PLC's, CFA's and DDI, Oh My!

PLC's, CFA's and DDI, Oh My!

There are schools across the country that are struggling to increase student growth and achievement. Many schools here in Colorado and across the country fall into the category of showing high student achievement, but low student growth. At the heart of this issue is teachers using data to inform instruction. In schools with low growth and declining student achievement, why are teachers not using data-driven instructional practices to inform instruction and close skill gaps quicker for students? I call this playing "small ball". You need to know your learners to grow your learners. Identifying skill gaps and intentionally planning to close them accelerates both growth and achievement.

Paul Bambrick-Santoyo (2012, pg. 23) writes, “effective instruction is not about whether we taught it. It’s about whether students learned it.”  Teachers and schools often fall into the trap of asking, “did we teach it” as opposed to “did the students learn it”. Schools must determine whether students have learned what they need. DuFour (2006) address this through the four critical questions collaborative teams use to drive their inquiry and action research.

Those four critical questions are:
1. What do we want students to learn? (essential standards)
2. How will we know if they’ve learned? (common formative assessment)
3. What will we do if they don’t learn? (systemic interventions)
4. What will we do if they already know it? (extended learning)

The inability of teachers and leaders within schools to implement data-driven instructional practices could be a result of their mental models. Mental models are images, representations, or schemes of we perceive and understand the world around us. Mental models are abstractions of reality. Within education, the mental models teachers create can impede their ability to move forward or be fully invested in initiatives or making shifts in their professional practice. Senge (2012, pg. 99) states, “human beings are creatures of interpretation. Our behavior and our attitudes are shaped by our mental models: the images, assumptions, and stories that we carry in our minds of ourselves, other people, institutions, and every aspect of the world”. Reflective practices and inquiry help teachers reform their mental models by surfacing and testing them. These shifts in viewpoint form new mental models that better serve children, school, and community. 

Generally speaking, growth and achievement data from schools struggling to show significant academic achievement and/or student growth show students of color and students who receive free and reduced lunch (FRL) lag behind their counterparts in both growth and student achievement. Lindsey (2008, pg. 74) writes, “We wait until achievement test results show glaring disparities between demographic groups of children and because we assume we have given all students the same opportunities to learn, we arrive at the conclusion that their performance on standardized tests is their fault. We blame them, their parents, their homes, their communities, but we do not blame our blindness to the gaps from the beginning.” To help teachers see those gaps from the beginning, the use of the cultural proficiency inquiry approach and the cultural proficiency rubrics found within Chapter 6 of “Culturally Proficient Inquiry” (2008) may uncover leverage points within assessment such as using disaggregated data to enhance knowledge and shape practice of teachers that improves academic outcomes for children of color and students from lower-socioeconomic status. 

What does the Literature Say?

Faced with increased demands of national educational reforms, such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001), the American Recovery and Reinvest Act (2009), and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), schools have began to utilize data-driven instruction (DDI), professional learning communities (PLC’s), and common formative assessments in attempt to increase student achievement. Studies have shown all can lead to increased student achievement, however, schools have struggled to implement them. Understanding the factors that impact the implementation and function of DDI, PLC’s, and common formative assessment is essential to achieve the results they are intended to achieve. 

Schildkamp and Poortman (2015) found that several factors influence the use of data in teacher teams. They found access to high-quality data, the availability of data from multiple sources, and school leadership to be key factors in teachers using data-driven instructional practices. Their study also noted that poor collaboration amongst teachers impacted the implementation of DDI across teams and schools. Several studies (Copland, 2003; Datnow, 2013; Horn & Little, 2010; Means, 2010; Nelson & Slavit, 2007; Park & Datnow, 2009) show that collaboration is critical for effective data use. Teacher collaboration around the use of data brings focus to conversations and a sense of purpose, helps teachers to learn from each other how to use data, and allows for a fertile exchange of ideas and strategies (Datnow, 2013). Measuring the collaborative school culture using a tool such as Gruenert’s (1998) School Culture Survey enables a school to get a sense of how truly collaborative their school culture is. Beyond teachers working together, schools need an existence of trust and a shared mission and vision to establish a collaborative culture.

