Assignment: Expert in the Field: Addressing Gaps in Practice

  

For this Assignment, you will select a gap identified in Module 2 with RtI, PBIS, or MTSS. Referencing the

Learning Resources

and research conducted on each state, support your rationale as to why addressing this gap will improve services for diverse learners and enhance professional practice.

To prepare

· Review the module Learning Resources. Pay attention to any gaps identified within the field of special education as it relates to improving services for students with diverse needs.

· Select a gap identified in the research from Module 2 relating to RtI, PBIS, or MTSS.

· Listen to Dr. Research discuss gaps between research and practice in relation to school-wide interventions. Reflect on all you have learned through this course and compare the research to your current cite. What types of school-wide interventions are being implemented with fidelity? What did you find in research that you don’t see being implemented in the field?

A 3- to 5-page draft addressing a gap that you identified in the research that interests you. Include the following sections:

Section 1: Problem Statement

Provide a 1- to 2-paragraph statement that is the result of a review of current literature and practice that contains the following information:

· A logical argument for the need to address an identified gap between research and special education practice. Make sure to clarify why you believe that this is a problem of practice in special education.

Preliminary evidence that provides justification that this problem is meaningful. Evidence should include a minimum of three to five key citations that support the relevance and currency of the problem. Note: These references need not all be from peer-reviewed journals but should be from reputable sources, such as national agency databases or scholarly books, and they should ideally be current, i.e., from the past 5 years.

Section 2: Significance

Provide one or two paragraphs informed by the topic outlined in the problem statement that explains the following:

· How this study will contribute to filling the gap in special education practice identified in the problem statement.

· What original contribution will this study make to the field of Special Education?

How this research will support professional practice or allow practical application, i.e., answer the “So what?” question.

Section 3: Questions

List the questions or a series of related questions that are informed by the purpose, which will lead to the development of what needs to be done to research the identified gap in practice. A research question informs the research design by providing a foundation for:

· Generation of hypotheses in quantitative studies,

· Questions necessary to build the design structure for qualitative studies, and

· A process by which different methods will work together in mixed-method studies.

  

Section 4: Nature of the Study

Using one of the following terms as a subheading, provide a concise paragraph that discusses the approach that will be used to address the research questions(s) and how this approach aligns with the problem statement. The subheadings and examples of study designs are as follows:

· Quantitative – for experimental, quasi-experimental, or non-experimental designs, treatment-control, repeated measures, causal-comparative, single-subject, predictive studies, or other quantitative approaches;

· Qualitative – for ethnography, case study, grounded theory, narrative inquiry, phenomenological research, policy analysis, or other qualitative traditions;

· Mixed methods, primarily qualitative – for sequential, concurrent or transformative studies, with the main focus on qualitative methods, and single subject.

Section 5: Social Change

Consider the relationship between the identified problem of practice and social change. In 2 or 3 paragraphs describe:

· 

How the claim aligns with the problem statement to reflect the potential relevance in this study to society: How might the potential findings lead to positive social change for students with exceptionalities?

Then, give your perspective. Craft a Research Promise to Students with Exceptionalities. Take the researcher’s perspective as you craft this “promise.”

Example: As I move through my program, I promise to seek the highest and deepest levels of scholarship in order to bring about meaningful social change for students with exceptionalities. As a part of this promise, I will: list two to three ways in which you will pursue and fulfill this promise.

Section 6: References

On a separate page, cite the text, articles, and other current peer-reviewed research in support of your position. Be specific and provide examples. 

Remember to use APA format in completing this Assignment.

For this Assignment and all others in this course and throughout the program, you will be expected to use APA style (7th ed.). Use the Walden Writing Center as a resource for completing Assignments.

Learning Resources

Brown-Chidsey, R. & Bickford, R. (2016). Practical handbook of multi-tiered systems of support: Building academic and behavioral success in schools. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

• Chapter 6, “The Essential      Role of Teams in Supporting All Students” (pp. 51–60)
• Chapter 7, “The Logistics of      Setting Up and Running Effective School Teams” (61–70)
• Chapter 17, “Treatment Integrity” (pp.      169–175)

McIntosh, K. & Goodman, S. (2016a). Conclusion. In Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and PBIS (pp. 325-332). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Nelson, J. R., Oliver, R. M., Hebert, M. A., & Bohaty, J. (2015). Use of Self-Monitoring to Maintain Program Fidelity of Multi-Tiered Interventions. Remedial and Special Education, 36(1), 14-19.

Moolenaar, N.M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovation climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623-670.

O’Connor, P., & Witter Freeman, E. (2012). District-level considerations in supporting and sustaining RtI implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 297-310.

Whitelock, S. (2010). It’s not your grandmother’s school: Leadership decisions in RtI. Communique, 38(5), 26-27.

The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2008). Response to intervention: Possibilities for service delivery at the secondary school level. The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement Newsletter. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502906

Colorado Department of Education Implementation Rubrics

Colorado Department of Education. (n.d.-b). RtI implementation rubric: District level. Retrieved July 5, 2016, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/rti/downloads/pdf/rubrics_district

RtI Implementation Rubric: District level. Reprinted by permission of Colorado Department of Education.

Colorado Department of Education. (n.d.-c). RtI Implementation rubric: School level. Retrieved July 10, 2016, from https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/rti/downloads/pdf/rubrics_school

Fidelity of Implementation Tools: School-Level Rubric. Reprinted by permission of Colorado Department of Education.

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2012b). RtI meeting: High school [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 13 minutes.

Accessible player  –Downloads– Download Video w/CC Download Audio Download Transcript 

‘ ” ‘ ‘

0 7

0
�

: ,.
�111(…{)1
/ ,/ //,,/,,::/Jill

LOOKING BACK,
LOOKING FORWARD

325

Conclusion

As you’ve no doubt experienced, academic and behavior supports are most often implemented

in parallel systems that typically work independently of each other. We have shown that aca­

demic RTI and PBIS can be integrated and that doing so can optimize systems and improve

student outcomes. However, we do not want to simply force full integration without considering

whether it will produce better outcomes than parallel systems. Instead, we believe that the best

outcomes can be achieved by strategically considering what to integrate and how best to do it,

based on each school and district’s unique context. This viewpoint has been strengthened for us

over the course of writing this book. This final chapter summarizes lessons we’ve learned along

the way and what lies ahead for integration in the future.

KEY LESSONS IN INTEGRATING SYSTEMS

We have focused on identifying the key features of integrated MTSS models and their efficient

and effective implementation, while understanding that variations are needed depending on

priorities, resources, and local capacity. There are many excellent resources that describe aca­

demic RTI and PBIS separately. At every turn, we have pushed each other to go beyond simply

describing both systems in the same book and calling that integration. Instead, we have tried

to explore what true integration really means and what that would look like from the individual

student level to the district level. In the process of getting it all down on paper, six key lessons

that we have learned about integrated MTS S models have become clear.

Lesson 1: Integrate Strategically

The first lesson is the notion that an integrated approach is best accomplished strategically.

Although maintaining parallel systems is less efficient and can add to conflict and confusion

about priorities and responsibilities, we need to make sure that integration adds real value. In

327

328 LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD

theory, full integration improves effectiveness, efficiency, and ease of use, but we can’t afford

to add more complexity to educational systems that are already stressed. Strategic integration

is thus a viable middle road between parallel systems and full integration. In strategic integra­

tion, we look for the easiest and most logical aspects to integrate before taking on more painful

change. In our experience, it is easier to start by integrating systems at Tiers 2 and 3 than at Tier

1. Because of the importance of considering individual needs of the whole child when planning

support, we do better when we have the same team looking at both types of data, with more

options for intervention. Using this planful, sequential, and systematic approach can avoid an

undue burden on teachers and educational systems.

Lesson 2: Function Is More Important Than Form

As we have discussed in the case study chapters, schools and districts implement integrated

MTSS models in different ways. In our experience, it is more important to focus on implement­

ing critical features and addressing key functions than trying to replicate the exact form of these

examples. The case studies illustrate a wide range of how different districts and states integrate

systems, and each study is based on its particular context, including policy, priority, and capac­

ity. We acknowledge and have come to appreciate that integration takes place in different forms.

Instead of stipulating one way to do it, it is probably better to identify how the various elements

described in this book could fit with the local school or district context and then be open to the

shape that develops.

Lesson 3: Lead with a Team

We have learned that any initiative is better supported by a team working as a unit than by a sin­

gle, motivated leader or a group of individuals working separately. The number and makeup of

teams will vary from school to school and district to district, but the critical features underlying

integrated MTSS models are the use of teams and effective teaming processes. It is unreason­

able and unfair to rely on teachers’ heroic individual performances every single day. Although

the bottom line of education is to provide the individual student with high-quality instruction

by the educator, we know that this outcome is more attainable and sustainable through a collab­

orative schoolwide approach guided by school leadership teams, which are supported in their

implementation by district teams.

Lesson 4: Focus on Doing a Few Things Well

An important lesson is that we should not only choose the most effective practices, but also cre­

ate the systems needed to support implementation of the practices with fidelity. Whenever we

choose to implement a practice, we should do it with as much commitment to ensuring fidelity

as possible. With current levels of educational funding, we do not have the resources to imple­

ment every good idea or everything that that we would like to do. This acknowledgment means

that we are better off implementing fewer initiatives well than more initiatives poorly. It also

highlights the importance of increasing the support provided to educators, embedding MTSS
into existing structures and key initiatives, and removing barriers to implementation.

Conclusion 32

Lesson 5: Integration Is Hard Work

Integration has at least a few things going for it. Both academic RTI and PBIS share common

features that make them easier to integrate (e.g., team approach, focus on effective instructional

practices, data-based decision making). In addition, for most schools, integration will be viewed

as building on previous successes. However, all change is difficult, even when we know that

this change will lead to improvement in outcomes we value. There are so many tasks competing

for our time, focus, and energy. Integration requires new learning and negotiating new roles in

collaboration. There is always resistance to doing things differently, as well as turf wars when

budgets are merged. At times, we may need to seek support from administrators with the level

of authority to force us to work together for the benefit of students. At times, it may seem easier

to go back to the status quo of having separate systems. George Batsche uses the analogy that

an integrated MTSS model is like a blended family: At the end of the day, somebody’s couch is
going to end up on the curb. Any change is hard, but it is even more difficult to give up or share

ownership of systems that have produced such great student outcomes. It is important not to

gloss over this very real challenge to integration.

Lesson 6: Integration Is Worth the Effort

Given the hard work involved in integration, it is easy to overlook what is gained from it. Yet

there are so many advantages to taking on the challenge. An integrated MTSS model holds

amazing promise for improving student outcomes and developing more efficient, effective, and

sustainable systems. As we discussed in Chapter 2, research supports the effectiveness of an

integrated MTSS approach over parallel systems. If we return to George Batsche’s metaphor of a

blended family, when we integrate, we might lose a couch but gain a nice big-screen TV. During

times of uncertainty about integration, we need to help people focus on what is gained rather

than only on what could be lost in the process.

WHAT WE STILL NEED TO KNOW

Although we’ve learned much about an integrated approach over the past few years, this under­

standing is still emerging, and we all still need to know more about refining the process and

implementation roles for key individuals, such as teachers and administrators. Many more ques­

tions remain. As we’ve described, integrated models have considerable promise, and they will

have even more potential once the following important questions are answered.

Data

We probably know more about the collection and use of data than we know about any other

feature of an integrated MTSS model. There are established tools for assessing student out­

comes and fidelity of implementation across domains and content areas, and the analysis pro­

cess and decision rules generalize fairly well. In addition, it is clear that having integrated

data warehouses to store and access the different data sources would be incredibly helpful for

teams. However, there are many obstacles to making this vision a reality. Data systems are typi­

330 LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD

cally created to collect, store, and summarize specific sources of data; however, they are often
incompatible with other data systems. These systems do not typically interact effectively with
one another. Moreover, technologies for making data systems compatible across systems and
third-party vendors (i.e., technology companies) are always shifting, and thus there is currently
no standard for integration. In some cases, there is a disincentive for vendors to allow integra­
tion because of the cost of updating software code, as well as their interest in marketing their
own products. We need to learn how to encourage a concerted effort from districts and states to
demand that vendors allow and facilitate integration across different data systems.

Practices

When discussing integrated MTSS models, it is fairly easy to consider behavior and literacy
together in the elementary grades, but straying too far from these content areas and age groups
(particularly in academics) highlights how much we need to know about effective interven­
tions across the spectrum of domains and school types. Although the same principles of effec­
tive instruction apply, it appears that there are enough differences between literacy and other
content areas that we need to vary our practices. However, we can build on our experiences
implementing systems in literacy and behavior to help us when we implement in less familiar
ground. Yet moving from elementary to middle and high schools presents challenges to our
fundamental ideas about prevention and what interventions are feasible in complex systems
(Flannery, Sugai, & Anderson, 2009; Vaughn et al., 2010). We need to know more about what
adaptations are needed to implement RTI systems with adolescents. The organizational struc­
tures and the focus of high schools on content-rich courses require more attention to building
an array of effective practices geared to secondary students.

Teaming

Along with other researchers and practitioners, we note that a team approach is absolutely
essential for implementing any kind of educational systems change. We also recommend that
schools and districts take advantage of existing teaming structures instead of creating new teams
solely for the purpose of implementing integrated MTSS. However, there are times when add­
ing too many items to one team’s agenda prevents the team from addressing any item fully. Can
a school leadership team that works effectively on Tier ! literacy also add behavior support and
still function well? What about adding mathematics? Written expression? Tier 2? Tier 3? We
don’t have the evidence base to tell us the perfect configuration or the right balance between
effectiveness and efficiency. Future research in integrated MTSS models may not identify one
optimal teaming structure for every school (or even most schools), but hopefully at least some
empirical guidance will emerge.

Integration

A great deal of time and effort go into the process of implementing integrated MTSS models.
We can.suggest how to begin this process based on our own experiences, but these suggestions
represent our best guess, without research indicating the most empirically supported approach.
Is it best to invest in an individual domain first before integration? If so, is it better to start with

331 Conclusion

behavior or academics? Or do we invest in an integrated MTSS model from the start rather than

building on successes from individual systems? These are large questions that need large-scale

research to answer. However, we may very well find that each answer depends on the context.
In many cases, thoughtful teams can make wise decisions about the particulars of integration

when they have the right data.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INTEGRATED MTSS MODELS

As this work on integration is emerging, it will become increasingly important to expand the

general concept of integration beyond literacy and behavior, furthering the work into numeracy,
writing, and content-area instruction. We feel that the future will include work in both integra­

tion and alignment in areas that cut across special and general education systems in education
and other fields. By integration, we mean that each system’s actual components are blended to

create a functional single system. By alignment, we mean that the core features of systems are

systematically compared, adjusted, and coordinated for effective and efficient parallel perfor­

mance without friction, all within an overall system with the same overarching goals. We men­

tion alignment here because when we move beyond systems within education, state and federal

laws or structures may not allow true integration across social service agencies. There are two

main areas that we suggest for future MTSS work: (1) integrating vertically and horizontally

to form comprehensive educational systems and (2) expanding beyond educational systems to

social service agencies and public health services.

Integrating to Form Comprehensive Educational Systems

In this book, the primary unit of implementation has been the school level, and the primary unit

of support has been the district level. This focus is a perfectly reasonable starting point (espe ­
cially for school personnel), but at some point, mature initiatives would strongly benefit from

integrating and aligning at regional, state, and federal levels (McIntosh, Mercer, et al., in press).
There are many serious challenges in education that cannot be tackled sustainably without a
broad systems approach, which often means coordination with policymakers. For example, we

should take the opportunity to learn how to best embed an integrated MTSS model within new

state curriculum and college and career readiness standards to clarify how MTSS connects with

these standards. Another example of integrating comprehensive systems involves linking MTSS

with teacher evaluation schemes. Instead of simply viewing evaluation as a dubious way to

identify and remove underperforming teachers, districts and states can link evaluation criteria

to objective MTSS competencies and then identify professional development activities that will

enhance effectiveness.

Expanding beyond Educational Systems

At the federal level, there has been a recent emphasis on collaborating across agencies to
improve outcomes for students even further. For example, the U.S. Departments of Education
and Justice have collaborated on the Supportive School Discipline Initiative (U.S. Department
of Justice, 2011) and Nondiscriminatory Provision of School Discipline (U.S. Departments of

332 LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD

Education and Justice, 2014). The knowledge gained through implementing integrated MTSS

systems within a school setting may contribute to leveraging integration with systems that exist

outside of education but also serve students and their families. The interconnected systems
framework (Barrett et al., 2013) shows how school teams using a PBIS approach can work col­

laboratively with community-based mental health providers and other social services. Some
social problems (e.g., homelessness, poverty, community violence, and substance abuse) clearly
affect student learning but are so enormous that they require more resources and approaches

than can be addressed through education alone. However, working in an integrated approach

with other agencies has significant potential to improve outcomes on a societal level. Although
such cross-agency integration and alignment makes good sense, it will require new approaches

to addressing barriers to integration, such as constraints in how funds are utilized.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Regardless of what we still need to know and the enormity of these new directions, we are thor­
oughly optimistic about education and the role of integrated MTSS models in it. When looking
back at the history of systems in schools shared in Chapter 1, we see that previous challenges
included agreeing on what constitutes valid measures and effective practices. Although these
debates are not fully settled, the tools and strategies available to today’s educators are more
advanced than ever before. In the same way, we have made progress in terms of developing
systems for implementing academic and behavior models that have been shown to improve stu­
dent outcomes. Academic RTI and PBIS represent true sea changes in education. We also better
understand the systems required to ensure that effective practices can be implemented with
fidelity and durability. This work is difficult, but it has advanced from simply developing effec­

tive practices and accurate measures, to developing these systems for effective. implementation
of practices and data, and now to the challenge of integrating them for even more effectiveness

and efficiency. Although any single content area or instructional strategy is important, we know

that it is the combination of each and all of these that defines a comprehensive and quality
education. This blending of our work is one of the key promises of integration. There are many
paths to integrated MTSS models and improved student outcomes, and we hope that this book
is useful as a roadmap for the work ahead.

Remedial and Special Education
2015, Vol. 36(1) 14 –19
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0741932514544970
rase.sagepub.com

Article

A Significant Advancement: Multi-
Tiered System of Supports

We believe that multi-tiered system of supports represents
one of the most significant advancements in improving the
outcomes of students for whom typical instruction is not
effective. This widely used evidence-based model of
schooling relies on data-based problem solving to integrate
and deliver efficacious academic instruction and behavior
supports in varying levels of intensity (multiple tiers) based
on student need (Martella, Nelson, Marchand-Martella, &
O’Rielly, 2012). The use of multi-tiered systems of supports
is borrowed from the field of prevention science whereby
primary, also known as universal prevention procedures
(e.g., immunizations) are effective for approximately 80%
of the population. Secondary prevention procedures (e.g.,
targeted education) are necessary for approximately 5% to
15% of the population that does not respond to primary pre-
vention. Finally, tertiary procedures are needed for approxi-
mately 1% to 5% of the population that does not respond to
primary or secondary procedures (e.g., direct care). The
same multi-tiered system of supports model applied to
schools suggests most students will achieve state- and dis-
trict-defined outcomes based on core instruction (e.g., evi-
dence-based curriculum) and behavior supports (e.g.,

school-wide positive behavior supports). Some students
will need additional supplemental instruction (e.g., small
group reading) and/or behavior supports (e.g., check-
in-check out) in addition to that provided by the core to
achieve these outcomes. Still a smaller number of students will
need intensive instruction (e.g., 1:1 instruction) and/or behav-
ior supports (e.g., functional behavioral assessment-guided
behavioral support plans) to achieve successful outcomes.

We have chosen multi-tiered system of supports as a sig-
nificant advancement because it provides the supportive
context for promoting the integrative use of evidence-based
academic and behavior-related practices to improve the out-
comes of the full range of students who do not fully benefit
from the typical instruction provided by schools. Prior to
multi-tiered system of supports, few educators within
schools were trained to use evidence-based academic and/
or behavior practices in an integrative fashion to improve
the outcomes of all students, including those who for whom

544970 RSEXXX10.1177/0741932514544970Remedial and Special EducationNelson et al.
research-article2014

1University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA

Corresponding Author:
J. Ron Nelson, Department of Special Education and Communication
Disorders, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 202 Barkley Center, Lincoln,
NE 68583-0732, USA.
Email: rnelson8@unl.edu

Use of Self-Monitoring to Maintain
Program Fidelity of Multi-Tiered
Interventions

J. Ron Nelson, PhD1, Regina M. Oliver, PhD1, Michael A.
Hebert, PhD1, and Janet Bohaty, MA1

Abstract
Multi-tiered system of supports represents one of the most significant advancements in improving the outcomes of
students for whom typical instruction is not effective. While many practices need to be in place to make multi-tiered
systems of support effective, accurate implementation of evidence-based practices by individuals at all tiers is critical to
obtain student outcomes. Effective strategies to achieve program fidelity are available; however, maintaining program
fidelity at the individual level remains elusive. Lessons drawn from medicine indicate strategies to maintain program fidelity
should address the implementer. Medical practitioners have used self-monitoring checklists to maintain fidelity with striking
results. Research evaluating strategies to maintain program fidelity at the individual level represents an important next step
in the field of education. Recommendations for a systematic research agenda focused on self-monitoring checklists are
presented.

