that market ideology and neoliberalism differentially impacts the educational choices provided to students of color in regards to alternatively certified teachers (Porfilio et al. 2006) and the presence and prevalence of charter schools (Chapman & Donnor 2015, Lipman 2006). Typically, race and racism are not considered a part of the traditional policy development process. However, understanding how racism has and continues to effect efforts for change is crucial. The late Barbara Sizemore, an educator and scholar who dedicated most of her life to the Chicago Public School reform reflected on the barriers she often met when advocating for students of color. In her writing, Sizemore (2008) describes the structural and institutional obstacles that were deliberately erected in order to prevent efforts to better the education for youth of color in Chicago Public Schools. Sizemore (2008) argued that the lack of attention of reformers to the realities of structural racism undermined many great policies and initiatives. Sizemore (2008) argued that school reform efforts could not be created or executed without an understanding of the political climate in which they are seeking to make change in. Additionally, according to Sizemore (2008), reformers must be committed to dismantling the dominant systems that do not wish to see all students succeed. The research above, informed the development of the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework. Each of the aforementioned factors has demonstrated that they are an imperative impediment or catalyst towards the institutionalization of novel interventions. The conceptualization of the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework led to the development of a diagnostic assessment. The diagnostic assessment measures each of the nine elements of 53 Moralization separately. The following section describes the methodological approach of this research, which is seeking to test the congruent between the data gathered from the Moralization Matrix assessment and qualitative data, as well as the utility of the instrument to overall. 54 Methodology Chapter Overview The purpose of this study was to determine, the extent, if at all the Moralization Matrix Assessment, was able to capture the social cultural realities, or essence of a school community. The ability to evaluate the efficacy of the survey in this way required gathering descriptive, detailed, and differing forms of data regarding the interpersonal dynamics, relationships, and behaviors within the given research site as they related to the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix that comprise the conceptual framework and accompanying assessment. A case study approach was identified as an ideal mechanism for testing the survey in this manner. In this research the case was the Moralization Matrix survey, the phenomenon of interest was understanding the relationship between the survey and interview data, the unit of analysis were the school personnel that were surveyed and interviewed, and the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix are treated as propositions. The following chapter will explore the rationale for choosing case study, the benefits and limitations of the methodology, as well as the way case studies have been operationalized in education policy research. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the means by which the survey was piloted and administered, how the survey report was generated and disseminated to the principal, and how interviews, and observations were conducted and analyzed. Each form of the aforementioned data attempts to capture the same nine elements of the Moralization Matrix. This chapter concludes with how the research site was chosen for this study. A profile of the school community and participants will be provided at the beginning of the Findings chapter. 55 Introduction The Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework and accompanying assessment were tested via a single site conceptually bounded case study approach. The approach to case studies, in this dissertation, is not typical. A geographic location or research site within which researchers explore a broad cultural phenomenon often bound case studies. However, the nine dimensions that comprise the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework bound this case study. Therefore the phenomenon of interest is relatively narrow, in terms of case study research. In this research, examining and identifying the nuances in the relationship between the findings elicited from qualitative and quantitative data collection via the survey and interviews was the phenomenon of interest. The unit of analysis by which the case was understood were the survey respondents and interview participants. Case study was an ideal methodology for this study because it privileges the researchers’ ability to make “thick” descriptions (Geertz 1994) of their area of interest-, which in this case would be the dimensions of the Moralization Matrix captured via the survey and interviews. As will be seen in the results chapter, each dimension of the Moralization Matrix Assessment will be explored in depth. This study utilized both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Quantitative data was collected via the distribution of the assessment within the case school. Individual interviews with teachers and the principal, and staff observations were collected for qualitative data. The convergence of these differing forms of data, creates what Yin (2014) refers to as triangulation. Data triangulation, a feature of case study methods, is a central method utilized in my data analysis. This triangulation, provided a lens to interrogate the nuances, congruencies, and inconsistencies between differing forms of data collected. In this particular case study research, triangulation is utilized as a key means by which the qualitative and quantitative data is 56 compared, understood, and the phenomenon of the Moralization Matrix was unearthed. In this case, the “thick” description provided an in-depth and, more holistic understanding of the dynamics of the school site. These rich understandings, collected via qualitative data, will be evaluated against data collected quantitatively from the Moralization Matrix Assessment. Through this interrogation, research question one, which considers the efficacy of the assessment was answered. According to Eckstein (1975) case studies are ideal for testing hypotheses and theories. Levy (2008) argued that case studies could be idiographic (descriptive) and “explicitly guided by a well-developed conceptual framework that focuses attention on some theoretically specified aspects of reality and neglects others” (p.4). George and Bennett (2005) as cited by Flyvberg (2011), argue that case studies can provide the following: • Tracing links between causes and outcomes • Detailed exploration of the hypothesized causal mechanisms • Development and testing of historical explanations • Understanding the sensitivity of concepts to context • Formation of new hypothesis and new questions to study, sparked by deviant cases Case studies offer themselves as a valuable means to study social phenomenon such as program implementation. Stark and Torrance (2005) state “case study seeks to engage with and report the complexity of social activity in order to represent the meanings that individual social actors bring to those setting and manufacture in them” (p.33). This benefit of case study aligns with the purpose of this research, which was to better understand how school personnel make meaning of social activity within their school building and how those perspectives are impacted by the relationship of key social actors (teachers and leaders) within their community. To this end, the perspectives that school personnel shared both quantitatively or quantitatively regarding the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix are held at the center of the discussion of the efficacy of 57 the Matrix survey tool in the following chapter. As was previously mentioned, understanding the relationship between data collected regarding the Moralization Matrix qualitatively and quantitatively limited the view of this study. As will be seen subsequently, this research does not seek to make broad connections between participant perspectives regarding the dimensions of school climate as measured by Moralization Matrix, and the impact that those beliefs may have on their classroom, school community, or education policy writ large. While the aforementioned issues may be considered in future research, the present study focused exclusively upon understanding what is learned or lost about a school when its interpersonal relationships are measured quantitatively versus qualitatively. Though the purpose of this dissertation is centered upon conceptualizing the Moralization Matrix specifically, the desire to better understand how organizational context mitigates policy outcomes is not unique to this dissertation and is a key feature of implementation and organizational research that utilize case study methodology and methods. Previous research that feature the close inquiry into organizations that case studies provide, across policy contexts has led to knowledge regarding effective processes by which implementation should be undertaken (Meyers et al., 2012; Sandfort & Moulton, 2014), and how change can be sustained (May & Finch, 2009). This dissertation utilized case study to better understand if the school-level relational factors that are known to impact implementation behaviors can be detected via a quantitative assessment. This is done by comparing the results of the survey to the interview and observational data gathered at the same research site. Navigating and identifying the nuance and context, in the sense of this study, is both the source of inquiry and the outcome of interest. The focus on context of the case and comparison of data is a key feature of case studies, especially so- called “variance-oriented” case studies. Maxwell (2004) as 58 cited by Bartlett and Vavrus (2017) assert that variance-oriented case studies “deals with variables and the correlations among them; it is based on an analysis of the contributions of differences in values of particular variables to differences in other variables” (p. 28). In this way, the case, the context of the case, and the variables that inform the context of the case become equally important and contribute to a greater understanding of the phenomena being researched. Yin (2014) refers to this collection and comparison of data as triangulation. He urged that this data triangulation contributed to a greater understanding of a phenomena, and allowed for interrogating the truthfulness of the data (Yin, 2014). Data triangulation, in this research, was a key means by which findings and conclusions were reached. In this study, there was an intensive focus on identifying the correlations, generating comparisons, and interrogating the relationships between the means of data collection and understanding the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework. The nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix, in this research, acted as what Yin (2014) would refer to as propositions. According to Yin (2014), propositions are research-based hypothesis or concepts that guide data collection and the delineation of findings. In this study, the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix acts as research propositions by which the findings of the survey and interviews are analyzed and compared. This analytical process contributes to the broader purpose of this study, which is to understand the nuance between the offerings of quantitative survey data and qualitative interview and observation data. It is important to note, however, that though the data collected from a single case may be vast, the global conclusions that can be generated based upon findings are limited due to the singularity of a given single research site. This is related to a well-known limitation of case studies. 59 It has been argued that the weakness of case study design is that one cannot generalize their findings to a broader phenomena due to small “N” of the research design (Cambell and Stanley (1966) as cited by Levy (2008). This has been actively disputed by scholars, Ruddin (2006) asserted “generalizability is essential a problem of positivism” (p.198). Ruddin (2006) argued that the “cases generate precisely that concrete, practical, and context-dependent knowledge (p.180). He argued that this knowledge was critical for social science and the development of theory. According to Ruddin (2006), researchers should not seek to “generalize from one case to another, but generalize to theory” (p.803). Andrew Abbott (1992), as cited by Flyvberg (2005), argues, “A social science expressed in terms of topical case narratives would provide far better access to policy intervention than the present social science of variables” (p.312). While my research considered the phenomenon of school change, it was keenly focused upon the ability to generalize to the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework. Though the ongoing debate between the value of quantitative and qualitative work is not the basis of this study, I argue, in line with Flyvberg (2005) that “case studies and statistical methods are not in conflict but complementary” (p.313). This conceptually bounded case study methodology collects a range of data including, surveys, individual interviews and observations. The power of case study in the study of culture and phenomenon has been well noted in research (Erickson, 1986; Geertz, 1994; Stake and Trumbell, 1982). However, Proctor et al., (2009) argue that current studies of implementation provide “anecdotal evidence” from “highly controlled experiments”. These highly controlled experiments often cannot reflect the messiness of school organizations. Sandfort and Moulton (2015) further this claim, in the research by stating, “Research designs do little to help figure out which parts of the intervention are causal or what factors drive positive results”. Many research program implementation or evaluation 60 studies boast research designs that focus on and privilege the outcomes of an innovation, without giving adequate or in depth voice to the process by which the outcomes were reached. The lack of context-centered experimental design is not limited to implementation, but also permeates the field of Education Policy. The following section will explore the way case studies have been leveraged in Education Policy, specifically. Case Study Research in Education Policy As education researchers endeavor to study the impact that reforms have on student outcomes, they have produced scholarship, often times via case studies that seeks to explain causes for the immense variation in student outcomes between schools. These cases have provided valuable insight regarding school change, due to their “close” and “thick description”. In some of these works that will be explored in this section the authors showcase the organizational and programmatic elements that were helpful or impeding to implementation outcomes. Many of these studies also focused on how aspects of the implementing organization impacted the uptake of innovations. Anthony Bryk and Barbara Schneider (2001) conducted a case study of three schools. They found that relational trust between the principal, their staff and students within their schools, and the community writ large, had a direct impact on implementation outcomes. The close descriptions of school communities, leaders, and relational trust, led to relational trusts’ inclusion in the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework. Trust continues to be seen as a mitigating factor for effective programmatic outcomes (Donaldson, 2013; Dupre & Durak, 2008; Harris, 2004; McDonald, 2014; Thapa, 2013; Van den Heuvel et al., 2015). As was mentioned in the literature review, Coburn (2006) utilized a case study methodology to understand how framing impacted the implementation of a reading initiative in a 61 single urban school in California. She found that school leaders mitigate teacher implementation of policy directives by the way they decipher policies and create school-level priorities. George and colleagues (2007) found in their case study of two schools that successfully implemented school-wide innovations, that having a clear rationale and shared vision to achieve goals was necessary. They denote that the rationales given in each school that exhibited successful implementation were "simple, clear, an easily understood by school personnel" (George et al., 2007, p.47). Porter et al., (2015) assert in their comparative case study of the implementation of Common Core, that leaders also impact the implementation of reforms, not simply by how they interpret the reforms, but how they frame innovations to their faculty. The aforementioned research provided insight surrounding issues of sense-making at the school-level and how interrogating the views and understandings of school leaders is an integral aspect of understanding how programs are enacted and implemented within school organizations. The focus on principal sense making informed the interview methods, interests, and data collection utilized in this study. Case studies in education policy have examined how the practices, behaviors, and culture and climate of schools impacted the way that federal reforms such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Curricular reforms, like Reading First, or Comprehensive School Reforms, such as Success for All were enacted. Qualitative implementation analyses like those explored earlier have promise, as they offer policymakers “a theory of social action grounded on the experiences...of those likely to be affected by a policy decision or thought to be a part of the problem” (Walker, 1985, p.19). In depth analysis provided by case study also provide quantitative analysis studies with specific sets of testable constructs to be incorporated into statistical research (Spencer & Richie, 2002). However, the preponderance of variables identified 62 in case studies (Matland, 1995; Proctor et al., 2009) along with inconsistent language and definitions of terms across studies (Meyers et al., 2012) are not conducive with relaying information to policymakers who are a part of a policymaking paradigm that relies upon the statistically concrete outcomes and evidence that quantitative research is able to provide which has led to the widespread use of program evaluation. The quantitative nature of evaluation of education policies has led to an understanding of variable and levers that impact implementation as was discussed in the literature review. However, the shortcomings of these studies are that they do not always incorporate the qualitative understandings of the school environments outside of how particular school level factors may have impacted the efficacy or outcomes of the policy or program that is being evaluated in their study. However, the purpose of this scholarship was to endeavor to understand the nature of social relationships within a school building based upon the quantitative and qualitative measurement of factors known to impact program. In an effort to incorporate the strengths of each the divergent approaches to case study, I utilized a mixed methods approach, that intertwines quantitative and qualitative data collected and utilizing both teacher and principal sense-making practices and approaches to understand the complex nature of school culture. Justification of Use of Case Study. In 1992, Miles and Fullan declared, “Education reform can’t be achieved if leaders and participants don’t internalize and habitually act on basic knowledge of how change takes place”. This proclamation is echoed by Bryk and Colleagues (2015) who argue, “Most education reforms reflect at best a partial understanding of system dynamics, and some seem almost oblivious to the fundamental character of the phenomena they seek to change”(p.58). The lack of attention to understanding change is perpetuated by an overreliance on quantitative measures that focus solely on programmatic outcomes, rather than 63 the processes by which outcomes are reached. While evidence is crucial to policy design, we must also understand what particular forms of data can and cannot tell us about (Mason, 2017). Without a dynamic approach to the study of policy implementation, policymakers will continue designing and implementing programs with limited success. The failure and abandonment of policy often leads to policy churn (Blasé et al., 2015). The consequences of policy churn are not simply monetary or politically frustrating, the constant turnover of policy works causes frustration of stakeholders and actually undermines future change efforts within schools (Payne, 2008). This study utilized the close, thick, context driven nature of case study methodology, in order to test a conceptual framework. Though not a typical case study, this study leveraged the notable traditions and norms of the method, which privilege participant voice, collect and triangulate multiple types of data, provide thick description of the case (the Moralization Matrix) and connect the complexities, dynamics, and unique attributes of the case to a broader phenomenon (the comparison between qualitative and quantitative data). The following sections explore the quantitative and qualitative method approach utilized in this study. Quantitative and Qualitative Methods Approach Policy and program evaluators have explored the efficacy and outcomes of school reform in an effort to contribute to evidence-based practices and replication of outcomes in other contexts. Sandfort and Moulton (2015) claim behavioral economics, policy analysis, and implementation as the three predominate approaches to policy evaluation. Many policy evaluations in education take advantage of natural experiments, fueled by the changing of policies in real world settings. The value of quantitative methods, in addition to their ability to provide causational or relational data regarding policy outcomes, is that statistical methods allow researches to perform 64 subgroup analysis to better understand how targeted populations are impacted by policies. The knowledge of the differential effects of reforms and schooling practices on underserved populations has been a powerful use of statistical analysis in the pursuit of equity. Randomized controlled trials are heralded as a premier means to provide scientific evidence about policies and educational interventions due to their experimental design (Sandfort & Moulton, 2015). When programs are deemed successful, they are often touted as “evidence-based” Fixsen et al., (2009) defined evidence-based as “two or more randomized group designs, professionally done by two or more groups of investigators that examine outcomes of a program (p. 531). However, though programs may have successful impacts, the ability reliably replicate and achieve similar results requiring understanding the organizational dynamics and implementation practice of the school organizations that experienced success. Implementation processes and organizational context are complex and interrelated phenomena that impact the results of policy innovations. In 1986, Malcolm Goggin asserted, “implementation behaviors are shaped by the decision making environment, the type of policy at stake, and the characteristics of both the implementing organizations and the people who manage the program” (P.330). The preclusion of any of the aforementioned, provide reformers with incomplete understandings of what it takes to make and sustain change. Without holistic knowledge regarding interventions and implementation processes, policymakers divert educational funds and resources towards innovations that may prove unsuccessful in practice. What is considered in policy analysis and evaluative studies is crucial to policy design and implementation. The limitation of research that focuses on outcomes, is that while they may acknowledge the complexities that schools face, that the political and local implementation environment and processes in which reforms are enacted are often considered tangentially, rather 65 than as ancillary (Elmore, 1980; Fullan, 1992; Leithwood et al., 2009). While statistical analysis can provide information regarding the measurable impact that a program is able to have on a particular set of outcome variables, they are bound by the variables included in their scales and survey instruments (George &Bennett, 2005). Therefore, though quantitative studies may be able to say that a program was (in)/effective in impacting a particular measure, they are not necessarily able to say why or how. Though outcome-centered studies include demographic, socio-economic, and other measurable factors, they are often missing the interpersonal school- based contextual factors that directly impact implementation behaviors and processes and the subsequent success of programs. In a field such as education, our research methods must reflect the complexities of the environments we study (Dupre & Durak, 2008;Weaver-Hightower, 2008) and be applicable to practice (Fishman et al., 2003). Education is political (Henig et al, 2001), politics are racialized (Sizemore, 2008); thus, schools as social institutions are imbued in the racial and political nature of education (Gillborn, 2005). Thus, overreliance on research methods that communicate outcomes, without also including the processes by which those outcomes are reached, poses significant challenges to education stakeholders as they attempt to replicate the successes of “evidence-based”. Therefore, there is a need for dynamic research designs that can provide the precision that policymakers require, while also providing the vital qualitative data regarding space, place, time, and process. My research contended with the benefits and addresses the challenges of quantitative methods, by pairing them with qualitative data collection methods like interviews and observations, which allow for a deeper understanding of the trends that are discovered by the Moralization assessment. Proctor et al. (2009) define implementation research as, “the study of processes and strategies that integrate evidence-based effective treatment into routine use” (p.5). Driven by 66 their concern with complexity and the process by which outcomes are reached, policy implementation scholarship is, most often, qualitative, with many implementation scholars utilizing case study methodology (Sandfort & Moulton, 2015). In high-stakes political climates, many reformers and policymakers are concerned with identifying innovations that work and subsequently taking them to scale (Elmore, 1996; Schneider, 2011). This leads many policymakers to rely on quantitative measures that apply “simplicity and precision” to find answers to complex problems (Sandfort & Moulton, 2015). However, the types of questions and measurable variables are limited. Hanushek (1996) asserts that the statistical methods that researchers employ and the assumptions that inform their methods are crucial to understanding the results produced in research. The stakes may be even higher when evaluative studies of school reforms as is evidenced by Borman et al (2006) in their analysis of Quasi- experimental studies of Comprehensive School Reforms, such as Success for All. The authors found that effects reported in studies of Success for All are undermined if they did not account for the particular programmatic requirements that necessitates that 80% of a school’s faculty must agree to adopt the reform in their statistical analysis. This inclusion in statistical analysis is crucial, as this programmatic requirement, naturally combats one of the crucial aspects of implementation, willingness to change and buy-in (Borman et al., 2006; Henig et al., 2001;Proctor et al., 2009; Thapa et al., 2013). Employing a different statistical method and sample selection that included schools that evidence “good and bad” implementation results, the authors generated smaller effect sizes than researchers who utilized a randomized design. In an effort to avert this reductionism, statistical policy evaluations would benefit by including data regarding implementation processes and social-contextual and environmental characteristics of educational organizations. However, this requires the development of research designs that are 67 trustworthy, reliable, and whose results can be readily applied to policymakers. The Moralization Matrix, applies the knowledge generated from the aforementioned research and offers itself as an instrument that gathers socio-cultural school level data and can present the findings in ways that are easy to understood, clear, and concise for program agents. A key means by which data is shared is through the Moralization Profile. Proctor et al (2009) argued that there is not a lack of evidence-based programs, but rather evidence-based implementation. Sandfort and Moulton (2015) claim that research-based interventions can only be beneficial if there are studies that examine implementation processes. Moreover, Blasé et al. (2015) write, “data is necessary to produce change, it cannot prompt the adoption of change or create or sustain change in practice in schools or classrooms” (p.2). In short, quantitative evaluations of policies that do not included a concrete analysis of implementation processes or the context in which initiatives are enacted; pose challenges for future attempts at implementation and replication across contexts. Proctor et al., (2009) assert that the culture of an organization “may wield the greatest influence on acceptance of empirically supported treatments and willingness and capacity of provider organizations to implement treatments. Thus, without an understanding of how change processes began and were enacted, the characteristics of an organization, or the human behavior that must be amended in order for change to take hold in a school, the true ability to replicate effectively is limited. Using interviews and observations, my dissertation study, gathers data regarding the characteristics of a school organization, from its own actors and tests if qualitative and quantitative data can be aligned. While complexities are embraced in qualitative implementation research, such scholarship has limited influence in a policymaking culture that values simplicity, which leads to 68 an overreliance of data generated by quantitative scholarship. Though quantitative studies can provide data on the effect and impact of reforms, they are limited by their choice of variables, may suffer from bias in their application of statistical methods, and often do not include concrete analysis of implementation processes by which outcomes are reached. Thus, relying solely on quantitative methods can further contribute to reductionism in policy design (Dumas & Anderson, 2014; Flyvberg, 2011; Spencer & Richie, 202). In the field of educational policy, in general and school reform research, specifically, there is a practical need for close studies of implementation that develops tools (Sandfort & Moulton, 2015), testable conceptual frameworks and endeavor in “hypothesis driven statistical approaches” (Proctor et al., 2009) in real world settings (Meyers et al, 2012;Proctor et al., 2009), and also contributes to a shared implementation language (Meyers et al, 2012; Proctor et al., 2009). These dynamic lenses and approaches are imperative to the development to understanding what it takes to improve educational opportunities for all students. The Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework and Assessment both have the goal of providing clear and tangible evidence to educational stakeholders regarding the contextual conditions of schools. The hope is that the information gathered will provide school leaders with an adept understanding of the cultural and organizational needs of a school. Currently, as noted by Richie and Spencer (2002), much of the applied research shared with policymakers is often quantitative; while these measures provide “facts” and “evidence” they are limited in the rich and informative data that they are able to generate (p.174). Considering this, the authors created a mechanism by which qualitative researchers can code and categorize their data in an effort to provide policymakers with a roadmap of how particular claims are made from qualitative data. Clearly, policymakers would not be able to conduct, read, and code dozens of interviews. 69 However, the robust information that they can learn from such data collection methods is valuable, and it is necessary that they are included in policy-making decisions. The amount and diversity of data gathered from qualitative methods is vast and it can be a cumbersome task to navigate through it; however, as Walker (1985) asserted “What qualitative research can offer the policymaker is a theory of social action grounded on the experiences- the world view- of those likely to be affected by a policy decision or thought to be a part of the problem” (Walker (1985) as cited by Richie & Spencer, 2002, p.174). The knowledge generated from qualitative inquiry is of great import and necessary for creating social policy. It is imperative, then, that researchers are able to conduct their data analysis in a way that best supplies policymakers with the results of the inquiries in a digestible manner. The Moralization Matrix, with its keen focus on nine elements, distributed between three constructs, provides the foundation for this conceptually bounded case study research design. This single site case study project is designed to test the Moralization Matrix in a real-life school environment. Flyvberg (2005) notes, “the advantage of case study is that it can “close in” on real life situations and test views directly in relation to phenomena as they unfold in practice” (p. 309). A case study is appropriate because it will offer me greater insights, or the ability to apply “thick description” (Geertz 1994), into the dynamics of context and its impact on policy development and implementation. The collection of quantitative and qualitative data will allow me to corroborate and triangulate data collected via survey instrument, interviews, and staff observations. This dissertation was especially invested in deciphering both the unique and shared contributions that differing pieces of data provided to the overall understanding of a school community. The act of parsing through and interrogating the merit and contributions of findings generated by differing means of data collection created its own unique form of a holistic picture 70 regarding a school community, especially when those findings were triangulated. My desire to understand and evaluate quantitative and qualitative data separately and subsequently, is reflected in the methods and research design of the study that will be shared in the following section, as well as, the way that findings are expressed and delineated in the findings chapter that follows. Research Design Testing the Moralization Matrix was a process that required collecting qualitative and quantitative data. The quantitative data was used to generate a school Moralization Profile. The results presented in the Moralization Profile serve as the premier means by which the Moralization Matrix is compared with other forms of data. It’s of great import to understand that the survey and interview questions were designed to align across the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix. As such, in theory, the responses on the survey should mirror- or at least correlate with interview data. Therefore, of interest in this study is the (in)/congruence between the Moralization profile and data collected from interviews and observations. Secondarily, the data produced via the Moralization Profile was compared with the felt understanding that the principal had of her community. while the former comparison is interested in ensuring that there was alignment between how teachers answered questions on the survey versus interviews. The latter comparison was between the school profile that Moralization Assessment informed and the perception that the school leader had of her school community. Two main research questions guided this study. The first question, notably, forms the bulk of the findings and analysis of this study as it is concerned with interrogating, troubling, and comparing the relationship between findings from the survey and those from interviews and observations. The first question, relies deeply upon data triangulation, the merit of which was 71 explicated in previous sections. While the first question considers the conceptual validity of the Moralization Matrix, the second research question is concerned with the viability of the instrument to practitioners. First and foremost, the Moralization Matrix assessment was designed to be utilized as a tool for school leaders. As such, it was imperative that this study considers the ways that a school leader would understand, relate to, and operationalize the data that the survey generated regarding their school community. The two research questions are outlined below. 1. To what extent is the data collected from the Moralization Matrix survey congruent with the socio-cultural context described by teachers in their interviews? a. How do the findings from the Moralization survey and teacher interviews differ? 2. How well does the quantitative and qualitative data collected in the Moralization Matrix align with principal beliefs about their school community? a. How would a school leader utilize the data collected from the Moralization Matrix survey and interviews? A primary consideration of the research design for this project was the order in which the data was collected and analyzed. The Moralization Assessment, teacher and principal interviews, and staff observations were the three means that data were collected. While a key purpose of the research was to triangulate the differing forms of data, it was imperative to control the impact that one form of data collection could have on the collection or analysis of another. Therefore, in order to capture a clear perspective of school personnel, the survey was administered to teachers prior to conducting interviews. In this way school personnel did not have a preconceived idea of what the survey was about based upon questions asked in interviews. Similarly, in an effort to collect the baseline understanding of the school leader regarding her school community, without already having formed a perspective, the first principal interview was conducted prior to my 72 analysis or review of the data from the survey or interviews with teachers. While it is impossible to totally avoid bias in research, attending to a particular order of data collection was a means to prevent some forms of predisposition or prejudice during latter stages of the research process. Because sharing the quantitative data was a part of the answering research question two, the Moralization Assessment was analyzed while still collecting other forms of data at the research site. However, qualitative data- teacher and principal interviews, and observations were not coded or analyzed until all forms of data collection were complete. Below is a graphic of the order in which data was collected. Quantitative Assessment administered to school personnel Qualitative Principal Interview #1 Qualitative • Teacher Interviews • Staff Observations Qualitative Principal Interview #2 Figure 2: Data Collection Process Quantitative Data Collection. Piloting. The goal of the assessment was to create a short survey that could easily be distributed and understood within school communities. The Moralization Assessment was developed over a two-year period of time following the development of the conceptual framework. Prior to this study, the assessment was piloted three times. During two pilots participants were given a hard copy of the survey and asked to leave questions and comments on the document. The first pilot was done with a convenience sample of approximately 20 graduate students who were former teachers. The purpose of this pilot was to interrogate the clarity, readability, interpretations, and timing of the assessment. From this initial piloting questions that needed to be revised, appeared redundant, or lacked clarity were reworded or removed. 