Earl and Katz (2002) noted three primary reasons that prevent the implementation of data-driven instruction: timely availability of data, accessibility to data, and teacher understanding of how to use the data for classroom instruction or differentiated instruction. Timelessness is a key problem at the state level, where the results of state assessments such as the Partnership for Assessment Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) become available only after students have moved on to the next grade level or school (Ikemoto & Marsh, 2007). The timelessness issue makes the data-driven analysis and action steps around common formative assessment and common interim assessments such as the Northwest Evaluation Association’s “Measurement of Academic Progress” (MAP) essential to our efforts to increase student achievement and growth for all of our current students. As Schifter, Natarjan, Ketelhut, and Kirchgessner shared (2014), using data to drive instructional decisions in schools is now expected in public education. Mandinach (2012) wrote that teachers must go beyond the numbers to make meaning of them (pg. 73), thus translating data into knowledge to inform instruction. To steal a line from professional baseball, we must play “small ball” in education to win big. Meaning, we must actively and consistently use data-driven instructional practices day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, formative assessment to summative assessment to interim assessment in order to instruct students at their point of academic need to accelerate both growth and achievement. 

Marsh (2012) conducted a study that uncovered numerous common themes regarding the implementation of data-driven instruction. Marsh’s study found the implementation and effectiveness of data-driven instruction is impacted by teacher capacity, leadership, organizational structure, trust, beliefs, and knowledge. Time is a common roadblock when it comes to the successful implementation and overall effectiveness of data-driven instruction. Most notably, the lack of time allocated to educators to analyze data and engage in data-driven discussion and actions (Feldman & Tung, 2001; Ingram, Louis, & Schroeder, 2004). School leaders must develop the systems and structures necessary to assure teachers have the time to develop their capacity and trust of their colleagues. Miles and Frank (2008) asked how schools can best utilize the resources they already have. School leaders and leadership teams must creatively and collaboratively look at existing school systems and schedules in order to purposefully allocate the precious resource of time to improve teacher capacity and academic achievement.

Studies have also shown a lack of adequate skills and knowledge amongst teachers to formulate questions, interpret results, and develop solutions as it relates to data-driven instruction (Feldman & Tung, 2001). Datnow and Hubbard (2015) believe it is essential that teachers receive professional development on assessment and how to translate assessment data into information that can inform instructional planning. It’s at the planning phase where teachers take action, shifting their instructional practice, particularly with a focus on differentiation. Hoover and Abrams (2013) addressed the need for teachers to support the goals of equity and excellence for all students through developing their understanding of accessing, translating, and disaggregating data. Effective school leaders facilitate the delivery of job-embedded, ongoing, coordinated professional learning opportunities that lead to increased student achievement. Secondly, they safeguard community values, ethics, equitable practices, advocate for all children, and display an appreciation for diversity. The work of the school leader is to bridge the divide between data and equity to assure that all students receive a high-quality education that prepares them for college and career.

Similar to data-driven instruction, professional learning communities have received broad support as an ascendant in educational policy and practice (Hargreaves, 2007). Professional learning communities has its roots in studies on professional development (Liebermann, 1998) and organizational learning (Argyris, 2001; Senge, 1990). McLaughin and Talbert (2001) define professional learning communities as consisting of a group of professionals that share common goals and purposes, constantly gaining new knowledge through interaction with one another, and aiming to improve practices. Within a professional learning community learning is embedded in the work, where teachers attain new knowledge, try it out, gain experience and increase their capacity. Learning is at the heart of a professional learning community. High functioning professional learning communities have increased both student achievement and educator effectiveness. However, several factors impede professional learning communities from being implemented with fidelity and from being achieving it’s goals to support student and adult learning.

Siguroardottir (2010) in a study of professional learning communities within schools found a significant relationship between a school’s effectiveness and their level of a professional learning community. The findings of this study found that by improving the professional learning community, schools can improve their overall effectiveness and better support student achievement. Effective professional learning communities have shared values and vision that is focused on student learning. Schools that are absent of establishing shared values and vision have struggled to implement or become effective professional learning communities. 

One of the common factors that impede professional learning communities is the leadership of the school. School principals must provide teachers opportunities to collaborate and must encourage crucial conversations amongst all staff that focus on student outcomes. Great principals foster a constant focus on student achievement, never losing sight of what is most important; the success of all students. Principals lay the foundation for faculty trust by intentionally fostering a culture of collaboration and openness. Trust is believed to be associated with teacher and student performance (Bryk & Scneider, 2002). Louis (2006) believes that faculty is a precondition to developing a professional learning community. A culture of trust within a school positively affects teachers’ attitudes, efficacy, motivation, and commitment to the overarching goals of the school. Louis (2006) suggested that the developing a professional community, learning organization, and trust should be emphasized in improving a school. School improvement at any level starts with creating a trusting atmosphere. Hausman and Goldring (2001) showed that teachers in well-developed professional learning communities tended to have a stronger commitment to schools than those who had little opportunity to learn within their schools. It is imperative that school leaders foster a belief in trust amongst colleagues is necessary for developing staff professionalism, efficacy, and commitment to students. As DuFour (2007) noted, schools use professional learning communities to increase the capacity to transform and improve. 