Keywords
academic achievement, behavior, evidence-based practice

mailto:rnelson8@unl.edu

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0741932514544970&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-08-12

Nelson et al. 15

typical instruction is not effective. Furthermore, many evi-
dence-based practices (e.g., problem-solving method, cur-
riculum-based general outcome measurement) were
primarily used for students experiencing significant diffi-
culties rather than the full range of students for whom typi-
cal instruction is not effective. Although there is certainly
much more work needed to fully understand how to use
multi-tiered system of supports more effectively, they have
provided the supportive structure necessary for the wider
use of evidence-based academic and behavior practices to
improve the outcomes of all students, including those for
whom typical instruction is not effective.

Central to the effective use of multi-tiered system of sup-
ports by schools is not only achieving initial high levels of
program fidelity but also maintaining it over time. Schools
implementing multi-tiered system of supports tend to focus
on systems level factors (e.g., capacity-building) or pre-
implementation factors (e.g., action-planning) to enhance
the adoption of practices and maintaining program fidelity
(Hagermoser Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009; Han & Weiss,
2008). Although these factors are important, lessons drawn
from medicine indicate that more central to the issue of
maintenance of program fidelity are factors related to the
implementer because maintaining program fidelity is ulti-
mately based on these individuals. Indeed, program fidelity
declines or is low within 1 to 10 days after teachers begin
implementation (Hagermoser Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009;
Hagermoser Sanetti, Luiselli, & Handler, 2007; Noell, Witt,
Gilbertson, Ranier, & Freeland, 1997; Witt, Noell, LaFleur,
& Mortenson, 1997). Current efforts in the field of educa-
tion have appeared to ignore the need for such practices and
procedures (Han & Weiss, 2008). Thus, we believe research
focused on maintenance of program fidelity at the individ-
ual level represents an important next step.

Next Step: Maintenance of Program
Fidelity at the Individual Level

Importance

While many practices need to be in place to make multi-
tiered systems of support effective (e.g., universal screen-
ing, progress monitoring), accurate implementation of
evidence-based practices by individuals at all tiers is critical
to obtain student outcomes (The Evidence-Based
Intervention Work Group, 2005). Research demonstrates
that when program or treatment fidelity is high, larger
effects are obtained (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Dusenbury,
Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003; Gottfredson,
Gottfredson, & Hybl, 1993; Telzrow, McNamara, &
Hollinger, 2000) and lower levels of treatment fidelity make
evidence-based practices less effective (Dusenbury et al.,
2003). Lower accuracy of program fidelity can happen
because the implementer only uses portions of the

intervention, the quality of the implementation is low, or the
intervention has been abandoned completely. Without sup-
port, high levels of program fidelity once achieved, tend to
drop precipitously within a few days (Hagermoser Sanetti
& Kratochwill, 2009; Hagermoser Sanetti et al., 2007;
Noell et al., 1997; Witt et al., 1997). Regardless of the rea-
sons for inadequate program fidelity, evidence-based prac-
tices are only as effective as the accuracy and quality with
which they are implemented (DiGennaro, Martens, &
Kleinmann, 2007). For this reason, it is necessary to target
the implementer when developing strategies to maintain
program fidelity to achieve student outcomes (Sanetti,
Kratochwill, & Long, 2013).

Beyond the significance of program fidelity as it relates
to student outcomes, program fidelity is also highly integral
to the use of multi-tiered Response-to-Intervention (RTI)
systems of support. School personnel using such a system
of support base decisions on the success or failure of an
intervention (Noell & Gansle, 2006). For a student to be
identified as non-responsive to support, it is necessary for
school personnel to ensure that the student not only has first
been exposed to the evidence-based practice for an adequate
length of time, but that the practice or intervention has been
implemented with fidelity by the implementer (Noell &
Gansle, 2006). Otherwise, school personnel cannot deter-
mine whether the student was not responsive to instruction
or whether instruction was implemented poorly. In addition,
often overlooked in multi-tiered RTI systems of support is
the fidelity with which universal practices and programs
have been implemented. When students fail to progress in
the core instruction and behavior support they are referred
to a problem-solving team to determine the appropriate
intervention matched to student need (Gresham, 2002). The
assumption is that universal practices and programs were
implemented with fidelity. Achieving fidelity of universal
programs and practices requires that a majority if not all
individuals in the school implement them with fidelity.
Therefore, achieving program fidelity at the individual level
is necessary.

Fortunately, the technology to achieve initial high levels
of program fidelity at the individual level is available, albeit
typically underused by school personnel. Perhaps the most
well-documented strategy to achieve high initial program
fidelity is performance feedback, typically used within a
coaching platform (Alvero, Bucklin, & Austin, 2001; Han
& Weiss, 2008; Scheeler, Ruhl, & McAfee, 2004; Sheridan,
Welch, & Orme, 1996). A systematic line of research exam-
ining program fidelity has been conducted using various
forms of performance feedback to achieve fidelity of prac-
tices at the individual level. Research indicates performance
feedback can be used successfully to achieve initial high
levels of program fidelity (Codding, Livanis, Pace, & Vaca,
2008; Jones, Wickstrom, & Friman, 1997; Noell et al.,
1997), a critical requisite for the efficacy of evidence-based

16 Remedial and Special Education 36(1)

practices (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Dusenbury et al., 2003;
Gottfredson et al., 1993; Telzrow et al., 2000). Unfortunately,
as indicated earlier, implementation drift and degradation of
fidelity occurs once performance feedback is withdrawn.
Achieving initial high levels of fidelity at the individual
level is not enough—maintaining fidelity is needed to sus-
tain practices and student outcomes (Han & Weiss, 2008).

Little Research on Maintaining Individual-Level
Program Fidelity

Much of the research examining maintaining fidelity within
multi-tiered systems of supports to date has focused on sys-
tems level factors (e.g., capacity building) related to prepar-
ing the organization to support sustainability (Han & Weiss,
2008). For example, in the area of scaling-up of mental
health practices in schools, Adelman and Taylor have devel-
oped a model of systems change and diffusion of innova-
tions. Within the model, Adelman and Taylor articulate
factors to enabling systems change such as (a) creating
readiness for change, (b) developing the infrastructure, (c)
creating organizational facilitators, and (d) establishing a
change team (Adelman & Taylor, 2007). Similarly, the work
of the National Implementation Resource Network focuses
on “big picture” factors such as readiness, stages of imple-
mentation, and implementation drivers (Fixsen, Naoom,
Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). Although the complex-
ities of systems change and need for models described
above cannot be denied, more proximal to the issue of
maintaining fidelity is the individual level.

As noted above, research on program maintenance at the
individual level tends to focus on achieving initial high lev-
els of fidelity with performance feedback (Han & Weiss,
2008). The theory of maintenance behind this research pos-
its that once the individual implements with high fidelity
and observes positive outcomes, maintenance will occur.
Although the belief that what one is doing is producing
positive effects may be an important factor to maintenance,
this notion seems a bit optimistic. Some researchers have
begun examining the individual as the mediator of the inter-
vention and maintenance of fidelity (i.e., Sanetti et al.,
2013). Within this research, maintenance of program fidel-
ity is addressed by using strategies to increase implementa-
tion intention (i.e., intention to implement and maintain an
intervention) and sustainability self-efficacy (i.e., belief
that one can sustain implementation). Again, little research
has been conducted addressing the specific need for strate-
gies to maintain fidelity at the individual level.

A small study using a self-monitoring checklist to main-
tain fidelity of the Good Behavior Game (Barrish, Saunders,
& Wolf, 1969) indicates that the checklist was effective
with four teachers for maintaining treatment fidelity after
training and performance feedback ended (Oliver, Wehby,
& Nelson, 2014). The checklist contained discrete steps for

implementing the game rather than more complex items as
is more typical of school-based practices. These results sug-
gest that self-monitoring maintenance checklists may be a
practical and economical approach to maintain evidence-
based practices in schools. However, more research is
required to evaluate the use of a self-monitoring checklist
for more complex practices and larger numbers of
teachers.

Lessons From Medicine to Guide Research on
Individual-Level Program Fidelity

The field of medicine can provide a viable model to guide
research on maintenance of program fidelity at the individ-
ual level in education. The field of medicine recognized the
need for a focus on identifying procedures for maintaining
fidelity at the individual level (World Health Organization,
2009). According to the World Health Organization (2009),
limited treatment fidelity at the individual level (i.e., human
error) accounts for at least 50% of post-surgery complica-
tions. Given the high stakes consequences for lack of pro-
gram fidelity, it is not surprising that researchers in the field
of medicine have been examining strategies to maintain
program fidelity at the individual level for more than 25
years (World Health Organization, 2009).

Researchers have developed and tested the use of self-
monitoring checklists to maintain fidelity at the individual
level with striking results—47% reduction in patient deaths
and 36% reduction in inpatient complications (Haynes et
al., 2009; Zamir, Beresova-Creese, & Miln, 2012). In addi-
tion, patients use self-monitoring checklists to maintain
their use of treatment protocols (Coster, Gulliford, Seed,
Powriet, & Swaminathan, 2008; Mahoney & Ellison, 2007).
Moreover, researchers have also used self-monitoring
checklists with nursing assistants to maintain 80% fidelity
of job skill performance over time (Stevens et al., 1998).
Over 25 years of empirical support in the field of medicine
is instructive to education—self-monitoring maintenance
checklists may be a practical and economical approach to
maintain evidence-based practices in schools.

The positive effects of self-monitoring checklists are not
surprising given that their development and use is based on
the theory of self-regulation (Fox & Riconscente, 2008).
Briefly, the theory of self-regulation suggests that individu-
als engage in three functions as part of self-regulation: (a)
self-observation, (b) self-judgment, and (c) self-reaction
(Bandura, 1991). The self-monitoring checklist acts as a
prompt to track behavior against a standard (i.e., self-obser-
vation) and begins a process of comparison of current per-
formance to internal and external standards (i.e.,
self-judgment). During self-judgment, a discrepancy reduc-
tion mechanism functions to reduce the discrepancy
between current performance and desired performance
(Bandura, 1991). Goals are set internally, and the

Nelson et al. 17

self-reactive influences are deployed. These processes lead
to self-directed behavior change and behavior improvement
or maintenance. The self-regulation process acts as a mech-
anism to form the habit of high fidelity of implementation,
which maintains behaviors over time (Fox & Riconscente,
2008).

Research Needed on Self-Monitoring Checklists
in Education

A research agenda on self-monitoring checklists in educa-
tion will have to address several key things. For example,
procedures and processes are needed to identify and specify
fidelity criteria (Mowbray, Holter, Teague, & Bybee, 2003).
Fidelity can be measured based on the structure or what is
implemented as well as the process or way in which the
program is implemented. Indicators or critical components
of the evidence-based practice or program including anchor
point for quality ratings need to be specific, objective, and
measurable. Fidelity criteria can be developed from (a) pub-
lished program materials or observations of programs that
have proven successful; (b) expert opinions or literature
reviews; or (c) qualitative research through opinions of
users (Mowbray et al., 2003). Decisions regarding which
method to use in developing fidelity criteria should be based
on the availability of published program materials, credible
experts, and the validity of user opinions (e.g., experience
vs. inexperienced users).

Second, a valid index is needed to determine fidelity
scores falling in the range of acceptable versus unacceptable
and what adaptations, if any, implementers can make. This is
accomplished through collecting measures of fidelity and
then quantifying fidelity by (a) asking experts to rate fidelity
based on permanent products, observations, interviews, or
videotaped recordings; and (b) surveying implementers or
those receiving the intervention or program (Mowbray et al.,
2003). Consideration should be given to the number of items
and anchors used in self-monitoring checklists to ensure the
feasibility of completion by users. Some fidelity measures
can be onerous to complete and therefore are not feasible for
use as a self-monitoring checklist.

Third, research is needed to examine the psychometric
characteristics of fidelity checklists (i.e., reliability, internal
consistency, validity). Reliability across respondents and
inter-rater agreement should be calculated either by kappa
coefficients, intra-class correlations, percentage agreement,
or Pearson correlations (Mowbray et al., 2003). Internal
consistency should be calculated through methods such as
cluster analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, or Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha (Mowbray et al., 2003). Finally, conver-
gent validity could be developed by measuring fidelity
using a self-monitoring checklist compared with direct
observations of implementation within the delivery
context (Mowbray et al., 2003). Psychometrically sound

self-monitoring checklists are necessary to establish that
items being measured are meaningful and correlated to pro-
gram outcomes.

In addition, research is needed on the use of self-moni-
toring checklists with the range of programs and evidence-
based practices from the simple to more complex as well as
those that are dynamic and change over time. Research is
also needed to test self-monitoring checklists among vari-
ous implementers and across implementation contexts or
schools. Finally, research is needed on the pragmatic issues
of self-monitoring checklists in education. For example, (a)
determining the frequency with which the checklist must be
completed to maintain fidelity, (b) identifying the number
of items needed to measure fidelity while still being feasible
for the implementer to complete, and (c) examining effi-
cient methods for checklist completion.

Final Thoughts

Although we believe multi-tiered systems of supports is a
significant advancement in the field of education to improve
student outcomes, the critical next step needed is to develop
procedures to maintain program fidelity of evidence-based
practices. Unprecedented resources have been allocated for
professional development of evidence-based practices and
other school reform efforts. For example, the federal gov-
ernment has invested US$4.35 billion in federal funds for
the Race to the Top Program to improve education and stu-
dent outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Even
without the use of federal dollars, some estimate districts
spend on average 3.6% of the districts’ annual budgets for
professional development activities (Miles, Odden,
Fermanich, Archibald, & Gallagher, 2004). The staggering
amount of resources for professional development efforts to
implement evidence-based practices and policies that likely
will not be maintained is a significant financial issue to be
addressed by schools nationwide. This will require a sus-
tained and focused line of research on approaches and pro-
cedures for maintaining program fidelity at the individual
level. We propose the use of self-monitoring checklists to
maintain program fidelity as a viable approach necessary in
education. Our charge to researchers is to adopt the sugges-
tions provided herein and to systematically evaluate proce-
dures to maintain program fidelity at the individual level.
Once we in the field of education have learned to master
maintenance of effective practices, the cycle of identifica-
tion and implementation of “new” practices can be ended
and more time and resources can be allocated to improving
education for all students.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

18 Remedial and Special Education 36(1)

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2007). Systemic change for school
improvement. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 17, 55–77. doi:10.1080/10474410709336590

Alvero, A., Bucklin, B., & Austin, J. (2001). An objective
review of the effectiveness and essential characteristics of
performance feedback in organizational settings. Journal
of Organizational Behavior Management, 21, 3–29.
doi:10.1300/J075v21n01_02

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50,
248–287. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L

Barrish, H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. (1969). Good behavior game:
Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences
on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124. doi:10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119

Codding, R., Livanis, A., Pace, G., & Vaca, L. (2008). Using
performance feedback to improve treatment integrity of
classwide behavior plans: An investigation of observer reac-
tivity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 417–422.
doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-417

Coster, S., Gulliford, M., Seed, P., Powriet, J., & Swaminathan,
R. (2008). Self-monitoring in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A
meta-analysis. Diabetic Medicine, 17, 755–761. doi:10.1046/
j.1464-5491.2000.00390.x

DiGennaro, F. D., Martens, B. K., & Kleinmann, A. E. (2007).
A comparison of performance feedback procedures on teach-
ers’ treatment implementation integrity and students’ inap-
propriate behavior in special education classrooms. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 447–461. doi:10.1901/
jaba.2007.40-447

Durlak, J., & DuPre, E. (2008). Implementation matters: A review
of research on the influence of implementation on program
outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350. doi:10.1007/
s10464-008-9165-0

Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W. (2003). A
review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications
for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education
Research, 18, 237–256. doi:10.1093/her/18.2.237

Evidence-Based Intervention Work Group. (2005). Theories of
change and adoption of innovations: The evolving evidence-
based intervention and practice movement in school psychol-
ogy. Psychology in the School, 42, 475–494. doi:10.1002/
pits.20086

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., &
Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of
the literature (FMHI Publication #231). Tampa: University
of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health
Institute, National Implementation Research Network.

Fox, E., & Riconscente, M. (2008). Metacognition and self-regula-
tion in James, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Educational Psychology
Review, 20, 373–389. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9079-2

Gottfredson, D., Gottfredson, G., & Hybl, L. (1993). Managing
adolescent behavior: A multi-year, multi-school study.
American Educational Research Journal, 30, 179–215.
doi:10.3102/00028312030001179

Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alter-
native approach to the identification of learning disabili-
ties. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.),
Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice
(pp. 467–519). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hagermoser Sanetti, L., & Kratochwill, T. (2009). Toward devel-
oping a science of treatment integrity: Introduction to the spe-
cial series. School Psychology Review, 38, 445–459.

Hagermoser Sanetti, L., Luiselli, J., & Handler, M. (2007).
Effects of verbal and graphic performance feedback on
behavior support plan implementation in a public ele-
mentary school. Behavior Modification, 31, 454–465.
doi:10.1177/0145445506297583

Han, S., & Weiss, B. (2008). Maintaining program fidelity after
the thrill—and external support—is gone. In S. Evans, M.
Weist, & Z. Serpell (Eds.), Advances in school-based men-
tal health interventions: Best practices and program models
(Vol. 2, pp. 1–17). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Haynes, A. B., Weiser, T. G., Berry, W., Lipsitz, S., Breizat, A.,
Dellinger, E., . . . Gawande, A. (2009). A Surgical Safety
Checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global popu-
lation. New England Journal of Medicine, 360, 1356–1370.
doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0810119

Jones, K., Wickstrom, K., & Friman, P. (1997). The effects of
observational feedback on treatment integrity in school-based
behavioral consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 12,
316–326.

Mahoney, J., & Ellison, J. (2007). Assessing glucose monitor per-
formance—A standardized approach. Diabetes Technology &
Therapeutics, 9, 545–552. doi:10.1089/dia.2007.0245

Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., Marchand-Martella, N. E., &
O’Rielly, M. (2012). Comprehensive behavior management:
Individualized, classroom, and school-wide approaches.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Miles, K., Odden, A., Fermanich, M., Archibald, S., &
Gallagher, A. (2004). Inside the black box of school dis-
trict spending on professional development: Lessons from
comparing five urban districts. Journal of Education
Finance, 30(1), 1–26.

Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D.
(2003). Fidelity criteria: Developmental, measurement, and
validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 315–340.
doi:10.1177/109821400302400303

Noell, G., & Gansle, K. (2006). Assuring the form has substance:
Treatment plan implementation as the foundation of assessing
response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention,
32, 32–39. doi:10.1177/15345084060320010501

Noell, G., Witt, J., Gilbertson, D., Ranier, D., & Freeland, J.
(1997). Increasing teacher intervention implementation in
general education settings through consultation and perfor-
mance feedback. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 77–88.

Oliver, R. M., Wehby, J. H., & Nelson, J. R. (2014). Use of a self-
monitoring checklist to maintain treatment fidelity: A pilot
study. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Nelson et al. 19

Sanetti, L. M. H., Kratochwill, T. R., & Long, A. C. J. (2013).
Applying adult behavior change theory to support media-
tor-based intervention implementation. School Psychology
Quarterly, 28, 47–62.