73 Following the improvements to the survey- it was piloted once more. This second pilot group was with approximately 30 future teachers. The focus of this pilot was primarily cognitive and focused on how participants understood, read, or were made to feel about particular questions. After this second pilot it was determined that the survey was ready to be administered in a real- world setting. The third pilot was conducted at a rural school in a midwestern city. The purpose of this pilot was to field test the survey in a controlled school environment. This pilot project tested if the survey was user friendly, understandable, and able to capture variance in participant responses. Additionally, interview questions were also field tested with teachers. Following this pilot project interview questions were revised and the survey was deemed ready for use. The current Moralization Matrix Assessment is comprised of a total of 49 questions- 10 demographic and 39 questions divided across the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix. The survey takes between 15-30 minutes to complete, depending on testing conditions. The survey questions are written in a seven-point likert scale format. Standard multiple-choice style, scales, and matrixes are the differentiated ways that likert scales are depicted. A full depiction of the survey instrument is included in the Appendix. Administering the Survey. The Moralization Matrix Assessment was administered during the weekly staff meeting at the case site. Prior to the staff meeting school personnel were asked to bring an electronic device to the meeting, however they were not told what they would be doing with the device. Before taking the survey, I introduced myself, and the reasoning for the purpose of my dissertation. Many of the participants opted to take the survey on their phone. The number of respondents and the results will explicated in the findings section. Qualitative Data Collection. Interviews with the principal, school personnel, and staff observations comprised the qualitative data collection in this study. In sum, eight 74 teachers/school personnel were interviewed (the reasoning for using school personnel and teachers interchangeably will be further explicated later). Additionally, I observed a total of five staff meetings. The details of each form of data collection will be explored further in this chapter. A brief outline is included below. • Principal interview (2) • Teacher interviews (n=8) o (6) Individual Interviews (n=6) o (1) Group Interview (n=2) • School observations o Staff meetings (5) o (3) Whole-staff meetings o (1) School improvement team meeting o (1) Leadership meeting Interviews. Contextual, Diagnostic, Evaluative, and Strategic are the four types of questions that Richie and Spencer (2002) explicate in their work. The interview protocol developed for both teacher and school leader interviews are contextual in nature. Contextual questions are concerned with “identifying the form and nature of what exists” (p.174). Such questions consider: “the dimensions of attitudes, nature of people’s experiences, and elements that operate within a system” (Richie & Spencer, 2002, p.174). The first principal interview considers the ethos, beliefs, background, and perspectives that inform how the school leader approached leadership in their school community. The second interview, focused on sharing the data collected from the Matrix survey. The interview itself was structured around reading of the Moralization report, rather than an interview protocol. In this interview, the purpose of the 75 assessment and the research that informed each element was explicated. For each of the nine elements, trends in the data were identified and denoted both in the actual report and in person. Of interest in this phase of inquiry were initial reactions of the school leader to the data that was shared. When applicable, follow up questions regarding key charts or the principal response to the data was elicited. School personnel, in addition to the principal were interviewed, due to the nature of questions, which require teachers to share their thoughts regarding their own and their perception of the attitudes and values within their school, individual interviews were selected. Though focus group style interviews are ideal for collecting more participant responses and developing assessment instruments (Sofaer, 2002), group dynamics may pose a challenge in instances were research subjects are sensitive to participants. It is possible that teachers may be hesitant to speak plainly about their own schools in front of their colleagues. Such teachers may fear that their co- participants will not keep their responses private. This fear could stifle teacher responses, and in turn, the data collected. However, there was one group of teachers who wanted to do their interview together. In this case, these two interviewees acted as a sense of support to one another. The teacher and principal interview protocols can be found in the appendices of this dissertation. Research Diary and School Observations. A research diary is akin to field notes, journals, and other mechanisms used by researchers to record their raw thoughts, observations, and early analyses of their research sites (Altricher & Holly, 2005). Altricher and Holly (2005) describe diaries as “introspective texts”, that contain information gathered from “observation, interviews, and informal conversations...[and] contextual information about the ways these data were collected” (p.24). The authors assert that memos, descriptive sequence, interpretive 76 sequence, theoretical notes, methodological notes, and planning notes are among the different types of entries that can be made in a research diary (Altricher & Holly, 2005). The Moralization Matrix hypothesizes that school-level context, and in turn, implementation behaviors can be understood by focusing on nine factors. This study utilizes an assessment that quantitatively measures for these nine factors. Principal and teacher interviews are used to gather qualitative data regarding the understandings that school personnel have regarding the Moralization Matrix factors. School observations, provide an additional source of qualitative data, which allows the researcher to document what a school’s context feels and looks like. Additionally, observations may provide visual evidence that either may support, corroborate, or disprove other data gathered. Overall, observations provide an additional layer of understanding of school culture. The observation protocol used in this study is included in the appendices. Approach to Data Analysis. According, to Geertz (1994), interpretative methods require a thick description of a particular environment or case. In Geertz’s (1994) view we must not simply focus on what is- but instead, on what the interpretation is of those individuals involved Quantitative • Survey Analysis • Moralization ProCile Created Qualitative • Coding Principal Interviews • Coding Teacher Interviews Figure 3: Approach to Data Analysis (Gertz 1994). Qualitative data analysis was descried by Richie & Spencer (2002) as the “detection, and the tasks of defining, categorizing, theorizing, explaining, exploring, and mapping” (p.176). Their “Framework” Data Analysis approach is “grounded” in the original viewpoints shared by participants. It is “dynamic”, or amenable to new discoveries during the 77 analysis process. “Framework” applies a “methodological” or “systematic” approach to all the data collected. Finally, the organizational structure of the approach supports the “easy retrieval” of the original qualitative data (Richie & Spencer, 2002, p.176). There are five stages to “Framework”: familiarization, identifying a thematic framework (which in this case will be the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework), indexing (applying the theory to data in a systematic manner), charting (graphically organizing the data via the guiding theme), and mapping and interpretation (collecting and organizing data so that the parts can be interpreted wholly) (Richie & Spencer, 2002, p. 182). Therefore, because context is mitigated and perpetuated by the behaviors and ideologies of people, my method of analysis needed to be as dynamic and iterative as the people and environments that are a part of my study. In order to do this, I worked to prioritize both the immediate interest of my study: comparing the quantitative and qualitative data across the nine factors of the Moralization Matrix with the undergirding purpose of the assessment- which is to gather a holistic understanding of a school’s culture. As Yin (2014) notes, in case study there are often more variables than data points. As such, there is much data that was gathered that inform school culture that are not within the boundaries of this study to discuss. Nevertheless, it would be a disservice to understanding school context to limit my examination of the school to a comparison between the survey and interview results. During the course of analysis, while understanding the dissimilarities and similarities between quantitative and qualitative data was of interest, what emerged as equally important was generating interpretive messages as to why teachers and principals may be coming to particular conclusions regarding their school community. It is my assertion that this added level of interpretation, beyond parsing through the differing contributions of data provided invaluable insight into not only the school site, but also 78 the viability, boundaries, and potential limitations of the Moralization Assessment. As such, when possible, the findings of the survey, interview, and observational data, and the perspectives of research participants are placed in conversation to draw broader conclusions regarding the relational dynamics, strengths, challenges, and needs of their school community. Many forms of the data collected informed another, though the survey results are impervious to the analysis of the other data collection approaches. The analysis of the survey data informed how principal and teacher interviews and observations were analyzed. Principal and teacher interview results were placed in conversation with one another. Staff observations and the affective experience of being in the school, informed my lens as a researcher and contributes to my understanding and analysis of all aforementioned forms of data. The figure below provides visual description of the relationship between the various pieces of data collected and analyzed. Staff Survey Principal Interview(s) Teacher Interview Observations i s n o i s n e m D e h t g n i r u t p a C x i r t a M n o i t a z i l a r o M e h t f o Snapshot Rating Approach, Conceputalization, impact on leadership Experience, understanding, impact on behavior Felt and Affective Experience Figure 4: Quantitative and Qualitative Relationship Transcription. Interview data was transcribed following the completion of data collection. Each data recording was sent to an online data transcription service, Temi.com. Each 79 transcript was then read, edited, and reviewed by the researcher. This process represented the first of the “Framework” data analysis put forth by Richie and Spencer (2002) and used as a means for making meaning from the data collected in this research project. Coding. Coding each interview was a four-step process. Coding began with a familiarization process wherein the transcribed interviews were read and broadly coded against the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix. This was fairly straightforward, as the interview questions were pre-arranged by the aforementioned categories. However, occurrences where overlap appeared across dimensions were noted. For instance, if a participant brought forth issues of emotional security in discussion of school organization, the item was coded for both elements. After each interview was coded broadly, excerpts were placed into an excel sheet that was organized by the nine aspects of the Moralization Matrix. Following the broad exploration of data, interviews were coded line by line. In this phase of coding, key words attributed to each factor area were used to code items. For example, excerpts within the Maslow’s Hierarchy factor, would be more precisely noted with shorthand keywords and codes such as: “safety”, “emotional security”, and “physical capability”. Some of the keywords that were utilized to parse through the interviews to identify broader trends in the data are included in the table below. Sample Key Words & Codes Safety, value, secure, empowerment, emotional, feelings, Efficiency, management, organization, process. Factor Maslow’s Hierarchy School Organization Leadership Relational Trust Table 3: Sample Key Words and Codes support, respect, principal, role Reliability, expectations, trust, respect 80 Table 3: (cont’d) Willingness to Change Disposition Human Capital Open, collective responsibility, “team”, try, new, old way Expectations, attitudes, needs, wants Ability, qualification, preparedness, training Reform, innovation, change Orientation to Innovation Race Consciousness Racism, inequality, structures, color, demographics, parents, trauma, privilege, “whole-child” The purpose of this study was to interrogate the differences between the data collected quantitatively and qualitatively across the same nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix. Therefore, codes were intentionally left within the broad characteristics of the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix. Future research might explore the relationships and dynamics within data collected within and across dimensions, however, the interest of this present study was to understand if the assessment could capture the broader dynamics of a school community. Thus, rather than focus exclusively on the relationship between particular language usage and word choice, interest was paid to the trends of the conversations when discussing elements within the Moralization Matrix. The coding process of this study identified the salient issues that presented themselves in interviews and meetings, and then identified the divergent perspectives and language utilized around that particular school-based issue. By comparing and contrasting the divergent perspectives the relational dynamics were identified, described, and explicated. As was noted, teacher interviews focused on their experience within the school building, as it related to Moralization dimensions, teachers were prompted to give examples of instances. As such, saliency of types of instances, situations, or challenges brought forth by different interview participants became a way that responses were grouped and themed during the coding process. 81 For example, if two participants discussed a similar occurrence during a meeting. Of interest, beyond the coding of the nine dimensions was the dis/similarity in the interpretations of a singular event. Trustworthiness: Justifying Claims in Qualitative Research. Due to the interpretive nature of qualitative methods, it is imperative that researchers ensure a level of trustworthiness of the claims they make from the data collected. Williams and Morrow (2009) assert that there are four mechanisms that contribute to the trustworthiness of a research study: A clear reasoning and rationale for the research, A detailed illustration of the process by which data was collected, well-defined analytic methods, and specified explanation of how data was interpreted (Williams & Morrow, 2009). In order for claims made by the researcher to be accurate, the research must interpret the words of participants, the way the participants, themselves meant them. This requires that the researcher has a clear understanding of participants (Williams & Morrow, 2009). Additionally, the researcher must show the results of the research questions, even if their findings are not in line with what the researcher hypothesized (Willimas & Morrow, 2009). The aforementioned sections provide the details of data collection and the process of analysis. The process of analyzing data will also be discussed in the findings chapter. Also, to ensure that findings were not biased by my interpretations, I utilized and privileged the words and explanations that participants provided regarding their school community. The aim of the research was to gather descriptive, tangible, and rich participant perspectives regarding how the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix impact their school community by using a variety of data collection techniques., The purpose of leveraging a multiple methods research design in this study was to reveal the contribution that each form of data makes towards conceptualizing a school community as a whole. To this end, triangulation 82 was used as means to answer research question one, which is focused on considering the differentiations in assertions that can be made by using quantitative versus qualitative data. However, triangulation also had another use in this study. Triangulation also aided in informing the trustworthiness of claims and interpretations made from the findings.. Yin (2014) presents triangulation as a mechanism to find a clearer “truth” by not relying on or being limited by one form of data collection. In an effort to truly answer the call of this study, I had to interrogate, problematize, and trouble the similarities, nuances, and congruent nature of conclusions generated from assessment, interview, and observation data. To limit bias data were collected in a purposefully sequential manner. As was mentioned previously, a key feature of case study design is to ensure that participant data is interpreted within context. While context typically refers to the space or place in which a research study takes place, I extend context to also include the concept of time or order. Time, like space or culture, is also a form of context. Thus, my process of triangulation and meaning making from the data considers the time and sequence in which the data were collected from participants. This added consideration provides clarity and trustworthiness to this research as well as the data triangulation process. The Moralization survey was administered to school personnel prior to the scheduling or conducting of interviews. This insured that participants were unprimed regarding the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix when they completed the survey. Similarly, the first principal interview regarding leadership style and perspective was conducted prior to analyzing the survey data or interviewing teachers. This ensured that, I, as a researcher, did not enter the interview with preconceived ideas regarding the relationships within the school building. In this way, I was able to capture data that exclusively focused on the way the principal 83 saw herself and school community. The careful delineation of data collection allowed for a more clear comparison to be made between the assessment and the interview data. Conversely, it was possible that the interviews and focus groups would gather differing, or even, divergent data. Perhaps participants would not believe that particular aspects of the Matrix impact their school. It could have been shown that the Moralization Matrix Assessment and the interview protocol may be poorly aligned, logically. In that case, the data would have been used to compliment, rather than corroborate one another. It’s important to note that though I created the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework and survey, I am cognizant that it requires refinement and greater testing. Above all else, I would like the framework to be of service to practitioners and schools. This cannot be done without consistently interrogating the viability, purpose, and utility of the framework. This study represents a intellectual inquiry into understanding the potential contributions of the instrument- not a mission to prove that the survey “works” and can accurately characterize a school community. Despite the outcome shared in this present study, I do believe there is immense potential benefit for frameworks and instruments like the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework and its accompanying assessment if the survey and interview data could, in fact, corroborate the findings of one another. This would indicate that there is a possibility for researchers, policymakers, and educational stakeholders, to feasibly measure for factors that are typically described as “unobservables” in statistical research, which could lead to improved programmatic outcomes. Approach to Quantitative Analysis. To score the survey findings, each response generated from the survey from strongly agree, somewhat agree, agree, agree nor disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree, was given a value from 7-1, respectively. Of interest was the frequency of particular values and the trends in answer choices. Data was 84 mapped graphically with bar and column graphs, to show the distribution of teacher responses. Once each question was rated and graphically mapped within a given construct it was evaluated for the degree of positive consensus. Positive consensus was calculated by dividing the number of respondents to the survey by those who chose the top-two most positive answer choices on a given question. For example, if there were 24 total survey respondents and on a particular question 8/24 chose “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” the question would receive a 33% positive consensus rating. For ease of understanding, the rate of positive consensus was mapped onto the graphical representation of each graphical depiction of survey data provided via the Moralization Profiles. Positive consensus is furthered explored next. The Moralization Profile generates positive consensus scores for a school based on each of the nine factors and across the three constructs that comprise the Moralization Matrix. Positive Consensus was a key feature of the way data from Moralization Matrix assessment was analyzed and presented to the Principal at the case site. Positive consensus is defined as the percentage of respondents that chose the top two positive answer choices, which in most cases was: Strongly Agree and Agree options. As was argued previously, enacting change at any level requires the “buy-in” of school personnel. In this study “buy-in” was set at the 70% positive consensus level. While this positive consensus level may be amended after further testing of the assessment, it was chosen presently, to represent a percentage that could reasonably represent a majority of a populations’ perspective, while also being attainable. Simply put, while it may be ideal for a school to have 90%-100% consensus on any given factor area, it is not likely that most schools would be able to reach this in many areas. Therefore, because the purpose of the assessment is to give leaders a gauge of where there school may need growth, it would not be helpful to set a benchmark for growth too far beyond where they were currently. Setting the threshold at 70% 85 allows for benchmarking the growth of positive consensus in future iterations of the report. It is important to note that while 70% is utilized for this report, other organization utilize higher percentages. For example, Successful for All leverages an 80% buy-in rate of school personnel before agreeing to implement their programs. The high rate of consensus is not unfounded and is rooted in research that asserts that buy-in of school personnel is essential for programmatic success. However, in their evaluation of Success for All, Borman and Colleagues (2006) argued that the stringent level of 80% level of “buy-in” may have undermined reform results in some schools. The authors assert that by making the 80% benchmark so high, Success for All left itself open to the ability for some teachers to have be coerced or persuaded, which undermines the idea of buy-in. positive consensus measure, of 70% divided amongst Strongly Agree and agree aims to present a less strict form of a buy-in around a singular issue. Each question on the assessment was measured for its degree of positive consensus. Questions that exhibited less than 70% positive consensus were flagged with red arrows and identified as areas of growth for each school. Those questions that were above 70% were adorned with green areas and codified as strengths. The collection of graphical depictions of data with positive consensus ratings forms the basis for the creation of the Moralization Profile provided to the case site. Moralization Profiles. An integral aspect of this research project was the development of the Moralization Profile for the case site. The Moralization Profile was developed following a multistep process. Following the administration of the survey, the data was downloaded and cleaned. Descriptive statistics were run for each question and bar and column graphs were developed in order to identify the trends and distributions of responses in the data. For each question, positive consensus was noted. It was not possible to for every graph from each of the nine elements to be placed in the report, therefore, the most notable graphs from a given 86 dimension were chosen. The inclusion criteria for graphs ranged from questions where there was either great consistency in responses-positive or negative, or those that exhibited a wide distribution and diversity in responses. This includes both questions that had very high or very low positive consensus. The Moralization profile report was created using a web-based software, it was downloaded and saved as a PDF file. The completed report was presented to the case site principal. The data sharing of this report forms the basis for answering research question two and will be discussed in the findings chapter. As has been elucidated previously, in order to fully understand the utility of the Moralization assessment, the data findings depicted on the Moralization Profile report were compared to the conclusions reached via interviews and observational data. The comparison between the data collected from both the qualitative and quantitative approaches allowed me judge the ability of the Moralization Matrix assessment to quantitatively capture qualitative (affective) aspects of a school environment, such as: trust, opinions of leadership, willingness to change, and attitudes regarding structural racism. When used in tandem with statistical inquiry, qualitative methods can help “develop, illuminate, explain, or qualify statistical research” (Richie & Spencer, 2002, p.176). However, Mason (2002) notes that the ability to link qualitative and quantitative data, due to their “differing logical principals” (p.107). Nevertheless, Mason argues that qualitative and quantitative data can only be used to corroborate or contradict the other, if they are developed to measure the same logical inquiry (Mason, 2002, p.109). In any case, Mason (2002) rightly asserts that researchers should ask plainly, “what can data tell me about, what can it not tell me about” (p.106). My research echoed this sentiment, and provided an answer through multiple forms of data inquiry. This research tested the concept, that, it is possible to quantify a school’s culture. The validity of this quantification was interrogated by 87 triangulating data collected via quantitative and qualitative measures. These data measures, while different in form were guided by the same conceptual underpinnings via the Moralization Matrix. As such a central interest of this study was to consider if differing methods of data collection, influenced by the same conceptual frame would capture and produce data that was reflective of the other. This research was preliminary testing of this concept, if however, in future studies it is found that it is possible to quantify culture this assessment holds promise for the way that practitioners aim to understand their faculty, choose programs, and embark on change- making efforts. The assessment presents an abbreviated mechanisms for staffs to understand themselves better and work towards growth. Choosing the Case. The importance of choosing the “right” case in case study methodology cannot be overstated. Though statistical methods typically value random selection of participants, Levy (2008) argues that in “small N research” cases should be selected carefully in order to carefully evaluate the phenomena of interest (p.8). In their view, “case study imposes control, not by correlations but by selecting comparable cases” (p.10). That is to say, for the purpose of my research, that due to my interest interrogating the possibility of quantitatively measuring contextual and relational dynamics, that I chose a case that had palpable climate. In such a school, with a clear and tangible culture, it would be easier to ascertain if, or the extent to which, the Moralization Assessment was able to characterize a school community. In this research, the methods in conjunction with the selection of the case work together to create a research design that can serve as a “proof of concept” that school’s can be characterized by their social dynamics. The following study is based upon research conducted in one early elementary urban school that I call Spencer Elementary. It is imperative to note that this study began as a two -site 88 comparative case study project. The two sites were selected because they were relatively small schools, in the same research city. One school is a traditional public school, and the other a charter school. Women, with differing racial, education backgrounds, and time spent as principals, led both schools. Each school was asked to participate in this study because they have climates that are immediately distinguishable upon entering the building. As identified by Levy (2008) and Loevinger (1965) it is important to choose cases carefully. Loevinger (1965) argued, “everyone who has a serious investment in applied testing seeks optimal and not random testing conditions” (p.148). The applied testing of the Moralization Assessment, is the basis of this study, because of my interest in characterizing a school community, it is important that I chose a school that had a noticeable political culture and context. For if the cultural differences are distinctly clear to the eye, in theory, they should also be indicated or illustrated via the Moralization Matrix Assessment as well as interviews. However, School 2 was dropped from the analysis due to the culture of the school and timing. Upon visiting school 2, interviewing the principal and the staff members, it was clear that the school did have a clear culture and climate. However, it was a culture of working together, supporting one another, there was open communication between staff members, and there was clear leadership support for teachers. This climate was reflected in interviews where school personnel, overwhelmingly expressed loving their community. While, not inherently problematic, the Moralization Matrix was not developed with this particular type of school site in mind. Moreover, the goal of this research, which is to understand if the assessment could characterize a school, would be difficult to ascertain in a school community that lacked clear nuances, incongruence, or in a school community that was overwhelmingly positive. That isn’t to say that this school was perfect or lacked challenges, however the grievances were not as 89 readily assessable as in Spencer Elementary. Due to this, it was decided that it would be best to focus on spending more time understand the complexities of the Spencer Elementary. The school upon which this dissertation research is based, was the optimal location for testing the possibility and limitations of the Moralization Assessment. The divergent perspectives of school personnel was not only visible, they were brought forth by the principal in our first meeting. 90 Chapter Overview Findings This chapter begins with a brief overview of the findings that will be elucidated upon in the coming chapter. The preliminary section of this chapter provides contextual information regarding the leadership structure, staff, and student demographics of the case site as well as the respondents that participated in the interview portion of the data collection process. Following the overview of the school community I will introduce the findings generated from both the quantitative and qualitative data collection processes at the case site. In this portion of the findings chapter, the data collected from the Moralization Matrix survey and quotes derived from interviews are individually introduced before they are placed in conversation with one another. The following results will illustrate that it was found that the data collected via the survey were congruent with what was collected via traditional qualitative methods of data collection such as interviews and observation. I argue that this alignment of findings suggests that the Moralization survey shows early indication that it may able to detect the nuances of teacher beliefs and identify salient trends within a school community. While these results appear promising, there is a clear limitation of quantitative data that is reflected in the findings of this study. As will be further explored, and was mentioned in the literature review of this dissertation, there are limitations as to what quantitative instruments might be able to measure or understand about the dynamics of a program, place, or phenomena of interest. By comparing the findings generated from qualitative and quantitative data, it is my assertion, that, on its own, the Moralization Matrix assessment may capture teacher perceptions, however, it may not be able to adequately characterize relationship dynamics between and across Moralization elements, or the importance of particular challenges within a school community. Instead, it is qualitative 91 measures- such as interviews that give voice, meaning, and perspective to the realities and relationships of school personnel that a survey, on its own, cannot provide. Put simply, while the data from the Moralization Matrix act as a means to “snapshot” teacher perspectives regarding their school community- the stories, voices, and perspectives of staff collected from interviews and observations act as qualitative “subtitles” that elucidate the meaning of data collected from the survey. By intertwining quantitative and qualitative data, I shape a more complete narrative of this urban school. It is important to note that the findings and focus of this research project do not provide a holistic depiction of the case site. As such, this results section will not review every aspect of data collected at the site or generated by the Moralization Matrix data report; instead it will highlight key findings from the assessment and place them in conversation with qualitative data collected via interviews and observations. The complete Moralization report that was created and given to the participating principal regarding the case site is included in the Appendix of this dissertation. The following section will introduce the contextual data regarding the case site, henceforth referred to as: Spencer Elementary. The Case Site: Spencer Elementary Spencer Elementary was the case site for this dissertation study. All names of the school, staff, and otherwise identifying information has been changed or omitted in order to protect the anonymity of the research participants. This section provides a brief overview of the school community that hosted this study and its principal. When possible, I utilize quotes from school personnel in the description of the leaders and their school environment. The racial, education, and city-based demographics of this research city are utilized to provide context for the 92 following beliefs, experiences, and overall context that will be illustrated via the testing of the Moralization Assessment at Spencer Elementary. Race Percent of Population Percent of Population in Poverty White Black Hispanic Multi-racial Asian Table 4: Research City and Site Demographics 55.4% 21% 12% 7.28% 3.88% 52.9% 27.8% 12.6% 4.2% Percent of Spencer Elementary Population 10% 61% 14% 12% 2% Spencer Elementary is a K-3 elementary school located within a predominately working class neighborhood in a midwestern city. The city is comprised of an estimated 114,773 residents. The racial demographic makeup is as follows: 55.4 % White, 21% Black, 12% Hispanic, 7.28% multi-racial, and 3.88% are of Asian descent. DataUSA reports that 29.5 % of the residents of this city live in poverty (33, 595). This rate is double the national poverty rate of 14%. The two largest groups living in poverty are females aged 18-24 and females aged 25-34. 52.9% of white people 27.8% of Black people, and 12.6% of Hispanic people live below the poverty line. The racial demographics of Spencer Elementary evidence a stark racial and economic segregation within the city. While the African American population of the city is 21%, 61% of the student population at Spencer Elementary is Black, 14% of students are Hispanic, 12% of students are mixed race (2 or more races), white students comprise 10% of the student population, while Asian, American Indian, and Pacific Islander represent 2% or less of the school. The disparity between the racial demographics of the school community and the surrounding city, suggest a racial segregation in the city, however data regarding class suggests that this segregation may be both racial and class-based. Though27.8% of Black residents in the 93 city live in poverty, 87% of the students at Spencer Elementary, of which African Americans are the majority, are low-income. The racial divide within this city that is illustrated in the demographics and challenges faced by staff, students, and parents will be further elucidated upon in the results chapter. Presently, I will situate the racial dynamics of Spencer Elementary within broader conversation regarding the economic and social history of the Midwest. Percentage of Population Highest Education Level 9-12 grade High school Some College Associates Degree Bachelor’s Degree Graduate Degree Table 5: Research City Education 9.5% 7.2% 26.1% 28% 9% 16.3% The dynamics of racial segregation within particular midwestern cities has been explored by scholars such as Thomas Sugrue (1996), in his book titled, “The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit”. In his work Sugrue (1996) reasoned that a declining industrial and manufacturing culture, that formed that basis of the economic foundation of many families within the Midwest, coupled with racism within these same cities, has informed a present data urban crisis in once bustling urban hubs such as Detroit. Sugrue (1996) contends that during the prosperous era of industry, white families fled urban centers that featured growing Black and Brown populations. In turn, over time, minority families were subjected to political divestment in the infrastructure of their communities, racist housing practices such as redlining, gerrymandering, denial or predatory housing loans. Present day, cities in the Midwest, akin to Detroit, have found their urban centers struggling and educational systems in turmoil. 94 In addition to segregation, the impact of a shifting economic reality in Midwestern cities, which were once reliant on factories or agriculture for work can be seen in the educational attainment of residents. For instance, in the case site’s city, the highest level of education for 7.2% of residents is 9-12 grade, 26.1% are high school graduates, 28% have attended some college, 9% have earned an associates degree, 16.3% obtained a bachelor’s degree, and 9.5% have completed a graduate degree. Within this research city, less than a quarter of the general population holds a Bachelor’s degree. The rate of educational attainment, coupled with the decline in industry, could contribute to the 30% poverty rate within the case site’s city. The implication of the educational attainment of parents, poverty, and racial identity on the educational experiences of students has been well documented. Lee & Bowen (2006) contend that education level of parents informs how they interact with their child’s educational experience. Some of the aforementioned issues will be further explored in this and subsequent chapters. The next section of this chapter foregrounds the findings, by providing contextual data regarding key research participants. 0 5 10 15 20 Racial Background White Black Hispanic or Latino American Indian/ Native Alaskan Figure 5: Racial Background of Survey Respondents 95 Though students of color form the majority of student population of Spencer Elementary, the teaching and support specialist staff are overwhelmingly white. Of the 22 respondents to the survey, 16 or 73% were white. There were three Black staff members that completed the survey, representing the next largest racial group in the sample at 14%. Moreover, women comprise a large portion of the staff, out of the 25 teachers and support staff, 2 are men. As has been explored, race influences relationships among staff and students and can impact the implementation of particular race-centered approaches to education. Though not always directly considered in education policy studies, this research centers the importance of race to programmatic success by including it as a part of the Moralization Matrix’s nine elements. As will be seen later, the racial dynamics of the teaching staff as opposed to the racial makeup of students and their families was a present feature of conversations held amongst staff members and myself during interviews. While the staff of Spencer Elementary may want for diversity, they are a staff of fairly experienced educators. Much has been written about the lack of certified or experienced teachers in urban schools, however this is not the case at Spencer Elementary. According to the survey, a majority of staff members are at or above the age of 35 years. This is commiserate with the experience level of this teaching community. The staff of Spencer Elementary is predominantly comprised 55-64 35 - 44 18 - 24 0 1 2 3 Age 4 5 Count Figure 6: Age of Survey Respondents 6 7 8 9 10 96 of individuals who hold advanced degrees. All teachers are certified. According to the survey 8 staff members have been in the field of education for more than 20 years, 5 individuals have been in the field of education for 10-15, and 3 members have been working in education for 15- 20 years. Only two individuals have been working in education between 0-5 years. The level of experience within the school is unlike what is seen in many urban schools throughout the country. However, the levels of experience do not reflect building tenure. While Spencer Elementary has a fairly experienced teaching staff, many staff members are new to the school. Of the 22 respondents to the survey 14 have been working in the school between 0-5 years. Four respondents have been at the school for 10-15 years and 2 for more than 20. A graphic depicting the level of personal experience and tenure at Spencer Elementary is included below. Subsequently, this chapter will introduce he research participants. More than 20 10_15 0_5 How long have you 0 4 6 2 been at current institution 8 10 12 been a teaher 14 16 Figure 7: Teaching Experience of Survey Respondents Participants. In order to identify who should be considered to be a part of the “teacher” survey and/or interview data collection, I asked Principal Mills, “Who are the people you need to be on board in order to enact a change in your school?” Her response included her secretary, support staff-such as behavioral specialists, and contracted teachers. For brevity, this group of participants will be referred to as “teachers” or “school personnel” in this study, despite the 97 specificity of their job titles. Members of the aforementioned groups were all asked to complete the Moralization assessment. The survey was completed during a staff meeting. There were 25 respondents to the survey, two declined to participate, and one response was dropped because it was incomplete. As such, 22 responses were used for the analysis of data. To select interview participants, Principal Mills supplied me with a list of school personnel that she perceived to have varying perspectives regarding school climate and policy. This list served as a starting point for interview data collection, in the end, I interviewed some teachers on and off of that list, based upon availability, preference, and interest. There were eight staff members who participated in the teacher portion of the interview process. While I provide the racial, gender, and age demographics of survey participants, I will not do the same for interview respondents, in effort to protect anonymity. However, understanding the backgrounds that inform the interview participant responses is imperative. Therefore, descriptions of the interview participants are provided in a grouped format. While this information does not include racial or gender information, it does share their level of experience as well as time spent working at Spencer Elementary. Each participant that was interviewed for this study, except for one has been in the field of education for five or more years. A table representing the time spent by each participant is included below. As can be seen in the table, the interview sample does not include any teaching staff that has worked at Spencer Elementary for more than five years. Though there are 6 members of the staff who have worked at the school for more than 0-5 years, as was mentioned, much of the school personnel were newly hired. However, the lack of representation of staff members who have worked at the school for longer than five years is an oversight. In choosing participants, I worked both from my observations and interests, as well as the recommendation of 98 the school leader. It was not easy to discern immediately who had worked at the school longer than five years, and I did not seek them out specifically. Future research would ensure that there was more representation of staff members in this interview sample. However, the current participants provide an interesting lens to the school. Though they are relatively new to Spencer Elementary, each participant, except for one has worked in education for five or more years. This means that these teachers have worked in at least one or more school environments. Their insights provide valuable information regarding what individuals who are new to a system perceive, learn from, and adapt to new cultures. Moreover, the large majority of staff being new to the school represents the issues of turnover that impact urban schools. Time at Spencer Elementary Time in education Less than 5 More than 20 5-10 5-10 11-15 15-20 10-15 More than 20 5-10 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 Table 6: Teaching Experience of Interview Participants Meeting Principal Mills. Principal Mills walks in the room bubbly, “how are you doing?” Within minutes she deems herself a culturally responsive leader, over her school of 189 students and 15 teachers. Her assuredness appears as unbending, uncompromising, and unyielding as she states, “I lead with social justice”. Principal Mills began her career as a seventh and eighth grade social studies teacher for three years, before becoming a reading specialist for a district for six, returning to school, and pursuing certification for principal leadership, where she 99 was recruited to lead the current school she serves. She has been principal for three years. She describes herself as an instructional leader, social justice advocate, and “rookie” Principal Mills’ vulnerability is palpable and a part of how she chooses to gain the trust of her staff. Principal Mills leads her school in ways that are reflective of her own personhood, convictions, and contexts. The purpose of this research is not to draw undue comparisons or evaluative distinctions between this school, its staff, or leader. It is outside the scope, interest, or benefit of this study, to do so. Instead, the goal of the profile of this school is to illustrate the immense difference that can exist between members of the same school community seeking to enact change improve outcomes for the children of the same city. This study asserts that there is a need for educational practitioners to be able to utilize tools that allow for the personalization of the process by which programs and interventions can be chosen by and for school communities. As will be explored further, curriculum is often pre- decided for schools either by the state or broader charter bodies. Principals, like the one in this study, mostly have autonomy to choose programs and interventions for their schools. The way principals choose programs for their communities, though they may be research-based, is often rooted within their particular values and beliefs regarding student learning. Though not inherently problematic, or even unjustified as Ms. Mills was successful in the classroom, the success of a program not only depends upon its scholarly justification, but also its cultural match to the context of a school (Finnan, 2000). As mentioned previously, the cultural mismatch between policies and school organization can lead to negative or null outcomes of otherwise effective programs. The mismatch of the “culture of initiatives” and school communities poses possible risks and challenges that principals will face in their pursuit of improved educational outcomes for students. 