This is not possible without the full support of the school leader. John Maxwell (1999) said it best; everything rises and falls on leadership. The words that make up professional learning community are “professional”, “learning” and “community”. The role of the school leader is to bring those words together to around a common mission, vision, and purpose to serve all kids, all staff, all families and all communities by creating sustainable change through collaboration (Teague & Anfara, 2012).

Common formative assessment has become increasingly popular in schools as an instructional strategy to support student mastery of the Common Core State Standards. Greenstein (2013) defines common formative assessment as “a process used by teachers and students during instruction that provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning”. The use of “short cycle” assessments can guide teachers in modifying their instruction and help them to provide descriptive academic feedback to students. Schools that have successfully implemented common formative assessments do so with intentionality, authenticity, purpose, and alignment. Black & William (1998) believe that common formative assessment should provide information about student understanding at a point where student and teacher can act productively on that understanding, rather than demonstrating what students “know and can do” after instruction. However, much like data-driven instruction and professional-learning communities several factors impede the overall implementation and effectiveness of common formative assessments in schools.

Black (2015) found that many teachers struggle to adopt common formative assessment practices in their classrooms because it involves a change in how they relate to their students. He found that teachers need slow and sustained professional development in order to grow confidence and capacity in teachers to utilize common formative assessments. Schofield (2015) saw shortcomings in our teacher preparation programs due to a lack of time and resources to develop prospective teacher understanding of common formative assessment. For common formative assessments, data-driven instruction, or professional learning communities to take an effective hold within our schools, educators have to change. D. Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) suggested there are four domains in any teacher change environment: external source of information or stimulus, personal knowledge, beliefs and attitude, professional experimentation  (of different practices), and salient outcomes in teaching. Their research suggested that any change within any one domain might trigger change in the other domains. It’s imperative that school leaders understand this research and others related to change. 

Too often, school leaders implement an initiative from a “top-down” approach and fail to secure the buy-in necessary to make change initiatives work. The emphasis of school districts across the country is that the principal must be an instructional leader. While important, no amount of instructional knowledge will sustain a school leader if they do not have an understanding of and connection to people. People do not care how much you know until they know how much you care. There is no truer place where this dynamic is on display than within our schools in observing staff working relationships. The days of showing up thirty minutes before the bell, closing your door, teaching all day behind closed doors, and leaving fifteen minutes after the final bell are over. The demands of today’s education landscape require teachers and school leaders to work together towards a common mission and vision in support of all of our students.

We Must Work Together

The stakes are extremely high, not just for educators and school leaders, but most importantly for all of our kids. High-stakes accountability shows no signs of vanishing from the education landscape. Regardless of state and national reform measures, we must do our part to assure that every child has the opportunity to succeed within our schools. McLean (1995) supports this position, stating that a high-quality data-collection program is more likely to improve instruction than any other innovation. The teacher is the closest we come as school leaders to the client. Teachers are essential to the success of our students, our schools, our community, and our nation. We must do all we can to support their growth and development and develop a culture where relationships are trusting, enlarging, always focused on students. 

Teachers and principals must work together. Schmidt-Davis & Bottoms (2011) shared that neither teachers alone nor principals alone can improve schools. Principals must plan and lead for collaboration and shared decision making with teachers and other staff members. Louis (2010) found that leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school. Effective principals establish mutually agreed upon directions for their schools and strategically plan to support people to move in those directions. Wahlstrom, Louis, Leithwood, & Anderson (2010) wrote, “leadership effects on student learning occur largely because leadership strengthens the professional community; and teachers engagement in that community fosters the use of instructional practices that are associated with student achievement. Principals must manage people, data, and processes to foster school improvement (Wallace Foundation, 2011). The school principal must provide the cultural foundation for teachers to engage and participate in a data-driven culture. Simply, we cannot expect teachers to collaborate with one another if the culture the principal has set within the school doesn’t support it.

Schools will only fulfill their mission and vision for learning when the adults learn how to work better together. Teachers and principals must work together and use language that helps create bridges rather than burn them. This collaborative work must begin by creating a more inclusive environment where people feel they are safe to agree or disagree with a process and how to best move the school forward. 