Scheeler, M., Ruhl, K., & McAfee, J. (2004). Providing performance
feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 27, 396–407. doi:10.1177/088840640402700407

Sheridan, S. M., Welch, M., & Orme, S. F. (1996). Is consultation
effective? A review of outcome research. Remedial and Special
Education, 17, 341–354. doi:10.1177/074193259601700605

Stevens, A. B., Burgio, L. D., Bailey, E., Burgio, K. L., Paul, P.,
Capilouto, E., . . . Hale, G. (1998). Teaching and maintain-
ing behavior management skills with nursing assistants in a
nursing home. The Gerontologist, 38, 379–384. doi:10.1093/
geront/38.3.379

Telzrow, C., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. (2000). Fidelity of
problem-solving implementation and relationships to stu-
dent performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443–461.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top: Setting
the pace for gains across the education system [White
House Report]. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.
gov/sites/default/files/docs/settingthepacerttreport_3-
2414_b

Witt, J., Noell, G., LaFleur, L., & Mortenson, B. (1997). Teacher use
of interventions in general education settings: Measurement
and analysis of the independent variable. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 30, 693–696. doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-
693

World Health Organization. (2009). World health statistics.
Retrieved from http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_
health_statistics/2009/en/

Zamir, E., Beresova-Creese, K., & Miln, L. (2012). Intraocular
lens confusions: A preventable “never event”—The
Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital protocol. Survey
of Ophthalmology, 57, 430–447. doi:10.1016/j.survoph-
thal.2011.12.003

http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2009/en/

http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2009/en/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/settingthepacerttreport_3-2414_b

Educational Administration Quarterly
46(5) 623 –670

© The University Council for
Educational Administration 2010

Reprints and permission: http://www

.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0013161X10378689
http://eaq.sagepub.com

378689EAQ

1University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
2University of California, San Diego, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Nienke M. Moolenaar, Faculty of Behavioral Sciences, Department of Educational

Organization & Management, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede,
the Netherlands; phone: +31 (0) 53 489 4338
Email: N.M.Moolenaar@utwente.nl

Occupying the Principal
Position: Examining
Relationships Between
Transformational
Leadership, Social
Network Position,
and Schools’

Innovative Climate

Nienke M. Moolenaar,1 Alan J. Daly,2

and Peter J. C. Sleegers

1

Abstract

Throughout the world, educational policy makers, practitioners, and scholars
have acknowledged the importance of principal leadership in the genera-
tion and implementation of innovations. In many studies, transformational
leadership has emerged as a promising approach in response to increasing
demands to develop and implement innovations in schools. Although research
has suggested that having access to leaders with expertise can significantly
stimulate innovation, the link between transformational leadership and prin-
cipals’ social network position has not yet been extensively studied. The goal
of this study was to investigate the relationship between principals’ positions
in their schools’ social networks in combination with transformational

Article

624 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5

)

leadership and schools’ innovative climate. It was conducted among 702
teachers and 51 principals in 51 elementary schools in a large educational
system in the Netherlands. Using social network analysis and multilevel anal-
ysis, the authors analyzed a quantitative questionnaire with social network
questions on work-related and personal advice and Likert-type scales for
transformational leadership and innovative climate. Findings indicated that
transformational leadership was positively associated with schools’ innovative
climate. Principals’ social network position, in terms of centrality, was also
related to schools’ innovative climate. The more principals were sought for
professional and personal advice, and the more closely connected they were
to their teachers, the more willing teachers were to invest in change and the
creation of new knowledge and practices. Moreover, work-related closeness
centrality was found to mediate the relationship between transformational
leadership and innovative climate. Implications of the study are discussed.

Keywords

social networks, innovation, leadership, school improvement

Across the globe, there is an increasing demand and allocation of resources
for developing and implementing innovations that will improve public edu-
cation. For example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment of Act of 2009
devoted $650 million dollars to its Investing in Innovation fund (i3), with the
stated purpose of supporting the rapid development and adoption of effective
solutions. Despite the call for more innovation, there is much debate as to
what constitutes “innovation.” Moreover, largely absent in the discourse is
how leaders create and support the necessary conditions in which these inno-
vations may be developed. This lack of clarity has spawned significant dis-
cussion in the academic and practitioner communities as to a course of action.
Although there are multiple disparate voices in the discussion, there is some
long-standing general agreement that “leadership” is important in both devel-
oping and sustaining the climate and condition for innovation to occur (Bass
& Riggio, 2006; Burns, 1978). One of the most referenced types of leadership
that may hold potential in reforming systems through innovative practice is
transformational leadership (Bass, 1985).

Despite a variety of perspectives, what undergirds most definitions of
transformational leadership (TL) is a leader’s ability to increase organizational
members’ commitment, capacity, and engagement in meeting goals (Leithwood
& Jantzi, 2006; Marks & Printy, 2003). TL motivates followers to do more

Moolenaar et al. 625

than they originally expected and often even more than they thought possible,
resulting in extra effort and greater productivity (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio,
1994). Research around TL in education has been associated with stimulation
of innovation (Day, Harris, Hadfield, Tolly, & Beresford, 2000; Geijsel,
Sleegers, Van den Berg, & Kelchtermans, 2001; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins,
2008), changed teacher practices (Geijsel, Sleegers, Stoel, & Krüger, 2009;
Leithwood et al., 2004), organizational learning (Silins, Mulford, & Zarins,
2002), organizational commitment and extra effort for change (Geijsel, Sleegers,
Leithwood, & Jantzi, 2003; Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006; Yu, Leithwood,
& Jantzi, 2002), and collective teacher efficacy (Ross & Gray, 2006) in a vari-
ety of international settings.

Given that TL involves mobilizing social interactions in support of goals,
a school’s social network structure has been identified as an important vehi-
cle through which leadership may exercise influence (Hallinger & Heck,
1998). Yet studies on the interplay between TL, social network structure, and
innovation are scarce. Emerging studies are addressing this absence by taking
a social network approach to study innovations in organizations (Obstfeld,
2005) and reforms in schools (Coburn & Russell, 2008; Daly & Finnigan,
2010; Daly, Moolenaar, Bolivar, & Burke, in press). Research in this area
suggests that relationships between educators within schools are important to
foster innovative school climates in which new teaching strategies can be
collectively developed and new shared knowledge can emerge (Moolenaar,
Daly, & Sleegers, in press). However, there is limited scholarship examining
the network position of school leaders and the relationship of that position to
an innovative school climate.

By “principal’s social network position,” we are referring to three well-
cited measures of centrality (Kilduff & Krackhardt, 2008; Wasserman &
Faust, 1998): degree, defined as the number of teachers who seek a tie with
the principal; closeness, conceptualized as the extent to which a principal has
a direct tie to all teachers in the school; and betweenness, operationalized by
the degree to which a principal occupies a position between disconnected
teachers. Each of these measures provides a related, but different, perspective
of a principal’s position in the informal social network. In this article, we argue
that the social network position of a principal as measured by the three afore-
mentioned measures of centrality may support or constrain the flow of res-
ources in the school’s social network, thereby affecting the climate in which
the generation of new knowledge and practices may arise from interaction
among educators. This study extends the current literature by investigating
the extent to which the principal’s position in the school’s social network
affects the relationship between TL behavior and schools’ innovative climate

626 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

(IC). In doing so, we contribute to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms
that interact with TL to benefit school improvement.

In this article, we present the results of a study into the potential of TL
behavior and principal social network position for supporting an innovative
school climate in 51 Dutch elementary schools within a large educational
system. The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. To what extent is TL behavior related to a school’s IC?
2. To what extent does principals’ social network position mediate the

relationship between TL behavior and a school’s IC?

In the next section, we will provide an overview of literature on innovation-
supportive climates in organizations. We will then focus on TL behavior
and principals’ network positions as two different aspects of leadership and
continue with an empirical investigation designed to answer our research
questions.

Theoretical Framework
Innovative Climate

The subject of organizational innovation has been studied extensively in
management and organizational research (Hage, 1999). Innovation, in general,
has been defined as the development and use of new ideas, behaviors, or
practices (Daft & Becker, 1978; Damanpour & Evan, 1984). In an organiza-
tional sense, innovation is not merely transmitting, diffusing, or recycling
existing knowledge between members; it is also concerned with the transfor-
mation of prevailing knowledge and practices of actors as a means to orga-
nizational change (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

In this study, we examine the degree to which a school is characterized by
a climate for innovation, rather than study the development or implementa-
tion of specific innovations. We have selected to move in this direction as
scholars have emphasized the importance of a proinnovation climate to foster
innovative behavior and the generation, adoption, and implementation of
new practices (Amabile, 1998; Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, & Huang, 2005).
Whereas the development, adoption, and implementation of actual innova-
tions is an important field of inquiry for understanding school improvement
(Ellis, 2005; Fullan, 1992; Huberman & Miles, 1984), literature has argued
that organizations with climates that are open to innovation, in which members
are willing to take risks and to continuously learn to improve the organization,

Moolenaar et al. 627

are more successful at implementing actual innovations than organizations
with less innovative climates (Geijsel, 2001; Van den Berg & Sleegers, 1996).
Research into the innovative climates at schools offers valuable knowledge
on the extent to which organizations may or may not succeed at efforts of
school improvement and, as such, may provide insights in the fertile ground
on which innovations may flourish.

Focusing on IC, instead of innovations per se, also helps to transcend the
contextual aspect of studying innovations. Whereas innovations are often
context-specific, given that one school’s innovation may be another school’s
daily practice, studying an IC provides the opportunity to make comparisons
between schools. Following Van der Vegt et al. (2005), we define innovative
climate as the shared perceptions of organizational members concerning the
practices, procedures, and behaviors that promote the generation of new
knowledge and practices. Central to this definition are educators’ perceptions
of the collective willingness to adopt an open orientation toward new prac-
tices and change and to collectively develop new knowledge, practices, and
refinements to meet organizational goals (Moolenaar, Karsten, Sleegers, &
Zijlstra, 2009).

Organizational innovation often occurs in an iterative and cyclic process
that is established and maintained through social interaction in innovative-
prone climates (Kanter, 1983). As such, innovation is regarded as a social
process in which social interaction provides multiple opportunities for input
and refinement (Calantone, Garcia, & Droge, 2003; Nohari & Gulati, 1996).
Communication, sharing information and ideas, and opportunities to engage
in discussion and decision making are critical for an open orientation towards
innovation (Frank, Zhao, & Borman, 2004; Monge, Cozzens, & Contractor,
1992). This suggests that a social learning process underlies the development
of organizational innovation in innovative climates (Paavola, Lipponen, &
Hakkarainen, 2004), in which the combination of different people, knowl-
edge, and resources triggers the generation of new ideas and practices (Kogut
& Zander, 1992). Next, we will elaborate on how these innovative climates
may be supported by leadership behavior, in the form of TL, as well as lead-
ers’ social network position.

Leadership Behavior in Relation to Innovative Climate
An increasing number of studies suggest that innovation-supportive climates
that foster creativity may be facilitated or constrained by leadership behavior
(Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Creativity is key to the innova-
tion process and is often referred to as “the first step in innovation” (Amabile,

628 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

1998, p. 80). A leader’s ability to support the fertile ground of creativity involves
bringing together the knowledge, expertise, and skills of others in a risk-
tolerant climate (Jung, 2001; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Perry-Smith &
Shalley, 2003; Storey & Salaman, 2005). Moreover, leaders can create
opportunities for actors to interact and test out creative ideas in a supportive
environment (Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999; Mumford et al., 2002). To
foster a school’s IC, leaders may direct their behavior towards encourage-
ment and support, as well as develop nurturing relationships (Shalley &
Gilson, 2004).

Although there are multiple leadership theories in the literature that pro-
vide a theoretical lens for understanding innovation and school improvement,
TL is one of the most prominent contemporary approaches to leadership in
relation to innovation. TL has been well studied both outside and within edu-
cation and provides an empirically grounded theory on the role of leadership
in supporting organizational change (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Drawing on the
work of Burns (1978) concerning political leadership, Bass (1985) developed
a model of TL that conceptualized transactional and transformational forms
as separate but interdependent dimensions. Transactional leadership behav-
iors are those that are most associated with “transactions” between leaders
and followers and is often associated with compliance in attaining a certain
task or behavior (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Desired
actions are obtained primarily through rewards and consequences. TL involve
a leader’s ability to increase organizational members’ commitment, capacity,
and engagement in meeting goals (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Marks &
Printy, 2003). TL motivates followers to do more than they originally expected
and often even more than they thought possible, resulting in extra effort and
greater productivity (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Whereas transactional leadership is generally sufficient for maintaining
the status quo, TL focuses on capacity building for the purpose of organiza-
tional change. Transformational leaders aim to motivate followers to accom-
plish and even exceed their initial achievement expectations (Jung & Avolio,
2000). The success of a transformational leader is demonstrated both by
increased performance outcomes and the degree to which followers develop
their own leadership potential and skills. What is more, TL has been found
to significantly enhance satisfaction with, and perceived effectiveness of,
leadership beyond levels achieved with transactional leadership (Bass &
Avolio, 1994).

Research on TL in educational settings was initiated by Leithwood and his
colleagues in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Leithwood, 1994). Since then,
numerous studies on TL have demonstrated positive relationships between

Moolenaar et al. 629

TL and various school and teacher organizational conditions. For example,
studies have found increases in teachers’ perceptions of leader effectiveness;
successful implementation of innovations; boost in teachers’ behaviors, emo-
tions, and job satisfaction; increased participation in decision making and
commitment to school improvement; and teachers’ motivation to implement
accountability policies (Geijsel et al., 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005;
Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002). Transformational leaders were found
to be able to influence organizational members to move beyond self-interest
in support of larger organizational goals (Marks & Printy, 2003). Moreover,
TL has been associated with student outcomes, both directly and indirectly
through these conditions (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2004).

Studies on TL within the educational context have distinguished three spe-
cific dimensions of transformational school leadership: vision building, which
refers to the development of a shared vision, goals, and priorities; individual
consideration, which includes attending to the feelings and needs of indi-
vidual teachers; and providing intellectual stimulation, which entails the sup-
port of teacher professional development and the constant challenging of
teachers to readdress their knowledge and daily practice (Geijsel et al., 2009;
Geijsel, Van den Berg, & Sleegers, 1999).

Whereas the balance of this literature associates TL with innovation and
school improvement in education, few studies have empirically examined the
role of TL in supporting an IC. However, a conceptual link between the three
TL dimensions (vision building, individual consideration, and intellectual
stimulation) and schools’ innovative climates seems plausible. For example,
transformational leaders may increase a team’s orientation towards inno-
vation by providing a vision for school improvement through supporting a
risk-tolerant climate, providing opportunities for learning and professional
development, and challenging team members to invent new solutions to old
problems by thinking “out of the box” (Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Sosik,
Avolio, & Kahai, 1997). Transformational leaders who collectively develop
and share a clear vision may boost followers’ innovativeness by serving as
role models in the development and implementation of innovations (Shalley
& Perry-Smith, 2001; Tierney & Farmer, 2002), clarifying the challenges for
the school’s future and the importance of developing new knowledge and
practice, pointing out opportunities for school improvement through innova-
tion, and motivating team members by envisioning an attractive future for the
school (e.g., Amabile, 1996). In addition, setting clear goals toward outcomes
can help transformational leaders manage time frames of complex innovation
projects, which represents a critical competency of leaders of innovative
organizations (Halbesleben, Novicevic, Buckley, & Harvey, 2003).

630 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

Transformational leaders who provide individual consideration demon-
strate confidence in individuals’ innovative capacities, share the responsibili-
ties and risks with team members when adopting new strategies, and recognize
individual contributions to the team (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Individual
consideration creates and sustains a climate in which innovations can grow
and public criticism of followers’ mistakes is minimized (Bass & Avolio,
1994). By providing meaning and understanding to followers’ tasks, leaders
can increase organizational members’ intrinsic motivation and address their
individual needs, which are basic sources of creativity (Tierney, Farmer, &
Graen, 1999). In this way, leaders encourage followers to innovate by provid-
ing a psychologically “safe” workplace environment without the fear of being
punished or ridiculed (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996).
Innovative and creative behaviors involve risk-taking (Tesluk, Farr, & Klein,
1997) and an acceptance of the possibility of failure. To motivate teachers to
share creative new ideas and practices, for example, by inviting colleagues
into their classroom, leaders have to establish and maintain a “safe” climate
that is conducive to innovation.

Through intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders may for instance
encourage teachers to spend more time on training and professional develop-
ment. This in turn may stimulate an innovation-oriented climate, as training
may increase teachers’ knowledge and skills, broaden their horizon with a
variety of experiences and perspectives, teach them how to make the devel-
opment of innovative teaching strategies an integral part of their job, and
increase their confidence and comfort with the implementation of new ideas
(Feldhusen & Goh, 1995). To be innovative as a team, it is vital that indi-
vidual team members are stimulated to share and discuss creative ideas and
different views with each other (Amabile et al., 1996). Moreover, to support
the development of new ideas, organizations need to foster an open orienta-
tion towards innovation in a climate in which creative efforts and the distri-
bution of new knowledge and practices are encouraged (Bain, Mann, &
Pirola-Merlo, 2001; Scott & Bruce, 1994).

Given this robust literature base and our expectations about the theoretical
connection between TL practices and innovation, we hypothesize that princi-
pals’ TL behavior will be positively associated with teachers’ perceptions of
their school’s IC (Hypothesis 1).

Leadership Position in Relation to Innovative Climate
The research around TL as referenced in the previous section is robust in
terms of its support for innovation and school improvement. The theoretical

Moolenaar et al. 631

underpinnings and empirical work around TL also suggest the importance of
social relations and the distribution of tasks over formal and informal leaders.
Recent educational studies suggest that having access to leaders who possess
expertise may significantly affect teachers’ of innovation use (Penuel, Fishman,
Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007; Penuel, Frank, & Krause, 2007). However,
there remains an empirical gap in the TL literature in regard to the social net-
work position of formal leaders in relation to organizational members (Daly
& Finnigan, 2009; Moolenaar, 2010).

Complementary to traditional leadership behavior research, organizational
literature is now starting to focus on leadership effectiveness in terms of a
leader’s position in a social network (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Balkundi
& Kilduff, 2005). The balance of this literature underscores the importance of
a leader’s informal position in the social network in terms of access and
leveraging social capital as well as brokering between parts of a system.
Moreover, studies suggest that a leader’s social network position is related to
group performance and leader reputation (Mehra, Dixon, Brass, & Robertson,
2006; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). The social network position of an individual
in a social network of interpersonal relationships may support or constrain
the distribution of resources and information in a social network (Burt, 1983).
Connections and access, or a lack thereof, to available resources presents
some structural positions with more or less power and influence than other
positions in the social network. However, this assertion has received limited
attention in the context of educational leadership (Daly & Finnigan, 2009;
Moolenaar et al., in press).

A key determinant of the structural advantage of an individual’s position
in a social network is an actor’s centrality in the network. Centrality is defined
in terms of the relative number of connections that an individual has to others in
the network. The more connections, or ties, a leader has to the team members,
the more centrally the leader is positioned in the network. Central actors play
a major role in their social network (Baker & Iyer, 1992). A meta-analysis
by Balkundi and Harrison (2006) indicated that groups with leaders who
occupy a central position in the group’s social network tended to show higher
group performance than groups with less central leaders.

Different types of centrality can be inferred from an individual’s position
relative to others in the social network. Whereas most studies on individual
position in networks only include a single centrality measure, we examine
three types of centrality that each may offer a different perspective on leader-
ship: degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality. Degree
centrality is perhaps the most familiar form of centrality and refers to the
popularity of the leader. Degree centrality is assessed simply as the number

632 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

of people who seek out the principal for, for instance, advice, information,
expertise, friendship, or social support. In other words, the higher the princi-
pal’s degree centrality, the more he or she is nominated as a valuable resource
in the network.

Closeness centrality indicates how “close” a principal is to the team mem-
bers, or how quickly a principal can reach all team members through the
social network. Closeness centrality can thus be interpreted as a measure of
“reachability” by the principal. The higher a principal’s closeness centrality,
the quicker information dispensed by the principal will reach all team mem-
bers. In contrast to degree centrality, closeness centrality includes principals’
indirect relationships to all team members. Uzzi (1996) suggests that not only
direct but also indirect connections are important, as these relationships may
dampen or enhance leader effectiveness.

By occupying a more central position, a leader is more often sought for
resources (friendship, expertise, etc.) and has easier access to resources,
information, or support from the social network (Adler & Kwon, 2002).
Moreover, having more relationships increases a leader’s opportunities to
access novel information (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2005; Krackhardt, 1996).
This access to diverse resources provides a central leader with the possibility
to guide the flow of information and resources within the team (Burt, 2005).
A leader may use the power and status attained through occupying a central
position to direct certain knowledge and information to the right people who
might need it most. Therefore, we expect that principals who hold more cen-
tral positions, as assessed by higher degree centrality and closeness central-
ity, are associated with schools that are characterized by more innovative
climates (Hypotheses 2a and 2b, respectively).

Whereas degree and closeness centrality refer to social network positions
that may be positively associated with innovative school climates, between-
ness centrality refers to the potential of an individual to “broker” his or her
relationships, thereby in effect controlling the flow of resources between two
actors. Betweenness is assessed as the number of times an actor is positioned
“in between” two people in the network who are themselves disconnected.
Betweenness has been argued to support the flow of resources in a social
network by creating bridging ties between disconnected actors (Burt, 1992).
However, recent work (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2005) suggests that actors who
occupy these social positions may also constrain the distribution of resources
across a system. Actors with high betweenness are in a position of social
control and, as such, are able to determine both the type and content of
resources that flow between actors. This position therefore provides the actor
with disproportionate influence over the system, effectively buffering

Moolenaar et al. 633

disconnected individuals. Given this ability to control the flow and content of
resources, high betweenness has therefore been conceptualized as represent-
ing a “power” position and, as such, holds benefit for the goals of the individual
actor, at the potential cost of the goals of the larger systems (Burt, 1992). In
line with previous research (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2005; Kilduff & Krackhardt,
2008), we argue that this “brokerage” position will be negatively associated
with an IC because such a brokerage position signifies a social network in
which new ideas and practices that originate from teachers’ interaction are
disproportionately mediated, and potentially controlled and changed, by the
principal (Hypothesis 2c).