100 Results The findings from the survey and interviews are divided into three parts-following the three construct areas of the Moralization Matrix: Organizational Climate and Effectiveness, Normalized Attitudes, and the Moral Imperative to Change. Each section contains both quantitative and qualitative summary tables of results. In order to adequately explicate and incorporate the quantitative and qualitative data, questions from the assessment, their percent of positive consensus are provided in table format at the beginning of each section. Quantitative findings within a given domain will be explored and unpacked by using the themes and perspectives that emerged from the interview and observational data. When possible, examples and anecdotes are used to examine the dynamics of a particular elemental area. The following chapter aims to place all the data collected in a nuanced and dynamic conversation regarding school-level context and its relationship to implementation and school improvement efforts. Qualitative summary tables describing the motivation, findings, and present interview evidence for each of the elements of the Organizational Climate and Effectiveness, Normalized Attitudes, and Moral Imperative to Change constructs and is included at the beginning of each section area. The goal of presenting data in this way is to twofold: the first is to contribute to the trustworthiness of the outcomes presented in this study. By delineating quantitative and qualitative data separately it is my goal to succinctly, and clearly illustrate the findings of the survey, interviews, and observations a part from my analysis of them. The goal of this is for the reader to fully understand how particular assertions and conclusions were reached. Secondly, the data and their respective findings are articulated separately in order to contribute the purpose of data triangulation. The goal of this research was to understand if the conclusions informed by the Moralization Assessment and qualitative data are consistent. In order to do this, it was essential 101 that each piece of data collected by coded and analyzed independently. The following findings chapter presents the data in a way that lends itself to analysis via triangulated data collected from the research site and ultimately, answers both research questions, regarding the viability and utility of the Moralization Assessment The Moralization is comprised of 49 distinct question items. Going through each item and comparing it to an interview excerpt, would be both timely and ineffective. Instead, in order to better understand the connections between qualitative and quantitative data, the overall survey findings are presented in table format. Within the table, positive consensus is represented. As a reminder, the benchmark goal for positive consensus was set at 70% for each question in the survey. As such, the reader can infer whether particular questions items had lower or higher positive consensus. It would require more testing (outside of the scope of this study) to create solidified boundaries of what high or low positive consensus is. However, it can be inferred that a consensus level 70-100% is most ideal for change. While consensus between the 1-69% range indicates that there is area for growth, greater variability, and dissention in this particular item at Spencer Elementary. This chapter is organized via element area. The interview data is organized via the themes that emerged via coding and analysis. These themes attempt to explicate both the interview data as well as serves to give voice to why particular survey results may be represented on the survey. Within each element area, I include my interpretation of whether there was validation between survey and qualitative results. As was mentioned previously, the conceptual framework binds this case study research. As such, the three construct areas and nine factors that comprise the Moralization Matrix guide the following findings. The findings, similar to this dissertation, are not aiming to fully explicate the cultural realities of the Spencer Elementary, but 102 rather explore the relational dynamics of the school as it relates to the nine specific elements of the Moralization Matrix. Survey Demographics. 22 teachers completed the survey. The majority of survey respondents were between the ages of 35-44 years old (n=9). Of the 22 survey participants two were male. The majority of the staff that participated identified as White (n=16). Graphical representation of this data can be found below. Organizational Climate and Effectiveness Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. As depicted in the table below, 45% of teacher teachers at Spencer Elementary reported a positive consensus regarding feeling physically safe at their school. Forty-five percent of teachers reported positive consensus regarding their own empowerment to make changes in their school community, 59% responded with positive consensus regarding their emotional security, and 63% reported positive consensus for feeling valued within their school. While at Spencer Elementary, issues of student behavior, teacher expectations, and administrative response were notable issues brought forth in staff meetings and interviews with school personnel. As such, though there may be, and surely are, a host of reasons as to why teachers may not be feeling empowered, emotional secure, or valued, for the purpose of this paper, I am nesting the aforementioned quantitative data regarding emotional security within the context of conversations concerning issues of physical safety and student behaviors. Question I can excel in my position I feel empowered to make decisions within my school community I feel emotionally secure at my school Table 7: Survey Results: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Positive Consensus* 72% 45% 59% 103 Table 7: (cont’d) I am a valued member of my community I feel physically capable of completing my job expectations I feel physically safe at my school I am provided: well lit facilities, secure place for my belongings, safe place to park 63% 72% 54% Well-lit facilities (90%) Secure place for belongings (55%) Safe place to park (85%) 81% Additional teaching resources (i.e. support staff, instructional coaches) are available if needed *As was noted in the Methods chapter positive consensus is the percentage of participants who chose the top two positive answer choices: Strongly Agree and Agree. For the purpose of this study, the target level for positive consensus was set at 70% As is noted in the summary table and will be explored throughout this chapter, the precarious nature of the safety of staff personnel in Spencer Elementary was a feature in interviews and in observations of staff meetings. Maslow argued that the physical and emotional needs of humans was the first need that must be met in order for a human to progress to later stages of emotional development and self-actualization. I have argued, similarly, that the physical and emotional safety of school personnel impacts school organizations. As such, teachers must have their immediate physical and emotional safety needs understood and responded to in order to address broader issues of educational change and reform within their schools. In Spencer Elementary, issues of school safety and student behavior were brought forth in every meeting I attended. Student behavior was alluded to in common conversation with me in the hallways, and brought forth as a examples in interviews with school personnel. The prevalence of this issue, potentially strains relationships between staff and their principal. All of these conversations occur before, or in lieu of, broader conversations around how school buildings should operate. Instead, this staff finds itself, in a deadlock around issues of student 104 behaviors. In a school where fewer than 30% of students are reading at grade level, a large amount of staff’s bandwidth in their whole- group staff meetings is focused not on instruction, but rather, on student behavior, discipline policies, and administrative support. With every change proposed, teachers seemingly respond: that’s a great idea, but what about student behavior. These findings are corroborated with the quantitative data and the variation in positive consensus amongst staff. 105 Scholarly Motivation, Guiding Question(s), and Research Finding Interview Evidence Maslow’s Hierarchy Scholarly Motivation: “Our most basic need is for physical survival, and this will be the first thing that motivates our behavior. Once that level is fulfilled the next level up is what motivates us, and so on.” (Maslow, 1945) Guiding Question(s): Do teachers feel physically and emotionally secure in their school? If not, what is impacting their ability to feel safe? Research Finding: There appears to be a tenuous relationship between student behavior and teacher physical safety, and the “trauma-informed” administrative response to student behavior. This disconnect appears to create emotional strain within the school. Student Behavior(s) and Teacher Safety Instances of student outbursts Example: “They could have a meltdown, temper tantrums, yelling, screaming, jumping over tables. I mean [sometimes they] have to restrain them, hate doing it, but that's, that's what this job entails.” Teacher Classroom needs Example: “I think the biggest thing that we're dealing with is that when you're looking at behaviors and looking at what our dynamics is in this building, we have to understand...but we also have to see what are we jeopardizing by that baby being in- distracting you from teaching today” Example: in the end it impacts my, my data, my data that I'm evaluated on and scored on and paid on like.... it also impacts my instruction because all my stuff gets slaughtered Trauma-Informed Discipline practices What is causing the behavior? What are the outcomes of suspension? Example: “...but the behaviors are not going to go away. I know that they're not going away ...and this is where the teachers I don't think have all the time to understand why the student is behaving...what's occurring and maybe this not necessarily what happened in the classroom but what happened at home on the way or what happened on the bus on the way to school...” Example: “Like our children here, it's a very different than if we'd be in another school district, you know?...sometimes people just still don't see, you know, we have kids here that if we would suspend them, they're “going to get” when they get home, you know? So you kinda got to look at all of those things. And I know as a teacher you get frustrated because you just want it. And the easy way to fix it is to send them out, send them home” Table 8: Interview Results: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 106 Physical Safety. When shown that 54% of staff indicated having positive consensus regarding their physical safety, Principal Mills did not express surprise, instead affirming, “...we literally get beat up”. In each interview conducted with personnel at Spencer Elementary, respondents- brought up instances of students throwing chairs, having to be physically restrained or removed from their classroom, or verbally accosting them. Examples of such statements are below: The classroom for severely cognitively impaired students was described as “scary” (Mell Edwards) and teachers reported instances of other students and teachers within that classroom having their hair pulled out. One teacher states, “They're aggressive, they're biting”. (Reed Phillips) A seasoned teacher stated, “...I've been cussed out, uh, you know, just little things and you think, wow, you know, an eight year old cussing out somebody old enough to be your grand [parent]” (Jessie Hill) Another teacher contributed, “I had another kid who would throw anything he could grab with his hand at all the kids.” (Mell Edwards) A participant below described the types of student outbursts, “They could have a meltdown, temper tantrums, yelling, screaming, jumping over tables. I mean I have to restrain them, hate doing it, but that's, that's what this job entails.” (Eva Holt) While every participant, some in greater detail than others, described instances where students exhibited violence either towards them, other students, or within the classroom, many also recognized their limited ability to respond to such types of behavior. A teacher states, “but we're also not, were not supposed to touch kids because you can bruise them and beat them up by 107 accident and then we're liable” (Mell Edwards). Only a few staff members have (CPI) training, which allows them to physically restrain students. This means that when instances arise where students are exhibiting extreme behavior or are aiming to leave the building, there are only a handful of people that can contain the situation. This poses crucial challenges for Spencer Elementary. Seemingly, the number of instances of extreme behavior outnumbers the capability of the select number of trained individuals to respond. At one point in time, there was such an imbalance between instances of violent behavior and number of respondents that a protocol called ASAP had to be put in place to protect teachers and students. A teacher participant describes this process in the following interview excerpt. [we] created this thing called ASAP to get the kids out of the room and leave when a kid would go off because it was so bad...We trained the kids on it. So if the teacher said ASAP, the kids would all line up very quickly. We had the, the signs by the doors. The kids would take the sign, the lead kid and take off...like a fire drill and they would go to the lobby. The lead child with the sign would go to the office, the office would ring through, there's an ASAP in room, whatever. And we would, all, anybody that was available would rush down to deal with it. As soon as we got there, the teacher would leave, take care of her kids in the lobby and then a couple of us would deal with the issue. (Terry Child) The need to create a fire drill type safety protocol to ensure that students are kept safe in case of behavioral outbursts of their classmates is indicative of the nature, relative frequency, and constrained ability of trained staff to respond to these situations in a timely fashion. It should be noted that Terry Child contextualized her statement above to include that conditions have 108 improved and there were only a few ASAPS done this year. Nevertheless, it remains that there are still few individuals who have the training to legally respond to student outbursts, which means that those that do are likely to be strained as they are pulled from classroom to classroom to diffuse situations. This strain may manifest as a source of frustration for these personnel as will be explored later. Conversely, the limited number of personnel with CPI training, means that many calls that teachers make for help go unanswered, which leaves them alone in an escalating situation. In an interview with Mell Edwards, she shared her perspective regarding student behavior, administrative response, and her social responsibility as a teacher. When asked about student behaviors, Mell Edwards shared with me that when she has problems “no one comes”. The lack of response led her to feeling unsupported by school leadership and in a powerless situation. While Mell Edwards asserted that she understood that the lack of response was due to staff shortage, and inability for Principal Mills to respond to every need within their school community- as can be gleaned from her statement, “And in her defense. That's what she [Principal Mills ] keeps saying is I can't do it by myself. legit. legit. Yeah, you can't.” Though she may understand Principal Mills’ limitations, she still did not feel dismissed from the danger she and her students face when there are student behavior outbursts within her classrooms. Moreover, understanding does not relieve her from the challenge of diffusing extreme cases alone. It appears that this expectation that teachers handle student behaviors, within the classroom, seems to contribute to feelings of unsupported or undervalued by teachers such as Mell Edwards. Ultimately, for Mell Edwards, the lack of response by administration, and her own feelings of disempowerment and ability to respond, due to lack of CPI training, leaves her in what she calls a “moral position”. She urgently states, “...I’m in a moral position to make sure 109 that my other kids are safe and that I'm still first helping them with their education.” While student behaviors may be a source of frustration that teachers experience, and the challenges associated with behaviors may foreground many of the conversations had between teachers and administration. The above statement by Mell Edwards, serves to place her perspective as a teacher within her broader responsibility to keep safe and educate all children within her classroom, not simply be responsive to the behavioral outbursts of a few. For Mell Edwards, issues of student safety and learning become inextricably linked in her own values, beliefs, or morality. To situate teacher response to student behaviors within the scope of this moral consideration is imperative to locating the link between teacher empowerment, emotional security, and their physical safety. The “moral position” that Mell Edwards refers to, may be indicative of what other teachers may feel. Issues of student behaviors and the relationship between classroom instruction, teacher needs, administrative response, seeps into casual conversations amongst teachers, the interviews I conducted, and in each of the staff meetings that I observed. These conversations can easily grow contentious as teachers voice their concerns, and others see these behavior issues as a lack of classroom management, knowing your kids, or believe that teachers themselves escalate situations due to “hollering” at students (Eva Holt), and Principal Mills emphatically reminds them that she will not suspend or want to be called for any behaviors below a “level four”. Principal Mills has become increasingly adamant that the calls she receives from teachers regarding students should be for extreme behaviors, which she defines as “level four”. Her reasoning behind this assertion is that she wants to focus less on student discipline, and more on observing teachers and providing them with instructional feedback. However, when considering the “moral position” of teachers, such as Mell Edwards, who may feel 110 disempowered and who don’t have the training to adequately respond to students, the growing expectation that teachers diffuse or anticipate and prevent student outburst informs the emotional toll on all school personnel. The Emotional Toll. The ability for the Moralization Matrix to characterize a school community can be seen in the physical safety and emotionally security aspects of the Maslow’s Hierarchy factor. The ability of the survey to capture the nuance in safety is important, as it may lead to the ability for targeted interventions in schools. However, the limitation of the survey and the elevated importance of the leadership understanding, or qualitative inquiry is also evidence in this factor area. While the survey measured the nuance of school context, Principal Mills who refers to the “emotional toll” brought the connection between physical safety of teachers and emotionally security forth. Principal Mills alluded to the interconnected nature between student behavior and the emotional needs of teachers in our first interview, prior to the administration of the Moralization Assessment. In our interview she explained how the physical safety of staff members and her response as a leader emotionally impacted her staff. In this instance, the survey was able to indicate that many teachers didn’t feel physically safe in their school, and that they didn’t exhibit high consensus regarding their emotional security, however, it was Principal Mill and qualitative inquiry that was able to show that these issues may be interrelated with one another. When asked how she prioritizes teacher beliefs, emotions, and student learning Principal Mills says, The emotional toll of dealing with three major behaviors all day long, that block your instruction at every turn and your principal refuses to send home is going to affect you emotionally like severely. And then this district talks about it. But vicarious trauma is a very big thing and they're [teachers] exposed to trauma all the time. And I would suspect 111 many teachers across this nation have PTSD, undiagnosed and you know, that combined with we're in a state that we've raised accountability. We've... raised our expectations, accountability, the standards, but not been given the funding to get there actually been penalized when we don’t. Um, I'm not sure how as humans we're supposed to survive long term. -Principal Mills Here, Principal Mills succinctly describes the nuanced educational and school-level pressures that teachers experience that informs their response to student behaviors, relationship to her as their principal, and their personal cost, or the “emotional toll”. In the above quotation Principal Mills centers herself and her expectations as a source of emotional stress for teachers. She also situates her teachers within a national conversation regarding trauma, PTSD, and teacher preparation and learning that is explored by (Howard & Milner, 2014). However, while Principal Mills , may be able to understand the place where teacher’s feelings of disempowerment may arise, when shown the data from the emotional safety questions in our second interview, where there was 45%, 59%, and 63% positive consensus regarding feeling empowered to make decisions, emotionally secure, or valued, respectively, she expressed surprise saying, “I'm really intentional about trying to value people. But, um, so this is I, but I would bet that this is team [Principal Mills ] over here, so you're not going to feel valued if I'm hard on you because you're not doing your job”. Principal Mills may be right that those that feel empowered and valued in her school are “team [Principal Mills]”. Conversely, it could be unfair to assume that those who do not feel valued feel that way because she expects them to do their job. While in interview 1 Principal Mills was able to locate her role in the emotionality of her staff, Interestingly, when shown data that represented the “emotional toll” she, herself, explicated, she dismissed data that indicated that some teachers may not feel valued, supported, and/or empowered, as people being 112 for or against her. In interviews with teacher (Mell Edwards) she presented an alternative perspective to why teachers may not feeling supported at Spencer Elementary. Arguing, “...that's why there's a disconnect in communication too though, because I think that she doesn't think that she's not being supportive. I think that she's being supportive in the way she knows.” (Mell Edwards). In the above, quote Mell Edwards suggests that the Principal Mills does attempt to show support, however, the way that teachers are wanting to be supported are misaligned with Principal Mills ’s actions. The mismatch between Principal Mills’ support style and teacher needs may form as a result of her not knowing that her teachers are not feeling empowered on the one hand, and misappropriating her reasoning as to why these feelings of emotional insecurity have taken root on the other. In this instance of emotional security, a benefit of the Moralization assessment is shown. As will be further explicated in part two of the results section, the assessment is able to highlight trends that may not be readily seen by leaders. However, the limitation of the survey is that without proper follow-up and honest conversations, school leaders may misinterpret their teacher’s perceptions. The aforementioned instance of Principal Mills’ response to data concerning teacher support represents an area of incongruence amongst faculty and Principal Mills at Spencer Elementary. In any case, the interviews with teachers and survey responses seem to form a cohesive relationship, suggesting that the Moralization assessment was able to accurately capture teacher perspectives regarding their physical and emotional safety. It is important to note that Principal Mills’ stance on suspension, which will be explored in this findings section, is beyond ideological, and in part is in part a result of the culture around suspension and student discipline that developed in Spencer Elementary prior to her arrival. Spencer Elementary was described by one respondent as having a longstanding “reputation” and multiple respondents described the school as a place of “chaos” prior to Principal Mills’ arrival 113 three years ago, telling me, I wouldn’t believe what I saw if I came then. Lila Travis, described the school prior to Principal Mills below: Uh, so it was a lot of, um, bringing kids to the office, screaming at them, and, um, there's, there's definitely like dragging of kids down the hallway. This was before, we had cameras in the hallway, so it was, so if I would've have tried to report it, and it would have been my word against somebody who's been working in the district for like 15, 20 years now. Um, there was kids sent home left and right. Kids just left in the office all day, every single day. Um, and just, you no, follow up with kids on trying to like, calm them down or to hear them out or to understand like, okay, their parents this morning weren’t home because they're trying to make ends meet with multiple jobs. So nobody saw them off in the morning. They're coming in and getting yelled at first thing because they forgot that pencil at home. Um, or withholding of breakfast because you were 10 minutes late. So it was like, just stuff like that. It's just kids weren't treated like they were people essentially they're treated like they, um, like they were just subjects in a classroom. In order to shift this culture, Principal Mills has, in her words, “counseled out” teachers who don’t align with the current direction of the school. In our interview she recounted, “I don't have to fire anybody. I just have to counsel them out... I think I've counseled out five.” In three years, Principal Mills has counseled out five teachers, this does not include classroom aides that she reports going to the board to have removed from the school. As a result of Principal Mills’ effort, and the natural ebb and flow of teacher created by a teacher shortage in the state, Spencer Elementary, is comprised of at least two major groups of people: those who remember the way it used to be, some more fondly than others, and those who are new to the system and joining and adjusting to a culture that is in flux. The instability of the school’s culture is evident in the staff 114 discord in meetings and was alluded to in interviews. Due to the saliency of this cultural issue, qualitatively, if the Moralization assessment is able to characterize a school, aspects or symptoms of these challenges should be seen in the survey results. School Organization. As described in the table below, according to the Moralization Matrix Assessment, 38% of teachers expressed positive consensus regarding their school being both effectively managed and effectively organized. 45% of teachers responded with positive consensus regarding administrative coherence of tasks, and the greatest percentage of positive consensus was attributed to coherent processes at 54%. This indicates that there may be a need for improved organizational systems. Qualitative data suggests, however, that the creation of systems and processes may be complicated by miscommunication, misconceptions, and tense social relationships between school personnel. Of keen interest for the context of this study, is not simply what the organizational issues are, but how they are understood and responded to by teachers and administration. As will be illustrated in the upcoming section. In the survey, staff identified several inefficient processes and protocols within their school, namely communication. Question My school is effectively organized My school is effectively managed I can efficiently complete administrative tasks required of me The administrative paperwork/ record keeping required in this school are coherent Are there inefficient processes within your school Table 9: Survey Results: School Organization Positive Consensus 38% 38% 45% 54% 33% At Spencer Elementary, issues of school organization were attributed to a lack of cohesive culture and communication challenges. Currently, Spencer Elementary is undergoing major shifts in its culture. Although, the cultural change efforts appear necessary and beneficial 115 in order to improve student learning, there remains a need for organizational improvement. Communication was named as a feature of Spencer Elementary disorganization. However, communication may not be just a part of the disorganization, but a contributing impediment to the (re) building of coherent organizational systems. Nevertheless, the ability for staff to work together to create organizational coherence is deeply impacted by their perception of leadership and a lack of overall trust. School organization received low over positive consensus from staff members. All of which will be further explored in this section. 116 Scholarly Motivation, Guiding Question(s), and Research Finding Interview Evidence School Organization Scholarly Motivation: Instructional leadership and organized leadership are equally important Schools require bureaucratic coherence in order to improve. (Bryk et al, 2010). The function of schools is dependent on the interactions of people and the organization of work. (Bryk et al., 2015). Change is systematic (Fullan and Miles, 1992). Guiding Question (s): What, if any, inefficient processes are impacting the organization of work in this school? Research Finding: There is a need for coherent processes and systems that inform a salient culture of work in the school. However, the ability to rectify and respond to inefficient processes within the school is negatively impacted by a lack of trusting communication amongst staff. Coherent Processes Need to establish systems in order to improve them Example: “...but at the same time I also think we need to work on our systems that we already have in place or we don't have in place. So it's kind of a struggle too as a new person to know first of all, what is our system and then what could we do to improve” Systems help build culture Example: “I do think systems has to come first, but I think a lot of how those systems work depending on how the other two could turn out [school culture and teacher beliefs] .If you have better systems in place and everybody seems to be on the same page, they do seem to work together a little bit better. Are able to build the culture.” Example: “but I think individually with teachers, they're still doing their own little thing, isn't nothing, nothing. This is walk in, you say, okay, this is the culture of a building where at (another school) that I left, they were all on the same culture. But it was one of doing the right thing. Every teacher had your back. Uh, we here to teach. Were here to help you go to be successful, that was the culture, which is fine, you know, I mean it's, it's good to have black culture... but over there is more of a culture of learning and doing the right thing. Improving systems requires effective communication Misunderstandings of legitimate concerns Example: “So when the secretary's not there and the office is locked nobody can get in there. We can't get medication...which is a legitimate concern...I thought people were bringing legitimate concerns and by her shading it, putting in that kind of light. Maybe that's why people don't want to say anything because they feel as though if they say something, it may be misconstrued or may be used against them” Table 10: Interview Results: School Organization 117 Communication. In a morning staff meeting, Valerie Taylor rises with a large poster board. She explains that she collected teacher feedback regarding issues in their staff community. She recounts “someone went and told Principal Mills” (the implications of statements such as these have on trust will be explored in a later section) that she had done this and Principal Mills pulled her in her office and told her to address the concerns to the whole group in a staff meeting. This activity of bringing a list of concerns to the staff meeting, was meant to “put it all on the table” and find solutions. Valerie Taylor flips the first page of the poster board and written in large type is the word “communication” followed by a numbered list of communication challenges- which included a need for a calendar of events, greater follow-through, improved notification about school-events, needs, responsibilities, and improved communication with parents. Issues of dismissal protocol, lunchroom behavior and management, and supply ordering were brought forth as well. For over thirty minutes staff hashed out, and mostly, worked through the list, finding solutions for some challenges and tabling others. This section will not explore the content of the meeting, but instead present interview data collected regarding school organization, and staff accounts of the aforementioned meeting. During an interview with teachers, the meeting where Ms. Taylor brought the tabulated list to the staff was retold. Each, with a varied understanding of what happened, below is Eva Holt’s retelling of the story, and the repercussions of that meeting. [Valerie Taylor] had a list, a tab, the list of things... she had talked about secretary and not being in the office during a certain period of time and how, uh, students needed the medication and no one was in the office because I'm not certified to give medication. Only the secretary, I think the principal and maybe (teacher name) is certified to give medication. So when the secretary's not there and the office is locked nobody can get in 118 there. We can't get medication...which is a legitimate concern. It was a legitimate concern. But what happened with that? The principal said that the secretary was picked on and, uh, she boohooed and cried after that meeting because she felt picked on and, and then all of that came back and she said it at (leadership) meeting that. Um, she was jumped on and I was sitting there and I said, I don't remember all that. I don't remember. She did. She was being jumped on...I thought people were bringing legitimate concerns and by her shading it, putting in that kind of light. Maybe that's why people don't want to say anything because they feel as though if they say something, it may be misconstrued or may be used against them. The ability to bring “legitimate concerns” to the table and have them understood and addressed is imperative for the healthy functioning of school organizations, especially those organizations undergoing large-scale changes. As Eva Holt states, Principal Mills’ response to the meeting and Lila Travis’ feelings could contribute to later silence on the part of staff, which will be explored in the Trust element. Important to this school organization construct, is how “shading” and negative interpretation complicates the process of finding solutions to legitimate organizational concerns and impedes the ability for an organization to improve itself. While Principal Mills , considered the meeting contentious towards the secretary, this was not a feeling shared by other staff members in the room. When Principal Mills recounted Travis’ feelings and response to the feedback she received at the meeting Eva Holt refers to in the excerpt above, one member of staff replied, “She is going to need to get some thicker skin”. Other teachers, when I asked them explicitly, stated that they did not find the meeting contentious; with one teacher sharing that they believed it went well. As such, Principal Mills’ open critique of, what others perceived as “legitimate concerns” may impede organizational progress, by way of future staff silence. 