It will be difficult for any theory of action related to teacher training necessary to shift instructional practice to occur and improvements in student achievement to occur if the school’s culture doesn’t support the work. Within a collaborative school culture, teacher development is fostered from interdependence to one another and by a commitment to shared values. Support, trust, openness, collective reflection and collective reflection are the centerpiece of a collaborative culture. 

Author John C. Maxwell once said, “a leader is one that knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way”. If a school is to become a truly collaborative culture where teachers have student-centered conversations that utilize data to inform instruction, where teachers work collaboratively within a professional learning community to improve practice and outcomes for all students; then the school leader must know the way, go the way, and show the way for this outcome to occur for all members of the school community. Everything rises and falls on leadership (John Maxwell, 1999). 

Assuring the success of every child is a key responsibility of the school principal. Culturally proficient principals advocate for equitable practices and use data to understand student needs. As leaders, they find ways to meet the needs of all students, paying close attention to linguistically and culturally diverse students. This must occur even in schools with small amounts of linguistically and culturally diverse students. It’s the job of the school principal to lead for an environment where every child is valued and their success matters to every adult within the school community. Culturally proficient schools foster an environment where all learners can do their best thinking and learning. For this promise to become practice, schools need strong leadership from principals. In the absence of leadership from the school principal, schools often struggle to meet the needs of not just diverse students, but all of all students. Whether it’s data-driven instruction, the establishment and function of professional learning communities, the use of common formative assessments, or being a culturally proficient school; it’s the role of the school principal to lead for effective instructional and culturally proficient practices through the development of systems and people in order to fulfill the mission that every child succeeds within our schools. 

Research implies that the school leader must develop the school culture, systems, and structures necessary for data-driven instructional practices to take hold within a school. Schools need a clear and internalized shared mission, vision, collective commitments and goals that put the learning of all students at the core. With the absence of shared understanding and commitment, a school will struggle to implement collaborative instructional practices that improve student outcomes. 

Within schools that have an established and understood collaborative culture the staff makes commitments to each other regarding how the adults in the building behave in order to achieve the shared vision. School leaders must articulate long-term priorities, short-term targets, and timelines for achieving those targets through collaborating with staff on the development and implementation of the Unified Improvement Plan and school goals. Without laying these foundational components within the development of a school culture, schools will fail to implement collaborative instructional practices such as data-driven instruction, professional learning communities, and common formative assessment. 

Systemically, the school leader must develop and implement systemic structures, including creating a schedule that provides teams with time to collaborate within the school day to ensure that collaborative teams are able to develop and implement instructional strategies that improve student outcomes. Effective school leaders strategically allocate time, money, materials, people, and resources to reflect collaborative priorities. The lack of systems and structures, particularly around providing teams with professional development aligned to goals stated within the Unified Improvement Plan and the instructional needs of the collective staff can hamper the ability of school staff to collaborate and implement data-driven instructional practices.

Secondly, within collaborative team structures collaborative meetings should be minimally facilitated by the principal and ran effectively and efficiently by teachers. In observation over my career, the presence of the school leader within the professional learning community meetings can stagnate the grade level team to work interdependently to achieve it's goals. The role of the school leader must be to lay the foundation for collaborative work to occur, not to attempt to be the foundation upon which collaborative work is built. 
Former University of Minnesota-Duluth football coach Bob Nielsen, two-time national championship winning head coach once said, “you go into a job to make a difference, not to be the difference”. Effective school leaders heed Coach Nielsen’s words and know their role is to serve others, not for others to serve them. Together, everyone accomplishes more.

References

Argyris, C. (2001). Preface. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 56-57.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5. (2009). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ5/html/PLAW-111publ5.htm

Bambrick-Santoyo, Paul, (2010). Driven By Data: a practical guide to improve instruction. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass

Bambrick-Santoyo, Paul, (2012). Leverage Leadership: a practical guide to building exceptional schools. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass

Black, P. (2015). Formative assessment: an optimistic but incomplete vision. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice 22(1), 161-177.

Black, P. & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.

Bryk, A.S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Clarke, D. & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education (18), 947-967.

Copland, M.A. (2003). The Bay Area school collaborative: Building the capacity to lead. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reform. (pp. 159-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Datnow, A. & Hubbard, L. (2015). Teachers’ Use of Assessment Data to Inform Instruction: Lessons from the Past and Prospects for the Future. Teachers College Record 117(4), 1-26.

Datnow, A. Park, V. & Kennedy Lewis, B. (2013). Affordances and constraints in the context of teacher collaboration for the purpose of data use. Journal of Education Administration. 51(3), 341-362.