Relationship Between Transformational Leadership
Behavior, Position, and Innovative Climate
Through this literature review, we have related the conditions necessary for
innovation, leadership behavior through TL, and the influence of a leader’s
network position on the movement of resources. As reflected in our first two
hypotheses, we will be examining the relationships between IC and leadership
behavior, in the form of TL, as well as between IC and a principal’s position
in the social network of the school. These examinations will begin to fill the
gap in the literature surrounding leadership behavior, network position, and IC.

In addition, we are interested in potential mediators that bring together all
three areas as a way to potentially clarify the relationship between TL and
innovation (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003).
There are indications in the literature about the interrelatedness of all three
areas. For instance, Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003) found that the
level of network cohesion in a U.S. army unit partially mediated the relation-
ship between TL and performance. In addition, Ibarra and Andrews (1993)
suggested that central actors played a more prominent role in innovation than
less central actors. We argue that transformational leaders may be more
effective in stimulating teachers to share learning experiences and collec-
tively develop new practices in support of school improvement when they
occupy a more centralized network position in terms of degree and closeness
centrality. TL may be more supportive of innovative climates when it is
enacted by leaders who are more often sought out for advice or expertise and
occupy a position that is close to teachers, as they have opportunity to access
novel information and guide resources toward where they are needed. Therefore,
we expect degree and closeness centrality to positively mediate the relation-
ship between TL and innovative climates in schools (Hypotheses 3a and 3b,
respectively).

634 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

In contrast, we argue that transformational leaders who occupy a high
betweenness centrality position may have more difficulty in supporting inno-
vative school climates as they effectively buffer the direct interactions
between teachers. TL entails motivating teachers to go above and beyond
their individual capacities by sharing collective responsibilities and risks,
providing teachers the opportunity to develop their own ideas and collec-
tively create new practices. When formal leaders, who also have an evalua-
tive role over teachers, occupy a betweenness position, in which they control,
and potentially alter, the resources that flow between teachers, this may actu-
ally inhibit educators in taking risks and exhibiting the vulnerability that
comes from seeking advice and sharing experiences and expertise. Therefore,
we hypothesize that betweenness centrality will negatively mediate the rela-
tionship between TL and innovative climates (Hypothesis 3c).

Method
Context

Strengthening principal expertise and fostering innovations are two major
foci in educational policy in the United States, as evidenced by recent fed-
eral government initiatives such as Investing in Innovation (i3). This same
level of federal emphasis is also true in the Netherlands where this study
took place (The Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science,
2009). Our inquiry was conducted in 51 Dutch elementary schools located
in the south of the Netherlands. Principals are the main instructional and orga-
nizational leaders at their schools, and the schools are supported and served
by a single district that provided administrative, financial, and instructional
technology support. The schools’ overall performance varies to about the
same extent as other school districts, with one underperforming school
(which was excluded from the sample), and all other schools meeting per-
formance standards set by the Dutch school inspectorate. The average num-
ber of students per school is 213 (M = 213.0, SD = 116.6), which entails that
the schools are small compared to average U.S. elementary school. The
student population in the schools was rather reflective of the average Dutch
student population in regard to SES and ethnicity. The schools participated
in the study as part of a large-scale reform effort that was designed, imple-
mented, and supported by the district. The reform effort was focused on
professional development through professional training of principals and
teachers but did not include a focus on strengthening relationships or devel-
oping a professional community.

Moolenaar et al. 635

Sample

A total of 51 principals and 702 teachers participated in the study by com-
pleting a survey on TL, social networks, and IC, with a response rate of
100.0% and 96.7%, respectively. Whereas a majority of principals were male
(76.5%), a majority of teachers were female (74.6%). This gender ratio is
approximately reflective of elementary education across the Netherlands.
Principals’ age varied between 27 and 61 (M = 49.0, SD = 9.0). School team
size varied between six and 31, with an average of 15 teachers per team.
Additional sample demographics are presented in Table 1.

Data Collection and Instrumentation
Social network position. In social network research, studies often concen-

trate on two types of social networks that reflect different content flowing
through the ties: instrumental and expressive networks (Ibarra, 1993). Instru-
mental social networks are conduits for the circulation of information and
resources that pertain to organizational goals. Expressive social networks
reflect patterns of more affect-laden relationships, such as friendships, that
are believed to transport and diffuse resources such as social support, trust,
and values (Ibarra, 1993, 1995).

Guided by previous studies on social networks and innovation (Copeland,
Reynolds, & Burton, 2008; Obstfeld, 2005), we focused on the network struc-
ture around advice. Advice relationships are important in the diffusion of new
knowledge and information and the development of innovations, as advice
relationships are arguably the primary channel for principals to guide and
support teachers in their practice. As such, the act of giving advice presents
the principal with a powerful tool to assert social control and to steer activi-
ties and opinions about innovation. The act of asking advice conveys infor-
mation about the advice seeker, who may be in a position of vulnerability,
thereby taking a risk in asking for support. In turn, the advice giver has the
potential to create a safe psychological space for the exchange and may be able
to actively influence the advice seeker’s perceptions, actions, and behavior.

We employed social network analysis to obtain information about princi-
pals’ structural position in their schools’ instrumental and expressive advice
network. All teachers and principals in the sample schools were asked to respond
to a social network survey. The following question was posed to examine the
social network around work-related advice: “Whom do you go to for work
related advice?” In line with Ibarra (1993), we will refer to this social net-
work as the instrumental network. The social network around personal advice

636 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

was obtained by asking the question, “Whom do you go to for guidance on
more personal matters?” This social network is referred to as the expressive
network.

Table 1. Sample Characteristics of Schools (N = 51), Principals (N = 51), and
Teachers (N = 702)

N Min. Max. M SD

Teachers
Age 702 21 63 45.5 10.8
FTE 702 0.20 1.00 0.73 0.24
Administrative tasks 702 0 1 0.19 0.39
Principals
Age 50 27 61 48.96 8.96
FTE 50 0.33 1.00 0.77 0.25
School
Gender ratioa 51 59.0 100.0 77.1 10.5
Number of students 50 53 545 213.0 120.1
Team size 51 6 31 14.8 6.9
SESb 51 0.4 47.3 7.9 9.7

Principals Teachers

N % N %

Gender
Male 39 76.5 166 23.6
Female 12 23.5 536 74.6
Years of experience
at the school

0.5-3 years 27 52.9 122 17.4
4-10 years 10 19.6 243 34.6
>10 years 14 27.5 337 48.0
Years of experience
as a principal

0.5-3 years 18 35.3
4-6 years 18 35.3
>10 years 14 27.5
Unknown 1 1.9

Note: aGender ratio is calculated as the ratio of female to male team members with
100% referring to a team with only female team members.
bSES is calculated as the weighted percentage of students for whom the school receives extra
financial resources.

Moolenaar et al. 637

The survey was complemented with a school-specific appendix, which
included the names of all the team members in combination with a letter code
(e.g., Mrs. Marcia Peters = AB). Teachers and principals answered the ques-
tions by writing down the letter codes of the colleagues to whom they turn for
work-related or personal advice. The respondents could indicate a relation-
ship with as many colleagues as they preferred.

Transformational leadership. We assessed teachers’ perceptions of their
principal’s TL with a questionnaire based on the work of Geijsel and col-
leagues (2001, 2009). Following prior research on TL, the scale evaluated
teachers’ perceptions of principals’ vision building, individualized consider-
ation, and intellectual stimulation. An example of an item designed to assess
principals’ vision building is, “The principal of my school refers explicitly at
our school’s goals during decision-making processes.” A sample item from
individualized consideration included asking teachers to evaluate the follow-
ing statement: “The principal of my school takes opinions of individual
teachers seriously.” To measure the extent to which principals provide intel-
lectual stimulation to their team members, we asked a series of questions
typified by the following: “The principal of my school encourages teachers to
experiment with new didactic strategies.” Principal component analysis was
conducted on the 18 items and rendered a three-factor solution that explained
73.7% of the variance. However, because all items loaded highly on the first
component, and the three components were highly interrelated, we combined
the three scales into a single higher order component that explained 58.4% of
the variance (α = .96). Combining the three scales is in line with previous
research on TL (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bono & Judge, 2003; Jung &
Sosik, 2002; Kark et al., 2003).

Whereas TL was assessed at the individual level, we also interpreted it as
a school-level variable, as we were interested in school leadership as per-
ceived by the teacher team as a whole. To justify the aggregation of individ-
ual teacher perceptions of TL into a school-level aggregate, we calculated
interrater agreement (r wg[j]; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) and interrater
reliability (ICC[1] and ICC[2]; cf. Bliese, 2000; LeBreton & Senter, 2008).
The three measures were found to be sufficiently supportive of aggregation
(r wg[j] = .95, ICC[1] = .09, ICC[2] = .73). Following previous research, we
therefore aggregated individual teacher perceptions of TL to a school-level
variable (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004).

Innovative climate. We measured teachers’ perceptions of their schools’ cli-
mate in support of innovation with six items that were developed to assess
schools’ orientation to improve (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Consortium
on Chicago School Research, 2004). The items were translated and adapted

638 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

to fit the context of Dutch elementary education. The scale was designed to
measure the extent to which teachers have a positive attitude towards devel-
oping and trying new ideas. A sample item is, “In my school, teachers are
generally willing try new ideas.” Principal component analysis provided evi-
dence that the six items contributed to a single factor solution explaining
59.8% of the variance (α = .86).

The scales on TL and IC used a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (dis-
agree) to 4 (agree). Whereas the social network survey was presented to
principals and teachers to assess principals’ structural position in the net-
works, the scales on TL and IC were given to teachers only. To assess whether
the latter scales measured separate constructs, the TL and IC items were both
entered in a single principal component analysis with varimax rotation. This
analysis resulted in a four-factor solution that accounted for 70.6% of the
variance. The first three factors represented the highly interrelated TL scales
that were combined earlier into a single TL scale, whereas the fourth compo-
nent comprised the items of the IC scale, thus indicating that the TL and IC
scales assessed separate constructs. The items and factor loadings of this
principal component analysis are summarized in Table 2.

Demographics. Several demographic characteristics were collected in the
questionnaire to assess their relationship with demographics, principals’
social network position, TL, and IC (see Table 1). As background variables
regarding the principal, we included age, gender, and years of experience as
a principal, as these have been indicated as potential predictors of TL and IC
(Geijsel, 2001). We also included number of working hours (FTE) and years of
experience at the school since both may affect the extent to which teachers are
able to, and comfortable with, asking the principal for work related advice and
advice regarding personal matters. At the teacher level, we added teacher age,
gender, number of working hours (FTE), and years of experience at the
school for similar reasons. We also included whether teachers had additional
administrative tasks in support of the principal, which would potentially involve
increased contact with the principal and could therefore explain an advice
relationship. As school-level demographics, we entered gender ratio (the per-
centage of female to male teachers in the team), school size (as represented
by the number of students), and team size (total number of school staff with
teaching and/or administrative tasks) in the models, because these demograph-
ics may be related to structural characteristics of social networks (Tsai, 2001).
Finally, schools’ socioeconomic status (SES; based on a governmental weigh-
ing factor for additional financial support) was added as a demographic school-
level variable. Typically, schools that serve more high-needs communities,

T
a
b

le
2

.
It

em
s

an
d

Fa
ct

o
r

Lo
ad

in
gs

o

f
th

e
Sc

al
es

U
se

d
in

t
he

S
tu

dy
(

N
=

7
02

)

I
II

III
IV

Tr
an

sf
o
rm

at
io

na
l l

ea
de

rs
hi

p
(α

=
.9

6)
: T

he
p

ri
nc

ip
al

o
f
m

y
sc

ho
o
l.

. .

V

is
io

n
bu

ild
in

g

R
ef

er
s

ex
pl

ic
it
ly

a
t

o
ur

s
ch

o

o
l’s

g

o
al

s
du

ri
ng

d
ec

is
io

n-

m
ak

in
g

pr
o
ce

ss
es

.7
7

.1
6

.2
4

.1
8

Ex
pl

ai
ns

t
he

r
el

at
io

ns
hi

p
be

t

w
ee

n
th

e
sc

ho
o
ls

’

v
is

i

o
n

an
d

in

it
ia

ti
ve

s
o

f
th
e
sc

ho
o
l d

is
tr

ic
t,

co
lla

bo
ra

ti
ve

p
ro

je
ct

s,
o
r

th
e

g

o
ve

rn
m

en
t

.7
7

.2
9

.2
5

.1
7

D
is

cu
ss

es
t

he
c

o
ns

eq
ue

nc
es

o
f
th

e
sc

ho
o
l’ s

v
is
io
n

fo
r

e

ve
ry

da
y

pr
ac

ti
ce

.7
6

.2
4
.2
9

.1
9

U
se

s
al

l p
o
ss

ib
le

m
o
m

en
ts

t
o
s

ha
re

t
he
s
ch
o
o
l’s
v
is
io
n

w

it
h

th
e

te
am

, t
he

s
tu

de
nt

s,
pa

re
nt

s,
an

d
o
th

er
s

.7
5

.2
6

.2
9
.1
7

In
co

rp
o
ra

te
s

th
e

sc
ho

o
l’s
v
is
io
n
an
d

go
al

s
fo

r
th

e
fu

tu
re

t

o
t

al
k

ab
o
ut

t
he

c
ur

re
nt

is
su

es
a

nd
p

ro
bl

em
s

fa
ci

ng
t

he
s

ch
o
o
l

.7
2

.3
8

.2
9

.1
4

In

di
vi

du
al

iz
ed

c
o
ns

id
er

at
io

n

Ta
ke

s
o
pi

ni
o
ns

o
f
in

di
vi
du
al

t
ea

ch
er

s
se

ri
o
us

ly
.2

4
.8

1
.2

8

L i
st

en
s

ca
re

fu
lly

t
o
t

ea
m

m
em

be
rs

’ i
de

as
a

nd
s

ug
ge

st
io

ns
.2

8
.8

0
.2

7

Is
a

tt
en

ti
ve

t
o
p

ro
bl
em
s

th
at

t
ea
ch
er

s
en

co
un

te
r

w
he

n

i
m

pl
em

en
ti
ng

in
no

va
ti
o
ns

.2
4

.7
8

.3
3

.1
1

Sh

o
w

s
ap

pr
ec

ia

ti
o
n

w
he

n
a

te
ac

he
r

ta
ke

s
in

it
ia
ti
ve

s
to

i

m
pr

o
ve
t
he

e
du

ca

ti

o
n

.2
1

.7
6

.3
6

H
el

ps
t

ea
ch

er
s

ta
lk

a
bo

ut
t

he
ir

fe
el

in
gs
.2
4
.7
5
.3
3

In
te

lle
ct

ua
l s

ti
m

ul
at

io
n

En

co
ur

ag
es

t
ea
ch
er
s
to

e
xp

er
im

en
t

w
it
h

ne
w

d
id

ac
ti
c

st
ra

te
gi

es
.2

3
.1

0
.7

9
.1

3

In

vo
lv

es
t
ea
ch
er
s

in
a

c
o
ns

ta
nt

d
is

cu
ss
io
n
ab
o
ut
t
he

ir
o

w
n

p

ro
fe

ss
io

na
l p

er
so

na
l g

o
al

s
.1

9
.2

9
.7

7
.1

1

(c
on

tin
ue

d)

639

I
II
III
IV

En
co

ur
ag

es
t
ea
ch
er
s

to
t

ry
n

ew
s

tr
at

eg
ie

s
th

at
m

at
ch

t
he

ir
p

er
so

na
l

i
nt

er
es

ts
.2

1
.3

3
.7

4
.1

1

H
el
ps
t
ea
ch
er
s

to
r

ef
le

ct
o

n
ne

w
e

xp
er

ie
nc

es
.1

6
.4

0
.7

2
.2

0

M

o
ti
va

te
s
te
ac

he
rs

t
o
lo

o
k

fo
r
an
d

di
sc

us
s

ne
w

in
fo

rm
at

io
n
an
d

i

de
as

t
ha

t
ar

e
re

le
va

nt
t

o
t
he
s

ch
o
o
l’s

d
ev

el
o
pm

en
t

.3
4

.2
7

.7
2

.1
3

St
im

ul
at
es
t
ea
ch
er
s

to
c

o
ns
ta
nt

ly
t

hi
nk

a
bo

ut
h

o
w

t
o
im

pr
o
ve

t
he

s

ch
o
o
l
.3
4
.2
9

.7
0

.1
5

O
ffe

rs
e

no
ug

h
po

ss
ib

ili
ti
es

fo
r

te
ac
he
rs

’ p
ro

fe
ss

io
na

l d
ev

el
o
pm
en
t
.1
9
.3
3

.6
2

.1
8

H
el
ps
t
ea
ch
er
s
ta
lk
a
bo

ut
a

nd
e

xp
la

in
t

he
ir

p
er

so
na

l v
ie

w
s

o
n

e

du
ca

ti
o
n

.2
2

.5
3

.6
1

.1
0

In
no

va
ti
ve

c
lim

at
e

(α
=

.8
6)

Te
ac

he
rs

a
re

g
en

er
al

ly
w

ill
in

g
to

t
ry

n
ew

id
ea

s
.1

2
.8

4

Te
ac
he
rs
a
re

c
o
nt

in
uo

us
ly

le
ar

ni
ng

a
nd

d
ev

el
o
pi

ng
n

ew
id

ea
s

.2
2
.1
1

.8
0

T e

ac
he

rs
h

av
e

a
po

si
ti
ve

“
ca

n-
do

”
at

ti
tu

de
.1

4
.7

8

Te
ac
he
rs
a
re

w
ill

in
g
to
t

ak
e

ri
sk

s
to
m
ak

e
th

is
s

ch
o
o
l

b
et

te
r

.1
4
.7
6

Te

ac
he

rs
a

re
c

o
ns
ta
nt
ly
t

ry
in

g
to

im
pr

o
ve
t
he

ir
t

ea
ch

in
g

.1
9

.1
2

.7
3

T e

ac
he
rs
a

re
e

nc
o
ur

ag
ed

t
o
g

o
a

s
fa

r
as

t
he

y
ca

n
.2

6
.2

4
.6

1

N
o
te

: H
ig

he
st

f
ac

to
r

lo
ad

in
gs
p
er

it
em

a
re
d
is

pl
ay

ed
in

b
o
ld

.
T
a
b
le
2

.
(c

o
n

ti
n

u
e
d

)

640

Moolenaar et al. 641

and schools that are under pressure to improve, are associated with greater
urgency in developing new approaches (Sunderman, Kim, & Orfield, 2005).

Data Analysis
Social network position. For each principal, we calculated three measures

that reflected the centrality of his or her position in the schools’ instrumental
(work-related advice) and expressive (personal guidance) social network:
degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality (cf. Borgatti,
Jones, & Everett, 1998; Burt, 1983). These social network characteristics were
calculated using both teachers’ and principals’ answers to the social network
survey and were analyzed using UCINET 6.0 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman,
2002). The three types of centrality, discussed below, were assessed as each
offers a different perspective on principals’ centrality position in the team.

A principal’s degree centrality reflects the number of people who indicated
the principal as a source of work-related or personal advice. Degree centrality
scores are normalized to facilitate between-school comparisons and can,
therefore, be interpreted as a proportional measure of principals’ popularity
for advice in the network. Degree centrality is an asymmetric measure in
which the direction of the tie (who nominates whom) is taken into account. In
contrast, closeness centrality and betweenness centrality are calculated using
symmetrized networks, in which the direction and reciprocity of the tie is
ignored. Closeness centrality is calculated as one minus the sum of the short-
est paths between the principal and the teachers in the network. As such,
closeness centrality can be interpreted as a measure of how much effort it will
take for the principal to reach all teachers in the network. The higher a prin-
cipal’s closeness centrality in the network, the quicker the principal’s advice
or information will spread through the social network because the principal is
close to many teachers. Closeness centrality is then also normalized to facili-
tate comparisons among individuals (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). A princi-
pal’s betweenness centrality assesses the degree to which a principal occupies
a position “in between” the teachers in the network. A principal who has a
central betweenness position has the capacity to broker contacts between
actors in the organization and, as such, the power to control the flow of infor-
mation and resources in the network. Betweenness centrality is calculated as
the proportion of times an individual occupies a position between two other
actors who are themselves unconnected. This measure is then normalized as
a percentage of the maximum possible betweenness position that an individ-
ual could possibly reach in the network, in order to facilitate comparisons
among principals (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005).

642 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

The centrality measures of the principals’ position in their schools’ social
networks range from 0 (the principal is not central at all) to 1 (the principal
occupies a very central position in the network). The centrality measures are
to be interpreted as school-level variables, because we were interested in
the centrality of the principal to all teachers in the network as a proxy for the
principals’ influence on the school’s IC.