119 Staff misunderstandings and a lack of free communication is not simply a hindrance to school organization, but also the ability for teachers to work together daily, and potentially hampers staff’s willingness to innovate and find solutions to their challenges. In our interview, Harper Evans shared related that her desire to be innovative was stifled by the organizational structure of her school, asserting, “...I also think we need to work on our systems that we already have in place or we don't have in place. So it's kind of a struggle too as a new person to know first of all, what is our system and then what could we do to improve” (Harper Evans). In the quotation above, Harper Evans elucidates that in order to innovate, there must be known systems to improve upon. The lack of clarity regarding systems, may be due to staff turnover, organizational systems, if they ever existed, have been impacted. Harper Evans argues that as such, it is difficult to change a system you are unsure exists. While it is not inherently problematic to wait to understand an organization, system, or process prior to offering suggestions for improving it, the willful silence of a teacher who is eager to innovate may be an impediment to a school and school leader that is advocating for school improvement and change. Systems Build Culture. Several participants in the school community expressed the need for a school-wide culture. Harper Evans, in her interview suggested that a way to build that school culture was through the creation of organizational systems. When asked, what schools should focus on: school culture, teacher beliefs, or school organization, Harper Evans responded, “I do think systems have to come first, but I think a lot of how those systems work depending on how the other two could turn out [school culture and teacher beliefs]. If you have better systems in place and everybody seems to be on the same page, they do seem to work together a little bit better. Are able to build the culture.” In her statement, Harper Evans suggests that the creation of systems contributes to building a school-wide culture. She explicitly referenced that these 120 systems may allow members of the staff to get on the “same page”. The need to get teachers on the “same page” and able to work together was a sentiment shared by numerous respondents. Jessie Hill, similarly shared, “If everybody's on the same page, we can, say we had a meeting, a meeting just about being on the same page in one of these Wednesday meetings. Let's get this culture. Let's get this culture in the building team together, everybody work on the same page” (Jessie Hill). In their statement, Jessie Hill asserts that staff meetings could provide an opportunity to coordinate school staff and form a cohesive culture. His specific use of the word “team” references itself as stark contrast to the isolationist and “island” culture among teachers that was alluded to by several staff members at Spencer Elementary. Nevertheless, while some teachers note the need for the creation of systems, the building of “team”, and a unified culture, Principal Mills’ school improvement efforts have not solely focused on systems, instead, she has a multi-layered approach to changing teacher beliefs. Though, Jessie Hill suggests that staff meetings could be used for creating a culture, Principal Mills has utilized time during staff meeting as an opportunity for professional development of her staff in other areas. Moreover, Principal Mills’ approach includes suggested reading, to “introduce them to literature”. How Principal Mills approaches increasing the effectiveness of her teachers and school and the purpose behind this, is explicated in the interview excerpt below, she relates to me, A lot of is just imparting the knowledge. So um, I'm trying to, to give them doses. I, the first rookie mistake I made was to introduce them to literature, like peer reviewed journal articles. You cannot assume that your teacher has the skill set to read it or the attention span to read it or the ability to process it and write in the margins and be able to articulate. I made assumptions that that some can for sure, um, some cannot. And I think I made an assumption that I do most of my learning 121 through reading and then processing. Not everybody does. So now I go through the literature and then impart small chunks for them that will be relevant. There are several important takeaways from the given quote, first Principal Mills indicates that there is importance to sharing information with her staff in order for them to grow. However, she notes that there may capacity issues in the ability of staff members to read, understand, and process the information they read. She shares, that in an effort to respond tot his, she has begun parsing information down before sharing it with her staff. While Principal Mills has attempted to use research literature and books to impact staff, with inviting personnel to read literature such as, Waking up White and Finding your Why. However, the impact of creating a shared culture around these texts is difficult as every teacher may not (and does not) participate in the reading of the books. In fact, as will be later explored, some teachers have opted out of leadership meetings due to their unwillingness to read the books that Principal Mills assigned. In this way, this intellectual or text based approach may undermine the ability for a school-wide culture to be built and may inform a cultural rift between who reads the book and who does not may further informing the “pocket” “island” and isolationist culture that impedes the organizational coherence of Spencer Elementary. Leadership. The ability of the Moralization assessment, to detect nuance in staff beliefs can be seen in the following table. As is illustrated in the table above, the assessment captured an interesting dynamic within Spencer Elementary. That is, though Principal Mills received high positive consensus regarding her interest in her staff (77%). There was low positive consensus regarding feeling supported by administrators (36%) and the ability that administrators looked out for the personal welfare of faculty members (40%). The nuance of these perspectives will be explored in the following section. 122 Positive Consensus 77% Question The principal takes personal interest in developing teachers professionally I feel supported by school administrators School leaders looks out for the personal welfare of faculty members I really respect my principal as: An educator, A professional, An Academic, Personally, I don’t really respect my principal Table 11: Survey Results: Leadership 36% 40% An educator (55%), A professional (80%), An Academic (50%) Personally (75%), I don’t really respect my principal (3%) Leadership is an integral aspect of creating, maintaining, and improving the culture and climate of schools. However, at Spencer Elementary, misunderstandings between Principal Mills and her staff may act as an impediment to the growth and change of their community. This section explores how issues of support, and principal perspective can be understood in critical, yet supportive ways. Additionally, it was shown that dissention and division amongst staff can be informed by the language, perspective, and anticipated behavior of their school leader. The nuanced perspectives of school personnel were captured via the varying degrees of positive consensus exhibited on the Moralization survey. 123 Scholarly Motivation, Guiding Question(s), and Research Finding Interview Evidence Leadership Scholarly Motivation: Leaders influence the culture, climate, and environment of their schools. Their influence on students is mediated through their relationship with teachers (Cohen et al., 2009). Principals improve student learning by increasing teacher effectiveness via professional development, hiring, firing, and persuasion (Donaldson, 2013). Guiding Question (s): What is the relationship between teachers and their principal? Research Finding: While school personnel appreciate the challenge of the principal’s role and value the instructional leadership of the principal, her leadership approach and support style may be incongruent with the needs of teachers and create dissention among staff. Contextualizing the School and Support Example: “...you should have been here the first year. but when she showed up, we had not had a principal since the beginning of the year the principal quit like right before. and it's noted like I know people, there has been problems here for a long time. In fact, [Spencer Elementary] had a very bad reputation and had a lot of issues like.... No, we had, it was like kind of, and we were having like violent, like, I mean it was so it's a climate that she has been trying to change and it's not just her, it's like I said, it's coming from the school district, you know? And it's just getting everybody to be more....” Supportive Critique Example: “I do support her. I'm not going to say that I don't want to support her, but I have my feelings”. Instructional Leadership Example: “I'm going to work my hardest to get there and they empower me by, she empowers me by letting me do that, by trusting me to make the changes that need to be made and to make the schedule that works for me.” Example: “She always says she pushes our intellect, which I appreciate because she's, you know, brought up stuff that I don't even know about.” Contentious Relationships & Incongruent Support Example: “...But what she did was she even made a statement that she had already given this [the theme] to the super and then [the teachers who presented] was like, we worked hard on this. So what was the purpose...And I felt like that was wrong... “It was already approved.” That was wrong. Even if it was, keep it in here [motions towards head] and you know now you just showed another little just dodge at her like. It was for you if we weren't really gonna approve yours...” Example: “I think she's aware of the dissension and the division. I don't think she's aware that she may be causing it. I don't think she's aware of that.” Example: “...that's why there's a disconnect in communication too though, because I think that she doesn't think that she's not been supportive. I think that she's being supportive in the way she knows to be.” Table 12: Interview Results: Leadership 124 Social Justice Provocateur. Principal Mills , describes herself as a “social justice provocateur” proclaiming that “everything I do or say is through a lens of social justice.” A central aspect of her perspective as a social justice leader is to center and be responsive, educationally, to the way that traumatic experiences of students informs their behavior and ability to learn within school. A part of Principal Mills’ cultural responsiveness represents itself as abhorrence to student suspension, she declares: “I'm not sending home unless it's a level four and if it's a level four, I'm probably sending them to restorative justice. And it doesn't make me terribly popular.” Principal Mills’ belief that her stance on suspension is what contributes to her lack of popularity is a claim she makes often. Examining the merit of that assertion is not within the scope of this dissertation. However, I do argue that the rhetorical move to conceptualize the cost of taking a stance as a lack of popularity may serve to color all staff disagreement around school-level changes as an issue with her, rather than a legitimate concern as was seen within the School Organization element. As will be continually explored, issues of popularity, favoritism, and anti-favoritism arise as salient issues within this community regarding whose ideas and perspectives are privileged, and which ones are silenced. As will be explicated in an example below. In response to a new citywide initiative that is seeking to create educational pathways for its youth, elementary schools in Principal Mills’ district were directed to choose an educational theme for their school. The meeting where this would take place was much anticipated meeting for Principal Mills . There were two presentations planned, and a vote to choose a theme that would guide the direction of the school for years to come. Principal Mills was unequivocally biased towards one theme, as she saw the opposing theme as the old way of teaching the textbook “front to back”. In an interview with me, Principal Mills describes the counter theme, 125 And it's people that want to teach front to back, they feel like they're not meeting my expectations, feel like what I'm asking is unreasonable to differentiate and individualize for a child and uh, have deficit thinking towards families. “The reason they're not achieving is because they don't come to school”, all of that jazz. Right...So to me, you don't own your data...So the counter theme is... they want to say like, we're innovators and we'll make inventions. Even though I don't see any project-based learning going on at all...which is just to me, a sign of you have, you don't get it... There's nothing instructional behind that outside of you want to do some fancy projects, which I support, but, um, that is not to me explicit or individualized enough to show me that it fits in the pathways and that we're going to get them to graduate. 50- half our kids from Spencer Elementary graduate, 70% of our third graders don't pass the (state testing). Like, why are we not having this sense of urgency? Because it's not my fault, it's other people's fault... The opposing theme as mentioned by Principal Mills, centered on innovation and creativity. We can see and understand in Principal Mills’ statement above when she states, “and it’s people” that the notion that it was about teaching “front to back” and “not owning data” was tethered to the presenters of the theme, and not the theme itself. However, Principal Mills situates the conversation of this theme with the needs and futures of students, “to graduate” and the purpose of the theme, which was to “fit into pathways”. In any case, during the meeting, after both theme presentations were done, a teacher raised her hand and stated, “these [the presentations] seem really similar”, and in a subsequent interview another teacher noted, “They are very close. You know, they had some overlapping...” (Terry Child). In this way, the gravity of difference placed upon the themes by Principal Mills, was not congruent with teacher understanding of the 126 presentations. While the differentiation between the themes was not as palpable to her staff, for Principal Mills, the themes represented a world of difference, she relates to me, I think we're on the tipping point of like when you watch, we were about to vote on this theme. It's literally; it reminds me of like a dance off progress, I don't have to be in the conversation. They have developed a theme. I mean I have been behind the scenes, but it's not me with my foot in the door lobbying and having conversations. Like now this is coming to a head and this is the direction we're going to go based on a democratic vote. My only hope at this point is “A”, the right choices chosen, which I'm not terribly worried. Um, but “B”, once that has happened, now publicly, you're in the minority publicly, you understand that our values are over here. So I'm looking for it to no longer to be a conversation with me one on one. In the above quote we can see that for Principal Mills, the theme and voting for the theme, was understood as a moment of reorientation for her staff. She hoped that the democratic vote would show teachers where the majority of the staff stood, ideologically. However, as previously mentioned, staff members did not see the themes presented as distinctively different from one another. As such, while Principal Mills is constructing voting for themes as monumental opportunities, her staff members are not. Nevertheless, Principal Mills’ theme bias was made evident to her staff following a vote that indicated that theme she supported “won”. After the vote, Principal Mills stated that the superintendent had already approved the theme she supported. In that moment, it appeared that as though the vote never mattered. As teachers reflected on that meeting, they relayed to me their understanding of what happened, stating, ...But what she did was she even made a statement that she had already given this [the theme] to the super and then [the teachers who presented] was like, we worked hard on 127 this. So what was the purpose...And I felt like that was wrong... “It was already approved.” That was wrong. Even if it was, keep it in here [motions towards head] and you know now you just showed another little just dodge at her like. It was for you, we weren't really gonna approve yours... (Reed Phillips) In Reed Phillips’s urgent commentary, there are several issues to consider. First, the coloring of Principal Mills’ actions as potentially manipulative as she questions, “what was the purpose?” and “that was wrong” In her closing statement. Reed Phillips appears to have understood that the vote may have been a form of mockery to the presenting teachers in her stating, “we were never gonna approve yours”. Secondly, Reed Phillips’s motion, and commentary, of “keep it in here” represents an emerging critique of Principal Mills and the fluidity of her speech. As will be discussed later, some school personnel believe that Principal Mills does not control her tongue. Finally, Reed Phillips suggests that she understands Principal Mills’ actions as a “dodge” at a particular teacher. Another teacher holds the belief that Principal Mills has a personal vendetta against the teacher, who suggests, She [Principal Mills] was a little bit upset that (Valerie Taylor) was putting it together...an alternative because it was conflicting with what she wanted and preferred, but she wants to be democratic and fair, so she allowed that opportunity for her to present and for us to put it to vote so that she can say, okay... (Mell Edwards) In the interview excerpt above, Mell Edwards succinctly describes her interpretation of Principal Mills’ motives as a leader. Mell Edwards conceptualizes Principal Mills’ “vote” as a ploy and an act to appear fair, and be able to assert to teachers that they “chose” the direction of the school, rather than having one imposed upon them, though it was clear that she had a preference. Furthermore, though there were two presenters Principal Mills’ comments were seen as a dig at 128 one particular teacher. The potential challenge of a school leader having an openly contentious relationship with a teacher will be further explored in the trust element. In meeting with me, Principal Mills never indicated that the theme had already been chosen. In fact, though in our interview she stated she wasn’t “terribly worried”. She also shared being concerned that the vote could go for the other theme being presented. She mentioned that though her contract allows her 51% of the vote, she wouldn’t use it because she believed in the “democratic process”. Her statement that the theme had already been approved was a surprise to the room, as could be seen in the subtle reaction of members of the staff, who tilted heads, looked at their colleagues, or whispered to a teacher to their side. It appears that in a single moment some teachers, like those teachers above, may have come to believe that their vote didn’t matter. Principal Mills’ stating that the theme was already approved, for some staff, worked to reinforce their already present beliefs that she would not support the ideas of those people who are not her “yes men”. Following the vote Principal Mills walked around the meeting room and explained to her staff that if they were uncomfortable with the direction of the school, they could find a new school that was a better fit and whose values and beliefs they aligned with. After the conclusion of Principal Mills’ speech and the staff meeting Jessie Hill turns to me, as an observer of the meeting, and began speaking about what had taken place, I asked him if he believed teachers would leave, he says: “ I’m sure they are now”. I do not believe that it was Principal Mills’ intention to seemingly undermine the purpose of the vote by her statement. Yet, it did for some staff members and as Jessie Hill related, they may actually leave the school. When considering our first interview, I am reminded of Principal Mills’ statement, “I find that I risk the culture all the time, but when you do what's best for kids, things tend to work or 129 people leave. I don't say that like I want it to, but it just happens.” Principal Mills’ openness to staff leaving and willingness to “risk the culture” may contribute to her coarse use of language, and may provide a visage into how Principal Mills’ direct form speech can impact her ability to build rapport with her staff. The lack of rapport makes it trying for staff to rightly interpret the actions or statements that Principal Mills makes, As one member of the staff stated, “it’s very difficult to figure out where things are coming from with her.” (Mell Edwards). Moreover, it was related to me that Principal Mills’ lack of “filtering” may impact staff member’s willingness to speak with her directly. When speaking with Eva Holt, she explained that although she was not afraid to speak candidly with Principal Mills about her feelings, she was hesitant to share information that concerned other staff, stating, “there’s no filtering with her [Principal Mills] and I'm just being honest, no filtering. She'll go right to her face and tell her (another teacher).” I asked, if she [Eva Holt] believed staff was used to this behavior. She responded, “No. I know I’m not. It creates division. I think it creates dissension among her staff.” I asked, do you think she realizes it? To which, Eva Holt astutely retorts, “I think she's aware of it. I think she's aware of the dissension and the division. I don't think she's aware that she may be causing it. I don't think she's aware of that.” In the above, quote Eva Holt relates a crucial challenge that Principal Mills faces as leader, while she may understand that there is division among her staff, as can be illuminated by survey tools, such as the Moralization Matrix, she may be less aware that she is the source of that dissention. This is a crucial challenge for a leader. It appears, that Principal Mills, instead attributes the division and push back she receives as leader to the belief that she is not popular among all teachers, or that she is only supported by others, her reference to “team Principal Mills ”, or her construction of teachers actions as indicative of their personal issues with her or the progress she is aiming to bring about in Spencer Elementary, represent the belief 130 systems that inform how Principal Mills leads and interacts with her staff. Though she may not perceive that she is being inequitable, through her words, Eva Holt suggests that her manner of leadership could create division. This division caused by her language, her actions and speech during the theme staff meeting may all be representative of why staff rated Principal Mills with low positive consensus on feeling supported and as if there person welfare was considered. It’s important to note that Principal Mills ’s construction of staff as for against her is not imagined, it was related to me that she was not the choice of teachers, when she was interviewed for the job three years ago. Lila Travis remembers, “They sent Valerie Taylor over to do the interviews of Principal Mills and a couple other people and, and Valerie Taylor came back and said, we just don't want Principal Mills . She's, you know, she's super intense and she is, she sounds like she's crazy and so on and so forth. So, um, when Principal Mills got in, everybody was freaked out.” Since Principal Mills’ arrival three years ago, there has been immense staff turnover, however some of the teachers who were “freaked out” by Principal Mills , still remain at Spencer Elementary. Moreover, the sentiment that Principal Mills is intense remains. Additionally, Principal Mills may have, and may continue to face mounting challenges as she may serve as a daily reminder to some teachers that their input was not valued or listened to by outside administrators that chose Principal Mills against their advising not to. Supportive Critique. Though they may have critique of some of Principal Mills ’s approach or actions do not purport to be unsupportive of what she is seeking to accomplish at Spencer Elementary. Mell Edwards admits, “I do support her. I'm not going to say that I don't want to support her, but I have my feelings”. Understanding and responding to these “feelings” may hold the potential to reorient Principal Mills’ staff towards change and innovation by facilitating a better working relationship and understanding between teachers and her as an 131 administrator. However the ability to have open and honest dialogue amongst school personnel is impacted by teachers not believing that Principal Mills will operate with tact or that she will hold grudges against them for speaking their mind as was explored in the previous School Organization section. Reed Phillips shares the type of support she envisions being helpful to her, I know that there's a lot of things that has to be done throughout the day, but I feel like every now and then maybe, Hey, is everything okay in here? You know what I'm saying? Like just popping out. Hey...You're good? Okay. Everybody's okay? You know, and that's when we could have that relationship from leadership too... Hey, can I use the bathroom? Hey, you know what? Can you just fill in right here or something? You know what I'm saying? Like it's not that type of support where, hey, you know, if you need something, I'm here. While Mell Edwards believed that Principal Mills was supportive in ways that were incongruent with the needs of teachers. Reed Phillips suggests a way that Principal Mills could show her support to staff members. Reed Phillips considers that check-ins and providing opportunities for teachers to step out of the classroom, outside of emergency situations-like student behaviors, may increase rapport- not just among staff and leadership, but leadership and students. The aforementioned suggestion, is used as a segway between critiques of Principal Mills to the promise she holds for Spencer Elementary as an instructional leader should she reorient herself to her staff in ways that matter to them. The profound promise that Principal Mills has can be seen in the assessment results. Though 36% conveyed positive consensus regarding feeling supported by Principal Mills , and 40% believed that Principal Mills looked out for the personal welfare of staff 77% of respondents at Spencer Elementary believed that Principal Mills took personal interest in 132 developing teachers. Participants, such as Harper Evans who stated, shared this personal interest with me, “She always says she pushes our intellect, which I appreciate because she's, you know, brought up stuff that I don't even know about.” (Harper Evans) Another member of the school stated, “I'm going to work my hardest to get there and they empower me by, she empowers me by letting me do that, by trusting me to make the changes that need to be made and to make the schedule that works for me.” The willingness to trust her teachers was described as an important source of support for teachers. Her ability to “push the intellect” of her staff was clearly noted and appreciated. However, Eva Holt shared that for others, Principal Mills’ intellectual probing, while appreciated, may be a source of stress for staff members, she considers, “I know [Principal Mills]’s really pushing them more than maybe they have ever been pushed before instructionally because she has, um, a goal a direction that she really wants to improve the reading levels of the students. And uh, and I look and I know that's her background and she's good at that... and maybe she's asking them to do things that they have not done before and they feel uncomfortable.” It is not inherently problematic that Nora Mil’s pushes her teacher’s instructionally. As Eva Holt notes, it is a talent and background that Principal Mills holds. However, Eva Holt suggests that this can still make individuals feel uncomfortable. The ability for Principal Mills to acknowledge, be cognizant of, and responsive to her teaches who may feel discomfort as a result of her instructional guidance has the potential to increase feelings of staff support as shared by Reed Phillips, and perhaps, the overall collective efficacy of her staff. Relational Trust. While a majority of teachers purport to professionally and personally respect their colleagues at 81% and 95%, respectively. Less teachers exhibit positive consensus regarding expressing concerns with 40% for school leaders and 54% with other teachers. Furthermore, a majority of staff “often feels unsupported by school leaders” with only 27% 133 responding with positive consensus. Trust is described as the “relational glue” (Bryk &Schneider, 2003) of school communities: teachers, school leaders, and parents. As the final element of the Organizational Climate and Effectiveness Construct, trust will be used to be “glue” that ties the aforementioned areas of Maslow’s Hierarchy, School Organization, and Leadership together. Here, the concept of trust is used to better understand the dynamics that are introduced in earlier scenarios presented in this construct block. Of keen interest in this section, will be how challenges of physical and emotional safety, organization, and support work to inform the willingness of school personnel to speak up for themselves and contribute their voice to the betterment of their school community. Question I respect my colleagues personally Positive Consensus 95% I respect my colleagues professionally 81% Teachers at my school are supportive of one another 63% Teachers at my school truly care about one another Teachers at my school trust each other It's okay to express fears, worries, and frustrations with Other Teachers I often feel disrespected by other teachers I often feel unsupported by other teachers It's okay to express fears, worries, and frustrations with School Leadership I often feel disrespected by school leaders I often feel unsupported by school leaders Table 13: Survey Results: Relational Trust 134 68% 54% 54% 77% 59% 40% 59% 27% Scholarly Motivation, Guiding Question(s), and Research Finding Interview Evidence Trust Scholarly Motivation: Social relationships inform the success of reforms, especially principal relationships with school personnel, parents, and the broader community (Bryk and Schneider, 2003). Tschannen and Hoy (2000) assert that “trust is necessary for effective cooperation and community, the foundation for cohesive and productive relationship in organizations” (p.549). Guiding Question (s): Is there trust among school personnel at this school? What, if anything, might be impacting the ability of trust to be made or maintained at this school? Research Finding: Teacher turnover, isolationist culture, and perception that they will not be backed up by their colleagues, impacts the ability for teachers to build trust among school personnel. Turnover Example: “...we had people for whatever reason, leave...And so I think those, those relationships don't get built...” Other Teachers won’t help you Example: They're different. And then I feel like it should be a connection with them, like all of us, you know what I'm saying? Like, you know, if you see me struggling and I think (teacher name) would do it. Um, you know, (another teacher name), I don't know. I think she would probably keep walking ...It'll just be like, hey, that’s your problem. We gon’ keep on going. I think that's what it is. Colleagues won’t have your back or there will be retribution Example: I can tell you right now, I'm not touching a kid in the hallway, not going to, so like if, if a fights breaking out, I'm not going to break it up because I can't trust that I'll be, um, that someone has my back, you know, like my intent wasn't to hurt anybody, my intent was to make sure kids don't hurt each other, but I'm not going to jump in because look what happened. Example: It could be fear, intimidation than maybe they might be that you evaluated down, you know, I don't know Lack of interest in building trusting relationships Example: but I don't know if it's as much trust as just individualize personalities that just have their own personality that just doesn't lend to opening up and being like, I think they're afraid of being a group Example: She [Principal Mills ] wanted them to expose some type of deep, dark secret about why you are now doing whatever you're doing. And you know, both of them voiced their opinion. Like, you know, first of all, I don't feel comfortable doing this because you guys are my coworkers, but I don't feel comfortable opening up about whatever past situations that I had, if this traumatizing or not. I work with you guys however we ain’t that cool. You know what I'm saying? Table 14: Interview Results: Relational Trust 135 The ability for colleagues and leaders to trust one another is a necessary aspect of a healthy organization, especially one undergoing change efforts, such as Spencer Elementary. The data from the Moralization Matrix suggests that teachers have reservations regarding trusting not only their colleagues, but also school leaders. There were low to mixed positive consensus in this area.. The relational trust section utilized challenges brought forth in earlier areas of behavior and safety, organization and communication, and leadership to explore how other element areas are impacted by a lack of trust among school personnel. While interviewing various school personnel, I was told that the teachers were in “pockets” or that there were cliques among the staff. These cliques, seemingly went beyond friendship, but also acted as a hindrance to change, with some staff not believing that others would help them if needed, Mell Edwards says, They're [teachers] different. And then I feel like it should be a connection with them, like all of us, you know what I'm saying? Like, you know, if you see me struggling and I think (teacher name) would do it. Um, you know, (teacher name), I don't know. I think she would probably keep walking if they see like [struggling with student]...It'll just be like, hey, that’s your problem. We gon’ keep on going. I think that's what it is. Due to the isolated nature, there is a lacf trusting relationships and belief that teachers would support them, even hypothetically with particular students. The lack of trust amongst staff that others care or would assist them when they are struggling may contribute to the low positive consensus exhibited on questions, such as “Teachers at my school are supportive of one another”. Teacher beliefs that their colleagues are not supportive may contribute to teachers existing in silos, with multiple school personnel explaining that people exist on their own “island”. The “island” culture and lack of trust acts a both a symptom of a community divided 136 and an impediment to the ability to create a cohesive culture. The lack of trust informs the lack of relationships. The lacking relationships means there are few opportunities for teachers to build trust with one another. With few opportunities to build relational trust, teachers must gather information about their colleagues’ potential trustworthiness from short interactions, meetings, and glean information regarding the relationship they have with other school personnel, especially Principal Mills . Mell Edwards and Eva Holt both describe themselves as able to remain “neutral” so it doesn’t appear as if they’re solidly on anyone’s side. Those that aren’t able to be remain neutral experience what Reed Phillips and Mell Edwards refer to as favoritism or “anti- favoritism”. Some shared, that they believe only some of Principal Mills’ “yes men” are allowed to contribute ideas around school improvement. Mell Edwards and Reed Phillips both shared that some school personnel were asked to leave the leadership team due to their unwillingness to engage in particular types of conversations, Reed Phillips says, She [Principal Mills ] wanted them to expose some type of deep, dark secret about why you are now doing whatever you're doing. And you know, both of them voiced their opinion. Like, you know, first of all, I don't feel comfortable doing this because you guys are my coworkers, but I don't feel comfortable opening up about whatever past situations that I had, if it’s traumatizing or not. I work with you guys however we ain’t that cool. You know what I'm saying? As can be seen in the quotation above, the lack of trust not only inhibited teachers from contributing to whole group conversations, it also impacted their ability to participate in leadership teams that required that they trust one another and share. This lack of trust, led to teachers being asked to leave a team that they joined in an effort to help organize and improve 137 Spencer Elementary. Which was noted by Mell Edwards, who reminded me, that those members who were asked to leave were, “there sincerely for like the leadership, right? Concepts, like not that building relationships behind it, but like the, okay, let's figure out what we're doing in our building, all the different events that we need to do. Like, figure out how to operate our school, that type of leadership focus.” In her view, the need to make school-wide decisions, and increase organizational effectiveness, was separate from the need to build relationships within the school community. Perhaps, as was elucidated in the School Organization element, Mell Edwards also believed that the building of systems, can build a culture itself. In any case, the entirety of the situation, encouraged and contributed to negative interpretations of not only Principal Mills , but also other staff members who are referred to those who are on the leadership team as “yes men” or “ready to fight” (Mell Edwards). The expectations that teachers had to “expose” themselves in order to be a part of the leadership team, was balked at by both Mell Edwards and Reed Phillips who notably determines that school personnel “...aint that cool.” Contentious Relationships. As was introduced in the school organization and leadership sections, there appears to be an openly contentious relationship between Principal Mills and another teacher, who appears to be “ready to fight”. As such, while Eva Holt expressed surprise by Principal Mills ’s response to Valerie Taylor’s tabulated list and the negative “shading” of legitimate concerns brought forth in the school organization element, not all teachers were surprised that Valerie Taylor was received this way, one teacher- expressively noted, “When she stood up, I said oh she got a chart. It's about to go down” (Reed Phillips) There appears to be a longstanding dispute between Valerie Taylor and Principal Mills , which is not within the scope of this paper to discuss, however staff member’s noted that they clearly know there is tension between the two, stating “You can see it group texts. Like you see it, just shut down, you see it 138 like in writing.” (Mell Edwards). The danger of a palpable contentious relationship between a teacher and an administrator, which evidentially shows itself in staff meetings and can lead to what teacher’s perceive to be retribution, can lead to teachers speaking less in meetings, which in turn, negatively informs change-making efforts. As Eva Holt noted, she feared that Principal Mills’ shading of Valerie Taylor’s concerns may cause other personnel to speak less so as to avoid being misunderstood and called out for hurting another staff members’ feelings. Increasing staff silence would be a precarious challenge for Spencer Elementary, which already has staff that won’t speak, as Jude Bert, disclosed, “there's a few that talk and a few that don't, I don't think everybody speaks up. I think for some, especially newer teachers, it's harder to speak up”. She further explains why she is reserved in speaking up in staff meetings, I don't want to start an argument and I don't, I don't think that arguing during those meetings solves anything. You know, you can argue till you're blue in the face. It doesn't fix the problem. So I think, um, that's kind of what I judge when I speak. Like, am I going to say it in a way that's argumentative? How am I going to come across saying this? Cause you know, sometimes you get frustrated about something, you might just blurt it out and that's not good. (Jude Bert) Jude Bert’s sharing that she waits to speak so as to avoid staff arguments may inform the low positive consensus exhibited across the trust element. The belief that saying the wrong thing may lead to an argument, lends itself to the understanding that it is not open or safe to express, worries, fears, or frustrations, not simply with colleagues but also with the leader. 