DuFour, R. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, Ind: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R. (2007). Professional Learning communities: A bandwagon, an idea worth considering, or our best hope for high levels of learning? Middle School Journal 39(1), 4-8.

Earl, L. & Katz, S. (2002). Leading schools in a data-rich world. Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. (pp. 1003-1022). Dordrecht, Netherlands. Kluwer Academics.

Feldman, J. & Tung, R. (2001, April). Whole scale school reform: How schools use the data-based inquiry and decision making process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Seattle, WA.

Greenstein, L. (2013). Formative Assessment and the Common Core: Blending the Best in Assessment. Voices from the Middle 21(2), 36-42.

Gruenert, S. (1998). Development of a school culture survey. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

Hausman, C.S., & Goldring, E.B. (2001). Sustaining teacher commitment: the role of professional communities. Peabody Journal of Education (76), 30-51.

Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth, and dilemmas (pp. 181-195). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Heifetz, R.A., Linsky, M. & Glashow, A. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership. Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Horne, I.S. & Little, J.W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181-217.

Hoover, N.R. & Abrams, L.M. (2013). Teachers’ instructional use of summative student assessment data. Applied Measurement In Education, 26, 219-231.

Ikemoto, G.S. & Marsh, J.A. (2007). Cutting through the “data-drive” mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision-making. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 105-131.

Ingram, D., K.S., & Schroeder, R.G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106, 1258-1287.

Lindsey, R. B. (2008). Culturally proficient inquiry: A lens for identifying and examining educational gaps. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lipton, L. & Wellman, B. (2003). Mentoring matters: A practical guide to learning-focused relationships. Sherman, CT: MiraVia LLC.

Louis, K.S. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: professional community, organizational learning, and trust. Journal of School Leadership (16), 477-487.

Louis, K.S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K, & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. Retrieved from Wallace Foundation website: www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school- leadership/key-research/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to- Improved-Student-Learning.pdf

Mandinach, E.B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 71-85.

Marsh, J.A. (2012). Interventions Promoting Educators’ Use of Data: Research Insights and Gaps. Teacher College Record (114).

Maxwell, J. C. (1999). The 21 indispensable qualities of a leader: Becoming the person that people will want to follow. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.

McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press.

McLean, J.E. (1995). Improving Education through Action Research: A Guide for Administrators and Teachers. Corwin Press, Inc., Oaks, CA

Means, B. (2010) Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.

Miles, K.H. and Frank, S. (2008). The strategic school. Making the most of people, time, and money. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Nelson, T.H., & Slavit, D. (2007). Collaborative inquiry among science and mathematics teachers in the USA: Professional learning experiences through cross-grade, cross-discipline dialogue. Professional Development in Education. 33(1), 23-39.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. Law No. 107-110 (2001). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ110/html/PLAW-107publ110.htm

Park, V. & Datnow, A. (2009). Co-constructing for distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision making. School Leadership and Management, 29(5), 477-494.

Schifer, C.C., Natarajan, U., Ketelhut, D.J., & Kirchgessner, M. (2014). Data-driven decision-making: Facilitating teacher use of student data to inform classroom instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education 14(4), 419-432.

Schildkamp, K. & Poortman, C. (2015). Factors influencing the functioning of data teams. Teachers College Record, 117(4), 3-10.

Schmidt-Davis, J. & Bottoms, G. (2011). Who’s next? Let’s stop gambling on school performance and plan for principal succession. Retrieved from Southern Regional Education Board website: http:// publications.sreb.org/2011/11V19_Principal_Succession_Planning.pdf

Schoenfeld, A.H. (2015). Summative and Formative Assessments in Mathematics Supporting the Goals of the Common Core Standards. Theory Into Practice 54(3), 183-194.

Senge, P. M. (2000). Schools that learn: A Fifth Discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education (1st Currency pbk. ed.). New York: Doubleday.

Siguroardottir, A.K. (2010). Professional Learning community in Relation To School Effectiveness. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(5), 395-412.

Teague, G.M. & Anfara, V.A. (2012). Professional learning communities create sustainable change through collaboration. Middle School Journal, 44(2), 58-64.

Wahlstrom, K., Louis, K.S., Leithwood, K., & Anderson, S.E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Executive summary of research findings. Retrieved from Wallace Foundation website: www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge -center/school-leadership/key-research/Documents/Investigating -the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning-Executive-Summary.pdf

Wallace Foundation. (2011). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school -leadership/effective-principal-leadership/Documents/The-School -Principal-as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and -Learning.pdf