Transformational leadership and innovative climate. We calculated descrip-
tive and inferential statistics including correlations and internal consistencies
for the scales assessing TL and IC, as well as correlations with the social
network measures regarding the centrality of principals’ positions in their
schools’ networks.

Analysis strategy. Four steps were taken to test our hypotheses (see Figure 1
for a path diagram of the hypothesized relationships). First, we conducted
correlation analyses to examine the relationships between principals’ struc-
tural position, TL, and schools’ IC as perceived by teachers. Second, we ana-
lyzed the influence of demographic variables on the proposed relationships to
identify potential control variables that must be taken into account. Third, we
conducted multilevel regression analyses to test the relationships between TL
and IC (Path 1) and the relationship between principals’ centrality in their
schools’ networks and IC (Path 2). Finally, we tested whether principals’
network position mediated the relationship between TL and IC following
procedures as described by Baron and Kenny (1986).

An important methodological concern when conducting social network
analyses is that the basic assumption of independence of observations under-
lying regression analyses techniques does not hold, as actors in bounded
social networks are constrained by the same relationship opportunities (see
Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998). Therefore, principals’ centrality in the instru-
mental advice network is not entirely independent of their centrality in the
expressive social network. Moreover, because all three types of centrality
are calculated using the same source (the number of relationships between the
principal and the other team members), the observations of different types of
principals’ centrality cannot be considered independent. Because of this inter-
dependency, there is a considerable risk of multicollinearity. Previous research
has demonstrated that often degree, closeness, and betweenness centrality are
characterized by medium to high correlations (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993).
This is also reflected in our sample for both the instrumental and expressive
network (r = .61, p < .01; and r = .64, p < .01, respectively). Whereas multi- collinearity does not affect the predictive power of the model as a whole, it may inflate the standard errors of the individual predictors. To address this

Moolenaar et al. 643

methodological concern, we ran separate models for all types of centrality
(degree, closeness, and betweenness) and for both network types (instrumen-
tal and expressive). Given this strategy and the substantial size of our data set,
we may assume that multicollinearity did not create a significant threat to the
robustness of our findings.

Results
Descriptive Analyses

We calculated descriptive statistics for TL, principals’ social network posi-
tion, and schools’ IC (see Table 3). Findings indicate that principals’ position
in both the instrumental and expressive network is very similar. Teachers in
the sample schools nominate their principals as much as a person from whom
they seek work-related advice as a person by whom they seek guidance on
more personal matters (degree centrality for the instrumental network is .35
and for the expressive network is .32). In general, principals thus receive
work-related advice nominations from about 35% of the teachers, and 32%
of the teachers indicate the principal to be a valuable source of advice related
to personal matters. In both networks, principals are similarly close to teachers,

Transformational
Leadership

Level 1

Level 2

Path 3 Principals’
social network position

– Degree centrality
– Closeness centrality
– Betweenness centrality

Innovative Climate

Path 1 Path 2

Figure 1. Path diagram of hypothesized multilevel mediation

644 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership, Principals’ Social
Network Position, and Schools’ Innovative Climate at the School Level (N = 51) and
the Teacher Level (N = 702)

N Min. Max. M SD

Instrumental network
Principal degree

centrality
51 0.03 0.89 0.35 0.18

Principal closeness
centrality

51 0.22 1.00 0.59 0.18

Principal betweenness
centrality

51 0.00 0.55 0.08 0.11

Principal number of
nominations (degree)

51 1 17 4.8 3.5

Expressive network
Principal degree

centrality
51 0.00 0.78 0.32 0.18

Principal closeness
centrality

51 0.19 1.00 0.62 0.18

Principal betweenness
centrality

51 0.00 0.33 0.06 0.08

Principal number of
nominations (degree)

51 0 18 4.1 3.2

Transformational leadership 51 2.12 3.87 3.06 0.38
Innovative Climate 702 1.00 4.00 2.96 0.55

respectively 59% and 62%. On average, principals’ betweenness centrality is
8% in the instrumental network and 6% in the expressive network. This
implies that principals in general seldom occupy a brokerage position in the
advice networks in their school. Results thus suggest that principals occupy
similar positions in both the instrumental and expressive social network.

Relationships Between Transformational Leadership,
Principals’ Structural Position, and Innovative Climate
Results from the correlation analyses (see Table 4) indicate that TL is positively
and significantly related to teachers’ perceptions of their schools’ IC. TL is also
positively related to principals’ popularity (degree) in both the instrumental
(work advice) and expressive (personal advice) network. The more teachers
perceive their principal as a transformational leader, the more the principal
was nominated as a source of work-related advice and as a person whom

Moolenaar et al. 645

teachers approach for guidance on more personal matters. Moreover, the
more transformational a principal is perceived, the closer she or he is to all
teachers in both the instrumental and expressive networks, as illustrated by
positive correlations between TL and closeness centrality. TL was not sig-
nificantly related to betweenness centrality, which reflects the degree to which
a principal occupies a brokerage position.

Results also suggest that principals’ structural position within the social
network is related to their schools’ IC. The degree to which teachers rely on
the principal for work-related and personal advice is related to teachers’ per-
ceptions of the school’s climate as supportive of innovation. Interestingly, an
increase in principals’ betweenness in the schools’ instrumental networks is
associated with a lower perception of IC within the school. This finding

Table 4. Correlations and Internal Consistencies (Cronbach’s Alpha) at the School
Level (N = 51)

1 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 4

1. Transformational
leadership

(.96) .58** .50** .05 .49** .35* .11 .52**

2. Position in
instrumental
network

a. Degree
centrality

1.00 .61** .26 .61** .52** .30* .39**

b. Closeness
centrality

1.00 .06 .47** .36** .23 .38**

c. Betweenness
centrality

1.00 .18 −.14 .08 −.32**

3. Position in
expressive
network

a. Degree
centrality

1.00 .64** .30* .41**

b. Closeness
centrality

1.00 .58** .38**

c. Betweenness
centrality

1.00 .01

4. Innovative
Climatea

(.86)

Note: aAggregated at the school level for this table only.
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10

646 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

suggests that the more a principal occupies a brokerage role in the advice
relationships between teachers, the less the team is characterized by a will-
ingness to develop new knowledge, create novel practices, and try innovative
teaching strategies. Principals’ betweenness centrality in the expressive
social network was not significantly related to schools’ IC.

The Role of Demographic Variables in Principals’ Social
Network Position and Schools’ Innovative Climate
To examine whether demographic characteristics of teachers, principals,
and schools played a role in the relationships under study, we tested the
extent to which demographics were related to principals’ structural posi-
tion and schools’ IC. We found that teachers who performed administrative
tasks in support of the principal besides their teaching task perceived their
school’s climate as slightly less innovative than teachers without addi-
tional administrative tasks. Moreover, teachers who have more than one
year of experience at the school perceived their school’s climate to be
slightly more innovation-supportive than teachers who just started work-
ing at the school. In regard to principals, we found that teachers with older
principals perceived their schools’ climate on average as less supportive
of innovation than teachers who work with younger principals. Principals’
gender and years of experience at the school were not significantly related
to their schools’ IC (see Table 7). Demographic variables that were sig-
nificantly associated with the relationships under study were included in
further analyses. All other demographics were found to have no effect
on the relationships under study and were therefore excluded from fur-
ther analyses.

The Relationship Between Transformational
Leadership and Innovative Climate
Hypothesis 1 addressed the extent to which principals’ TL was associated
with their schools’ IC (see Table 5). Results from multilevel analyses indi-
cated that the more principals displayed TL behavior in the form of building
a shared vision, considering individual teachers’ feelings and needs, and
intellectually stimulating the teachers, the more their team was characterized
by a willingness to take risks to improve the school by developing and imple-
menting new knowledge and practices (β = .146, p < .001). TL accounted for 11.0% of the variance in teacher perceptions of IC between schools, whereas

Moolenaar et al. 647

Table 5. Multilevel Analysis Results of the Prediction of Perceived Innovative
Climate (IC) by Transformational Leadership (TL) (Path 1)

Model 1 Model 2

Estimate SE Estimate SE

Intercept 2.971*** .040 2.974*** .035
Teacher level
Administrative tasks

(dummy code)
–.046* .019 –.046* .019

Years of experience at
school (dummy code)

.038* .019 .037† .019

School level
Principal age –.095* .038 –.063† .034
Principal gender .054 .040 .006 .037
Principal years of

experience at the
school (dummy code)

.025 .043 .014 .037

Transformational
leadership

.146*** .038

−2 log likelihood 1,047.181 1,034.130
(Null model χ2(3) =
1,064.449)

χ2
DIFF.

(5) = 17.268*** χ2
DIFF.

(6) = 30.319***

Explained variance (total)
School (23.8%) 4.9% 11.0%
Teacher (76.2%) 13.1% 34.3%

Note: N = 51 schools, 51 principals, 702 teachers.
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10

34.3% of the variance in teacher perceptions of IC was explained at the
teacher level. As such, this finding offers support for Hypothesis 1.

The Relationship Between the Principal’s
Position and Innovative Climate
Hypothesis 2 concerned the extent to which principals’ structural position
was associated with schools’ IC (see Table 6). Results indicated that princi-
pals’ degree centrality was significantly related to schools’ IC (β = .098, p < .05), meaning that the more a principal was sought for work-related advice, the more teachers perceived their schools’ climate to be open to innovation

648 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

and supportive of change. This finding was even stronger in regard to the
expressive relationships (β = .125, p < .01). The more the principal was regarded as a person from whom teachers seek personal guidance, the more the team was oriented towards the development of novel teaching strategies and implementation of innovations. This finding provides evidence in sup- port of Hypothesis 2a.

The extent to which principals are closely connected to all teachers
through work-related advice, as indicated by high closeness centrality in
the instrumental network, was also positively associated with schools’ IC
(β = .147, p < .001) . This finding held as well for the expressive network, but to a lesser extent (β = .102, p < .05). In other words, the more the prin- cipal was embedded in the network as a central “hub” of work-related and

Table 6. Multilevel Analysis Results of the Prediction of Perceived Innovative
Climate (IC) by Principals’ Social Network Position (Path 2)

β SE Model

School
Variance

(%)

Teacher
Variance

(%)

Instrumental
network
position

Degree
centrality

.098* .046 1,042.845, χ2
D
(6) = 21.604** 7.3 21.8

Closeness
centrality

.147*** .042 1,035.819, χ2
D
(6) = 28.630*** 9.7 29.3

Betweenness
centrality

–.090* .039 1,042.027, χ2
D
(6) = 22.422** 7.2 20.7

Expressive
network
position

Degree
centrality

.125** .041 1,038.582, χ2
D
(6) = 25.867*** 8.9 26.8

Closeness
centrality

.102* .042 1,041.715, χ2
D
(6) = 22.734*** 7.7 22.9

Betweenness
Centrality

−.015 .041 1,047.049, χ2
D
(6) = 17.440** 4.9 13.0

Note:

Null model for IC: χ2
Null

(3) = 1,064.449. ICC
IC

= .238, χ2(1) = 85.212, p < .001. N = 51 schools, 51 principals, 702 teachers. All models include the following demographic control variables: Teacher level, administrative tasks (dummy), years of experience at school (dummy); School level, principal age, principal gender, principal years of experience at school (dummy). ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10

649

T
a
b

le
7

.
M

ul
ti
pl

e
R

eg
re

ss
io

n
A

na
ly

si
s

R
es

ul
ts

o
f
th

e

Pr

ed
ic

ti
o
n

o
f
Pr

in
ci

pa
ls

’ S
o
ci

al
N

et
w

o
rk

P
o
si

ti
o
n

by
T

ra
ns

fo
rm

at
io

na
l

Le
ad

er
sh

ip
(

T
L)

(
N

=
5

1)
(

Pa
th

3
) I

ns
tr

um
en

ta
l D

eg
re

e
C

en
tr

al

it
y

In
st

ru
m

en
ta

l C
lo

se
ne

ss
C

en
tr
al
it
y
In
st
ru
m
en
ta

l B
et

w
ee

nn
es

s
C

en
tr
al
it
y

B

SE
β

B
SE

β
B

SE
β
In
te

rc
ep

t
−

.2
76

.1
76

−
.0

87
.1

87
−

.0
21

.1
41

Pr
in
ci

pa
l a

ge
−

.0
61

.0
21

–.
32

8*
*

−
.0

18
.0

22
−

.1
01

.
01

6
.0

17
.1

46
Pr

in
ci

pa
l g

en
de

r
.0

4

1
.0

21
.2

22
†

−
.0

0

5
.0

23
.0

27
−

.0
11

.0
17

−
.1

06
Pr

in
ci

pa
l y

ea
rs

o
f
ex

pe
ri

en
ce

a
t
t
he
s
ch

o
o
l (

du
m

m
y

co
de

)
.0

33
.0

21
.1

79
†

.
05

6
.0

22
.3

20
*

.
00

0
.0

16
−

.0
02

Tr
an
sf
o
rm
at
io
na
l l
ea
de
rs
hi

p
.2

05
.0

57
.4

17
**

*
.

22
2

.0
61

.4
76

**
*

.
03

4
.0

46
.1

18
R

2
.4

83
.3

58
.0

31
A

dj
us

te
d

R
2

.4
37

.3
01

.0
00

F
10

.5
19

**
6.

26
7*

**
.3

54

Ex

pr
es

si
ve

D
eg

re
e

C
en

tr
al

it
y

Ex
pr

es
si

ve
C

lo
se

ne
ss

C
en

tr
al
it
y
Ex
pr
es
si

ve
B

et
w

ee
nn

es
s

C
en
tr
al
it
y

B
SE
β
B
SE
β
B
SE
β
In
te
rc
ep
t
−

.2
73

.1
98

.
25

9
.2

09
.

02
5

.0
98

Pr
in
ci
pa
l a
ge
−

.0
24

.0
24
−
.1

32
−

.0
35

.0
25

−
.1

94
−

.0
10

.0
12

−
.1

28
Pr

in
ci
pa
l g
en
de
r
.0

20
.0

24
.1

12
.

02
5
.0
25

.1
36

.
00
5
.0

12
.0

64
Pr

in
ci
pa
l y
ea
rs
o
f
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
a
t
t
he
s
ch
o
o
l (
du
m
m
y
co
de
)
.0

31
.0

23
.1

72
.

04
9

.0
24

.2
69

†
.

01
0

.0
11
.1
36
Tr
an
sf
o
rm
at
io
na
l l
ea
de
rs
hi

p
.1

93
.0

64
.4

10
**

.
11

9
.0

68
.2

48
†

.
01
1
.0

32
.0

55
R

2
.2

89
.2

35
.0

45
A

dj
us
te
d
R
2

.2
26

.1
67

.0
00

F
4.

57
6*

*
3.

45
4*

.5
27

N
o
te

: *
**

p
<

.0
01

, *
*p

< .0

1,
*

p
<

.0
5,

†
p
<

.1
0

650 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

personal advice, the more the team was willing to try new practices and
take risks in improving the school. As such, this finding corroborates
Hypothesis 2b.

In line with our expectation, we found that schools’ IC was negatively
related to principals’ betweenness centrality in the instrumental network (β =
–.090, p < .05). The more a principal occupied a “brokerage” position in the work-related advice network, thereby controlling the flow of information, the less a team was open towards innovation and willing to collectively invent new teaching strategies and ideas. This finding could not be confirmed for the expressive network (β = –.015, ns). Brokering principals may have interrupted and inhibited the development of new ideas and risk-taking behavior by con- trolling the dissemination of work-related advice. This result provides evi- dence for Hypothesis 2c, but only for the instrumental social network and not for the expressive social network.

Mediating Role of Principals’ Structural Position
in the Relationship Between Transformational
Leadership and Innovative Climate

Additional analyses were conducted to examine whether principals’ struc-
tural position played a mediating role in the relationship between TL and
innovation orientation (Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c). To test for mediation, we
followed a procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). The first step
involved confirmation of a positive predictive relationship between TL and
schools’ IC (Path 1 in Figure 1, confirmed by Hypothesis 1).

The second step in testing the mediation hypotheses required the confir-
mation of relationships between TL and principals’ structural position (Path 3)
(see Table 7). Because both variables are school-level variables, we con-
ducted multiple regression analysis (N = 51) to test our hypotheses. We found
that TL was positively associated with principals’ popularity in the instru-
mental and the expressive network (respectively, β = .417, p < .001; and β = .410, p < .01). The more a principal displayed TL by disseminating the school’s vision, considering teachers’ individual needs and stimulating the professional development of teachers, the more she or he was sought out for work-related and personal advice.

Principals’ TL also had a positive relationship with the extent to which
they were close to all teachers in the network. The more teachers perceived
their principal as a transformational leader, the closer the principal was to
all teachers in the team with regard to work-related advice. This result

Moolenaar et al. 651

suggests that transformational leaders had an increased ability to reach all
teachers with work-related advice, in contrast to principals who displayed
less TL behavior. This finding was stronger for the instrumental network than
for the expressive network (respectively, β = .476, p < .001; and β = .248, p < .10), indicating the importance of TL particularly for the dissemination of knowledge and information through work-related advice ties. Finally, we found that TL was unrelated to betweenness centrality in the instrumental and expressive network (respectively, β = .118, ns; and β = .055, ns).

Because TL was found to be unrelated to betweenness centrality in both
networks, preconditions for mediation by betweenness centrality are not met.
In addition, TL failed to significantly explain closeness centrality in the
expressive network. Therefore, a test of mediation was limited to potential
mediation by degree centrality in both networks and by closeness centrality
in the expressive network.

To confirm mediation, it must be shown that the mediator is related to the
dependent variable while “fixing” the independent variable (Pearl, 2000).
Therefore, we conducted three additional multilevel analyses in which TL
was added to the prediction of IC by principals’ structural position. This way,
we examined whether TL accounted for any additional explained variance
above the effect of principals’ structural position on IC. Mediation by princi-
pals’ structural position is evidenced when the direct effect of TL on IC in
this model is either zero (full mediation) or decreases significantly in abso-
lute size (partial mediation). Confirmation of mediation is then provided by a
test of the significance of the indirect effect as examined by Sobel’s test
(1982). Results of this multilevel analysis are reported in Table 8.

Previous analyses (see Table 5) already indicated that TL had a significant
predictive relationship with IC (β = .146, p < .001). Including both TL and principals’ degree centrality in the instrumental network in the regression equation did not reduce the direct effect of TL on IC significantly (β = .134, p < .01). A similar result was obtained for TL in combination with principals’ degree centrality in the expressive network (β = .116, p < .01). Both effects of principals’ instrumental network position were not significant when TL was included in the equation. Sobel’s test confirmed that both proposed mediator effects were nonsignificant (for instrumental degree centrality, Sobel test statistic = 0.56, ns; for expressive degree centrality, Sobel test sta- tistic = 1.56, ns). The inclusion of TL and principals’ closeness centrality in the instrumental network reduced the relationship between TL and IC consid- erably (from β = .146, p < .001, to β = .106, p < .05). The mediating effect was found to be significant as evidenced by Sobel’s test (Sobel test statistic = 1.97, p < .05). As such, partial mediation could be confirmed in the case of

652 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

instrumental closeness centrality but has to be rejected for other forms of
centrality. This finding suggests that the relationship between TL and
schools’ IC can be partially explained by the finding that transformational
leaders are more closely positioned to the teachers in their school’s instru-
mental network.

The results from our analyses can also be illustrated graphically. In Figures 2
and 3, we provide two typical instrumental social networks of similar size
sample schools (Schools 39 and 19, respectively) that represent principals
with high and low scores on perceived TL and IC coupled with centrality
scores. In these social network visualizations, teachers are represented by
circles, principals by triangles (sized by degree), and relationships between
actors by arrowed lines representing the directional flow of work-related
advice. Teachers from School 39 (Figure 2) reported significantly higher lev-
els of TL and IC in comparison to School 19 (Figure 3): TL, t(34) = 2.02, p < .05;

Table 8. Testing Mediation: Multilevel Analysis Results of the Prediction of Perceived
Innovative Climate (IC) by Principals’ Social Network Position and Transformational
Leadership (Path 3 and Path 2)

β SE Model
School
Variance
(%)
Teacher
Variance
(%)

Instrumental
network position

Degree centrality .027 .048 1,033.807, χ2
D
(7) = 30.642*** 11.2 35.0

Transformational
leadership

.134** .043

Closeness
centrality

.094* .040 1,029.734, χ2
D
(7) = 34.715*** 12.3 38.5

Transformational
leadership

.106* .041

Expressive network
position

Degree centrality .075† .041 1,030.906, χ2
D
(7) = 33.543*** 12.1 38.1

Transformational
leadership

.116** .040

Null model for IC: χ2
Null
(3) = 1,064.449. ICC
IC

= .238, χ2(1) = 85.212, p < .001. N = 51 schools, 51 principals, 702 teachers. All models include the following demographic control variables: Teacher level, administrative tasks (dummy), years of experience at school (dummy); School level, principal age, principal gender, principal years of experience at school (dummy). ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10.