139 Normalized Attitudes Willingness to Change. At Spencer Elementary, Moralization assessment data indicates that respondents see their teacher colleagues as less willing to change than themselves as well as school leaders. The statistics for “other teachers’ hover around 47%- 52% positive consensus for taking risks, trying new ideas, and being willing to improve. While around 80% of respondents believe that they themselves and their teacher colleagues are encouraged to better educators. The large schism between teachers perception of themselves, and their colleagues suggests a disconnect in a staff community Other Teachers 50% 95% 95% Self 90% Positive Consensus Question Eager to try new ideas Willing to improve their practices in order for our school to improve Willing to take risks to make this school better Willing to take personal responsibility for improving the school Continually learning and seeking new ideas Encouraged to become better educators (hone their craft) Table 15: Survey Results: Willingness to Change 90% 77% 90% 52% 47% 68% 61% 81% School Leaders 72% 85% 80% 80% 77% 77% Teacher perceptions regarding the willingness to change of their colleagues is explored in this section via teacher’s encapsulation of their peers within paradigms such as, the “new way” and the “old way”, especially as it relates to addressing student behaviors. When teachers are asked about factors that impact innovation at their school, teacher refer to their colleagues that 140 have been at Spencer Elementary, “for a long time” or who have been in the field of education for years. Although teachers believe themselves, and to an extent, Principal Mills to be willing to engage in new ideas they do not see their colleagues as willing to amend their own behaviors. The attitudes and behaviors that have potentially informed the willingness to change of school personnel will be explored in the disposition element area. Scholarly Motivation, Guiding Question(s), and Research Finding Interview Excerpts Willingness to Change Scholarly Motivation: Establishing readiness to change at the individual and organizational level is crucial to successful implementation (Shea et al., 2014). Policy failure is typically attributed to “...the unwillingness or lack of cooperation of individuals (Sandfort & Moulton 2014). Social relationships and willingness to take risks inform change behaviors (Greenhalgh et al., 2004) Guiding Question(s): What are school personnel’s perception of the willingness to change of themselves, their colleagues and school leader? Research Finding: Teachers perceive the school leader to be more willing to change than their teacher colleagues. Teacher’s attribute their colleagues lack of willingness to change to student demographics, their time spent in the field of education, and personal fear of failure. Accepting Change takes time But a lot of times when that change comes up, you know, it's not like, oh, I don't want to do it. It's, I need time to process and figure it out. Like, is this really, how are we going to make it work? How are we going to make it fit, um, because sometimes when it's introduced, you can't have that whole conversation. You have to break it down. Yeah. See at first, and that takes a little bit longer than the time we have. There’s Resistance: Example: “...There's resistance. I know that ,to change sometimes because people are so comfortable doing what they've always done and there's resistance. There are those who are willing to, to change if they buy into it, if they feel like, um, it's going to help them, I believe, or this is for the good of the school, I think there will be less resistance. But if it's forced upon them, I think they'll be more resistant. Example: “I wish it wouldn't be such a challenge every single time. Like something new is, is like introduced. .” Table 16: Interview Results: Willingness to Change 141 Table 16: (cont’d) Change is Scary with this demographic Example: Some teachers I think have had their rooms set up the same way for years. Like that's how they do it...I think a lot of teachers just don't, don't like the change. And I think because you do have to be so specific with the kids her... So I feel like if there's a big change, they feel like somehow messes up their system of like how they're working with their kids. Cause time is super valuable with these kids...So if there's a change, maybe they're just afraid of how that will affect their teaching or their kids. Change is scary for long-term teachers Example: “I think it comes down to how long you've been teaching. I think that can be a positive and a negative. You know, if you've been teaching, you're almost to retirement, you know, you may not be as willing to change or you could have phenomenal ideas” Example: Because the other way says, well, maybe you haven't quite been doing what's best for all these years, you know, maybe because we didn't know. And maybe because there's new information out there that shows that this is what's best. So, um, and I know for me that's absolutely like, you know, as a parent that's terrifying. Oh, I did it wrong all these years. oh my goodness, you know? So I think as a teacher too, and our professional lives, yeah. You know, that's scary to think about. How did I Screw up these children? Willingness to change has been described as a key factor that impacts change-making efforts in school organizations. There are many elements that may influence whether teachers are willing to change their practices. At Spencer Elementary, teachers expressed the challenges they face when attempting to embark on change. When I asked Principal Mills which changes seemed most difficult, she replied, “...it seems to be ever change. It's really difficult. Doesn't it matter if I change the lunch schedule.” The belief that every change was a challenge for teachers as Spencer Elementary was echoed by Terry Child, who stated, “I wish it wouldn't be such a challenge every single time. Like something new is, is like introduced.” There were numerous reasons as to why teachers didn’t believe their colleagues were willing to change, some of which will be explored further. One of the reasons teachers believed their colleagues weren’t willing to change was due to their time in the teaching career. In fact, Terry Child expressed surprise when those who have 142 been in teaching for a while were still willing to adapt their beliefs and practices. Terry Child noted, I think it comes down to how long you've been teaching. I think that can be a positive and a negative. You know, if you've been teaching, you're almost to retirement, you know, you may not be as willing to change or you might have phenomenal ideas. Like I said, (teacher name), she looks at the whole child, which for her, as long as she's been teaching, I find really interesting. She's not stuck there. But then you know, you have newbies but you know, that don't know. But they're willing to really go the extra mile and learn. And then of course you have some that don't want to change. They don't want to learn. Like were here its job. According to Terry Child, teachers who have been in the field of education for a while, may be reluctant to change because they are nearing the end of their careers. She uses an example of a teacher, who is close to retirement, but outside this norm as an example. For Terry Child, the time in the teaching career doesn’t necessarily mean that all teachers will be willing to change, however, she does note this as an outlier, when she states, “for her, as long as she's been teaching, I find really interesting”. In her statement, Terry Child also notes the plight of newer teachers, who may need to go “the extra mile” to learn how to navigate student needs. She seemingly constructs those that are not changing their practice or exceeding expectations as those who are see working in schools as “just a job”. The sentiment that more senior teachers are less inclined to changed is echoed by Harper Evans states, “There's some teachers that have been here for a long time and so they want to just do everything... they always say like, well, we've always done it this way...I'm somewhere in the middle. Like I want to do the new stuff, but I understand the need for like...having traditions...” Harper Evans furthered, 143 Some teachers I think have had their rooms set up the same way for years. Like that's how they do it, you know? Um, I'm not that teacher... But, um, yeah, I think a lot of teachers just don't, don't like the change. And I think because you do have to be so specific with the kids here, we, um, like some people have gotten used to how it runs and how they do it. So I feel like if there's a big change, they feel like somehow messes up their system of like how they're working with their kids. Cause time is super valuable with these kids...So if there's a change, maybe they're just afraid of how that will affect their teaching or their kids. (Harper Evans) In a more sympathetic line of reasoning, Harper Evans suggests that some teachers may not be willing to change for fear that it will negatively impact the outcomes for students. She also notes that that there is importance to preserving traditions. She urges that the hesitancy to change may be due to the need to be specific with the students, in an effort to see results and increase educational outcomes, via teaching and learning. However, in my interview with Jude Bert, I was presented with an interesting view of why teachers may not be willing to change. While many, like Harper Evans, position fear of change, as congruent with a fear of failure, Jude Bert reasoned, that a fear of change was actually fear of success. She asserts that a seasoned teacher, that changes their methods and sees increasing results may have to look back at their past years of teaching with regret and wonder, “How did I screw up these children?” Nevertheless, Jude Bert asserts that this fear can be addressed by focuses on the importance of looking at and understanding data and pursuing new information. She reasons, And I think some do and believe that that's what's best. Yeah. Because the other way says, well, maybe you haven't quite been doing what's best for all these years, you know, maybe because we didn't know. And maybe because there's new information out there 144 that shows that this is what's best. So, um, and I know for me that's absolutely like, you know, as a parent that's terrifying. Oh, I did it wrong all these years. oh my goodness, you know? So I think as a teacher too, and our professional lives, yeah. You know, that's scary to think about. How did I screw up these children? She concluded, “change is scary to think that maybe I haven't done it right for all these years.” Jude Bert’s, belief that teachers may be fearful of succeeding poses a new explanation, which necessitates a new approach to engaging with teachers in their willingness to change. In Spencer Elementary, teacher perceptions of the willingness to change of their colleagues was low. In the aforementioned writing, I have sought to illustrate how perceptions of old and new teachers may be informing this belief. The next section on disposition presents the perceptions of the attitudes and behaviors of school personnel within Spencer Elementary. Disposition. The disposition element boasts higher positive consensus than the willingness to change factor area. However, there are interesting nuances captured by survey data and interviews. The Moralization assessment captured “Set high expectations of themselves”, “Feel responsible to help each other do their best”, and “Set high expectations of students” all slightly above the 70% positive consensus threshold. However, “Feel responsible when students fail in this school”, “Have a positive attitude”, and “Place the needs of students above their own personal and professional interests” all scored below the positive consensus threshold for “other teachers”. To explore this phenomenon uncovered in the quantitative disposition data, I will harken back to an earlier discussion regarding student behavior introduced in the Maslow’s Hierarchy factor. For the purpose of elucidating the attitudes, dispositions, and beliefs that inform Spencer Elementary, I will explore several diverging perspectives teachers have regarding curbing and responding to 145 student behavior. Of interest is the way teachers construct student behavior, their own role and ability to react to student behavior, and administrative response to students and teachers. 100% Self 90% Positive Consensus Question Place the needs of students above their own personal and professional interests Set high expectations of themselves Feel responsible to help each other do their best Set high expectations of students Feel responsible when students fail in this school Have a positive attitude Table 17: Survey Results: Disposition 100% 95% 86% 86% Other Teachers 63% School Leaders 72% 72% 71% 71% 40% 50% 77% 76% 80% 68% 68% Scholarly Motivation, Guiding Question(s), and Research Finding Disposition Scholarly Motivation: Teacher perceptions of educational challenges, sense of shared responsibility, culture and climate, and principal inform implementation behaviors (Durak & Dupre, 2008). Guiding Question(s): What are school personnel’s perception of the attitudes, expectations, and beliefs of themselves, their colleague and principal? Research Finding: There are diverging perspectives regarding the personal responsibility that teachers have for student outcomes, approaches to working with students in the school, and relating to parents. Table 18: Interview Results: Disposition 146 Excerpts Interview Table 18: (cont’d) Perceptions of attitudes and beliefs of colleagues It’s about the kids Example: “...I get frustrated that people still don't understand the logic behind it [reducing suspension] and that, kids are human beings who do have rights to education Lila Travis. Example: “because it's not about me. It's about the kids. And if it works for the kids and you've got that data in front of me and you can prove that this works, I'm in, you know, and I'll figure it out.” Racially deficit views of students and families Example: “At the beginning of the school year, we do a bus trip and we do home visits and we were given backpacks with school supplies. You know, in some of the teachers, they really balked at that. When we first started it, they didn't like it. They don't want to do it. They felt uncomfortable. And um, then she, you know, we had this discussion and one of the staff meeting after. We had done the first one. Well how did you feel, you know, tell us your, your thoughts. And then some of them say, well, I was scared. I felt like, you know, something was going to happen to me and all this stuff and I didn't, I expected the home to be dirty and nasty and that I was sitting in there, listening to all of this. But that was their perception of a black home.” Not willing to do work themselves Example: I guess my thing is you have to be vested in it. You have to buy into it for it to work well. If you're not willing to take those suggestions, those ideas, and actually put some time into getting them going and working them, no amount of time that I put into it or anybody else is going to make it work if you're not willing to do that yourself. Teachers have limitations Example: Teachers can only do so much... If yo Momma can't come to conference and I called you five times. She (another teacher) was going to do a home visit. I told her, I said for what?... I said (teacher name) let me explain something. This is how I am... they don't want to call you or come. I'm not going to [someone’s home] somebody not know what, what's behind that. You get up in there being a female and can't get out.... I'm not doing no home visit. 147 In the area of disposition, I will contend with staff understanding regarding their roles, capabilities, and the realities of their positions. I argue that the diverging perspectives on the aforementioned issues, represent a relational constraint and challenge experienced by school personnel that advocate for teachers to engage with families in ways that other teachers may not deem as “safe” or do not believe will elicit results. The difference in disposition to student behaviors is brought forth in discussions of school personnel who engage in (or critique) what I will refer to as “Trauma-informed discipline practices”. Trauma-informed discipline practices aim to look at and understand the “whole child”- their triggers, background, and best ways to engage with them in order to manage their current and future behaviors so they may find success in the classroom. It appears that trauma-informed school-personnel believe that their colleagues that do not espouse or enact these same beliefs in the classroom act as sources of student escalation (Eva Holt). Moreover, the perceived lack of willingness of some teachers to learn methods to curb inappropriate student behaviors are believed to just be looking for a “fix” or just wanting students who do not fit into the classroom paradigm desired by the teacher, “out” (Terry Child). Terry Child, who has worked in the school for over five years, succinctly describe the various perspectives around student behavior, Well, it basically comes down to, um, the old way, the old school to the new way... You know, teachers have these behaviors and they want them out of the room. And they don't see that it's not effective... you have some teachers that, um, classroom management is just something that hasn't really been developed yet for whatever reason. And it's really hard for them. And so, you know, they kind of are like, throw their hands up, they need to go. And then you have some people that see that the kids 148 need to be suspended. So the parents get a message and the kids get a message that we're not going to tolerate this (Terry Child). In the above quote Terry Child provides a seemingly clear birds-eye view of the predominant approaches to managing student behavior. As was considered in the willingness to change factor, is related to the “old way” and the “new way”. She asserts that while new teachers just might not have developed skills to manage their classrooms effectively. Terry Child’s perspective will be further explored, and perhaps problematized in the following sections that represent two major understanding of behavior, teacher expectations, and what I will call “trauma-informed discipline practices”. Two succinct statements can encompass these perspectives: “They just want them out” and “I ain’t doing no home visit”. “They just want them out”. The belief that student home life, background, and possible experience of trauma must be a central focus for how teaching and learning takes places within the school community is representative of one perspective held by some teachers, staff, and Principal Mills at Spencer Elementary. Teachers that subscribe to so called, trauma- informed discipline practices, place the onus on themselves to provide students with engaging educative opportunities, Jude Bert, reasons, that she creates curriculum that meets each students at their individual level of understanding because if not, “...that's where you're going to have more behaviors come in. Um, you know, because if a kid doesn't know how to do the work, they're going to get frustrated. They're going to shut down. They're going to start acting out” (Jude Bert). Teachers like Jude Bert believe that student behavior can be amended by the actions of the teacher, as they may be a reflection of students not receiving classwork that matches their educational capabilities. As such, she aims to target students where they are, academically, in order to build a student’s self-efficacy, classroom engagement, and decrease instances of 149 problematic classroom behavior. Additionally, as can be seen in the quote by Eva Holt below, other school personnel believe that student behaviors, though they can be an impediment to teaching time, must be put in context with other areas of a student’s life. I know the behaviors are problems and I know it gets in the way of the teacher... because they have to stop, they have to redirect the student here, address this student here. And I know that gets in the way of what they're trying to do instructionally....but the behaviors are not going to go away. I know that they're not going away and understanding, and this is where the teachers I don't think have all the time to understand why the student is behaving, what is happening here, what's occurring and maybe this not necessarily what happened in the classroom but what happened at home on the way or what happened on the bus on the way to school... I know they have the ability but I'm not sure how comfortable they are in talking with the parents to try to figure out what's going on with the child In this view, the onus is on teachers to “figure out what is going on with the child” and adjust themselves in a way that will decrease the instances of behavioral outbursts. Such educators believe that improvement and response to student behavior and administrative disciplinary action must be individualized to a given student. As was mentioned, teachers, who consistently have behavior issues with their students are seen as lacking classroom management, relationships with students or the families, or resistant to the “new way” of approaching student behaviors, which seeks to understand the cause of student behavior, rather than the discipline students for their outbursts via suspension policies. Principal Mills speaks often about her refusal to use suspension as a disciplinary first resort, rather than other means of working through student behaviors within the classroom. 150 Teacher resistance to addressing student behaviors with strategies besides suspension is a source of strain between Principal Mills and her staff. The tension caused by diverging perspectives on suspension is a source of frustration for numerous personnel, as is encapsulated in the following statement by Lila Travis, “...I get frustrated that people still don't understand the logic behind it [reducing suspension] and that, kids are human beings who do have rights to education Lila Travis. In the above quote we can understand that for some personnel such as Lila Travis, choosing to suspend students is seen as congruent with not seeing students as “human beings”. Those who do not subscribe to this form of classroom management are believed to “not understand the logic behind it”. Seemingly, this would imply, that teachers know what is expected of them, have the ability to do what is expected of them, and then are refusing to do so, perhaps due to deficit thinking. Others believe that teachers suspend because they want an “easy” fix. Terry Child argues that teacher frustration could be due to their lack of willingness to do the work on their part. They want the fix now...but they want it fixed without, and we can't all be there like. We can't be in the room fixing your problems. You know, we can go in and give suggestions and model, but I know one situation that's been ongoing, I have made numerous like suggestions like numerous, I'm not going to do it for you. I'm not going to come in and you're, you have to, I guess my thing is you have to be vested in it. You have to buy into it for it to work well. If you're not willing to take those suggestions, those ideas, and actually put some time into getting them going and working them, no amount of time that I put into it or anybody else is going to make it work if you're not willing to do that yourself. 151 While Terry Child reasons that some teachers just want a “fix” another member of the staff asserted that they can work directly with a student to change their behavior, but that due to the teacher’s lack of follow-through or consideration of the triggers or needs of the child, they may create or escalate student behaviors in ways that undermine student growth. In our interview exchange Eva Holt says, “And I can go in there and I can deal with them [the student] and I can have a good relationship with them...but then I turned right around and leave out acting up again and teacher wants to kick them out. So everything that I've done just went down the drain.” I asked, “So it can’t be sustained in a classroom?” She replied, “No, because some of the teachers holler at them "get off” or shame them in front of the whole classroom. You can't do that. You can't do that. So I don't know. I just, I don't know. I see it happening... They're being escalated to seem like they have these, like they are, they are being escalated and I can see it happening over and over again” (Eva Holt). The cycle of classroom escalation of behaviors, contributes to a variety of school-based challenges. Including, the emotional toll and strained relationships introduced by Principal Mills , and explored in the Maslow’s Hierarchy factor block. Eva Holt asserts that students are being made to seem unruly, when it is perhaps, being caused by a teacher’s lack of willingness to learn a student’s triggers. This classroom re-escalation serves to undermine the work that outside specialists do with students. Thereby creating a new level of strain and frustration between teachers and support staff. In the following writing, diverging beliefs about and approaches to discipline will be illustrated. “I’m not doing no home visit”. In order to harness and incorporate parents in the classroom, which was seen as vital, some teacher conduct home visits. One teacher states, “I'll go to their houses and do conferences. You know, I show up with pizza and juice and, here we go, let's sit down and talk about the kids.”(Jude Bert). However, it was noted that conducting home 152 visits was not the norm across staff at school, Eva Holt shares “I don't have a problem doing home visits cause I used to do that by myself so I don't have a problem with that. But some of the teachers here really have a problem doing home visits.” She goes on to state, And see, that was another thing that [Principal Mills ] started every school year. At the beginning of the school year, we do a bus trip and we do home visits and we were given backpacks with school supplies. You know, in some of the teachers, they really balked at that. When we first started it, they didn't like it. They don't want to do it. They felt uncomfortable. And um, then she, you know, we had this discussion and one of the staff meeting after. We had done the first one. Well how did you feel, you know, tell us your, your thoughts. And then some of them say, well, I was scared. I felt like, you know, something was going to happen to me and all this stuff and I didn't, I expected the home to be dirty and nasty and that I was sitting in there, listening to all of this. But that was their perception of a black home. In the case above, Eva Holt shares her perception that teacher unwillingness to conduct home visits may be causes by racialized attitudes and perceptions of Black people. The racial implications of teachers “perception of a black home” will be explored in the Race Consciousness factor area. The idea that the homes or neighborhoods that students live in would be dangerous, the fear that teachers purported to have, is not limited simply to engaging with student’s families at their homes- but also within their schools. Jessie Hill brought this role of race in social interactions forth in his discussion of the parental involvement. According to Jessie Hill, parent-teacher relationships, or the lack thereof, exacerbates the issues that teachers face within the classroom. When asked about the expectations and attitudes of his colleagues, he advocates for them by saying, “They have the expectations. These kids just don't follow 153 through. And the parents, the parents are wishy-washy. You don't have a way up here. They don't come to conference.” In his view, as will be continually explored; teachers are often seeking to create relationships with parents that on one hand may have difficulty visiting the school or on the other, choose not to come to the school for conferences. In our time together he provides numerous examples of classroom-based challenges that are either impeded or challenged by a lack of parent-teacher relationship. One such example is included henceforth described, Jessie Hill retells a story of student who hit another child for calling him an “idiot”. In that moment had the student call their mother, who immediately expressed disappointment in her son’s actions, he states, [that] is a support, a supportive a parent. Say if I had called a black parent and she didn't answer the phone or one time she said (Harper Evans) well she told me one time she called the parent and the parent said, "You call me for that?" ‘cause he hit somebody ‘cause somebody called him a name... He should have hit it. Call my baby out his name. That's what she had to deal with it. So what is she supposed to, she keeps it in house and just on fun Friday. That boy don't get, no, no, fun is that the teacher? See I want to be able to be on par with a parent so that Mama gonna take care of it. In this scenario, Jessie Hill recounts a challenge that a white women teacher faced within the classroom. In our interview, Jessie Hill drew clear racial distinctions regarding how, and the ease with which he, as a Black man, or me as a Black women, could build relationships with students as opposed to his mostly white women colleagues. He repeatedly asserted that his ability to do his job effectively was dependent on being “on par with the parent”. This was his belief, he went on to suggest, 154 Teachers can only do so much... If yo Momma can't come to conference and I called you five times. She (another teacher) was going to do a home visit. I told her, I said for what?... I said (teacher name) let me explain something. This is how I am... they don't want to call you or come. I'm not going to [someone’s home] somebody not know what, what's behind that. You get up in there being a female and can't get out.... I'm not doing no home visit. For Jessie Hill, parents who are clearly avoiding newsletters, notes, phone calls, and other modes of communication are indicating their lack of interest in speaking with a teacher. Though it may be unclear why a parent is avoiding school personnel, Jessie Hill suggests that conducting a home visit alone is not the solution to building rapport with parents. As a father of two daughters, Jessie Hill considers the safety implications for a woman unwittingly entering a situation in which she can be caused harm. While some teachers, who are held up as examples, for having strong relationships with students, parents, and families do conduct home visits. Jessie Hill illustrates a unique perspective of this expectation that teachers put themselves in potentially dangerous situations to reach out to families that are have already exhibited resistance to engaging with them. Jessie Hill’s view begs crucial questions about how much teachers must be expected to do in order to build relationships with their families in order to change student behavior within their classroom. However, this perspective is not accounted for by trauma- personnel. Instead, those people who are not enacting trauma-informed principles in their classroom are assumed to not see kids as “human beings”. At Spencer Elementary, there is 40% positive consensus that other teachers feel responsible when students fail. There is 50% positive consensus that other teachers have a positive attitude, and there is 63% positive consensus that other teachers place the needs of 155 students ahead of their own personal interest. I have argued that this data may be related to teacher perception regarding their colleagues may be explicated in by the attitudes they hold surrounding student families, home visits, trauma-informed practices. The next section considers teacher perceptions of the human capital within their school community. Human Capital. In interviews with staff, the capacity of their colleagues was rarely brought forth as a challenge that was faced. In a stark change from Willingness to Change and Disposition, teachers perceive their colleagues to be of value, at 76% positive consensus and knowledgeable in their content areas, with 72% positive consensus. While 57% and 54% positive consensus around other teachers being prepared to the work expected of them and understand what is expected of them, respectively. Incongruent expectations can be seen and have been explored in aforementioned sections, especially as it relates to student behavior and suspension practices and is forwarded in the Human Capital element area. Self 77% Positive Consensus Question Understand what is expected of them at work Have the training to do their job effectively Have job security Knowledgeable in their content areas Prepared (able) to do the work expected of them Of value (assets) to the school community Table 19: Survey Results: Human Capital 85% 95% 50% 95% 90% Other Teachers 54% School Leaders 63% 77% 63% 81% 71% 75% 72% 50% 72% 57% 76% 156 Scholarly Motivation, Guiding Question(s), and Research Finding Interview Excerpts Human Capital Scholarly Motivation: Building, maintaining, and utilizing teacher capacity is integral for improving student learning (Donaldson, 2013). Capacity building is a integral aspect of successful implementation (Meyers et al., 2012). Guiding Question(s): Do teachers believe themselves, colleagues, and leaders as effective and capable? Research Finding: Overall, teachers believe that their colleagues are knowledgeable in their content, however there is less confidence that their colleagues and leader understand and are prepared to do the work that is expected of them- which may be directly related to the specifics of the school context and student demographics of their student population. Establishing Instructional expectations Example: “I know [Principal Mills ’s] really pushing them more than maybe they have ever been pushed before instructionally because she has, um, a goal a direction that she really wants to improve the reading levels of the students. And uh, and I look and I know that's her background and she's good at that and maybe she's asking them to do things that they have not done before and they feel uncomfortable. And that's going to be, I think, harder for them to adjust to or get used to because I know she's doing observations, she's going into the classroom and I think she's observing maybe marking down things that she seeing” Need for clear(er) expectations “...think that there's not more direct communication and so that, that has been more of a challenge I think because there's not so much more direct communication. And in most companies, in most schools there's, um, I don't want to be micromanaged at all. And I told [Principal Mills ] too, I don't like it. Um, but there's more of a, of a, like you have to, and this is what I want.” Table 20: Interview Results: Human Capital 157 Table 20: (cont’d) Multiple initiatives and need for capacity building Example: “...but you're, you're asking them to do three different things, I guess at one time. The culture piece and then the race piece, And I know they're very uncomfortable with the race piece. I know that. Um, but the culture... they are uncomfortable with that as well because they're just not used to it. But, um, with the instructional piece that I really can't say... they have all these guidelines that they have to follow the national standards. I guess they still have to do the national standards I guess. But I know they have all those guidelines now and they are being evaluated based on these certain guidelines... So that’s gotta be added pressure too.” Example: “I’m not trauma informed” Do I know enough to be on the lookout to say there's something different, something different. Can't put my finger on it, but not trauma informed enough to say this kid has been through trauma and this is what I'm going to do about it and this is how I'm going to teach around them. The “other side” of the behavior debate can be encapsulated an exploration of teacher perspectives of human capital. Some of the teachers who don’t appear to center trauma-informed discipline practices appear to subscribe to different beliefs regarding the role of the teacher in managing student behaviors. Some claim to feel ill prepared to enact behavioral plans and strategies in the ways that are expected by their trauma-informed counterparts. Even still, others believe their ability to truly impact students is contingent upon parents. While some teachers adapt their classrooms to students, others highlight their lack of training and experience to do so, signaling to a lack of bureaucratic resources as an impediment to improved student behavior within the classroom. Below is a quote from Mell Edwards. She expressed frustration with the way student behavioral challenges are approached within the school, she urged, You don't want me to suspend. She's [Principal Mills ] anti suspending. But when these extreme behaviors are happening and if a kid really is traumatized, no one's pulling him for counseling. No one's pulling him when he's acting crazy and like wildin’ out in the 158 classroom, what do you want me to do? And then the response is always, so you're saying you need support? Mell Edwards’s comments regarding necessary supports for students illustrates the complexity of school resources, bureaucracy, and its connection to what staff dysfunction or animosity. As Mell Edwards notes, there are students who are known to have exhibited trauma, and act out in the classroom, However, the responsibility for teaching around the trauma is placed on her shoulders, instead of in addition to, finding resources and emotional support for students. Mell Edwards recognizes the limitations of her education and training to deal with students with particular special needs. As such, though many team members espouse, and Principal Mills proclaims to be “trauma-informed” she, does not feel that way. She urgently asserts, “I’m not trauma informed. Do I know enough to be on the lookout to say there's something different, something different. Can't put my finger on it, but not trauma informed enough to say this kid has been through trauma and this is what I'm going to do about it and this is how I'm going to teach around them.” The lack of training, especially in regard to (CPI) was identified as a flaw by another teacher who urged, “and that should be something, a high top priority. If we are that type of school [trauma informed], everyone should be trained like that. There should be no if ands even the lunch aide” However, as previously mentioned only a portion of staff is (CPI) trained. Without each teachers believing that they have the knowledge and training to identify, respond, and “teach around” trauma. Principal Mills ’s description of Spencer Elementary being a school that is trauma informed, rings null according to a teacher who says, And so she [Principal Mills ], it can be promoted school-wide as much as they want to. But...like I have 20 kids in my class so I'm overseeing 20 kids. So you can't promote 159 something if, if you haven't ensured that you're selling the product, you're saying like... it can be on the label but what's inside the box In Spencer Elementary, there are varying perspectives as to what the teachers’ role is in intervening and responding to student behaviors in the manner expected of Principal Mills and some trauma-informed staff members. Within this paradigm, teachers expressed feeling personally limited about what their role was in changing the behavior of students, others noted that they did not feel adequately trained to say that they are informed enough to respond to student needs, in a way that took their trauma into account. The lack of resources and response was also identified as a barrier. However, without have consistency in perspective, what Mell Edwards refers to may be true. Trauma-informed practices may be espoused and expressed by leadership to be occurring within the school- but if teachers themselves don’t have that knowledge and skill-trauma-informed practices may not occurring within the classroom and thus, not reaching the students who may need it most. The Human Capital area of the Moralization Matrix boasted higher positive consensus than other areas of the Normalized Attitude construct. Issues of the capability or intellectual preparedness of teachers were not called into question in interviews. However, as has been explored throughout this chapter there are ill aligned, incongruent, and differentiated expectations that staff members have of each other. In this area, I have used teacher interviews to illustrate how this mismatch of expectations, might not be related to wanting a “fix” or wanting students “out” as has been proposed by other respondents, but instead, may be related to a need for increased training around issues of student trauma. 160 The Moral Imperative to Change The Moralization Matrix survey asked teachers to rank the issues that influence their school community. The factors were then organized by the greatest degree of positive consensus exhibited across them. As can be seen in the table above, capacity was indicated as the number one factor that impacted innovation at 65%, with trust named after at 60%. The rate and ranking of these factors provides an insight into the perspective of teachers and what they believe influences the daily realities of their school. This section will explore the survey results of this section and place them within a broader conversation that has been explored in previous sections. Teachers were also asked if they believe that innovation could be successful in their current context of their school and if large-scale change was necessary, which indicated 50% and Positive Consensus 50% 63% 1. Capacity 65% 2. Trust 60% 3. Structural Racism 52% 4. Willingness to Change 50% 5. School Organization 42% 63% positive consensus, respectively. Orientation to Innovation. Question Innovation can be successful in the current context on my school Large-scale change is needed in order to improve the quality of education at my school Rate the factors’ impact on your school community Table 21: Survey Results: Orientation to Innovation 161 Scholarly Motivation, Guiding Question(s), and Research Finding Interview Excerpts Table 22: Interview Results: Orientation to Innovation 162 Orientation to Innovation Scholarly Motivation: Scholarship indicates that perception regarding the need for and potential effectiveness of a given policy impacts implementation behaviors (Payne 2008; Sandfort & Moulton, 2014). Guiding Question(s): What do teachers believe about the need for innovation and reform? How do teachers rate and rank the needs of their community. Research Finding: Many teachers hold reserved views on the potential for innovation to be successful in the current context of their school. School personnel’s rating of the challenges that face their community may be different than the priorities set by the school leader. Challenges to innovate in current context Leadership is willing to innovate, teachers aren’t Example: “I just clicked because I think she's [Principal Mills ] really into doing innovative things. But I think going back to the teachers, not all teachers here want that or feel the need for it.” Teacher relationships & Buy-In Example: “I think as a whole group, I think that there are other things that happen with it. You know, I think that maybe some of those teacher-teacher relationships aren't as strong as they could be. That's not to say that we don't trust each other or that, um, you know, I don't think they're horrible. I'm sure. I hope you don't think I'm horrible, you know? Um, so I don't think there's that negative aspect, but I do think it, you know, we have to have 100% buy in when you're doing something huge like this.. It's, it's all in, you know, cause it's all in for the kids. I needed to take some of those things.” it. Table 22: (cont’d) Example: So by now we know that there's going to be, it's pockets in our school, so there's going to be a pocket that's like, cool, let's, you know, I'm going to do my best, it's not gonna be perfect sort of thing, but I'm going to try to implement this. And then on the other side of the spectrum, there's a pocket that is going to argue, pushback and then after like three months, they're going to see everybody else doing it and it slowly build their way into it. The rate and ranking of: capacity, trust, structural racism, willingness to change, and school organization, presents itself as a surprise when considering both the interview and survey data explored throughout this results section. In interviews, teachers’ perspectives centered less on capacity and ability of their colleagues, and instead considered issues of willingness to change, race, and trust. Additionally, on the assessment, teachers seemingly believed that their colleagues were knowledgeable in their content areas and had effective training. It is possible that teachers understand capacity or the ability to enact change as something disparate from their actual educational training. Additionally, while the School Organization element, as a whole exhibited the lowest ranking in regarding to positive consensus, with every aspect being under the 70% threshold, it was regarded as the least important factor impacting the Spencer Elementary Community. This suggests that teachers are not regarding coherence of processes as the greatest influence on what will allow change to be enacted in their school community. 50% of staff believed innovation could be successful in the current context of the school. This may be unsurprising given earlier conversations regarding the difficultly of effecting change in other areas of the school community. There are two reasons as to why innovation may not be successful in the current context. First, it is perceived that though individuals, and the school leader are willing to innovate as was seen in the Willingness to Change element, other teachers are not. While one teacher stated, “I just clicked because I think she's [Principal Mills ] really 163 into doing innovative things. But I think going back to the teachers, not all teachers here want that or feel the need for it” (Harper Evans). Without all teachers believing that innovation is necessary, the school remains in pockets. Lila Travis shared, three months, they're going to see everybody else doing it and it slowly build their way into it. The ongoing process of partial buy-in informs implementation outcomes and detracts from the ability for school personnel to move forward as a whole group. While implementation and innovation always take time, in the aforementioned context, change takes longer. Thereby creating or contributing to staff frustration and division between those ready and willing to change, and those that are perceived to “pushback”. As has been explored in prior sections t Spencer Elementary lacks trusting social relationships among school personnel. Jude Bert relates the lack of group culture and its impact on buy-in. I think that maybe some of those teacher-teacher relationships aren't as strong as they could be. That's not to say that we don't trust each other or that, um, you know, I don't think they're horrible. I'm sure. I hope you don't think I'm horrible, you know? Um, so I don't think there's that negative aspect, but I do think it, you know, we have to have 100% buy in when you're doing something huge like this.., It's, it's all in, you know, cause it's all in for the kids. The need for school culture and its relationship to systems was introduced in the School Organization element area. In the quotation above, Jude Bert shares that the need for trust, buy- in, and teacher-teacher relationships would increase the efficacy of the whole group. She elucidates that if the kids have to be “all-in” so do the teachers. Without this cultural buy-in, implementation of innovations may continue to be a challenge for this school community. 