Moolenaar et al. 653

and IC, t(34) = 4.98, p < .001. In addition to significantly “more” TL and IC for School 39 (Figure 2), the principal’s position in this school was also char- acterized by higher degree and closeness centrality and lower betweenness centrality than the principal in School 19 (Figure 3).

Discussion and Conclusion
Our study is at the forefront of research into the interplay of leadership
behavior and leadership position in support of innovative climates that char-
acterize schools in which teachers collaboratively develop new ideas and
shared practices to increase school improvement. Our study yielded valuable
results, indicating that the more a principal engaged in TL, the more likely

Figure 2. Example of principal’s position in a school’s instrumental advice network:
High innovative climate

654 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

teachers were to take risks in developing and implementing new knowledge
and practices. Also, transformational principals were more sought out for
advice and were significantly closer to teachers in their school than princi-
pals who showed less TL behavior. Moreover, the more connected and the
closer a principal was to the teachers, the more teachers perceived the
school’s climate to be supportive of innovative practices and risk taking.
Conversely, we also found that when principals were positioned “in between”
others in the network, thus having the potential to control the flow of work-
related knowledge and information, the less their schools’ climates were
perceived as oriented towards innovation. Although one of the earliest
attempts to examine both leadership behavior and social position around IC,
our study offers several themes related to leadership practice and research.

Figure 3. Example of principal’s position in a school’s instrumental advice network:
Low innovative climate

Moolenaar et al. 655

The Role of Leadership Behavior in
Supporting Innovative Climates

With increasing pressure and incentives to innovate, educational systems are
seeking new ideas and practices to improve performance. This study contrib-
utes to previous literature by underlining that leadership behaviors matter for
innovation by creating risk-tolerant environments. Our work suggests that by
enacting TL behavior, principals can support a school climate that is more
oriented towards innovation and provides opportunities to challenge the sta-
tus quo. As such, leadership behavior is important for nurturing and stimulat-
ing a climate in which teachers are more likely to engage in risk-taking and
the development of novel solutions. Those leaders who are able to develop
shared vision and goals, attend to the social needs of individuals, and provide
intellectual stimulation are perceived to support the fertile ground for inno-
vation to develop.

This finding, although maybe not overly surprising, is important for edu-
cational systems that are attempting to improve. Whereas school improve-
ment efforts are more likely to succeed in innovation-supportive climates, the
need for leadership behaviors that foster such climates is often overlooked.
Most policy related to improvement is focused on technical elements of
reform, and therefore many reform efforts in underperforming system focus
on program fidelity, rigid curriculum, and prescriptive approaches (Daly,
2009; Mintrop & Trujillo, 2007). In response, many leaders in these systems
also tend to become more focused on the technical elements of the reform and
thus perhaps engage less in shared vision building and creating opportunities
to enact novel solutions that may lead to the new approaches necessary to
improve performance. Although our research did not examine these more
transactional behaviors and their role in nurturing an IC, our work does sug-
gest that principals, through TL, have the potential to support such innovation-
oriented climates that in turn may strengthen efforts at improvement.

The Role of Leadership Behavior in
Occupying the Principal Position
The results of the study suggest that principals who are recognized as trans-
formational leaders occupy more central positions in their schools’ social
networks. Teachers with transformational principals seek out their principals
more often for work-related and personal advice, thus enabling principals to
exert control over the (new) knowledge that gets disseminated within teams.

656 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

Through sharing and developing a school’s vision, providing personalized
attention, and intellectually stimulating organizational members, transforma-
tional leaders may have something to offer above and beyond nontransfor-
mational leaders, making them more actively sought as a source of advice. It
may also be possible that in addition to being sought for advice, transforma-
tional leaders themselves actively seek to obtain a more central position in
their network, thus enabling them to provide more targeted individualized
attention. Examining the agency of transformational principals in this regard
may be an important future area of inquiry. Additionally, our results suggest
that highly transformational principals are also closer to their teachers in the
instrumental network, meaning that they may reach their teachers more quickly
with professional information and knowledge that may support efforts at
innovation. A principal who is close to staff may have a greater opportunity
to collectively share and develop the school’s vision as well as provide timely
access to the resources necessary in realizing that vision.

Combining Leadership Behavior and
Position for Innovative Climates
The combination of speed, ease, and consistency of resource flow (informa-
tion, knowledge, etc.) throughout the network is important because sharing
information, ideas, and opportunities to interact is critical for innovative
climates (Moolenaar et al., in press; Mumford et al., 2002). The significant
contribution of this work is that, in addition to leadership behavior, the princi-
pal’s network position may play an important role in stimulating or inhibit-
ing the flow of information and knowledge within schools, and occupying
such a position is associated with the extent to which schools are character-
ized by an IC. We will now discuss the facilitating and inhibiting roles of
principals’ network positions in support of innovative climates.

The facilitating role of closeness. Our work suggests that teachers who per-
ceive their school’s climate as innovative are often guided by leaders who
both display transformational behavior and occupy a close position to these
teachers. Hence, at least one of the mechanisms through which transformational
leaders succeed in supporting an IC is by occupying a position “close” to their
teachers. The greater a principal’s closeness centrality, the quicker and with
more ease information that passes the principal’s office will reach all team
members. Moreover, this closeness also implies that the information dissemi-
nated by the principal will have less chance of being modified as it passes
from person to person. Being close to their team members may thus be of
strategic advantage for transformational leaders, as increased connections

Moolenaar et al. 657

with team members may enable them to maximize the skills, knowledge, and
shared learning experiences that are being exchanged within the network.

As the work of a transformational leader is often done “through” others, a
leader who has close access to others may be better positioned to leverage
social resources in meeting organizational goals. By supporting the collective
development of a clear vision for the school’s future, and attending to teach-
ers’ needs for professional development and intellectual growth, transforma-
tional leaders also become more valuable as a “hub” of advice. What is clear
from this study is that both TL behavior and closeness centrality are impor-
tant facilitators in fostering risk tolerance, stimulating teachers’ shared learn-
ing, and promoting climates supportive of innovation.

It appears that this risk-taking behavior is also demonstrated in teachers’
search for personal advice from transformational leaders. In addition to culti-
vating climates in which innovation can occur, it seems these transforma-
tional leaders also supported a psychologically safe environment for personal
vulnerabilities to be shared. This openness in communication and the ability
to take risks in a psychologically safe environment indicates the importance
of trust in these interactions (Daly & Chrispeels, 2008; Moolenaar, Karsten,
et al., 2009; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). This suggests the importance of indi-
vidual consideration by transformational leaders as one of the elements in
fostering school climates supportive of innovation.

The inhibiting role of betweenness. An important finding of this study is that
even if a principal is enacting TL, which is associated with increased perception
of IC, occupying a go-between position in a network will inhibit the extent
to which teachers are willing to innovate. Occupying a high-betweenness
position may offer the potential for leaders to bridge the gap between other-
wise disconnected individuals or groups within a network, thereby stimulat-
ing the flow of information that may support the generation of new knowledge
and practices through social learning. However, our research aligns with pre-
vious research (Kilduff & Krackhardt, 2008) that suggests that leaders who
occupy a betweenness position also have the power to reduce the opportuni-
ties for teachers to interact, share knowledge, and seek advice from each
other, thus constraining the generation of new ideas and practices (Hargadon,
2003; Obstfeld, 2005). As such, principals who occupied an “in-between”
position in the sample schools may have inhibited the social learning process
that underlies innovative climates (Paavola et al., 2004), which may have
resulted in a reduction in teachers’ perceptions of opportunities for, and open-
ness to, innovation and improvement. In this sense, the position of a principal
in a network has as much influence on the fertile grounds for innovation
as leadership behavior. The important message from this work is that the

658 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

enactment and benefits of TL behaviors can be enhanced or diminished based
on principal position in the social network.

Delimiters and Directions for Future Research
As an early study into this emerging area, there are several limitations to our
work. First off, our work suggests interrelations between behavior and net-
work position but does not imply directionality or chronology. Although it is
plausible that TL behavior “makes” principals more sought as a resource,
and these leaders may themselves seek a more central position, which in turn
shapes teachers’ orientation towards innovation, the opposite may also hold.
For instance, in schools with an urgent need for innovation, teachers may be
more oriented towards school improvement and change. As a consequence,
teachers may seek more advice from principals, which in turn may increase
principals’ behavior in terms of setting goals, giving individualized attention,
and offering intellectual stimulation.

On a related note, it is important to recognize that the mediation hypoth-
esis tested in this article is not driven by a specific intervention that varied
principals’ centrality position in their schools’ networks. Because the data for
this study were collected at a single point in time, mediation of a relationship
between two variables was not measured as a longitudinal process that
resulted from an intervention but, rather, as an explanation of the existing
relationship between two variables. Whereas cross-sectional analysis of
mediation is not uncommon, we also believe that the literature provides suf-
ficient grounds to suggest that TL is related to the IC in schools because
transformational leaders occupy a more central position in their schools’
social networks (Bass et al., 2003; Ibarra & Andrews, 1993).

Another limitation to the study concerns the generalizability of findings.
Although we have adequate sample size for the analysis, our results only
reflect a single district of schools in the Netherlands. Therefore, caution is
warranted in generalizing the findings to other settings, such as the U.S.
school context. In addition, although we have attempted to control for a vari-
ety of demographic features of principals and teachers, there may be various
other variables in play that may partially explain our findings. For instance,
although we assessed innovative climates in an attempt to transcend the con-
textual aspect of studying specific innovations and facilitate comparisons
among schools, it is not to say that our findings may not have been affected
by specific innovations or reforms that were implemented at the schools at
the time of the study. This study only included teachers’ perceptions of the
climate around innovation, not the actual innovations themselves. Whereas

Moolenaar et al. 659

we strongly subscribe the need for a fertile climate as perhaps even a precon-
dition for successful school improvement, we acknowledge that the study of
conditions for successful improvement needs to be supported by insights in
the success of actual innovations.

It is also possible that schools are characterized by highly innovative cli-
mates without ever making meaningful change in instructional practice (Rowan,
Correnti, Miller, & Camburn, 2009). Moreover, research relating the social
network structure of school teams to improvement of instruction and student
achievement is scarce. However, we argue throughout this article that a
shared openness to new practices in an innovation-supportive climate may
provide the necessary precondition for school improvement. To substantiate
the importance of innovative school climates in supporting the development
and implementation of actual specific innovations, more studies need to be
conducted in a variety of settings and under various conditions.

It may be interesting to study other principal leadership behavior in relation
to principals’ network position, as well as how leadership may be shared
throughout an organization. We foresee a valuable link to another emerging
field in leadership, namely, distributed leadership (e.g., Harris, Leithwood,
Day, Sammons, & Hopkins, 2007; Mayrowetz, 2008; Spillane, 2006). A dis-
tributive perspective on leadership focuses on leadership activities that emerge
from the interaction of “all individuals who contribute to leadership practice,
whether or not they are formally designated or defined as leaders” (Harris &
Spillane, 2008, p. 31). Leadership from this perspective is therefore concerned
with both the leadership behavior and the social context in which organiza-
tional members interact in support of organizational goals. From this perspec-
tive, teachers’ leadership actions may also be studied for their relation to
network position and effect on the implementation of innovations and reform.

Several issues should be noted in relation to the finding of the negative
association between principals’ occupying a betweenness position and the
schools’ IC. First, the networks in our sample were relatively small (network
size between 6 and 31), thus increasing the chance of teachers’ interacting.
Moreover, schools, relative to other organizations, may be classified as rather
“flat” organizations, characterized by norms of egalitarianism (Little, 1982).
As such, the small teams may have decreased the possibility for principals to
be “in between” teachers who are themselves disconnected. Therefore, in our
sample, principals rarely occupied moderate to extreme brokerage roles, sug-
gesting an area of further examination. Second, when a leader occupies a
brokerage position, there may be multiple reasons why the leader is in this
network position. For instance, principals may choose to occupy such a position
as they feel the need to control the flow of information, thereby orchestrating

660 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

and effectively controlling the extent to which teachers can share knowledge
and expertise that may give rise to the creation of new practices in support of
school improvement. When principals occupy a betweenness position, this
may also signify that there are teachers who are unconnected due to unre-
solved conflict or other systemic problems that force the principal to act as a
broker. These systemic issues, and teachers’ resulting dependency on the
principal to negotiate connections, may in fact hinder the school’s IC more
than the principal’s role per se. An examination of the reason why a principal
occupies a betweenness position was beyond the scope of this article and yet
represents an important area for examination. Research into such antecedents
of social network positions is rather scarce (Borgatti & Foster, 2003) but,
given the importance of social network position for a variety of outcomes,
crucial (Moolenaar, 2010).

An issue that also deserves attention in future studies is the role of princi-
pals’ buffering position in relation to forces outside the school. Research has
indicated that leaders who play a buffering role in respect to reforms, innova-
tions, and organizations that permeate the school from the outside can help
schools to avoid instructional incoherence due to a myriad of influences pull-
ing the school’s agenda and resources in a variety of different directions
(Honig & Hatch, 2004). Therefore, insights into the principal’s position in
the network that extends school boundaries may also offer valuable informa-
tion on the potential for schools to implement reforms and foster school
improvement (Daly & Finnigan, 2009; Moolenaar, 2010).

The limitations of this early work also offer great potential for future
research and motivate further questions about the conditions under which TL,
network position, and IC interact to yield positive change in instructional
practice and student achievement. Additional samples from a variety of inter-
national perspectives would add to our understanding and perhaps provide
opportunity for comparisons across contexts. Along the same lines, research
in other educational settings, such as secondary, higher, or vocational educa-
tion, to validate our findings in other settings would also be indicated to
enhance our insights in the interplay of leadership behavior, leadership net-
work position, and innovative climates. Moreover, longitudinal studies that
examine networks over time may broaden our knowledge of network dynam-
ics in school teams and changes in principals’ network positions, related to,
for instance, the multiphased implementation of reform. In addition, creating
matched sets of schools in regard to teacher population would provide for
more control in the study and thus more comparable results. We view future
research as best done through a combination of both quantitative and qualita-
tive methods, as the network methods provide a snapshot of the structure,

Moolenaar et al. 661

whereas the quality and nuanced exchanges that can be captured through
more qualitative means.

With regard to leadership education and practice, our results suggest that
leaders would be advised to not only focus on developing vision, considering
individuals, and supporting intellectual stimulation but to also be aware of
the importance of location in a social network, as that position can either
enhance or detract from leadership efforts. This research suggests the impor-
tance of combining the fields of leadership with network theory in creating a
robust picture of future educational leadership.

Occupying the Principal Position
The work of the contemporary principal in any setting is complex, fraught
with decisions, and replete with pressures for performance. In the Dutch
context as well as in the United States, there is increasing pressure to “inno-
vate.” What is less clear is what comprises an “innovation,” as one system’s
novel idea may be another’s common practice. Therefore, we have focused
our attention on innovation-supportive climates as the fertile ground for
innovations to flourish. Our work suggests that the well-studied area of TL
holds promise in supporting innovative climates. However, the behaviors
themselves can either be enhanced or diminished based on the social posi-
tion the leader occupies. This combination of purposeful action and posi-
tion in the social milieu, we believe, holds promise for leaders enacting
school improvement and supporting innovation in 21st-century educational
settings.

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/
or authorship of this article: This research was funded by the Netherlands Organisation
for Scientific Research (NWO-PROO grant number 411-03-506).

References

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy
of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of cre-
ativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.

662 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-87.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the

work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam. (2003). Context and leadership: An

examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261–295.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of trans-
formational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Ques-
tionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leader-
ship: The road ahead. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and mod-
erating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951-968.

Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative: The
relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in research and
development teams. Small Group Research, 32, 55-73.

Baker, W., & Iyer, A. (1992). Information networks and market behaviour. Journal of
Mathematical Sociology, 16, 305-332.

Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong infer-
ence about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 49, 49-68.

Balkundi, P., & Kilduff, M. (2005). The ties that lead: A social network approach to
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(6), 941-961.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York,
NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit per-
formance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moolenaar et al. 663

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understand-
ing the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, 554−571.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows:
Software for social network analysis. Cambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research:
A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.

Borgatti, S. P., Jones, C., & Everett, M. G. (1998). Network measures of social capi-
tal. Connections, 21(2), 27-36.

Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investi-
gation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 441-470.

Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago
elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educa-
tional Administration Quarterly, 35, 751-781.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Burt, R. S. (1983). Range. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analy-

sis: A methodological introduction (pp. 176-194). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.
Calantone, R. J., Garcia, R., & Droge, C. (2003). The effects of environmental turbu-

lence on new product development strategy planning. Journal of Product Innova-
tion Management, 20(2), 90-103.

Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks.
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235.

Consortium on Chicago School Research. (2004). Public use dataset. 2001 Survey of
Students and Teachers. User’s manual. Chicago, IL: Author.

Copeland, M., Reynolds, K., & Burton, J. (2008). Social identity, status characteris-
tics and social identity: Predictors of advice-seeking in a manufacturing facility.
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 75-87.

Daft, R., & Becker, S. (1978). Innovation in organizations: Innovation adoption in
school organizations. New York, NY: Elsevier.

Daly, A. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leader-
ship and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168-216.

Daly, A. J., & Chrispeels, J. (2008). A question of trust: Predictive conditions for
adaptive and technical leadership in educational contexts. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(1), 30-63.

Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. (2010). Understanding network structure to under-
stand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change. Volume 111, 111-138.
doi: 10.1007/s10833-009-9102-5

664 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

Daly, A. J., Moolenaar, N., Bolivar, J., & Burke, P. (in press). Relationships in reform:
The role of teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational Administration.

Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance:
The problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 392-409.

Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolly, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools
in times of change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about
creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 24, 286-307.

Ellis, A. K. (2005). Research on educational innovations. Larchmont, NY: Eye on
Education.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integra-
tive review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal,
8, 231-247.

Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of
innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools.
Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148-171.

Fullan, M. G. (1992). Successful school improvement. Buckingham, UK: Open Uni-
versity Press.

Geijsel, F. P. (2001). Schools and innovations. Conditions fostering the implementation
of educational innovations. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Nijmegen University Press.

Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Transformational
leadership effects on teachers’ commitment and effort toward school re-form.
Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 229-256.

Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Stoel, R. D., & Krüger, M. L. (2009). The effect
of teacher psychological, school organizational and leadership factors on teach-
ers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. Elementary School Journal, 109(4),
406-427.

Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Van den Berg, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001).
Conditions fostering the implementation of large-scale innovation programs in
schools: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1),
130-166.

Geijsel, F. P., Van den Berg, R., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (1999). The innovative capac-
ity of schools in primary education: A qualitative study. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(2), 175-191.

Hage, J. T. (1999). Organizational innovation and organizational change. Annual
Review of Sociology, 25, 597-622.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., Novicevic, M. M., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. (2003). The
influence of temporal complexity in the leadership of creativity and innovation: A
competency- based model. Leadership Quarterly, 14(5), 89-97.

Moolenaar et al. 665

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to
school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improve-
ment, 9, 157-191.

Hanneman, R., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. River-
side, CA: University of California, Riverside. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr
.edu/~hanneman/nettext/

Hargadon, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Publishing.

Harris, A., Leithwood, K. A., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distrib-
uted leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of
Educational Change, 8(4), 337-347.

Harris, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass.
Management in Education, 22(1), 31-34.

Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically
manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improve-
ment works. New York, NY: Plenum.

Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management—A
conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 56-87.

Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial
networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 673-703.

Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects
of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administration Sci-
ence Quarterly, 38, 277-303.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.

Jung, D. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on
creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 185-195.

Jung, D., & Avolio, B. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation
of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949-964.

Jung, D., & Sosik, J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of
empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective efficacy on perceived group perfor-
mance. Small Group Research, 33, 313-336.

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:

Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-255.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology.

In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology
(4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233-265). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

666 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (2008), Interpersonal networks in organization: Cog-
nition, personality, dynamics, and culture: Structural analysis in the social sci-
ences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and
the replication of technology. Organization Studies, 3, 383-397.

Krackhardt, D. (1996). Social networks and the liability of newness for managers.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3, 159-173.

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reli-
ability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administra-
tion Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about success-
ful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational leadership research
1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-200.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-
scale reform: Effects on students, teachers and their classroom practices. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-228.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2004). Stra-
tegic leadership for large-scale reform: The case of England’s National Literacy
and Numeracy Strategies. Journal of School Leadership and Management, 24(1),
57-80.

Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers’
motivation to implement accountability policies. Education Administration Quar-
terly, 38(1), 94-119.

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions
of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.

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.

Mayrowetz, D. (2008). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the mul-
tiple usages of the concept in the field. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44, 424-435.

Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B. (2006). The social network
ties of group leaders: Implications for group performance and leader reputation.
Organization Science, 17(1), 64-82.

Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems
for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educa-
tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 319-352.

Moolenaar et al. 667

Monge, P. R., Cozzens, M. D., & Contractor, N. S. (1992). Communication and moti-
vational predictors of the dynamics of organizational innovation. Organization
Science, 3, 250-274.

Moolenaar, N. M. (2010). Ties with potential: Nature, antecedents, and consequences
of social networks in school teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (in press). Ties with potential:
Social network structure and Innovative Climate in Dutch Schools. Teachers Col-
lege Record.

Moolenaar, N. M., Karsten, S., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Zijlstra, B. J. H. (2009). Profes-
sional learning communities from a social capital perspective: Studying social
networks and trust in elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Diego, CA.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative
people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705-750.

Nguni, S., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transac-
tional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 145-177.

Nohari, K., & Gulati, S. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 799-825.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge- creating company. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.

Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the Tertius Iungens orientation, and involve-
ment in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100-130.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contex-
tual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowl-
edge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational
Research, 74(4), 557-576.

Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implemen-
tation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.

Penuel, W. R., Frank, K. A., & Krause, A. E. (2007). A social network approach to
examining the effects of distributed leadership in school wide reform initiatives.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.

668 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static
and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1),
89-106.

Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment
to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179-201.

Rowan, B., Correnti, R., Miller, R., & Camburn, E. (2009). School improvement
by design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs.
Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of
Pennsylvania.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path
model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 37, 580-607.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social
and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly,
15(1), 33-53.

Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2001). Effects of social-psychological factors on
creative performance: The role of informational and controlling expected evalu-
ation and modeling experience. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 84, 1-22.

Silins, H. C., Mulford, W. R., & Zarins, S. (2002). Organizational learning and school
change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 613-642.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and ano-
nymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system
environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89-103.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member
exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Storey, J., & Salaman, G. (2005). Managers of innovation. Insights into making inno-

vation happen. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Sunderman, G. L., Kim, J. S., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities:

Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L., & Klein, S. R. (1997). Influences of organizational culture

and climate on individual creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 27-41.
The Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science. (2009). Maatschap-

pelijke Innovatie Agenda Onderwijs [Social Innovation Education Plan]. Retrieve
from http://www.minocw.nl/documenten/128216b (in Dutch).

Moolenaar et al. 669

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents
and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
1137-1148.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and
employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 52, 591-620.

Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of net-
work position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996-1004.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools. The role
of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2),
217-247.

Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic
performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review,
61, 674-698.

Van den Berg, R., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (1996). Building innovative capacity and lead-
ership. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.),
International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653-699).
London, UK: Kluwer Academic.

Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Huang, X. (2005). Location-level links
between diversity and innovative climate depend on national power distance.
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1171-1182.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1998). Social network analysis: Methods and applica-
tions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Yu, H., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2002). The comparative effects of transforma-
tional leadership on teachers commitment to change in Hong Kong and Canada.
Journal of Educational Administration, 1(4), 368-384.

Bio

Nienke M. Moolenaar, PhD, is an assistant professor of Educational Sciences and
Human Resource Development at the University of Twente, The Netherlands. Her
research interests include social capital theory, social network analysis, school leader-
ship, organizational behavior and students’ citizenship competences in elementary
education. During her PhD project, she received various grants and scholarships to
present her work at international conferences. As a visiting scholar, she attended the
University of California, San Diego. Recently, she received the distinction ‘cum
laude’ for her dissertation ‘Ties with Potential’ on social networks in school teams.

Alan J. Daly, PhD, is an assistant professor of Education Studies at the University of
California, San Diego. His research interests include leadership, educational policy

670 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

and reform, and social network theory. Recent journal publications include, A Bridge
Between Two Worlds: Understanding Leadership Network Structure to Understand
Change Strategy (2009, Journal of Educational Change), and The Ebb and Flow of
Social Network Ties between District Leaders Under High Stakes Accountability
(in press, American Educational Research Journal). In addition, he has a book on
social networks entitled, Ties of Change: Social Network Theory and Application in
Education, due out in the Fall of 2010.

Peter J. C. Sleegers, PhD, is Professor of Educational Organization and Management
at the University of Twente. He has published extensively on leadership, innovation
and educational policy in more than 40 referred journal articles and several edited
books. Current research projects are studies into the effects of educational leadership
on student motivation for school, longitudinal research into sustainability of reforms
and design studies into professional learning communities.

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 49(3), 2012 C© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21598

DISTRICT-LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORTING AND SUSTAINING RTI
IMPLEMENTATION

EDWARD P. O’CONNOR AND ELIZABETH WITTER FREEMAN

Midwest Instructional Leadership Council (miLc)

Although Response to Intervention (RtI) implementation efforts have been occurring in schools
across the country for more than a decade, questions and concerns are emerging, as some schools
are not observing significantly improved student achievement or behavior outcomes as expected.
In the literature on RtI implementation, most authors indicate there are multiple levels of support
that are required for effective RtI implementation. These include individual professional develop-
ment regarding the rationale for RtI and for developing necessary skills; building-level support
encompassing necessary resources, leadership, and structures that promote RtI; and district-level
support to drive the broader system. In this article, we identify district-level supports that are
important for school psychologists to consider as they work to initiate or extend RtI routines. The
district-level factors discussed here are organized into the categories of leadership, assessment and
data management, culture and beliefs, professional development, staff recruitment, and resource
allocation. C© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Response to Intervention (RtI) implementation efforts have been occurring at some level in
most school districts across the country, with some schools having started these efforts a decade ago
or more. As the efforts at restructuring and reforming service delivery around the RtI framework have
evolved, many questions and concerns are beginning to emerge regarding these efforts. Although
some schools have achieved exceptional results through RtI implementation (e.g., Vail School
District, AZ, VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2005; Minneapolis Public Schools, Heartland, 2005; Marston,
Muyskes, Lau, & Canter, 2002), many are having difficulty in determining what, if anything, has
changed. In our work with schools across the Midwest, we have encountered many school districts
that have made a commitment to implementing RtI systems but are still having difficulty gaining
momentum for these efforts. Many schools have established RtI structures and are collecting a great
deal of data related to student learning outcomes, but are not realizing significantly improved student
achievement or behavior outcomes. The following quote supports our observation: “The effect sizes
reported for research studies of RtI are less consistent than many of its supporters profess and those
studies reporting strong results are highly likely to have levels of treatment fidelity that are atypical”
(Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009, p. 131).

In other words, many schools/districts seem to have gotten on the RtI highway in the past
decade, but not all are making progress toward the destination of improving student outcomes. A
few schools seem to have found the “fast lane” and are on cruise control, but some schools are feeling
lost. Further, some schools are looking for the next exit, as they are tiring of the journey, and some
are on the side of the road with a flat tire. In many situations where schools are struggling to initiate
or sustain momentum for their RtI efforts, we observe there is not a coherent support structure built
at the more macro level of the school system—the district level.

The school psychology literature contains an immense amount of information regarding the
RtI framework and specific technical aspects, but has discussed system-level structures much less
frequently. Certainly, it is critical for school psychologists to understand the RtI framework and the
technical components to support RtI implementation, but acting on this knowledge alone does not
seem to be sufficient to produce substantial and sustainable change in many settings.We believe that

Correspondence to: Elizabeth Witter Freeman, Midwest Instructional Leadership Council (miLc), P.O. Box 1106,
Sun Prairie, WI 53590. E-mail: ewfreeman.milc@gmail.com

297

298 O’Connor and Freeman

school psychologists also need to consider several system-level factors that affect RtI scale up and
sustainability to maximize the effect on students and increase the probability of sustainability.

This article outlines critical system-level structures that are often overlooked or ignored by
school psychologists and others working to develop RtI initiatives or to extend and sustain existing
initiatives. Although school psychologists may not have direct control of these system factors, the
knowledge and skills of school psychologists can influence these factors nevertheless. In fact, it is our
observation that many of the schools and districts that have made substantial progress in establishing
RtI initiatives have done so because of substantial support and direct system-level actions taken
by school psychologists in those settings. Thus, one of the objectives of this article is to provide
information to psychologists about critical district-level factors to consider in planning support for
RtI initiatives.

DEFINITIONAL ISSUES

Because this article defines critical district support structures for implementing RtI, it is impor-
tant that we establish, at the outset, the definition of RtI that guides this work. For this discussion, we
adopt the definition of RtI presented by Burns and VanDerHeyden (2006): “RtI is the systematic use
of assessment data to most efficiently allocate resources in order to enhance learning for all children”
(p. 3). We choose this definition over others because it can be applied equally well to an analysis
of district systems as well as building systems and even to individual student decisions. Further,
this definition focuses specifically on the key roles of data, allocation of resources, and student
learning outcomes. Clearly, these issues are among those impacted by district-level decisions and
actions. Finally, we adopt this definition because it recognizes RtI as a framework for the enhance-
ment of learning for all children, not just those who are struggling or have certain demographic
characteristics.

It is also important to note that we view RtI at the system level to be related closely with the
concept of “continuous school improvement.” The term continuous school improvement has recently
emerged in the education literature to describe a process of strategic planning and frequent review
of effectiveness at the broadest levels of the system (Conyers & Ewy, 2004; Schmoker, 1999). In
many ways, this concept of continuous improvement reflects the application of RtI principles to
district-level decision-making procedures. Bernhardt and Hebert (2011) define continuous school
improvement as the process of improving the school organization on an ongoing basis that includes
using data to define the current status of the system and establish system goals, analyzing causes for
current status, planning system actions to achieve goals, and evaluating results routinely to guide
system decisions. These authors state:

Until you get continuous school improvement right, you cannot get RtI right. If you do continuous school
improvement right, you will have a good start toward an effective RtI system. If you do RtI right, you will
be engaged in a continuous school improvement process. (Bernhardt & Herbert, 2011, p. 1)

As others have observed, continuous school improvement is the process of “using RtI to do RtI” (D.
Tilly, personal communication, October 8, 2010).

We agree with the premise that systematic decision making and continuous progress evaluation
are important for improving schools broadly, and we see the concepts of continuous school im-
provement or RtI thinking applied at the district level as critically important to promoting effective
RtI efforts throughout the school system. Moreover, we observe that RtI implementation requires
a significant educational reform, including changes in the way we think and act at all levels of the
system. Inherent in this view is the recognition that RtI is not a program or an initiative, but rather a
process that is incorporated throughout a district to drive all educational decisions. Therefore, it is

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

District Considerations for RtI Implementation 299

our assertion that effective implementation of RtI has to consider the school district entity, as well
as school buildings, as units of change.

Consideration and evaluation of district-level structures and supports for RtI implementation are
important, regardless of where a school district is in its developmental path toward implementation
of RtI systems. Whether individual schools are just beginning to learn about RtI frameworks or
are working to sustain successful implementation efforts, the quality of coordination and support
provided by district-level staff and the procedural structures in place will have a large influence
on the eventual or ongoing success achieved by the individual schools. Without this understanding
and conceptual support from the district level, many school improvement efforts lose momentum
and eventually fade. Without effective district coordination and decision making, RtI efforts tend
to become fragmented and unfocused, and thereby unsustainable. Much has been written already
about some of the important district-level structures and supports, including the factors relating to
professional development, communication mechanisms, and goal setting (Harlacher & Siler, 2011;
Miller & Kraft, 2008; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006; Schmoker, 1999). In our work with more than 20
school districts across the Midwest, we have observed key district-level factors that are associated
with successful and sustainable RtI efforts. The structures we observe and discuss here are consistent
with those identified in the literature on “highly effective schools” (Bell, 2001; Levine & Lezotte,
1990; Reeves, 1999; Togneri, 2003). This article will focus on five of these critical issues, including
(a) assessment and data management, (b) culture and beliefs, (c) staff recruitment, (d) resource
allocation, and (e) leadership. We include a discussion on leadership (despite the fact that it has
already been discussed widely in the literature) because this is commonly identified by school
personnel and researchers (e.g., Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005) as the most important factor
for effective school improvement. The sections that follow will provide details of each of these
characteristics and will outline the impact of these on effective RtI implementation.

LEADERSHIP

Leadership is among the most important factors to the success of any change effort (Fullan,
2010). Discussions with staff from any school system engaged in RtI implementation will find a
large majority of staff who report that leadership (or lack thereof) has been a substantial influence
leading to success or failure of their implementation efforts. In our work, we have surveyed more
than 700 school staff members from multiple schools and have found that only 11% “strongly agree”
with the statement: “In our district/school, district level leadership provides active commitment and
support for school improvement actions (e.g., meets to review data and issues at least twice each
year).” Further, we found that nearly 50% of school staff we have surveyed “disagree” or “strongly
disagree” with this statement. This is cause for concern if one agrees that RtI processes require
substantial system change. Clearly, it will be difficult to make progress or sustain the change effort
without support and involvement of those who are driving the bus.

Successful, efficient, and effective RtI systems require district-level leadership and support.
Although bottom-up efforts at the individual building level can go quite far, explicit support from
the district-level administration is clearly a necessary factor. We observe that many well-developed
building efforts falter without effective district leadership. The concept of leadership as it is discussed
here includes leadership actions from district administrators and established leadership teams, but
also leadership functions served by other staff and stakeholder groups, as well as school board
members.

Based on our experience, we have concluded that there are three main factors associated
with district-level leadership that serve to promote effective and sustainable RtI systems: leaders’
knowledge of RtI principles and practices, leadership structures, and organizational frameworks.
Each of these components will be discussed separately in the following sections.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

300 O’Connor and Freeman

Leadership Knowledge

Obviously, it is necessary for all individuals in a district to have knowledge of RtI principles
and a common language, as well as a shared understanding of the rationale for the effort for these
initiatives to become established in a meaningful way (Batsche et. al., 2005). This is especially
important for those whose decisions and actions affect the entire school system. Although there
is some variability in who makes decisions between different educational systems, district leaders
always have substantial control to make, or influence heavily, decisions that will impact student
learning in all district buildings. Thus, it is surprising how frequently we observe settings where
district leaders have only limited knowledge of RtI concepts and limited awareness of implementation
actions or results. As discussed earlier, school staff surveyed regarding district leaders’ engagement
in RtI initiatives frequently indicated little or no involvement of district leaders. In our opinion, this
is not because district leaders are resistant to or inherently unsupportive of these actions, but rather,
usually because district infrastructure does not include the routine analysis of instructional practices
or instructional outcomes by district leaders.

It appears that it is common that planning of instructional initiatives does not include district-
level leaders. Many district leaders have schedules that are extremely full; thus, it is challenging
to coordinate efforts that involve these individuals in the process. Therefore, it is often just easier
to initiate actions without bringing the district leadership along from the beginning. Despite this
challenge, we advise RtI implementers to educate and engage district leaders deliberately in the
entire scale-up process to maximize the probability of gaining momentum and sustaining these
efforts for the long term. This will likely result in a slower scale-up process or will cause the slowing
of existing efforts, but without attention to developing leadership at the broadest levels, the RtI
initiatives will be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain.

Specifically, district leaders will need to have knowledge of the conceptual framework of RtI, the
basic principles, and the rationale for a systematic and data-based process for decision making that
allows for clear and specific support for RtI to be communicated. We have observed many districts
that have expended considerable time and resources in establishing RtI processes and infrastructure
at the building level, only to have these efforts falter because of the decisions and actions of district
leaders unfamiliar with or unaware of basic RtI concepts and principles. Typically, when district
leaders are not specifically involved in RtI efforts, they are involved in planning and promoting other
actions intended to improve district outcomes. In these districts, we often see multiple initiatives
and plans that compete for attention and resources, none of which can establish momentum for long
enough to achieve results. Without district leadership that is knowledgeable, aware, and, to some
degree, involved in RtI scale-up activities, sustainable RtI efforts are not likely to occur.

As an example, one of the important tenets of RtI practices is the use of evidence-based
instructional techniques and intervention practices. If there are not individuals with leadership
roles at the district level who understand this concept and support it, decisions about instructional
programming generally are deferred to local “experts” who are perceived as credible on the basis
of their role, title, or years of service. Frequently, these decisions made by the local “experts” are
biased by personal experience and professional judgments, as opposed to using high-quality evidence
from research. Unless district leaders are able to establish an expectation that recommendations for
instructional programming be accompanied by the supporting research, education will continue to
demonstrate a strong tendency to “chase every shiny thing” that comes their way. Therefore, it is
important that district leaders have knowledge of the importance of using evidence-based practices
and what constitutes an evidence base. In our work with districts, we ask district leaders to discuss
the research on which they have based their decisions regardinginstructional programming and

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

District Considerations for RtI Implementation 301

materials. As one might guess, very few are able to answer this question. Perhaps the best answer
we frequently receive is, “That is a very good question!”

It is worth noting that in addition to cultivating RtI knowledge among district leadership, it is
also necessary to embrace a process of continually updating knowledge. Evidence-based practices
and interventions are continually evolving as new scientific knowledge becomes available. Therefore,
district leadership needs to not only understand the need to consider evidence from research, but
also to be aware of the dynamic nature of evidence-based practice. This requires that districts
instill appropriate structures to continually consume information from the professional and research
community.

Leadership Structures

Leadership structures include the routines and processes that exist at the district level that guide
district decisions. In some districts, these routines are rather informal and are based on casual input
and the authority of a few individuals. For data-based processes such as RtI to be effective at the
individual building level, the district must establish and sustain routines for decision making that
incorporate data from building-level efforts and follow a systematic process that includes routine
evaluation of progress on district objectives (Bernhardt, 2006, Bernhardt & Hebert, 2011). In our
work, we ask building- and district-level staff to describe how decisions are made in their district.
The answers to this question are often very different from site to site and at the district level.
Moreover, it is common for staff, including teachers and administrators to report that they really
do not know about the process that guides decisions in their district. Without clear leadership
structures and routines to guide analysis of effectiveness, provide specific routines for decision
making, and explicit communication about these routines, actions become haphazard and random.
In these settings, actions are perceived to begin and end without explanation. Under these conditions,
staff adopt a “this-too-shall-pass” attitude toward improvement initiatives. In these environments,
staff members become disengaged from the process and feel free to choose whatever actions make
the most sense to them.

Regardless of the specific structure of district leadership in each district, it is important to
recognize that a main role of district-level administrators is to facilitate the development of clear
outcome targets and to establish routines that support the efforts of each building. As previously
discussed, RtI efforts are best conceptualized and evaluated at the individual building level. Therefore,
there is a fine balance between district level coordination and support of these heterogeneous efforts
and the stymieing effect of micromanagement. The most successful schools we have observed
have district leaders that are knowledgeable and supportive of RtI implementation, but do not try
to control the process. Rather, in these settings, there are systematic and deliberate routines for
decision making that incorporate research evidence, local data, and professional expertise. Through
the support and maintenance of these procedures, leaders in districts successfully implementing
RtI systems confidently allow the process to guide the decisions rather than imposing individual
authority. Additionally, personnel at the district level are able to contribute to RtI by coordinating
efforts across buildings as needed, sharing resources, and assisting with data and assessment needs.

Organizational Framework

Whether you call it culture, values, ethos, or mission, district leadership has to not only embrace
the ideas and principles underlying RtI (e.g., that all students can learn) but also an organizational
framework to coordinate and communicate the emphasis on systemic excellence (Fullan, 2006). Or-
ganizational frameworks, whether developed internally or adopted from an external source, provide
clear descriptions of the important processes and decision-making structures that exist. In addition,

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

302 O’Connor and Freeman

these tools describe the relationships among these factors, which must be considered in assessing
outcomes and progress toward identified goals.

Such an organizational framework allows for continuous system improvement by defining
the processes for goal setting, analysis of needs, evaluation of progress, and revision as needed,
regardless of the specific movement being embedded. In its essence, an organizational framework
depicts how the problem-solving process applies to the school system. This type of a process is
crucial, as a responsive data-based decision-making system cannot be reduced to a manualized set
of actions. In this “thinking is required” model of RtI we believe it is necessary to have a leadership
culture that embraces a framework for organizing its efforts.

Although there is a plethora of organization frameworks that may be useful to consider as
examples, we have encountered two specific models that districts have used successfully as a starting
point for guiding their thinking and planning related to RtI implementation. First, the systems change
model for RtI (Curtis, Cohen, & Castillo, 2006) defines three broad stages of the change process
that influence efforts to scale up RtI systems. These three stages are labeled: consensus building,
infrastructure development, and implementation. To these we have added sustainability to reflect
the need for deliberate strategies for generalizing and maintaining RtI systems. Districts seeking to
scale up or improve their RtI processes find it helpful to define their actions within these stages and
to consider their results with respect to this model in determining which actions are needed to move
forward toward higher levels of implementation.