164 Race Consciousness. While teachers expressed relatively high positive consensus regarding their belief that issues of race should addressed in schools at 86%. They illustrated decreasing positive consensus on their willingness to address racism (63%) and racisms impact on the community with positive consensus well below 50% on the belief that education within their school and out, is impacted by racism. Question Racism impacts my ability to affect change in my school Racism impacts educational opportunities provided to students within my school Racism undermines educational interventions at my school I would be willing to implement a policy that sought to combat racism I believe that issues of race and racism should be openly addressed within schools Table 23: Survey Results: Race Consciousness Positive Consensus 27% 36% 22% 63% 86% Scholarly Motivation, Guiding Question(s), and Research Finding Race Consciousness Scholarly Motivation: Reform outcomes are directly impacted by issues of race (Henig et al., 2001) and structural racism (Sizemore, 2008). Structural Racism within schools impacts the educational outcomes of students of color (Noguera & Wing (2008) Guiding Question(s): What are predominant conceptions of race among school personnel? How do issues of race and racism represent themselves in this school community. Research Finding: There are divergent understandings and comfort regarding addressing issues of race. Race appears to act as a barrier to building effect parent and teacher relationships. Table 24: Interview Results: Race Consciousness 165 Table 24: (cont’d) Interview Excerpts Race and Parental Relationships Addressing race releases the pressure Example: Guaranteed through that man's head was (teacher name) is white and I'm white, right? That's clearly it. We don't get it and there could be maybe assumptions that our background is not going to understand his child's background. So when he says my child would go of... So right there I already understand...If he were to escalate... I would have said, listen, I know you're upset. I understand you're advocating. If I were you, I perhaps would be worried because I'm white that your child is not gonna be treated fairly or not be looked at as the whole child. Like, I'll just say it when I say it like that in a parent meeting, two things happen. They either crack up and tell me, [Principal Mills ] You're crazy. Or they say thank you. And because the whole point of me saying it is, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this and I need your help so that you and I can work together to get this under control. Cause I don't know, I don't have the answer. Now they're [teachers] not brave enough to say it, but that twists the valve to release the pressure. Race as a barrier to student learning Example: and then I have a child who has major behavior issues and lately they've [the student’s mother] become more open with me and they just keep telling me, well, it's because your white because you're white....I don't really know how to change that besides being open, being at like willing to talk about it with a parent. But I also feel like in that case with behavior, it's the parent like making an issue over something that's not really an issue because they're saying like that's why they're not behaving. I'm like, really? Come on. Yeah, I'm willing to be open- minded here. But like that's why they’re not behaving. Need for teachers to understand the culture Example: “Extend yourself and get to meet parents have them come in. Parents got to come in. You've got to meet. Let me tell you if, if you were a white teacher, I'm a black female, lot of black females have these kids.” Example: “But if you don't understand that culture and why they might act out or become aggressive or say things, you know, to this white female teacher, and you got to understand the culture you got to in order to deal with that because something's going on with this child and you have to, you can't speak to this child like this because this is a black boy who needs to have a black mother. I have a black mother. And you have to understand how to relate to that person. Sometimes they don't know how to relate to these black boys and they want to kick them out of the class when they want us... they want to just get them out...That's not how to deal with them.” 166 Due to the genre of reforms enacted by the leader, which are rooted in social justice, teacher understanding of race and racism is imperative. However, it was noted that some teachers lack the interest or willingness to contend with race- thereby impacting their implementation behaviors and innovation outcomes for race based initiatives within Spencer Elementary. Arguably, racial consciousness is something that all educators should have, especially those serving a predominately Black community, but especially those led by an individual who claims to “lead with social justice”. The importance of racial understanding has been explicated in previous chapters. However, while teachers at Spencer Elementary profess to be willing to combat racism in the Moralization Matrix survey, interviews with teachers indicated that there was a diversity in understanding, belief, and role that race may play in their social interactions. Teachers observed relatively low positive consensus regarding if issue of race or racism impact the educational opportunity of students on the Moralization survey. In interviews, some shared race-based and relational challenges they experienced or witnessed between school personnel and parents. Issues of race and the ability to admit bias- arise as issues that impact the ability for teachers to respond to students and relate to them and their families. A staff member contributed the following thought, I really would like for all of us to be on the same page and um, and to not be afraid, or ashamed to admit that we may not be doing the right thing with these kids or for these children. And um, just be honest and just be authentic and real and say it, you know. Okay, I'm white. Maybe I don't know how to deal with a black boy. So can you show me, and I don't mind showing them...but we're not there. We're not there by a long shot 167 as what I would've like this. Be Real and just, you know, confess. Say I need help. Can you show me how you deal with this student or what I need to do to help the student? The changes that are being enacted in Spencer Elementary are rooted in the culturally responsive leadership beliefs and practices of Principal Mills . As Principal Mills , makes amendments to discipline practices are curriculum, in her words, they are rooted in “social justice” and what is best for her student population that is 61% Black. As such, getting teachers on the “same page” as has been shared by multiple participants, predicates that teachers understand and subscribe to similar beliefs about race and its impact on education. However, Eva Holt contends that this process can’t take place unless teachers are “authentic” and recognize that they may not know how to relate to Black children. She states, however, “we are not there by a long shot”. Unfortunately, not being there by a long shot, racially, means this school, in its current configuration, is limited in their ability to enact the changes put forth by Principal Mills . One of the major challenges where issues of race arise, as was introduced previously is: parental involvement. Parental Involvement. The relational challenges between the predominately Black student population and their families and the majority white teachers who work at Spencer Elementary, was a frequent conversation had between Principal Mills and myself. While at Spencer Elementary to conduct an interview with Principal Mills , a parent called the office threatening to remove his child from the school as a result of an incident that took place that morning. The father was upset and adamant, Principal Mills urged me to sit in on a phone conference as she worked to diffuse the situation with the parent who was concerned about his son. Following the conversation with the father, Principal Mills relates to me: 168 Guaranteed through that man's head was (teacher name) is white and I'm white, right? That's clearly it. We don't get it and there could be maybe assumptions that our background is not going to understand his child's background. So when he says my child would go of... So right there I already understand...If he were to escalate... I would have said, listen, I know you're upset. I understand you're advocating. If I were you, I perhaps would be worried because I'm white that your child is not gonna be treated fairly or not be looked at as the whole child. Like, I'll just say it when I say it like that in a parent meeting, two things happen. They either crack up and tell me, [Principal Mills] You're crazy. Or they say thank you. And because the whole point of me saying it is, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this and I need your help so that you and I can work together to get this under control. Cause I don't know, I don't have the answer. Now they're [teachers] not brave enough to say it, but that twists the valve to release the pressure. Principal Mills ’s ability to speak candidly about race with parents is able to “release the pressure” of those relationships. She also related her willingness to do this as a source of rapport with parents. She shared with me” ...my relationships with my families came much before my teachers and it was just because my parent population did not feel heard and they didn't feel respected. They didn't feel like there was any tolerance. Principal Mills believes that are her shifting of suspension policies and the way she engaged with parents contributed to trusting relationship, one that she notes, she received prior to her relationships with her staff. Nevertheless, although Principal Mills may find comfort with parental relationships, not all teachers feel the same. While interviewing Harper Evans, at teacher at Spencer Elementary, I asked her about a challenge she faced. She stated: “The challenges I face right now is getting my 169 in with the parents.” She later explicated a situation that she is having with one of her students, stating, and then I have a child who has major behavior issues and lately they've [the student’s mother] become more open with me and they just keep telling me, well, it's because your white because you're white....I don't really know how to change that besides being open, being at like willing to talk about it with a parent. But I also feel like in that case with behavior, it's the parent like making an issue over something that's not really an issue because they're saying like that's why they're not behaving. I'm like, really? Come on. Yeah, I'm willing to be open-minded here. But like that's why they’re not behaving. Harper Evans explained that she felt frustrated and was not sure how to navigate this situation. She related that she felt it to be unfair. While Harper Evans was willing to accept the fact that race impacts the relationships she has with students and families, in part, she did not want to wholly attribute the student’s behavior in her classroom to race. Other school personnel of color asserted, similarly to the parent’s perspective, that students act out because their teachers are white, and as Eva Holt stated, “don’t know what to do with them.” The notion that white teachers may not know how to cooperate with their Black students was brought forth by Jessie Hill, throughout our time together Jessie Hill alluded to racial distinctions between what he could do with students as a Black man, even how students would respond to me as a Black woman, and the challenges many of his colleagues face because they are white women serving a predominately Black student population. While Jessie Hill explains the role of the, he also recognized their limitation due to their racial positionality in the following interview excerpt, “Extend yourself and get to meet parents have them come in. Parents got to come in. You've got to meet. Let me tell you if, if you were a white teacher, I'm a black female, lot of black females 170 have these kids.” Here Jessie Hill notes the notable relational difference between white women and Black women. These differences, in his view undergird some of the challenges that his teacher colleagues face. The ability to relate with students and their parents is imperative to the success that teachers will have in their classroom. It was suggested to me that, in regards to boys, especially black boys that they were escalated by teachers who, “just don't know what to do with them” (Eva Holt). Eva Holt continues, But if you don't understand that culture and why they might act out or become aggressive or say things, you know, to this white female teacher, and you got to understand the culture you got to in order to deal with that because something's going on with this child and you have to, you can't speak to this child like this because this is a Black boy who needs to have a Black mother. I have a Black mother. And you have to understand how to relate to that person. Sometimes they don't know how to relate to these Black boys and they want to kick them out of the class when they want us... they want to just get them out...That's not how to deal with them. Eva Holt stated the need for teachers to understand culture in her statement. She argued that there may be a cultural chasm between the way Black students are treated, and related to by their “Black mothers” and how their white teachers attempt to build community with them. She asserted that teachers needed to understand the culture of their students, namely Black boys in order to relate effectively with them. However, many of the white women interviewed repeatedly referenced only seeing the “whole child”. And were less willing identify or implicate dhow race may impact school relationships between parents and families. 171 Part Two: Research Question Two: Principal Interview Data Research question two asks, How well does the quantitative and qualitative data collected in the Moralization Matrix align with principal beliefs about their school community? a. How would a school leader utilize the data collected from the Moralization Matrix survey and interviews? The Moralization Matrix Assessment was administered to school personnel in a staff meeting. A Moralization report was generated that codified the strengths and areas of growth for Spencer Elementary from the assessment data. Part one of this results chapter provided an overview of the data that answered research question one. Teacher interviews and staff observations were conducted in order to gather teacher perspectives regarding the social dynamics, relationships, and challenges within their school community. It was found that the data collected from the survey was congruent to the data collected from interviews and observations. The insight provided from teacher interviews added a felt understanding of the school community and the social dynamics that informed the trends found in the survey data. Part two seeks to answer the second research question, which considers the utility of the Moralization Matrix to a school leader. In order to answer this question, the Moralization Matrix report was shared with Principal Mills in order to ascertain whether the quantitative data presented to her would “match” or be reflective of the perception she has of the community she leads. The sub-part of the second research question also explores how a school leader would use the data collected from the Matrix assessment. Sharing the Data. Research Question two is interested in investigating how a principal’s perception of their school and the data collected from the survey align. Secondarily, research 172 question two explores how a leader would operationalize the data they received. I believe that the aforementioned questions cannot be explored, without also considering the way the principal was orientated to the data initially and throughout the process of reviewing the report. Therefore this results section begins by providing a brief recounting of the moments shared between Principal Mills and myself before presenting the Moralization findings. This interaction illustrates what Principal Mills expected to find in the report. Throughout part two, I will aim to infuse subsequent interactions between Principal Mills and I that include her affective response to the results of her school’s Moralization survey. I enter Principal Mills’ office. It was 9:00am. She was noticeably nervous and expressed fear about seeing the Moralization survey results. She expected them to be “brutal”. I hand her the report, and jokingly say, “I got a title page, not brutal” to which she replies, “that’s intimidating, Moralization Matrix”. I began to explain the concept of demoralization, put forth by Payne, who outlines the culture of urban schools, she interrupts, “but it's not always like, it's not directly just the leader's fault.” I reply, and begin to outline the mechanics of the report: the symbols, the scales, and concepts that guide the data. In this short interaction, Principal Mills ’s expectation, that the results of the Moralization survey would not be favorable to her is apparent. Throughout the interview, it will be shown that she interpreted the data in some areas, personally. Principal Mills’ belief that the results would not be favorable to her, may not be surprising, as her belief that she is “not popular” with staff was shared in Part One of this results section. However, as I explained the concept of demoralization and embedded school culture, Principal Mills responds, with “...its not directly just the leaders fault”. The notion of “fault” was never presented by myself, but appears, as I will demonstrate, to be a conception and lens 173 through which Principal Mills viewed some of the survey data, and may have guided her use of the results from the survey tool. The first part of Research Question two asks, How well does the quantitative and qualitative data collected in the Moralization Matrix align with principal beliefs about their school community? Throughout the interview, Principal Mills outwardly expressed her agreement or surprise with the data presented. Those exchanges will be outlined and analyzed below. Organizational Climate and Effectiveness The elements within the organizational climate and effectiveness construct question block aim to gather teachers’ aggregated individual perspectives within their school community. The following section will explore the areas where there was strong and weak positive consensus across the four factors: Maslow’s Hierarchy, School Organization, Leadership, and Trust. The following section focuses on Principal Mills’ agreement, dissent, and meaning making response to the data gathered by the Moralization survey in the aforementioned areas. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. When shown that 50% of teachers believe they had a safe place to put their belongings, she agreed, replying, “that’s true, were packed.” She mused upon this for a bit and stated, “I could fix the lock thing.” In the aforementioned interaction, we can see that Principal Mills agreed with the statistic, but also found a solution, to what she perceived to be the issue, i.e. “the lock thing”. However, as mentioned in Part One, the data collected from the survey, alone does not depict, what the actual challenge is, it can only provide the data indicating that there is one, as such, the school leader is left to interpret the data through their own understanding and lens. It might be the case that the issue of placing secure belongings can be fixed with locks. It is also possible, that teachers require something else in order for their belongings to feel secure. 174 Continuing review of her data, I state, “80, 85 believe that that well-lit facilities and about 80 believe that they have a safe place to park...72% believe that they're physically capable to do the expectations of their jobs. But only 54% feel physically safe in their buildings. So it's not a matter of facilities, but actual...” Principal Mills finishes my sentence, “Students, we, we, we literally get beat up, you know.” Again, this interaction indicates not only Principal Mills ’s agreement with a statistic but also an interpretation of what the data means. While, I have similarly argued that issues of teacher physical safety may be connected to student behaviors, it is difficult to ascertain this understanding without directly asking teachers, what may cause them to feel physically unsafe in their school building. I read the results of emotional security to Principal Mill: “and then this next block down here are more emotional issues I would say. Um, so 45% are feeling empowered, 59% emotionally and then 60% feel valued.” I notice a shift in her demeanor, and ask, “Did that surprise you?” She responds, “Yeah, cause I'm really intentional about trying to value people. But, um, so this is I, but I would bet that this is team [Principal Mills ] over here, so you're not going to feel valued if I'm hard on you because you're not doing your job.” In this area, Principal Mills’ reaction to this data was visceral. However, her interpretation of this data is telling, as her surprise and potential disappointment shifts to attempting to decide which teachers might be feeling this way. She determines that those who don’t feel valued, are those who are not on her team, or those who are upset that she wants them to do their job. This reaction demonstrates a notable shift in our interview. As the report shifts from “neutral” or objective topics such as safety, to teacher perceptions and beliefs, Principal Mills’ affective response and intellectual sense-making of the data begin to be infused with her own perspectives of her school’s culture. It must be noted, that the desire to locate one’s teachers upon the spectrum of data results 175 presented in the Moralization report is not surprising. However, it holds potential challenges, as Principal Mills , attempts to guess, how particular teachers answered questions. The implications of this will be explored subsequently. Another area of surprise for Principal Mills was in school personnel’s response to a question regarding additional teaching resources, she states, “This is so interesting that 18% said no additional teaching resources. Um, because I have two full time instructional coaches, a fulltime student support specialist and two full time instructional assistance, which will not be the case in the future when I lose this grant money...” I remind her that 81% of teachers believed there were, she retorts, “by goodness. They better.” Her focus on the 18% of teachers, who did not answer affirmatively to additional teaching resources, represents Principal Mills’ propensity to focus on the negative attributes of the report. This is staying challenge throughout our data-sharing interview. She continues on, reading the “closer look” at the bottom of the report page which provides and overview of the data, she concludes with, “the emotion stuff is hard, but I, I absolutely agree with it.” In the Maslow’s Hierarchy block data outlined above, Principal Mills immediately expresses areas of agreement and discord. Additionally, it can be seen that Principal Mills is making meaning of the, through her particular lens of her school community, as she receives the data. It must be noted, that although she expressed surprise for some data, such as the “emotion stuff”, she still stated that she agreed with the data she was presented. School Organization. As noted, in part one, teachers rated each question a part of school organization below the 70% positive consensus threshold. As I read off the predominant organizational issues that respondents entered into the text box on the survey: “And so these were the four things that came up, but not that only four people wrote out there. Um, so mostly it was communication processes with parents and other staff members, um, behavior and 176 suspension procedures, record keeping and paperwork, and then the lunch count process.” Principal Mills replies, “That's really, it makes me happy because we, they say the things we're working on and what they talked about that meeting.” As Principal Mills notes, these were the issues brought forth by staff, as was outlined in the school organization section in Part one. As such, we can see that Principal Mills was agreeing with the data, and confirmed it as something she already knew. As we delve deeper into the graph on the school organization page, Principal Mills stops me, “Um hmm. Is there any way I can do this in a year...Stock you down, when you’re done?” In year three of an ongoing process of improving the school, Principal Mills perceives that the data she is receiving now may be different in the future, her ability or desire to look forward, is indicative of her tenacity, hope, and unequivocal belief that her school community will get better. I assure her that I will return to her school in a year. Leadership. I flip the report to the leadership page, sensing Principal Mills’ anxieties rising, I turn her attention to the strengths, specifically the “developing teachers” data point, I state, “Before you look at anything else. Okay. This is super good....” I continue on, sharing the data, and bracing her for the data that is to come, “Okay. So, um, teachers believe that you're interested in developing them. Okay. Instructional support, right. 77%. Uh, this feel supported piece comes up a lot on, this won't be the only one that 36% feel supported by a school leaders and 40% feel that school leaders were look out for their personal welfare”. As mentioned, Principal Mills’ ability to understand this data, is through her own lens regarding her culture, in an exchange outline below, we can see that she constructs teachers as ungrateful and believes that teachers feel a particular way about her because of her policies. Principal Mills : They are going to have an Interesting time when I leave 177 Amieris: what do you mean by that? Principal Mills : Um, because everything I do is through the lens of relationships. So I wish we could desegregate the data between...Because they know emotionally support them, but yet a lot of this is coming from, I'm not going to back you on exclusion so they don't feel supported because they just want me to kick 'em out. Amieris: Mm. Principal Mills : I mean that's going to come up over and over and over. So, and they don't realize things like it may be I need to be more, um, like yesterday, so there, there was a kindergarten that kept leaving the room and um, so they want to call 8 million times and be like, where's [Principal Mills ] at? Well, [Principal Mills ] was having a crucial conversation with an instructional assistant with an improvement plan... Like that's the conversations I have to have. To protect kids, but I don't share all of that. So they assume I'm in here with the door shut. I don't know what they think I'm doing. Mm. So therefore that translates to you don't feel supported because (student name), kept leaving the classroom. Um, but that's not really always your business that I have to have those crucial conversations all of the time. In the exchange above three issues are brought forth by Principal Mills in regard to her interpretation of the survey results that are relevant for this review. The first is that she immediately identifies the lack of feeling supporting to her stance on student exclusion. Secondly, she recognizes that perhaps teachers do not understand the breadth of her responsibility or the needs of the school; she decides she must be more transparent. In a excerpt recanted from the above quote from Principal Mills , she recounts the nature of a “crucial conversation” she had to have with one member of the staff, as another was calling for her 178 assistance. She seemingly understands that staff may require a different perspective regarding the contents of her workday, She states, “ So they assume I’m in here with the door shut. I don’t know what they thing I’m doing.” Third, and this is an ongoing trend, Principal Mills , names a particular grade level (and therefore particular teacher) as a person who may not feel supported. In this subtle way, she indicates that she attributing particular data points to teachers. Throughout the interview, Principal Mills is deciding, or perhaps already knows, who is on “team Principal Mills ” or not. Relational Trust. I begin to read the results of trust to Principal Mills , “super high personal respect, professional respect for each other”. Principal Mills replies, “good. I'm really happy about that.” As I continue to explain the data, “they don't feel supported by each other and they don't really teachers truly about them” Principal Mills questions, “Each other? So this is me out of the equation? She continues...This is crazy. Well, this is great because you guys can't, we need to have a discussion...it's so easy to just target the boss, but my goodness, they're hard on each other.” In this excerpt, Principal Mills seemingly expresses surprised relief that teachers are as hard on their colleagues as she perceives they are on her. Normalized Attitudes The purpose of the Normalized Attitudes construct question block was to allow teachers to place themselves, their colleagues, and school leaders on a continuum. The purpose of this selection was to better understand teacher perceptions regarding where particular attitudes or behaviors are within the school. As such, Willingness to Change, Disposition, and Human Capital focus on the predominant trends in Spencer Elementary’s data which is that teacher rated themselves and the school leader, above the 70% positive consensus threshold on almost every question, while they score “other teachers” below the 70% positive consensus threshold. The 179 following section explores Principal Mills’ meaning making response to and recognition of this trend. Willingness to Change. Interpreting the willingness to change survey results to Principal Mills , I report, “So you're willing, they're willing to improve their practice. You're willing to improve their practice, their colleagues or not, you're eager try new ideas. They're eager to try new ideas their colleagues or not. They're continually learning, your continuing learning their colleagues or not, and you're willing to take risks and they're willing to take risks...” Principal Mills replies, “So there's your problem”. Willingness to Change is the first element factor introduced to Principal Mills in the Normalized Attitude construct block. It is within this element area that Principal Mills begins to recognize the cause, or contributing factors, that impede change within her school. This can be seen in her assertion “so there’s your problem.” Disposition. As we continue through the report, Principal Mills turns the page and begins interpreting the disposition results, “So, okay, so this is fascinating to me...Okay. So they perceive that they put their stuff before or puts students before their personal interests and they know I do it, I do, do it and it's over the majority. But when they look at each other...this is total, look at that. This is a problem with it. Then they don't align in their values. Wow. No, I, I felt all this.” Through her own interpretation of the data, Principal Mills asserts that the problem of her staff is that they “don’t align in their values”. In this section, Principal Mills emphatically proposes that the Moralization survey aligns wither her perception of her school community and thereby answers research question 2. Her recognition that this data is congruent with her beliefs can be seen in her statement, “I felt all this”. She shares her plans to share this information, when she says, “Oh my God. I can't wait to talk about this, with my instructional coach.” Principal Mills’ use and sharing of the data will be explored later. For now, this section will focus on 180 Principal Mills’ propensity to attempt to identify how particular teachers would respond. However, in this section, she soon realizes, that she may not wholly know who is who, and which teachers are saying what, she asserts, “you know what, it's not my... Like the teacher I struggled with wouldn't even take it.” (A teacher openly refused to take the survey to Principal Mills in the meeting and walked up to me after to tell me directly that she did not like to take surveys). I corroborated Principal Mills’ statement, “exactly. And that's another thing, right? So the ones, whoever your harder ones didn't even take it... you have like some like silent...” Principal Mills finishes my statement with “passive aggressiveness. Um, wow.” With that statement she turns the page to look at the Human Capital results. Principal Mills’ interpretation of teacher silence as passive aggressiveness again represents her lens with which she understands her community. It may be the case that teachers were being passive aggressive, or that the anonymous nature of the survey allowed teachers to voice their opinions safely and without fear of retribution. As was seen in the trust construct, not many teachers wholly believe that they can openly express their fears or frustrations. What the distribution of data shows, is that outside of the known teachers that Principal Mills has challenges with, there are others who may hold those same beliefs. Human Capital. As Principal Mills reads the Human Capital results, she expresses surprise, and perhaps, relief that her teachers perceive her as having effective training to do her job. She says, “but at least they understand because in other schools, I mean when the, when the culture is completely toxic, like they'll question of principal. Like why is he the principal? Like what connections does he have? Like I, they know, I mean I'm getting my doctorate for goodness sake.” In this statement we can see that Principal Mills would like to be perceived as effectively trained for her role. She often notes her novice nature, and that she sometimes makes “rookie 181 mistakes”, however, she appeared to find solace in the fact that her teacher didn’t question her intellect. She continues reading the results, “So I hope they understand expectations. The other teachers don't. School leaders. Okay. Um, Job. Security. Hmm. I'm not surprised by that.” I asked her why she wasn’t surprised and she replied, “because I do, I do well and have right of assignment, but, um, I'm backed pretty great by the district, um, for having the crucial conversations and the courage. So when you have crucial conversations, and courage people don't always like you, um, knowledgeable and content areas. Okay. So I'm smart...” I interject, “but you might not understand, understand what they're expecting of you.” She affirms with, “Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.” And I propose that amending that chasm “is a simple conversation”. Before we can continue, Principal Mills , apparently noting the red and gray data points that represent disagree and strong disagree, respectively, Principal Mills exclaims, “God, who hates me?” she goes on saying, “He's really mad. I mean, I think I know who, but...” At this point in the data interview, it is clear that Principal Mills is interpreting negative data as people who have personal issues with her, and she is attempting to figure out who they are based upon her experiences with them. The Moral Imperative to Change Whereas the Organizational Climate and Effectiveness construct measures teacher perceptions of the mechanics of their school environment, Normalized Attitudes construct gathers data regarding teacher perceptions of the beliefs, values, and norms within the school community. The Moral Imperative to Change, can be consider the culmination or a way to interpret the meaning of the data presented in earlier sections of the report. The Moral Imperative to Change provides an opportunity to glimpse at the full picture of a school’s implementation climate. 182 Orientation to Innovation. I turn the page to the Moral Imperative to Change section of the report, Principal Mills gasps, “Oh my God, I can't... Oh my God, I'm so nervous.” After reading through the graphs, Principal Mills exacerbated and looking out the window rhetorically asks, “How do you work here? If you only think, if you don't think innovation can be successful, why are you here? That's horrifying.” For Principal Mills , knowing the context of her school needs of her students, and challenges they face, it is difficult to fathom that a teacher would work in a school where they didn’t believe innovation was successful. I remind Principal Mills , however, about the language of the question, which asks teachers if innovation could be successful in the current climate. She scoffs, “In the current climate, and we're three years in. You should've seen the hot damn mess when I walked in.” Principal Mills , akin to other staff who has been in the school for longer, noted that there has been an immense change in the school sense she arrived. Perhaps, with influx of new staff members into the school, there are few that remember and understand that the school, has in fact, come a long way. In any case I remind, Principal Mills to consider earlier data, I urge, “But if you look at what they think about each other. Right?” she resigns, “It makes sense”. Perhaps, in this moment, the whole picture of her school, began to make sense and Principal Mills with worry, rhetorically asks, “Oh my God, what am I going to do? What am I going to do? I don't know what I'm going to do.” As the breadth and weight of the challenges her school faces and the perspectives of her teachers, come in full view, Principal Mills wonders how she should or could move forward. Race Consciousness. Principal Mills purports to have issues of race and racism at the forefront of her mind as she attempts to lead with social justice and be culturally responsive in her school community. The final element of the Moralization Matrix ascertains teacher’s beliefs regarding how issues of race impact their school community. When Principal Mills turns the 183 page, and sees the graphs on the race consciousness page, that boast under 50% positive consensus across each question, she exclaims, “I'm gonna throw up”. Whereas Principal Mills has typically attempted to decipher who may be speaking negatively in the survey, within this element area, she turns her attention to those who are within the percentage of positive consensus; she asks me, “Do you think these are my bright stars? Those are starting to get it like that I'm doing the book studies with and stuff...” she later affirms her belief, “This is my group that I'm working with explicitly. I mean there's, you've, you've heard the conversation, it's too intense. They get it.” As mentioned previously, it is not possible to discern how teachers answered this survey, and it is dangerous to take an attempt at trying. While it could be her “bright stars” the positive consensus could also be held by the handful of teachers of color on her staff that are answering with their personal perspective from being a part of a minoritized group. In any case, these results worried Principal Mills . The implications of this data in particular will be explored in a subsequent section. In any case, during our interview, Principal Mills turns her attention to me, she asks, How does it make you feel as a, as a PhD student? Like there's a whole academic community that absolutely gets it. And the research is there. It does not get its left to leaders to make sense of how to attack it. Right. Most don't. Right. No. Um, I do, there's a very real cost for it because of what the super is saying. It can come off obnoxious it can come off self-righteous and it can come off like I'm trying to be a white savior. Right. And that's what's going on here. This is, I just can't believe [I’m] looking at it quantified.” In the above quotation, Principal Mills situates herself within two contexts, as a doctoral student and advocate for social justice, she recognizes that for a particular community of scholars- questions regarding the impact of race on educational issues, would receive an unequivocal 184 affirmation. However, as a school leader, she must reconcile with the fact that many of her teachers may not hold this belief. She finds it imperative to address issues of race- but seemingly understands that this comes at a cost to her. She may be right. She reasons that some of the challenges she faces can be attributed to the “cost” of attempting to address racism in her school. She ends her statement with, “I can’t believe [I’m] looking at it quantified.”. This final statement offers itself as a boast to the utility of this tool for school leaders who are attempting to address large-scale challenges within their school. Who may to see their staff’s attitudes and beliefs quantified in order to enact successful reforms or amend their leadership approach. An unattended purpose for the Moralization Matrix emerged while conducting the research and analysis of this study. The Moralization Matrix was developed as a means to match schools to potential programs, however, it is possible, based upon this study, that the Matrix can used as a tool for school leaders to better understand their school communities in general. Throughout the data sharing process, it was clear that the survey was able to provide insights into staff dynamics that Principal Mills was unaware of- or had no way to quantify or identify. Future testing is needed, however, these preliminary findings indicate that there may broader uses for the tool beyond program matching. The following chapter will explore further conclusions and implications of this research. The sub question of research question two asks, how would a school leader utilize the data collected from the Moralization Matrix survey and interviews? In our data sharing interview Principal Mills explicates the value of the report, she shares, “We did something similar [a survey], but I love the way this breaks it down.” And, ...What’s going to be so helpful is that, I mean, I'm cool with being reflective about myself. Okay, cool. Um, I, my skin grows thicker each time and I always can do better. 185 I'm still a rookie like I'm year three, that's a rookie. Um, however, I had no way to quantify the mistrust between each other The ability for Principal Mills to be able to understand her teachers’ perceptions of one another is a crucial aspect of her school community that she had not recognized but was brought forth in the survey. understanding this dynamic and addressing this to her staff, seemingly informed the way she wanted to use the data, she goes on to say, “I'm like, when, when you have this conversation with me, I, it's more than just going over the survey. It's before I bring it to whole staff. I will talk about with leadership team first, but, um, this makes me feel like I need to do like a state of the union...” In her view, her staff needed an opportunity to address their feelings towards each other in order to move forward. She recognizes that this work would be deep, however, when she says, “I mean, but, but team builders and icebreakers aren't going to do it. We almost need to like go on a retreat. I'm not kidding...” Her assertion that there is a need for a retreat may not be off base, as much of the challenges her school faces are relational, embedded and within beliefs, it may be crucial that teachers become able to truly see themselves, their colleagues, and leaders in a different light in order to bring about change in their school community. Realizing that Principal Mills has the intention of taking this data to her staff, I ask her what her plan is, she states, Oh, I'm totally going there. Hundred percent. I just, I had to process it with my coaches first and then leadership team. I, I think it's smarter though for me to process alone with you and then with my coaches and then have leadership team design giving it instead of it just being me... I think that's my next move is like really I don't look at as delegate. I look at it as empowering them, come to the table with solutions based thinking. This is where 186 we're at. I don't think it will be, um, walking through the entire thing. But I think amongst colleagues that sort of information needs to be. Principal Mills’ desire to get issues within her community out on “the table” and empower teachers to bring solutions was a noted approach in the school organization section. While Principal Mills did allude to me that she had plans to bring the data to her staff, I had no idea how she would take this task on. About a week after I shared the results above with Principal Mills she contacted me via text to tell me that her staff had concerns regarding the validity of the survey data concerning leadership, my presence in the school, and the purpose of my research. She asked me to join her leadership meeting that afternoon to speak with teachers, and perhaps, assuage their concerns. When I arrived to the meeting, Principal Mills spoke of the concerns brought forth, and those teachers in the meeting expressed surprised, some confusion, that there was an issue or fear regarding my presence. She said, that the purpose of the meeting was to go over the “collective efficacy” data. She turned a slide and I realized she was preparing to present the data from the Moralization Matrix to her leadership team. Using the results from the Normalized Attitudes section, Principal Mills went over the data, she astutely, advised teachers, to “chop her results” off of the data if there were concerns about the validity of the responses. She turns the focus on the meeting on to the relational data. She asks, the leadership team, to look at the data and free write their ideas. She then asks them each to share out, what issues they are divided over: Teacher collectively come up with: “change”. “Money”. “Time”. Others brought forth that there was no cohesive culture, and the number of new staff in the building. Teachers continued on and the conversation concluded upon, “What’s best for kids”. In Spencer Elementary, Principal Mills used the results of the Moralization Matrix to go directly to her leadership team to introduce them to the data that quantifies their challenges. She asked them 187 to contribute what they believed those school-based challenges were. In my view, Principal Mills sought to use the data to operationalize or bring forth the dynamics of her school, to have teachers face the culture they are all working in. Though this was not my intended vision of the use of this tool. This occurrence raised valuable insights for me as a researcher entering school contexts as an “other”. Similar to the instance outlined in the preface with Principal Tandy, I was regarded with apprehension and distrust regarding my presence, purpose and nature of the research and the data I was collecting. The implications that these experience have for the use of the Matrix survey will be further explored in the Discussion chapter. 188 Chapter Overview Discussion This chapter will provide a brief conclusion and discussion of the research questions and their accompanying findings discussed in the prior chapter. Following the overview of findings, suggestions and parameter for future use of the survey instrument are explored through the lens of demoralization put forth by Payne (2008). Next, the scholarly contribution of the dissertation to the field of education policy research is discussed. This is followed by a delineation of the contribution that the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework and survey to education policy practice. The chapter concludes with an acknowledgment of the limitations of the current study, and a conclusion that situates this research within predominant program implementation concept. This research sought to ascertain the congruence and nuance between data collected from a quantitative survey designed to measure context and the data that was collected via interview and observation data regarding the qualitative qualities of a school. It was found that the results and conclusions generated from quantitative data was similar to those gleaned from qualitative data. In this study, survey data, was described as a means to “snapshot” a school’s culture and context. This quantified data provides concrete visible representation of the dynamics within a school community. It also visually illustrates areas where growth, education, and reflection may be needed on behalf of group members of a school community: support staff, teachers, and the principal. The interview and observation data was referred to as “subtitles”. The qualitative data provided a richness, depth, and infused participant voice in ways that provided a means to interpret the quantitative data gathered from the survey. By observing, I was able to translate the manner in which people speak, respond to their colleagues, and what they say or don’t say, in ways that gave greater 189 understanding to statistical data. Interviews inserted teacher voice and perspective that were then placed in conversation with the voice and perspective of school leaders, and each other. As an outsider to the system, I was able to illuminate the gaps between what staff members perceived about each other, specific staff interactions, and their school community as a whole. All of which equipped me with great understanding regarding the particular challenges of this school community. What this case study was able to identify in this school community holds promise both in the academy, but also to practitioners, as will be explored in the next section. Research Question #1. Data from the survey and the interview are relatively congruent. Though it would require more testing, this preliminary study suggests that the Moralization Assessment is able to capture the perspectives of teachers, nuance of their ideals, and the predominant trends of staff member beliefs that may inform the character of a school. I have aimed to highlight the connections, congruencies, and possible misconnections between the survey, interview, and observation data. However, there are limitations to what the survey offers. While the survey may be able to nod to particular trends or relationships within a school building, on its own, the assessment does not have the ability to explicate, or make connections as to why particular norms and values develop, are fortified, or understood by school personnel. The survey cannot give voice to what the particularities of a school’s challenges are or how they can be amended. These answers can only be gleaned by speaking with school personnel. As was made clear in the Findings chapter. With this limitation aside, the following section will discuss the three key contributions of the survey as identified in this stage of preliminary testing: the ability of the survey to capture perspective, nuance, and predominant trends in belief of faculty. In the Maslow’s Hierarchy element, physical and emotional safety and security scored low positive consensus, In the assessment, it was indicated that there was 72%, 54%, and 45% 190 positive consensus regarding teachers feeling physically capable of doing their job, physically safe, and empowered to make decisions within their school community, respectively. On it’s own, this data provides a snapshot regarding teacher perceptions of their physical and emotional security. However, this low positive consensus was elucidated upon by teachers who discussed issues of behavior within their classrooms in the interviews. In interviews school personnel expressed their worries and frustrations regarding student behavior and administrative expectations and response. Though the assessment was not able to identify why teachers responded with low positive consensus regarding their physical and emotional safety, it was able to capture that the feelings regarding these particular aspects were indeed low. However, when paired with teacher interviews, the relationship between the physical safety and emotional security becomes more apparent. In this element area the perspective of teachers as identified by teachers in the survey and in interviews are congruent with one another. In the leadership element, the assessment identified that there was 77%, 35%, and 40% positive consensus regarding teacher’s perception of leadership being interested in developing them, feeling supported, and looking out for the personal welfare of staff, respectively. This data provided a lens towards teacher understanding of their school leader. Though they identified Principal Mills as being interested in growing them intellectually, school personnel did not feel as though she supported them or was concerned with their personal welfare. This quantitative data, appears to be similar to the qualitative data collected via interviews. In interviews, teacher described feeling pushed and empowered within their classroom, to teach. Numerous staff members mentioned the instructional leadership provided by Principal Mills. However, Principal Mills’ approach, manner of speaking, and leadership style was brought forth as an issue of contention. The assessment data was able to capture that teachers could feel intellectually 191 stimulated- but not emotionally valued- which is a nuanced understanding of the role of leadership. The findings from the survey were furthered by interview data, which was able to explicate what leadership factors influence nuance in a staff. This suggests, that the questions that comprise this element area are dynamic and able to capture divergent views about leadership. The ability to gather teacher nuance, allowed, the assessment results to resemble the interview data. The purpose of the Normalized Attitudes construct was to allow teachers to place their colleagues and school leader on a continuum of beliefs, attitudes, and perspectives. It was found, in Spencer Elementary, that across every element of Normalized Attitudes, teachers rated other teachers lower than themselves and the school leaders. In fact, on almost every aspect of the disposition and willingness to change school personnel rated other teachers below the 70% positive consensus threshold. School leaders, remained above this threshold, for all but a few questions where they were rated at 68%. This implied, that for school personnel disposition and willingness to change challenges are not on the part of the leader, but on their teacher colleagues. This data assertion was corroborated in teacher interviews. In interviews with school personnel they described some of their colleagues as tethered to the “old way” or having “their classrooms the same way for years” other teachers described that teachers as “stuck” or fearful of change. The school leader, was described as “trying” and having to work hard to get teachers to change their behavior. Teachers understood Principal Mills as willing to try new ideas, or allow them to experiment in their classroom. With one teacher saying, “she rarely tells me no.” For willingness to change and disposition, within the Normalized attitude construct there was data congruence between the survey and interview results. 192 The Extent. As has been explored, the Moralization Matrix Assessment is able to capture perspectives, detect nuance and trends, however, on its own the assessment cannot make meaning of the data or the relationships, that one question or element, or construct has with another. These qualitative offerings were gathered via speaking and observing school personnel. Similarly, the data scores and degree of positive consensus cannot ascertain the level of importance that a particular element has for a school community. For instance, School Organization had low positive consensus across each question. It was the lowest rated construct, while Human capital had relatively higher positive consensus. Yet, within the Orientation to Innovation element area, capacity was rated as the most important factor impacting Spencer Elementary and innovation implementation, while school organization was rated as the least. As can be seen, going off of scores alone, may not adequately explain what issues, teachers are perceiving to be affecting them the most in their school community. The implications of the aforementioned results will be discussed in the next chapter. For now, this results section will focus on research question 2. Research Question #2.Research Question Two asks if there were similarities between principal perception of their school environment and the results reported in the Moralization Matrix report. Overall, within the Organizational Climate and Effectiveness construct, Principal Mills expressed agreement with the data shared with her regarding school facilities, physical safety, and school organization. She did exhibit surprise regarding emotional security and additional resources. Throughout each aspect of the report Principal Mills can be seen making meaning of the data she was receiving providing interpretations of why teachers may not be supported, or why they might not feel valued or empowered within the school building. The Normalized Attitudes construct question block includes willingness to change, disposition, and 193 human capital. Within each of these factor areas it was found that teachers rated themselves and school leader, higher than their teacher colleagues. While sharing data with Principal Mills she exclaimed that these trends were something she felt in her school and expressed relief that teachers could identify that their colleagues had responsibility to creating and sustaining a culture that wasn’t ripe for change. As was seen across construct blocks, Principal Mills had a tendency to focus on the data that reflected her negatively and attempt to figure out which teachers may be rating her down. However, she asserted, that those who are discontent, must be doing so silently, as her known teacher with whom she had issues with, refused to take the survey. The Moral Imperative to Change construct question block addressed orientation to innovation and race consciousness within the school community. Principal Mills did not express surprise with the results she received in these areas. Instead, she mentioned that the data was helpful, in that she was able to see these phenomena quantified. Therefore, I contend, according to the aforementioned data present that Moralization survey was able to produce a report that would match the felt understanding that a school leader had of their community. Much of the writing thus far in this study has considered the value, limitations, and potential contributions of the Moralization Matrix survey to school-level practitioners. The following section will primarily focus on the parameters and suggestions for use of the Moralization Matrix survey instrument within schools. Parameters of Use: The Moralization Matrix Survey The following parameters that will be discussed are based upon my experiences within the Spencer Elementary school building, however, they are grounded within two key dimensions of demoralization that were put forth by Charles Payne (2008). As has been noted, Payne’s (2008) conception of demoralization greatly influenced the creation of the Moralization Matrix 194 and the lens with which I view social change and urban schools. The following is not wholly representative of each of Payne’s dimensions of demoralization. Instead, utilizing anecdotes from Spencer Elementary I will discuss how two dimensions: the Principle of Negative Interpretation and Refusing the Enthusiastic hold relevance for how the Moralization Matrix survey should be operationalized in school communities especially as it relates to data sharing and considering relationship to school personnel- namely, leadership. The Principle of Negative Interpretation. “I’m so discouraged. Even when I try to be transparent and take their feedback, they find a way not to trust” reads a text message sent to me by Principal Mills. Sitting at a coffee shop, writing the results section for the data I collected from Spencer Elementary, I receive a text message from Principal Mills. “WE have an issue”. “Staff is Revolting”. Less than a week after I shared the data from the Moralization Matrix with her, staff found out, and began to undermine the results. Though unclear, with whom or how this conversation came to be, Principal Mills related to me that she was told the survey wasn’t taken honestly by teachers because they believed they could be identified by their demographic information (age, race, education, and certification). Principal Mills writes to me, “... they don’t trust that you are not feeding me info”. While, Principal Mills and myself were both surprised by the negative reaction of school personnel to the Moralization survey, I believe that this staff response can be anticipated for and beset understood through the lens of the “Principle of Negative Interpretation” delineated by Payne (2008). In his chapter, “Dimensions of Demoralization” Payne (2008) explores the characteristics and principles that inform how demoralized schools function. For Payne (2008), an embedded feature of the social understandings among adults in demoralized schools is The Principle of Negative Interpretation. According to Payne (2008), in demoralized schools, “whatever other 195 people do is interpreted in the most negative way possible... no one gets the benefit of the doubt” (p.25). These negative interpretations are a lens through which personnel view and make meaning out of the actions and behaviors of their colleagues, leaders, parents, and students. Ultimately, these interpretations work together to manifest a culture that is incongruent with effecting change. The Principle of Negative Interpretation is indicative of a school community that lacks trust in one another and has the tendency to interpret the actions of one’s colleagues, or the actions of parents in a negative light. These interpretations undermine the ability to the build healthy and trusting relationships within a school community. The Principle of Negative Interpretation can be used as a lens to view many of the staff perceptions shared with me interviews, events I witnessed, and those presented in the findings chapter. Repeatedly, negative interpretations of the actions and words of others that could be otherwise innocuous, were demonized. As Payne (2008) shared, no staff member seemed to give their colleagues the benefit of the doubt. Negative interpretations of the actions, behaviors, and behaviors of school personnel abound within Spencer Elementary, amongst teachers and their colleagues, teachers towards the leader, and between the leader and her staff. When considering the Principle of Negative Interpretation, the skepticism regarding the Moralization survey data exhibited by staff is evidence of their suspension of authority and the purpose and function of data. The belief that the data would be traced and used to enact retribution upon teachers coupled with their distrust of my role in their school was unfounded and unwarranted. But the mistrust may not be surprising when considering the quantitative data regarding trust and interview data where teachers expressed being fearful that they would suffer negative repercussions if they were to upset Principal Mills. In any case, the belief that Principal Mills would use the information gathered from the survey to do anything besides contribute to 196 the betterment of the school is telling of deeper socio-cultural trends. Nevertheless, staff response to seeing their culture quantified is as telling, if not more, than the results collected from the survey itself. It is plausible that the rejection of the data, PCR, and myself showcases several dimensions of demoralization that Payne (2008) explicates in So much Reform, So Little Change. Payne writes, “Demoralized teachers are not just people who don’t trust; they are people invested in not trusting, invested in believing that better practice isn’t possible or wouldn’t make a difference. When people are in that position, it may not be possible to change their thinking with evidence” (p.44). The rejection of the assessment data, may be congruent with the rejection of student data and evidence-based practices. Payne asserts, “one of the reason conflicted schools have such trouble getting better is that honest self-assessment may be all but impossible" (p.44). While the Principal of Negative Interpretation holds several implications for the relationships within a school community, there are focal challenges Negative Interpretations have for the Matrix survey, namely, data sharing. Parameter of Use: Data Sharing. The reaction that PCR’s staff members had to seeing the data from their Moralization Matrix Report, the Principe of Negative Interpretation, and the role of trust in mind, holds crucial implications for how I (or others) should approach data sharing with school communities. It is imperative that data from the assessment be introduced in a manner that causes the least amount of damaging disruption. Future research may explore “best practices” for sharing, or not, sharing Moralization data directly to teachers or coaching school leaders through the process of introducing potentially controversial data to their school communities, especially if they are on the scale of demoralization and may be inclined to interpret the actions of the leaders in a negative manner. The following are suggestions and hypothesized practices that may help in data sharing, all of which require greater testing. 197 Data should be shared, at first and specifically with the leader. A plan, based upon the needs and positive consensus of the school should be developed with the leader and the survey administrator. Prior to sharing with staff members, several meetings between the survey administrator and the leader should be held to discuss the data, meaning, implications, and future steps for the data. While guiding questions will be developed by the survey administrator further question to ask of staff members should be developed with the leader and the survey administrator. Based upon the relational nature of the staff and their respective score the survey administrator could use these questions as interview protocol with which they speak with school personnel individually or focus groups. In some cases, but not most, the questions could be brought and discussed during whole-group staff meetings. In an effort to lower the possibility of hearsay or unfair interpretations of data, it is important, in many cases that staff members hear of their data at the same, if not, similar times. Based upon the nature of the school community and their relationship with outside actors the survey administrator should share the data. If this is not possible, the leader may present the data with the administrator present, if questions surrounding the data arise. Based upon the nature of the data collected regarding leaders, and school community is not recommended that the Matrix survey be operationalized without a neutral outside actor to administer the survey, learn with, and interview staff members. Notably, while an outside actor is necessary for the successful implementation of the Matrix instrument, Payne (2008) asserts that in demoralized schools outside actors may be shunned as demoralized schools, refuse the enthusiastic, which will be further explored in the following section. Refusing the Enthusiastic. Payne (2008) argues that within demoralized schools, enthusiasm is shunned. He states, “Once a certain style of work becomes normalized among a 198 work-group, those who violate it are deviants and can be expect to be sanctioned like deviants in any social setting” (p.21). This sanctioning may impact different members of a school community, however, for the purpose of this section, I will focus on teacher refusal of Principal Mills. As was seen in the Leadership element, Principal Mills was regarded as “interested in developing teachers”, was respected both professionally and personally by a majority of her staff yet, she still found herself on the outskirts of the school community. Principal Mills repeatedly proclaimed that she was “not popular with staff”, that the feedback she received was “brutal”, she knew that there were teachers who spoke against her when she was not around. She described, as was shown in the foregrounding quote in the Principal of Negative Interpretation section that she felt discouraged. The emotional toll of presiding as principal over Spencer Elementary was visceral for her. In our interviews, she described the anxieties and worries that manifest as chest pains, nightmares, etc. when she went home. Sometimes these ailments were symptoms of the second-hand trauma she’s exposed to by working with children living within a host of challenging home lives, and at other times, it is because of the pressures she endured at the district level, or the dynamics of school-level relationships. With vulnerability, she shared, The only reason I ultimately will leave is due to the stress. So what they don't teach you in principal school is, um, chest pains and you don't sleep and um, you're alone because you're on a different contract. And while each teacher in an urban area has probably three to four in their classroom, they really struggle with whether it's behaviors or trauma. I hold all of the secrets in my heart and it takes a absolute toll physically. And at some point I'm going to probably have to make a choice between my marriage and this. And it's just a fact. 199 Though her teachers may not know the totality of what it takes for Principal Mills to lead their school, every morning she can be seen greeting students as they come into the school. Even in the chill of the winter. Principal Mills stands in front of the school speaking with parents, helping kids out of their cars, exchanging pleasantries with bus drivers, no matter how cold it is outside, she is there. Her mantra is: “Every morning, every kid”. Despite her commitment to children, Principal Mills faces, what she described as constant push back from her staff. When asked what types of change are most difficult for her staff, Principal Mills stated: “it seems to be every change”. Nevertheless, the push back that she experiences in regard to her initiatives appeared to feel deeply personal and incomprehensible to her. Perhaps it was. In any case, there appeared to be entrenched social-contextual school based challenges she faced in regards to staff understanding of her actions, initiatives, behaviors, and language which were shrouded with the Principle of Negative Interpretation as was previously discussed. The rejection of Principal Mills and the change she represents is codified as a part of the concept of demoralization put forth my Payne (2008) who writes, “the fact that an institution needs to squelch and marginalize its most energetic, most enthusiastic, or best-prepared members tell us these are demoralized institutions” (p.23).Demoralized schools, according to Payne (2008), Tend to be places governed by an overarching sense of futility and pessimism; where colleagues may distrust their supervisors and perhaps one another; where there can be a certain harshness in the way children and parents are dealt with;... where there is a general feeling of instability- personnel come and go, students come and go, programs come and go- all of it presided over by a dysfunctional bureaucracy” (p.23) 200 Principal Mills had several initiatives that she sought to enact, including a social justice oriented leadership approach, new instructional expectations which include observations. For her community, she may have been expecting too much, too fast, which impacted school relationships. Importantly, while she has been the focus of the current conceptualization of Refusing the Enthusiastic, she was not the only member of the community who experienced having their vigor, stifled. It is important to interrogate the bounds of this phenomenon, especially in a school where more than half of the teaching staff is new and will, and can be, inoculated into the current culture of expectations of work. As was introduced earlier, other teachers described having their new ideas rejected by teachers who say that they would rather do things they way they have always been done. Referring to the plight of outside agents sent to demoralized schools, Payne (2008) asserts “It takes enormous emotional resources and/or an effective support system to weather being marginalized in this way.... Almost without exception in my experience, outside agencies rendering assistance to schools were unable to prepare their staff for the emotional beatings they were going to suffer”. While Principal Mills was not an agent of a reform program. She acted as an outsider within the system as she aimed to shift the culture of a school community as a relatively new member. She was introduced to Spencer Elementary as an outsider to their system and arguably, is treated as an outside reform agent. This is due in part to the way she became principal. Spencer Elementary was without a principal for two months and was described as chaotic by several members of the staff prior to Principal Mills’ arrival. In any case, it must be noted, that Principal Mills was not who teachers chose to lead them. As was mentioned, by Lila Travis, teachers told administration that they wanted “Anyone but [Principal Mills] ”. Yet she was whom teachers received. Her very presence, may contribute to the demoralization of her 201 staff. The relationship that staff members have to the enthusiastic as well as their school leader impacts the way the introduction of survey administrator and dissemination of the Matrix survey should be conducted. Parameter of Use: Considering Leadership. When considering school reform and change, it is imperative that new school leaders incorporate an understanding that school personnel may not positively receive their enthusiasm or vigor. Moreover, it is imperative that school leaders consider ways to ensure that new school personnel remain excited, despite an existing culture that may have become content with the way things are or have always been. Most importantly, implementation science and education reform literature have explicated the tensions and challenges that arise when too many changes are being enacted at a single time. Understanding whether, or how much, a school is demoralized may hold positive implications for setting the pace of education reform and scaffolding change effectively. The matrix survey should be used as a mechanism to coach and create space for a school leader to understand their staff. As such, a leader must be prepared to hear and understand the experiences of their staff members from their viewpoints. In order to do this, it is not suggested that a leader, on their own, use the matrix. It would be difficult, without an outside observer, for a leader to understand which bias they may be bringing to their understanding of the data. The outside coach would ideally seek to understand the ideas, beliefs, etc. held by teachers. The coach would then act as a mediator between staff members and assist school communities in developing plans for improving their relationships, structures, and understandings of one another. In order for effective use, the survey administrator may act as a “Moralization Coach”. The coach and school leader would work closely and build an honest rapport surrounding leadership and school climate. The role and purpose of the Matrix Coach should be clearly 202 elucidated to staff members. The purpose of the presence that the administrator has should be explicated each time they enter meetings, classrooms, etc. This coaching works towards normalization of staff observation as well as potentially indicates the focus of the coach is not on staff members, but rather the leader. Additionally, in schools that are indeed moralized, it may provide importance that the survey administrator/ Moralization Matrix speak not holistically idealist terms, but rather with pragmatism and clarity of specified purpose. The specified purpose of the Matrix survey and its relationship to the parameter of use within schools is further explored in the next section. Parameter of Use: Current Practice and Potential Futures. When considering the Principle of Negative Interpretation and Refusing the Enthusiastic that are evidential in the present case there are several suggestions for the of the Moralization Matrix survey. Current practice in education policy is to choose programs for schools based upon their tangible and evidential need, which is most likely related to their educational achievement and performance of students. However, this research suggests, that programs should not be suggested just for their educational need but that greater attention should be paid to the match between programs and the educational environments of schools. Thus, this research suggests that schools need a mechanism by which they can measure themselves internally and the embedded messages and theories imbued within particular programs. The Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework and survey, provide an opportunity to provide schools with such a tool. Though there is great need for cultural matching between schools and programs, operationalizing the survey cannot be done so haphazardly or without care. The dimensions of the Matrix, by nature are personal. The data that assessment provides can impact perceptions that leaders have of their staff or vice versa. In the best scenarios, leaders would use this information to reflect 203 upon their own practice, and create clear and open dialogues with their staff. At worst the data that the matrix provides could be used to hurt, harm, or erode already sensitive staff cultures and relationships not just between leaders and their staffs but also between teachers themselves. The purpose of the Matrix is to not to be destructive as such there are several suggestions for use that have been developed as a result of this study. It is possible that more parameters could be developed or removed with subsequent testing and training. Scholarly Purpose of the Dissertation The Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework and testing of the Moralization Matrix Assessment represent an attempt to conceptualize and characterize schools based upon nine distinct factors, all of which are known to impact implementation behaviors and, therefore, program outcomes. The Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework acts as an intellectual structure that can guide approaches to understanding school-level strengths, challenges, and social dynamics. The assessment, based upon the conceptual framework, provides the opportunity to gather, code, analyze, and present social-relational data to practitioners in an easy to understand report. Both the conceptual framework and assessment are intellectual hypotheses regarding what it takes, and may inhibit, the enactment of change at the school level. As such, the school data report that the framework and assessment informs provides school leaders with a quantified perspective regarding their school’s culture and implementation climate. If nothing else, the report provides leaders with a categorized list of areas of strength, growth, and potential misunderstanding between themselves and their staff. As explicated above, the idea for the Moralization Matrix conceptual framework and assessment is rooted in the literature and the practical need of school personnel. Nevertheless, both the framework and assessment needed to be tested. The purpose of this dissertation was to 204 interrogate the utility of the framework and assessment both conceptually and practically. This project can be understood as a first phase of testing of the Moralization assessment. Conceptually. The factors included in the Moralization Matrix are rooted in research literature; however, a list of nine elements is not exhaustive. As was mentioned, Mazmanian and Sabatier (1981) generated a list of 46 factors that impact implementation. Nevertheless, the nine elements a part of the Moralization Matrix were chosen based upon their prevalence in their literature and known impact to implementation and school reform. However, there are other factors that are known to impact reforms that are not included in this conceptual framework, such as resources, parental involvement, and community relationships. A key consideration of this dissertation was to interrogate the intellectual scope of the conceptual frame, and its ability to capture data that accurately represents and encapsulates the dynamics, needs, and beliefs of school personnel. In the interest of brevity, I refer to this purpose point as “conceptual validity”. Conceptual validity, in this study, refers to the congruence between the factors that comprise the Moralization Matrix and the elements, characteristics, or challenges that are described and observed by school personnel. In short, I was interested in the Matrix’s ability to capture the issues that matter most to school personnel. The viability of the survey was determined by comparing the outcomes and conclusions generated from assessment data, with the findings of a qualitative inquiry into the culture and context of a school via teacher and principal interviews and staff observations. To answer this, I noted instances where challenges brought forth my school personnel could not be coded or included within the framework. The only such instance was the case of resources, or outside bureaucratic support at the district level. Parental Involvement was brought forth in interviews but was able to be captured within the Race Consciousness element area. The aforementioned factors were not included, and will not be 205 added to the conceptual framework, due to the purpose of the Moralization Matrix, which is to provide school leaders with data regarding their internal social culture among school personnel- that they may need to understand in order to implement programs effectively. In my view, it is much more valuable to ascertain the context of how and why parental relationships arise, in conversations with teachers, which in this case was Race Consciousness, than to interrogate the nature of those relationships. In this way, the data indicates, that if parental involvement were of interest to Principal Mill, she would need to address issues of Race Consciousness first. Similar to the discussion of discipline, where dissent of trauma-informed practices were not coded racially, but instead was related to differing dispositions and human capital. In short, the Moralization Matrix aims to identify the social source of a challenge, rather than name and rate all of the surface level challenges that a school undoubtedly faces. More than not, it was found that, in this case, the results of the assessment were a quantitative reflection of the qualitative findings. Thus, it was determined that there was conceptual efficacy of the Moralization Matrix. The determination of conceptual efficacy holds promise for the practical use of the instrument. Practically. The first research question considered whether the Moralization Matrix was able to capture and quantify organizational context. This question was answered by comparing the results and conclusions generated by the assessment with those collected from interviews with school personnel. The outcomes of this inquiry suggest that the assessment was effective in gathering data regarding school context. This is evidenced by the observable congruence between survey results and the data collected via interviews and observations. Despite their similarities, there were differences between the types of information gathered quantitatively versus qualitatively. 206 Though survey data was able to depict larger trends concerning beliefs held by school personnel. Interviews and observations gave voice to, and provided added depth regarding the actions and behaviors that have informed perceptions that staff had regarding their school community. In short, the goal of testing the Moralization assessment was to understand if it was possible to quantify a school’s context and it was found, within this case, that it was able to do so, albeit with limitations. The second research question that guided this study, interrogates the perception that principals had of the data gathered, as well as the way they would leverage the information generated by the Moralization report. It was found that the principal identified with the data she was shown and believed it represented her community. In an effort to create a dialogue with her leadership team, she shared the data with them and encouraged them to consider and share the reasons and social dynamics that might be informing particular survey results. Implications and Contribution of the Dissertation The outcomes of this dissertation suggest that the Moralization Matrix assessment was able to quantitatively measure a school’s culture in ways that were representative of how staff would describe their community qualitatively. While further testing is required, the promise of this tool has implications for how programs are chosen by school leaders, how program implementation plans are designed by leaders, and how principals approach leading their staff. There are two key reasons why a quantitative assessment would be of value to the implementation practice of educational programs and innovations in the United States. The first reason relates to current practice and use of the Moralization Matrix Assessment at the school level. The second reason considers the promise the use of the Moralization Matrix Assessment at 207 the district level holds for the future of policy development and state-mandated improvement plans. Reason #1: School Level Approach. The viability of a needs/fit assessment is rooted in implementation science literature. As was explored, Meyers et al (2012) assert that all effective implementation begins with an assessment of the implementing environment. The Moralization Matrix Assessment acts as a diagnostic tool that can be employed prior to implementation and measures for distinct factors that may indicate whether particular initiatives and programs will be a cultural fit for a school, prior to dissemination. Educational programs, no matter their type or scale, are all embedded with underlying assumptions about teaching and learning that stakeholders have to or should believe in order to enact them. Finnan (2000) refers to this as the culture of the initiative. Finnan (2000) argues that policies are embedded with particular expectations and values regarding teaching and learning, which must be reflected in the implementing organizational body in order for them to be successful. Considering policies as value-laden documents is not novel, Baier et al (1986) assert, “Policies are not just guidelines for action, they are expressions of faith, acknowledgments, of virtue, and instruments of education” (Baier, March, and Saetren, 1986, p.198). However, Finnan (2000) argues that when stakeholders choose programs, they are often doing so based upon the mechanics of the program, rather than ensuring that the culture of the initiative and the culture of their organization are a match for one another. The Moralization Matrix framework and assessment is tailored to be an instrument that can inform how principals choose programs and initiatives for their school community. Principals, especially those that lead public schools- and most notably, those that are at the helm of priority schools are not necessarily choosing the curricula that students must learn. 208 Instead, principals use their background, expertise, and discretion when deciding which programs, interventions, and wrap around services to enact in their school community. School leaders, such as Principal Mills , use evidence-based research as a guiding point for choosing practices to enact in their school, however, while they may consider scholarship, their backgrounds, and the capacity of their teachers, they are less so able to consider and compare the social capability of their school with programs. For instance, Principal Mills aimed to bring issues of social justice and race into her school. When asked if issues of race and racism impacted her school community, Principal Mills emphatically responded with affirmation. Principal Mills was able to name parent-teacher relationships as a source of racial relational strain between school personnel and families as was captured by interviews with school personnel. Some teachers, who were interviewed, also spoke of race-based challenges they faced with parents and students. However, there was notable discomfort, unwillingness to address, or a lack of clarity on behalf of some teachers regarding what could be done to assuage the challenges they faced with parents. While the Moralization assessment could not capture the stories that inform the data, the survey data suggests that school personnel were not aligned in their understanding of race in the same ways that Principal Mills was. While Principal Mills unequivocally purports to understand the way race impacts her school community, the Race Consciousness factor captured teachers’ positive consensus regarding the impact of racism on educational interventions, well below 50%. This incongruence in perspectives represented major disconnect between a leader and her staff. Based upon the data alone, I would assert that Spencer Elementary was currently incompatible with initiatives that rely on teachers to hold particular asset-based views regarding students of color and their families. However, the initiatives that Principal Mills aimed to implement via trauma-centered 209 discipline, positive minority imaging around the school, and reading books such as Waking Up White are all centered on issues of race and racism. When the survey data was coupled with the interviews with school personnel, teacher discomfort around issues of race at Spencer Elementary became clearer. As was noted in the findings chapter, Eva Holt recalls teachers being fearful and wary of visiting the homes of their students, which was a part of a plan put forth by Principal Mills to connect teachers with student families. Eva Holt noted that the perceptions her colleagues had regarding families gave her pause, she furthered that teacher discomfort surrounding issues of race, goes beyond visiting homes and is also evidenced in their speech. She referred to how school personnel purport to look at the “whole-child” and boasted that they don’t “see color”. In her view, working with students in their school community necessitates that teachers “see color” or in her words “you got to”. In the sharing of Eva Holt’s sentiment it can be noted that teachers are hesitant to broach topics of race and they may hold deficit views regarding students and families of color. In the race consciousness element alone, it can be illustrated that the Moralization Matrix is able to accurately capture views that teachers have regarding issues of race and racism in their community. While the survey data suggests a lack of positive consensus, teachers, in their interviews, openly shared their wariness, or hesitancy of discussing race with others. Other teachers shared that they perceived that their colleagues had a hard time relating to parents due to their race. In accordance to research question one, the Race Consciousness data collected both quantitative and qualitatively aligned, and suggest that there is validity to the use of the Moralization Assessment. Additionally, in my first interview with Principal Mills , prior to sharing the Moralization report, she shared the perception she had of her teacher’s regarding 210 race. She stated, “I have people in this building that do not care for the images of minorities across the building and they don't understand it. They say when I leave, they're coming down...” In the above interview excerpt it can be seen that Principal Mills understands that there are teachers in her building that didn’t understand why have minority imaging in a school that predominately serves students of color is important. Moreover, there was not simply a lack of understanding, but an abhorrence, or a desire to not see those images be up, which can be noted in Principal Mills’ statement “they say when I leave, they’re coming down” (of tangential importance, is that the teachers who hold these ideas perceive that their tenure at the school will outlast Principal Mills’. Based upon this quotation alone it is evident that Spencer Elementary may be a turbulent environment for engaging in Race Conscious work. When coupled with qualitative and quantitative teacher data it becomes increasingly clear that address race and racism at Spencer Elementary would pose a challenge. To be clear, it is not my assertion that these topic should be avoided, but rather that issues of race and racism may need to approached in ways that educate and shape the understanding of school personnel, so they may be better able to be active change agents. It also means, due to the low positive consensus regarding race consciousness that this education and change could only take place via changing the “hearts, minds, and beliefs” (Blasé et al., 2015) of school personnel, must likely through open and honest dialogues. The possibility of which was not likely given that the Moralization assessment found that a majority of teachers don’t exhibit positive consensus regarding feeling free to express their concern with their principal or colleagues. The distrust that staff have of each other, their unwillingness to share the reservations or beliefs they may have, holds negative repercussions for the process of enacting Race Consciousness based initiatives, specifically, and implementation and school change efforts in general. Principal Mills came to learn of the cost of addressing these 211 issues of race in her school, and she often felt the repercussions of a lack of trust on behalf of her staff. However, much of this learning was acquired via miscommunications or conflict. These practice-based challenges- though they could lead to growth also cause relational strain in a professional relationship. The Moralization Matrix Assessment, provides a different approach to school change. In this alternative scenario a school leader utilizes the assessment to gather the baseline beliefs and ideas held by school personnel. Based upon acquired data, they could develop implementation plans that were paced with the needs, and strengths of their staff members. The assessment data on issues such as Race Consciousness could be used to target professional developments. Collective efficacy could be built around issues of staff community culture via building skills of school personnel and addressing and working with the beliefs and understanding held by teachers. All of these issues could be addressed prior to, or in tandem with steps towards enacting broader Race Conscious programs school-wide. The latter method of school change, may lead to greater implementation outcomes and social relationships among school personnel within schools that are under-going large-scale change efforts. Without this tool, or ones like it, Principal Mills, cannot wholly consider their cultures or may be left only with what their perceptions are of their staff, which could be inaccurate or incomplete. A primary focus on my research has been on the Moralization assessment’s ability to facilitate program- school matching. Yet, an unintended possibility for the use of the Moralization assessment emerged while analyzing and sharing the findings of this study with Principal Mills . In our data-sharing interview, though Principal Mills mostly agreed with the findings, there were areas of the report that surprised her. Most notable, was her realization that there were people who were silent dissenters in her staff. Throughout the report sharing, 212 Principal Mills , was trying to figure out who among her staff members may rate their school and her more negatively. However, as she related to me, her most challenging staff member wouldn’t take the survey, this upended her belief about where particular teachers fell on a spectrum of “team Principal Mills ” and who was choosing not to speak up. The Moralization assessment’s measure of school context allows for the school leader to receive the unfiltered beliefs of their teachers. Some of the results of the survey, may be corroborated by what principals already believe about their school community as was seen in Principal Mills’ reaction to data regarding physical safety, security, and the disposition factor areas. However, the assessment may provide school leaders with information that may be surprising to them, such as the case with Principal Mills’ understanding of the emotional security of her staff. The collection of this data provides a vital opportunity for school leaders to engage in honest conversations with their staff regarding their needs and perceptions. In schools such as Spencer Elementary, there may be a need to provide school personnel, who may not feel comfortable speaking in meetings, an opportunity to honestly share their thoughts, perceptions, and needs. While this study focused on the efficacy and promise for the use of the Moralization Matrix assessment at the school-level, the assessment may also have potential use at the district- or higher levels of school administration. Future research may investigate how this tool could be used at the district-level to determine its efficacy as a State tool for improvement. This leads to the second implication of this scholarship, which will be explored in the next section. Reason #2: Pragmatism. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that in 2010-11 there were 98,817 public schools, and 13,588 school districts in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). Across the country, schools are imbued with 213 varying levels of human capital, resources, strengths, and challenges. While the purpose of all schools is to educate and prepare children for their future, the local city, state, and organizational contexts in which this work must be done can be starkly different. Educational research has repeatedly demonstrated that the social and organizational structure of a school has an impact on the implementation and uptake of educational reforms. Over time, particular socio-cultural challenges such as: trust, willingness to change, school organization, leadership, and more have been identified as elements that impact programmatic success. It is my assertion that because these factors have been named as impactful for successful program implementation, it is of great import to have an understanding of schools in these areas prior to innovations being introduced. However, visiting each school within a given district, speaking with staff members, and principals, individually, could prove timely and costly. This research presents a quantitative assessment that seeks to quantify a school’s implementation culture. The assessment tested in this study, may prove to be a valuable tool that decision makers can utilize to approach program implementation in an efficient manner that allows them to harness the strengths of school communities, and help enact change that can take hold in meaningful ways across contexts. While the assessment measures schools for the nine dimensions of the Moralization Matrix, the Conceptual Framework itself could be used to code programs. An example of coded programs can be found in the appendix. While the assessment, in this case, was able to capture aspects of a school community. Further refinement, testing, and statistical validity testing will be needed in order to ascertain whether the instrument could be use more broadly and across districts or larger administrative bodies. 214 Limitations The purpose of this study was to test the conceptual validity and utility of the Moralization Matrix framework and assessment, respectively. However, the single site case study research design methodology, while providing depth of understanding of the context of a school community, has limitations regarding the breadth of generalizable conclusions that can be made from the results. Increased “n” of school communities, would provide additional information regarding what the survey is able to detect regarding context, and what it cannot. More survey sights would allow for the development of a continuum of behaviors, actions, or characteristics that might distinguish moralized and demoralized schools from one another. It is not yet possible, based upon this single study to do so. For now, this study provides information regarding the sights, sounds, language, and social dynamics that might be evident in a school that have varying degrees of positive consensus across the nine elements and three construct areas of the Moralization Matrix. It acts a proof of concept that assessments such as the Moralization Matrix could help inform school change. This study was also limited in timing. All data was collected with two months time. It is not possible to fully understand the dynamics of a school community based upon a couple months’ worth of data collection. Future research should visit the school more often, attend more meetings, and conduct multiple interviews with school staff. Finally, through increased testing of the tool, there is also a need to develop best practices for distilling the Moralization report data with staff, (if at all), creating implementation plans with leaders, or developing a protocol for utilizing the information shared. This study, was interested in how leaders would operationalize the data on their own. In this case, Principal Mills decided to take parts of the data directly to her leadership team. While, I am unable to relate the 215 effectiveness of this approach, future research may explore alternatives to directly sharing data with staff, or the conditions upon which this could be done. Conclusion This research sought to ascertain the congruence and nuance between data collected from a quantitative survey designed to measure context and the data that was collected via interview and observation data regarding the qualitative qualities of a school. It was found that the results and conclusions generated from quantitative data was similar to those gleaned from qualitative data. In this study, survey data, was described as a means to “snapshot” a school’s culture and context. This quantified data provides concrete visible representation of the dynamics within a school community. It also visually illustrates areas where growth, education, and reflection may be needed on behalf of group members of a school community: support staff, teachers, and the principal. The interview and observation data was referred to as “subtitles”. The qualitative data provided a richness, depth, and infused participant voice in ways that provided a means to interpret the quantitative data gathered from the survey. By observing, I was able to translate the manner in which people speak, respond to their colleagues, and what they say or don’t say, in ways that gave greater understanding to statistical data. Interviews inserted teacher voice and perspective that were then placed in conversation with the voice and perspective of school leaders, and each other. As an outsider to the system, I was able to illuminate the gaps between what staff members perceived about each other, specific staff interactions, and their school community as a whole. All of which equipped me with great understanding regarding the particular challenges of this school community. What this case study was able to identify in this school community holds promise both in the academy, but also to practitioners, as will be explored in the next sections. 216 The Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework was developed following scholarly inquiry into an array of research fields and topics: Implementation Science, Organization Studies, Education Policy, Urban Education School Reform, and Community Psychology. The confluence of information gathered from this review of research illustrated that there is longstanding need for a behavioral theory of change that guides implementation research. Goggin (1986) argued that in order to best understand policy outcomes a behavioral theory of implementation needed to be developed that included: “1. Form and content of the policy itself. 2. The capacity of the organization responsible. 3. Qualifications of the people in charge” (p.329). He furthered that, in the study of implementation, there were too many variables being measured and too few cases. Michie et al (2009) continued this call with their suggestion that, “there is a need to understand the functional components of interventions that work that are matched to population, setting, and other contextual characteristics” (p.1). As has been noted in earlier chapters, much implementation research, like those noted above, interrogate policies, themselves, as well as contextual environments of implementing bodies. Although the research and assertions of the aforementioned scholars has motivated both the methodology of my work as well as my concentration upon organizational contextual characteristics and their impact on implementation, my research focuses specifically on organizational context. Sandfort & Moulton (2014) defined the study of implementation as, “...the scientific study of methods to promote the uptake of research findings and other evidence- based practices into routine practice... creating evidence-based interventions will affect results only if there is research examining implementation processes (p.56).” This dissertation represented a scholarly inquiry into implementation, via the designing and testing of “methods to promote the uptake of research findings...” The practical purpose of my scholarship is to 217 develop and refine an implementation tool that could be used by education stakeholders to navigate implementation across or within diverse contexts. This research agenda rests firmly upon the work of Finnan (2000) who asserts that the culture of policies must be matched with the culture of a school. Bolstered upon decades of interdisciplinary research regarding the relationship between initiatives and contexts I developed a conceptual framework that guided the creation of an implementation tool that seeks to measure the culture of school, focusing specifically on socio-cultural factors that impact implementation i.e. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, School Organization, Leadership, Trust, Willingness to Change, Disposition, Human Capital, Orientation to Innovation, and Race Consciousness. This dissertation aimed to test the efficacy of the conceptual framework as well as the practicality and utility of the accompanying assessment. My scholarship answers calls put forth by researchers and is founded upon three well known, simple, and interrelated premises outlined below. 1. Successful policy outcomes are predicated upon successful implementation: a. Though, successful implementation doesn’t necessarily lead to positive program outcomes. Successful programmatic results are always predicated upon quality implementation (Blasé et al., 2015; Durak & Dupre, 2008; Goggin, 1986). 2. Organizational characteristics impact implementation behaviors and outcomes a. Scholars have focused on the organizational characteristics that inform principal leadership (Hallinger et al., 1996) and programmatic outcomes (Durak & Dupre, 2008). Kallestad &Olwes 2003 found that “teachers perception of the problem, sense of self-efficacy, school climate, and leadership” impacted the implementation of anti-bullying reform. Durak and Dupre (2008) argued that there were 11 critical implementation factors, “funding, a positive work climate, 218 shared decision making, coordination with other agencies, formulation of tasks, leadership, program champions, administrative support, providers’ skill proficiency, training and technical assistance (p.390)” Mazmanian & Sabatier (1981) found 46 organization conditions for successful implementation. 3. Policies are top-down mandates a. Programs are often developed by actors outside of individual school organizations (Elmore, 1980). While initiatives may be evidence-based and intellectually rigorous, that does not inherently mean that all organizations have the capability to enact them with fidelity (Finnan, 2000). The creation of the Moralization Assessment reflects the Quality Implementation Framework put forth by Meyers et al., (2012), who assert that all quality implementation begins with a needs/ fit assessment. The scholarship of the aforementioned authors asserts similar to Finnan (2000), that programs must be matched to the organizational climate charged with their enactment. The Moralization Matrix is both a school-level social tool and implementation strategy. The purpose of which is to understand and account for the needs of an environment prior to implementation. There are three clear outcomes of this endeavor. First, the Moralization Matrix, holds the potential of positively impacting the process of implementation by testing and working with the context of a school to create implementation plans that account for the trends, beliefs, etc. of school personnel. Secondly, the Moralization Matrix may be used preemptively to evaluate programs for their cultural match to a given school organization prior to implementation. Lastly, school leaders could leverage the results of the Moralization Matrix assessment to alter and amend their leadership approaches, in general, especially as it pertains to enacting change. 219 This study represents a first step, to what can become a body of work, regarding measuring school level context, implementation capacity, and school reform. As mentioned, additional testing of the Moralization Matrix Conceptual Framework and Assessment is needed. Future studies may seek to create a moralization continuum of schools that elucidates upon staff dynamics across the three constructs and nine elements of the Moralization Matrix. This continuum may allow school leaders to see themselves and their school communities reflected in research, beyond sterile and reductive descriptors such as “urban” or descriptions of student and local demographics. Additional data collection will also allow for the survey instrument to be statistically validated. Increasingly, interventions and programs are developed and introduced to urban schools. This research advocates for a new approach to school improvement that includes a means for a school’s culture and social capacity to implement policies effectively be accounted for, and contended with, prior to the implementation of programs. Additionally, it is hoped that this research will contribute an understanding of how diverging perspectives impact the daily reality and implementation capacity of schools. Ideally, school leaders could use the tool to carefully approach school improvement and reform efforts. 220 REFERENCES 221 REFERENCES Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. (2006). (In)Fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review , 76 (1), 30-63. Aladjem, D. K., & Borman, K. M. (2006). An introduction to comprehensive school reform. In D. K. Aladjem, & K. M. Borman, Examining Comprehensive School Reform (pp. 1-10). Washington DC: The Urban Institute Press. Alcoff, L. (1988). Cultural feminism versus post-stucturalism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs , 13 (3), 405-436. Altrichter, H., & Holly, M. (2005). Research diaries. In B. Somekh, & C. Lewin, Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 24-32). London: Sage Publishing. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design- based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher , 41 (1), 16-25. Baier, V. E., March, J. G., & Saetren, H. (1986, May). Implementation and ambiguity. Journal of Managment Studies , 197-212. Bardach, E. (2012). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (Fourth ed.). Los Angelies: Sage. Bean, R. M., Dole, J. A., Nelson, K. L., Belcastro, E. G., & Zigmond, N. (2014). The sustainability of a national reading reform initiative in two states. Reading & Writing Quarterly , 31 (1), 30-55. Berman, P. (1978, January). The study of macro and micro implementation of social policy. The Rand Paper Series , 1-52. Berman, P., & McLauglin, M. (1974). Federal progams supporting educational change: A model of educational change. Volume 1. Rand Corp. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation. Blase, K. A., Fixsen, D. L., Sims, B. J., & Ward, C. S. (2015). Implentation science: Changing hearts, minds, behavior, and systems to improve educational outcomes. National Implmentation Research Network, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. University of North Carolin. Borko, H., Wolf, S. A., Simone, G., & Pippin Uchiyama, K. (2003). Schools in transition: Reform efforts and school capacity in Washington State. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 25 (2), 171-201. 222 Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research , 73 (2), 125- 230. Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A. C., Chamberlain, A. M., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2006). School-level factors in comprehensive school reform. In D. K. Aladjem, & K. M. Borman, Examining Comprehensive School Reform (pp. 219-246). Washington, D.C: The Urban Institute Press. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. Bryk, A. S., Bender Sebring, P., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bryk, A., Gomez, L., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In M. Hallinan, Frontiers in Sociology of Education. Springer Publishing. Bui, S. A., Craif, S. G., & Imberman, S. A. (2014). Is gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on Students. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , 6 (3), 30-62. Burke, M. A., & Sass, T. R. (2006). Classroom peer effects and student achievement. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Carlson, D., Cowen, J. M., & Fleming, D. J. (2013). Life after vouchers: What happens to students who leave private schools for traditional public sector. Educational Evaluation , 35 (2), 179-199. Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2003). Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and selective college admissions. The Century Foundation. New York: The Century Foundation. Carrell, S. E., Fullerton, R. L., & West, J. E. (2009). Does your cohort matter? Measuring peer effects in college achievement. Journal of Labor Economics , 27 (3), 439-464. Chapman, T. K., & Donnor, J. K. (2015). Critical race theory and the proliferation of U.S. charter schools. Equity and Excellence in Education , 48 (1), 137-157. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. N. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review , 104 (9), 2633-2679. Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educatinal Research Journal , 43, 343-379. 223 Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 12 (3), 311-329. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Gradute School of Education. Cohen, J., Mccabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record , 111 (1), 180-213. Coleman, J. S. (1966\). Equality of educational opportunity. US Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing student's perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher , 31 (4), 3-14. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do. Educational Leadership , 60 (8), 6-13. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan , 76 (8), 597-604. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Conchas, G. Q. (2001). How context mediates policy: The implementation of single gender public schooling in California. Teachers College Record , 103 (2), 184-206. Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 30 (3), 418-446. Dery, D. (2000). Agenda setting and problem definition. Policy Studies , 21 (1), 37-47. Donaldson, M. L. (2013). Principals' approaches to cultivating teacher effectiveness: Constraints and opportunities in hiring, assessing, evaluating, and developing teachers. Education Administration Quarterly , 49 (5), 838-882. Dumas, M. J., & Anderson, G. (2014). Qualitative research as policy knowledge: Framing policy problems and transforming education from the ground up. Edcuation Policy Analysis Archives , 22 (11), 1-24. Durlak, J., & Dupre, E. (2008). Implemeation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology , 41, 32-350. Elmore, R. (1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly , 94 (4), 601-616. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review , 66 (1), 1-27. 224 Finnan, C. (2000, April). Implementing school reform models: Why is it so hard for some schools and easy for others. New Orleans, LA, USA. Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Naoom, S., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice , 19 (5), 531-540. Flyvberg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th Edition ed., pp. 301-316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Watson, R. E. (2011, July). The AbLe Change Framework: A conceptual and methodological tool or promoting systems change. American Journal of Community Psychology , 1-14. Foster-Fishman, P. G., Cantillon, D., Pierce, S. J., & Van Egeren, L. A. (2007). Building an active citizenry: The role of neighborhood problems, readiness, and capacity for change. American Journal of Community Psychology , 39, 91-106. Fullan, M. (1994). Change forces: probing the depths of educational reform, school development and the management of change. London: The Farmer Press. Gamoran, A., & Dreeben, R. (1986). Coupling and control in educational organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly , 31 (4), 612-632. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz, The interpretation of cultures (pp. 38-52). Basic Books, inc, publishers. George, A. L., & Bennet, A. (2004). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. George, M. P., White, G. P., & Schlaffer, J. J. (2007). Implementing school-wide behavior change: Lessons from the field. Psychology in Schools , 44 (1), 41-51. Gillborn, D. (2005). Eduation policy as an act of white supremacy: whiteness, critical race theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy , 20 (4), 485-505. Goggin, M. L. (1986). The "too few cases/too many variables" problem in implementation research. The Western Political Quarterly , 39 (2), 328-347. Goldbart, J., & Hustler, D. (2005). Ethnography. In B. Somekh, & C. Lewin, Rsearch Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 16-23). London: Sage Publishing. Grant, C., & Gibson, M. (2011). Diversity and teacher education: A historical perspective on research and policy. In A. F. Ball, & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Studying Diversity in Teacher Education (pp. 19-62). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, inc. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systemic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly , 82 (4), 581-629. 225 Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly , 32 (1), 5-44. Hanushek, E. A. (2006). School resources and achievement in Maryland. University of Rochester. Hanushek, E. A. (2003, February). The failure of input- based schooling policies. The Economic journal . Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading. Educational Management Administration and Leadership , 32 (1), 11-24. Henig, J. R., Hula, R. C., Orr, M., & Pedescleaux, D. S. (1999). The color of school reform: Race, politics, and the challenge of urban education. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy in not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal , 38 (2), 289-318. Honig, M. L. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 28 (4), 357-383. Horng, E., & Loeb, S. (2010, November). New thinking about instructional leadership. Kappan Magazine , 92 (3) , 66-69. Imberman, S. A. (2011). Achievement and behavior in charter schools: Drawing a more complete picture. The Review of Economics and Statistics , 93 (2), 416-435. Jacob, B. A. (2002). Accountability, incentives, and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago public schools. NBER Working Paper Seriences , 1-71. Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions. A review. 220-237. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd edition ed.). Addison- Wesley Educational Publishers Inc. Ledesma, M. C. (2013). Revisiting Grutter and Gratz in the wake of Fisher: Looking back to move forward. Equity and Excellence in Education , 46 (2), 220-235. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2009). A review of empirical evidence about school size effects: A policy perspective. Review of Educational Research , 79 (1), 464-490. Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin , 126 (2), 309- 337. 226 Levy, J. S. (2008). Case studies: types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science , 25, 1-18. Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the city. New York: Routeldedge. Lipsky, M. (1971, June). Street-level bureaucracy and the analysis of urban reform. Urban Affairs Quarterly , 391-409. Loevinger, J. (1965). Person and population as psychometric concepts. Psychological Review, 72 (2), 143-155. Macneil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in educacation , 12 (1), 73-84. Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly , 39 (3), 370-397. Mason, J. (2017). Qualitative researching (2nd Edition ed.). Sage Publications. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizeing the implemenation literature: The ambiguity- conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc , 5 (1), 145-174. May, C., & Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An outline of normalization process theory. Sociology , 43 (3), 535-554. Mayrowetz, D. (2009). Instructional practice in the context of converging policies: Teaching mathematics in inclusive elementary classrooms in the standards reform era. Educational Policy , 23 (4), 554-588. McDonald, J. P. (2014). American school reform. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Mcdonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 9 (2), 133-152. Meyers, D. C., Durak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012, May). The quality implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology . Michie, S., Fixsen, D., Grimshaw, J., & Eccles, M. (2009). Specifiying and reporting complex behaviour change interentions: the need for a scientific method. Implementation Science , 4 (40), 1-6. Mirra, N., & Rogers, J. (2016). The overwhelming need: How the unequal poltical economy shapes urban teachers' working conditions. Urban Education , 1-31. 227 Noguera, P. A., & Yonemura WIng, J. (2006). Unfinished business: Closing the racial achievement gap in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Odden, A. R. (1991). New Patterns of Education Policy Implementation and Challenges for the 1990a. In Allan, Education Policy Implementation (pp. 297-327\). Albany: University of New York Press. Payne, C. M. (2008). So much reform so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. Porter, R. E., Fusarelli, L. D., & Fusarelli, B. C. (2015). Implementing the common core: How educators interpret curriculum reform. Educational Policy , 29 (1), 111-139. Proctor, E. K., Landsverk, J., Aarons, G., Chambers, D., Glisson, C., & Mittman, B. (2009). Implementation research in mental health services: an emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Admistration and Policy in Mental Health , 36 (1), 1-17. Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., et al. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agendas. Admistration and Policy for Mental Health , 38, 65-76. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implication of the effective schools literature. The Elementary School Journaly , 85 (3), 352-389. Reckhow , S., & Weir, M. (2011). Building a stronger regional safety net: Philanthropy's role. Metropolitan Policy Program. Brookings. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data anaylsis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman, & R. G. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing Qualitative Data (pp. 173-194). Routeledge. Ruddin, L. P. (2006). You can generalize stupid! Social scientists, Bent Flyvberg, and case study methodology. Qualitative Inquiry , 12 (4), 797-812. Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom up approaches to implementation research:A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal Public Policy , 6 (1), 21-48. Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. Politcal Science and Politics , 24 (2), 147-156. Sandfort, J., & Moulton, S. (2015). Effective implementation in practice: Integrating public policy and management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, A., & Ingam, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics , 52 (2), 510-529. Schneider, J. (2011). Excellence for all: How a new breed of reformers is transforming America's public schools. Nashville: Vanderbilt Unversity Press. 228 Shaker, P., & Heilman, E. E. (2004). The new common sense of education: advocacy r versus academic authority. Teachers College Record , 106 (7), 1444-1470. esearch Shea, C. M., Jacobs, S. R., Esserman, D. A., Bruce, K., & Welner, B. J. (2014). Organizational readiness for implementing change: a pyschometric assessment of a new measure. Implementation Science , 9 (7), 1-15. Sizemore, B. A. (2008). Walking in circles: The Black struggle for school reform (1st Edition ed.). Chicago, IL, USA: Third World Press. Sofaer, S. (2002). Qualitatitve reserach methods. Internation Journal for Quality in Health Care , 14 (4), 329-336. Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: What district policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 37 (5), 401-425. Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal , 48 (3), 586-619. Stark, S., & Torance, H. (2005). Case study. In B. Somekh, & C. Lewin, Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 33-40). London: Sage Publishing. Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Education Administration Quarterly , 46 (1), 31-56. Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D'Alessandro, A. (2013, April). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research , 1-29. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Reveiw of Educational Research , 70 (4), 547-593. Van hulst, M., & Yanow, D. (2016). From policy "frames" to "framing". The American Review of Public Administration , 44 (1), 92-112. Van Meter, E. J. (1994, September). Implementing school-based decsion making in Kentucky. NASSP Bulletin , 61-70. Vernez, G., & Goldhaber, D. (2006). Implementing Comprehensive School Reform. In D. Aladjem, & K. M. Borman, Examining comprehensive school reform (pp. 179-218). Washington, D.C: The Urban Institute Press. Wahlstrom, K. L., & Seashore Louis, K. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust,efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly , 44 (4), 458-495. 229 Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review , 47 (2), 171-197. Weaver-Hightower, M. B. (2008). An ecology metaphor for educational policy analysis: A call to complexity. Educational Researchers , 37 (3), 153-167. Weiss, J. A. (1989). The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork. Policy Sciences , 22, 97-121. Williams, E. N., & Morrow, S. L. (2009). Achieving trustworthiness in qualitative research: A pan-paradigmatic perspective. Psychotherapy Research , 19 (4-5), 576-582. Witte, J. F., Cowen, J. M., Carlson, D. E., & Flemin, D. J. (2014, June). High-stakes choice: Achievement and accountability in the nation's oldest urban voucher program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 1-20. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (fifth edition ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 230