A second framework that is emerging as a model to guide district improvement efforts related
to RtI has been described by Wallace, Blase, Fixsen, and Naoom (2008). This framework identified
the roles and structures necessary for implementing research findings in educational practice. This
model includes definitions of the processes and stages of implementation as well as the roles of
support necessary for effective implementation. Readers interested in additional information on this
model are directed to visit the very informative National Implementation Research Network Web
site at http://www.fpg.unc.edu/∼nirn/.

District leaders may be inclined to avoid the process of defining their system with the aid of
these organizing frameworks because of strong pressure to take action. However, without clearly
articulated guiding frameworks for implementation, many districts become lost and confused when it
is discovered they are not making progress toward their desired outcomes. Without a “roadmap” for
the system, it is easy for district leadership to become overwhelmed or disjointed in their efforts. We
recommend that districts at all stages of RtI implementation identify relevant organizing frameworks
to guide their RtI implementation because we have observed that it is extremely challenging to
effectively assess, organize, guide, evaluate, and update different and complex efforts occurring
across multiple school sites without a model to organize these actions.

COORDINATION OF ASSESSMENT AND DATA MANAGEMENT

Effective use of student outcome data is the foundation on which RtI systems are built. One of the
biggest challenges for schools trying to implement RtI frameworks is the establishment of effective
assessment procedures and developing staff skills for using data to drive instructional decisions
(VanDerHeyden & Tilly, 2011). Through no fault of their own, teachers and other staff typically
do not have sufficient training and experience in assessment techniques, concepts of measurement,
or interpreting data to be effective in using data for instruction. Therefore, a critical component
of district-level support is to identify or select individuals with expertise in these areas to provide
coaching and support for all staff. Although general professional development activities, such as staff
inservices or conference attendance, can increase knowledge in this area, these “one and done” efforts
are not sufficient to support the depth of knowledge and procedural skills needed for effective use of
data to guide instruction. In addition to these general support activities, effective RtI implementers

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

District Considerations for RtI Implementation 303

provide ongoing training and support through the use of coaches that are embedded within the
system. Often, individual coaches are psychologists at the building level who are supported by a
coordinator at the district level.

The staff responsible for coordinating these coaching efforts are charged with ensuring that
assessment routines can be integrated across grade levels and buildings within the district so that a
coherent picture can be developed regarding program effects and individual student performance.
Without effective data management and analysis, even the best assessment data will not be useful
to those trying to make educational decisions. Districts demonstrating successful RtI processes
have recognized the need for the coordination of assessment procedures, data management, and
staff development in basic measurement concepts, interpretation of data, and data-based decision
making (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). To address these needs requires that one or more individuals
be given the responsibility for coordinating and carrying out these activities. Many larger districts
have established a position at the district-level that serves this role; other districts have incorporated
these responsibilities within existing district level staff roles. Regardless, the assignment of these
roles and the provision of adequate time for those assigned to accomplish these tasks should be
prioritized by district leaders wishing to establish RtI systems for their schools.

One of the important tasks for district-level staff who are assigned to the coordination of
assessment and data management is to develop a clear and coherent assessment framework that
identifies the purposes of the assessments used and connect these assessments to decision-making
processes in the district. It is crucial that these assessment frameworks be based on credible research
supporting the tools and procedures selected. Therefore, persons assigned this responsibility must
be well versed in the assessment research literature.

An assessment framework is needed to establish a clear articulation of the assessment procedures
deployed in terms of their purpose and placement within the decision-making routine. Without a
well-articulated assessment framework, assessment systems become random and haphazard. When
this occurs, there is great variability in the form and function of assessments that generates confusion
or conflict. In districts without a clearly articulated assessment framework, we often observe that a
great (often too great) amount of data is being collected, but staff are unable to make sense of the
data or use it for instructional decision making. Examples of tools for outlining a district assessment
framework can be seen in Figures 1 and 2.

Beyond defining and managing the assessment process and coordinating the production of
summary data reports for teachers, a district-level coordinator can also serve a critical role in com-
munication across the district. Although a certain amount of building-level autonomy is necessary
for establishing RtI structures to fit each building context, it is also important that there is coherence
across the district. The district-level coordinator needs to structure the role to allow participation on
a regular basis with building-level leadership teams. In this way, the coordinator becomes a conduit
for information from the district level and also across buildings.

A third important role for the individual responsible for district-level data management and
coordination is that of producing summary reports from the data collected. These summary reports
must be accessible to teachers and building teams in a timely manner so that decisions can be made
using relevant data about student performance. The task of integrating data into summary formats,
including visual representations, can be aided by database tools associated with the various assess-
ments selected, but it is typically necessary for someone to integrate information from these various
data sources into simple summary reports for considering aggregate outcomes and disaggregated
results across different subgroups.

Finally, district coordination of data review activities at the building and district levels is
needed to promote effective data interpretation. Annual routines for reviewing district outcomes
across buildings and discussions regarding the implications for planning are important activities that

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

304 O’Connor and Freeman

FIGURE 1. Assessment framework matrix. Long-Term (L-T) = XX.

promote communication and coordination across the buildings in a district. These annual reviews
with selected building-level leaders promote awareness and learning across settings within the
district. Without district-level coordination of these activities, including involvement in building-
level planning and data reviews as well as district-wide review activities, RtI efforts are sporadic and
can develop in ways that become counterproductive in the scope of the larger system.

CULTURE AND BELIEFS

Perhaps one of the most overlooked factors affecting RtI implementation is the role of culture
and beliefs that exist in a school or district (Kruse & Seashore Louis, 2009). The prevailing attitudes
and beliefs of staff in a district, as well as the historical traditions and values that have evolved in
each district, have a strong influence on the behaviors of staff and students alike. Others have framed
these issues within the concept of consensus building (Kurns & Tilly, 2008). However, one labels it,
the influence of the prevailing culture and beliefs that exist should not be overlooked as RtI systems
are developing or when RtI efforts become stalled.

In our work, we have developed a staff survey adapted from the Self-Assessment of Problem
Solving Implementation used in Florida schools (Castillo et al., 2010). This survey includes questions
related to both beliefs and practices. One of the most consistent findings we have observed in
reviewing responses from over 600 educators is that a surprisingly large number of individuals
disagree with statements about the capacity of all students to achieve grade level benchmark skills
(see Figure 3). One of the foundational beliefs necessary to support RtI implementation is that “we
can effectively teach all children” (National Association of Directors of Special Education, 2005,
p. 19). Furthermore, most districts incorporate a similar statement about the capacity of all children
to learn in their mission and vision statements. However, our data indicate that a large number of
educators may not believe that it is possible for all children to achieve specific learning targets. For
those who do not believe this, the premise of RtI becomes nothing more than another platitude. In

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

District Considerations for RtI Implementation 305

Summative Assessment Data

Goals – District – Building – Grade – Student

FIGURE 2. District assessment framework. Opportunities for Improvement (OFI) = XX.

districts where RtI has been well established and effective, staff believe that a systematic analysis of
student responses to high-quality interventions will eventually yield information that can be used to
close observed skill deficits. For those without this belief, participation in progressive intervention,
data analysis, and problem solving will have a considerable likelihood of being marked by limited
integrity and persistence of effort. As the implementation of RtI practices becomes more difficult, it
may not seem worth the effort if there is a belief that “this student” or “these students” simply do
not have the capacity for achieving the same learning targets as their peers.

To address this issue, we recommend structured opportunities to discuss these beliefs and the
implications of these for engagement in the RtI process. An activity that can be helpful in this regard
is to have staff anonymously record the percent of students who they believe can achieve grade-level
learning targets and then to represent these graphically. This visual then can serve as a starting
point for exploration of the sources of these beliefs and provide a rich discussion among those
who endorse the capacity of all or nearly all to achieve established learning targets and those who
believe that substantially fewer than 100% can make it. These discussions will often reveal several
biases that can be addressed with evidence that challenges these biases. For example, some staff
might identify that students from impoverished environments often have difficulties in achieving

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

306 O’Connor and Freeman

FIGURE 3. Staff beliefs about students’ achievement potential. DK = don’t know.

benchmark goals. Information from schools such as the “90-90-90” schools, where 90% of students
are receiving free and reduced lunch, 90% of students are minority, and 90% or more are achieving
grade-level benchmarks (Reeves, 2003) is useful for challenging these biases. More powerful yet are
local examples of successful skill development among students or groups that typically do not meet
learning targets. In more than one school where RtI systems have been successfully established,
we have heard teachers exclaim that “we believe all students can achieve grade-level skill targets
because we have seen it happen in our own school.”

Without attention to the fundamental culture and beliefs that exist among district and building
staff, along with the actions to address mismatches between RtI principles and prevailing beliefs,
RtI efforts will falter. Districts where this occurs may have established the structures and tools
associated with RtI and thus report that they are “doing RtI.” but in reality these settings have
achieved compliance in using RtI tools and routines, but the culture and beliefs have not changed.
These are systems that find many staff continuing to focus on the process of identification and
classification of students into different silos for “services” and not on the quality or impact of the
services that are being delivered.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

District Considerations for RtI Implementation 307

STAFF RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION

The topic of staff recruitment is another often overlooked function that can play a substantial
role in the establishment of effective and sustainable RtI systems. Clearly, no school or district can
effectively implement RtI systems unless staff have the background knowledge and skills needed
for these efforts. Successful organizations in any industry place heavy emphasis on selecting staff
that possess the necessary skills and attitudes to perform at a high level (Collins, 2001). However, in
many education settings, it is startling to observe that staff recruitment and selection procedures very
often continue to follow routines that do not emphasize the selection of staff with the skills necessary
for working in an RtI system. In addition, many of the pre-service programs where educators receive
training have not incorporated instruction of RtI concepts and skills into their curricula. As a result,
schools attempting to scale up RtI initiatives find themselves having to invest a great deal of time
and money in providing staff with the essential knowledge and skills to be effective in these systems.

Although individual building administrators may have some autonomy in developing the pro-
cedures for staff recruitment and selection, district-driven guidelines about these procedures can
have a substantial impact on improving these routines. Districts demonstrating the most effective
application of RtI systems have established clear and deliberate priorities for the recruitment and
selection of new staff (Ikeda et. al., 2007). In these systems, there is an awareness of the training
programs and experiences that promote the knowledge and skills necessary for participating in RtI
systems. Often, there is also a deliberate attempt made to develop relationships with these programs
to facilitate recruitment of students with these skills.

In addition to recruitment practices, districts with effective RtI systems tend to have embedded
in their selection process clear and specific profiles of the skills they are looking for in potential
candidates for hire. Further, the interview processes in these districts contain very specific questions
and performance tasks that target specific knowledge and skills that have been identified as priorities
for the particular RtI system. Although there are some schools that have unintentionally assembled
highly skilled and well-trained staff, these happenstance occurrences are rare. For districts with a true
desire to build effective and sustainable models, deliberate and specific routines for staff recruitment
and selection will need to be developed and deployed.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION

Many districts overlook policies and procedures related to resource allocation when evaluating
district supports for RtI implementation. Issues of resource allocation for this discussion are not
only about the distribution of financial resources, but RtI systems additionally require careful
consideration of how time and staff resources are arranged. For RtI initiatives to be sustained over
time, mechanisms to ensure adequate resource support from the district are needed. This is especially
true in circumstances where resources are limited and new practices may be seen as unnecessary.

With the recent economic slowdown in the United States, the allocation of financial resources
has received a great deal of attention. As budgets have become increasingly tight for most districts,
the need for deliberate consideration of the impact of resource allocation decisions has become even
more important to consider. In response to financial challenges, we have observed many districts
struggle to determine how to make decisions regarding the distribution of reduced financial resources
and ultimately what programs or services to cut to balance budgets.

As discussed earlier, many districts have evolved RtI practices from the building-level without
much coordination or even awareness at the district level. As a result, there is a tendency to perceive
staffing allocations or training resources associated with RtI implementation as good candidates for
reduction. These recommendations surface because there is little broad awareness of the purpose
and impact of RtI initiatives. To avoid this circumstance, RtI implementers need to establish clear

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

308 O’Connor and Freeman

and explicit links between RtI actions and district strategic plans or goals. In addition, frequent
and specific communication with decision makers regarding outcomes associated with RtI practices
needs to occur. Truly, a fully realized RtI framework of service delivery has personnel that are
integrated into the system and are therefore indispensable.

To promote sustainability, district procedures for making decisions regarding resource allocation
must include careful evaluation of impacts of resource decisions on student outcomes. All too often,
when reductions in programs or services are necessary, the process for determining what to cut
and what to sustain becomes disconnected from information available regarding how initiatives like
RtI impact student outcomes. In these situations, it is common for the determination to be made
that budgets will be cut equally across programs or departments. In contrast, districts that have
recognized the impact of RtI structures and practices prioritize continued support for RtI actions
that have explicitly demonstrated positive impacts on student outcomes (Holliday & Clarke, 2010).
Thus, the impact of budget reductions on RtI implementation is often minimized.

Additionally, data that are collected as part of the RtI system allows for more informed decisions
about which instruction and intervention programs to continue versus which to discontinue. This is
especially helpful during budget cuts, as more informed decisions can be made to maintain programs
that have actual or greater impact on students.

Another resource allocation issue that often arises has to do with the allocation of time or staff
to RtI activities. The implementation of RtI frameworks often requires substantial adjustments in
schedules and sometimes requires that students participating in intervention activities will not be
able to participate in other instructional activities. Staff may also have to spend time in intervention
delivery that would traditionally been spent doing other things. This reallocation of schedule time
and staff time can be difficult for some staff and some stakeholders. Therefore, questions will arise
regarding the rationale for these decisions. It will often be necessary for district-level support to be
provided for these resource allocations in the face of resistance and concerns about doing things
differently. In districts that have established a focus on student outcomes with a well-communicated
and coordinated process for resource allocation, these issues do not become obstacles. In districts
without these decision-making mechanisms, resource allocation challenges can limit or completely
inhibit the effective implementation of these RtI structures.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

This article provides information to those leading RtI efforts in schools, districts, state depart-
ments, and universities. It is essential that the aforementioned district-level factors be considered to
promote more effective RtI implementation and sustainability into the future. It is hoped that the
content provided here will provide a basis for further discussion and analysis of these district-level
support factors for those wanting to enhance or re-energize their RtI efforts.

Regardless of their role in a particular district, school psychologists are critical in furthering RtI
effectiveness by engaging at the district level. They possess critical knowledge regarding measure-
ment, data interpretation, and data management. This knowledge places school psychologists in a
position to influence the development of these district-level structures through education, modeling,
and advocacy with those in leadership positions at the district level.

Frequently, school psychologists will be tapped to fill district-level roles responsible for devel-
oping assessment frameworks, coordinating the delivery of assessments, and managing data to be
used for RtI. Often, these activities must be demonstrated as useful before administrators will be
willing to make the investments that are required to support these positions. Therefore, school psy-
chologists should be prepared to structure their activities to include time for assisting district-level
staff in developing the structures that are needed to support effective RtI implementation.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

District Considerations for RtI Implementation 309

Through careful consideration at the district level, one can ensure that RtI efforts can be
maintained in years to come. By weaving the tenets of RtI into the philosophy, mission, and goals of
a district, consensus is created, and the operating culture of the district will sustain practices aligned
with RtI. Through systematic critique and revision of district policy, procedures, and practices, the
probability that the system will continue to make data-based decisions that improve outcomes for
all students, regardless of the individuals in leadership roles, is substantially improved.

REFERENCES

Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski., J., Prasse., D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy
considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education Inc.

Bell, J. (2001). High-performing, high-poverty schools. Leadership, 31(1), 8 – 11. Retrieved June 27, 2011, from Education
Full Text database.

Bernhardt, V. L. (2006). Using student data to improve student learning in school districts. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Bernhardt, V. L., & Hebert, C. L. (2011). Response to intervention (RTI) and continuous school improvement (CSI): Using

data, vision, and leadership to design, implement, and evaluate a schoolwide prevention system. Larchmont, NY: Eye
on Education.

Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2006). Special series: Using response to intervention as a diagnostic tool for learning
disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 3 – 5.

Castillo, J. M., Batsche, G. M., Curtis, M. J., Stockslager, K., March, A., & Minch, D. (2010). Problem solving/response to
intervention evaluation tool technical assistance manual. Tampa, FL: Florida Department of Education and the University
of South Florida.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap. . . and others don’t. New York: HarperCollins.
Conyers, J. G., & Ewy, R. (2004). Charting your course: Lessons learned during the journey toward performance excellence.

Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
Curtis, M. J., Cohen, R., & Castillo, J. M. (2009). Facilitating implementation of PS/RTI using systems change

principles [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from http://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/presentations/2009/CurtisNASP2009/
Half%20Day%20Workshop FINAL.ppt

Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Fullan, M. (2010). Motion leadership: The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Harlacher, J. E., & Siler, C. F. (2011). Factors related to successful RTI implementation. NASP Communiqué, 39, 20 – 22.
Heartland. (2005). Heartland AEA 11 annual progress report. Retrieved on September 25, 2011, from www.aea.11.k12.ia.us/

downloads/2005apr
Holliday, T., & Clark, B. (2010). Running all the red lights: A journey of system-wide educational reform. Milwaukee, WI:

ASQ.
Ikeda, M. J., Rahn-Blakeslee, A., Niebling, B. C., Gustafson, J. K., Allison, R., & Stumme, J. (2007). The Heartland Area

Education Agency 11 problem-solving approach: An overview and lessons learned. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, &
A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 255 – 268). New York: Springer.

Kruse, S. D., & Seashore Louis, K. (2009). Building strong school cultures: A guide to leading change. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

Kurns, S., & Tilly, W.D. (2008). Response to intervention blueprints for implementation: School-level edition. Alexandria,
VA: National Association of State Directors of Education.

Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison,
WI: The National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development.

Marston, D., Muyskes, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high incidence
disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 187 – 200.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research top results. Alexandria,
VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Miller, D. D., & Kraft, N. P. (2008). Best practices in communicating with and involving parents. In A. Thomas & J.
Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 937 – 951). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.

National Association of Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and imple-
mentation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

O’Neill, J., & Conzemius, A. (2006). The power of SMART goals: Using goals to improve student learning. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree. Reeves, D. B. (1999). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations. Denver, CO:
Center for Performance Assessment.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

310 O’Connor and Freeman

Reeves, D. B. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond. Englewood, CO: Center for Perfor-
mance Assessment. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://www.sjboces.org/nisl/high%20performance%2090%2090%
2090%20and%20beyond

Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail.
School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 130 – 145.

Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and

achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning First Alliance.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement

to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for
Effective Intervention, 30, 15 – 31.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Tilly, D. W. (2011). Keeping RTI on track: How to identify, repair and prevent mistakes that derail
implementation. Palm Beach Gardens, FL. LRP.

Wallace, F., Blase, K., Fixsen, D., & Naoom, S. (2008). Implementing the findings of research: Bridging the gap between
knowledge and practice. Washington, DC: Education Research Service.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Copyright of Psychology in the Schools is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

“Th

i

s is n

o

t your grandmother’s school,” commented George Batsche, who was visiting our school with a team of RTI
researchers and staff from the Renaissance Com-
pany. It was validating to hear that experts in RTI
who consulted across the country considered the
data team process, intervention system, curriculum,
and assessment practices that we had put into place
to be of high quality. As a practicing school psycholo-
gist and administrator at Brown International Acad-
emy, an inner city elementary school in Denver Pub-

lic Schools, I believe
strongly that if the
RTI model is put into
practice, it will greatly
impact educational outcomes for all students.

Putting RTI into practice is not easy—it is not
your grandmother’s school. It requires us to think
differently and to ask different questions. RTI is not
simply about special education; it is about ensuring
that students receive quality instruction using re-
search-based interventions

T h e N e w s p a p e r o f t h e N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g i s t s

© 2 0 1 0 , N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g i s t s

Communiqué

8 | Capitol Hill Recognizes National
School Psychology Week
16 | Communicating Effectively to
Resolve Ethical Concerns
20 | Grant Funding to Implement
PREPaRE Training
32 | 2010 convention news

New keynote, sessions, and shopping 3

J a n u a r y / F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 0 Volume 38, Number 5

It’s Not Your Grand-
mother’s School:
Leadership Decisions
in RTI
B y S a l ly W h i t e l o c k

I m p l e m e n t i n g R T I

i

n

S
i

d
e

Evidence-Based
Practice and Autism
Spectrum Disorders:
The National
Standards Project
B y S u S a n M . W i l c z y n S k i

In September 2009, the National Autism Center announced the completion of its multiyear National Standards Project. The National Standards Project serves to support parents
and professionals and answers one the most pressing ques-
tions asked by school psychologists: “How do we effectively
treat the growing number of students with autism spectrum
disorders (ASD)?”

The National Standards Project resulted in two reports that
identify the strength of evidence supporting a broad range of
interventions that target the core and associated character-
istics of ASD. The Findings and Conclusions Report of the Na-
tional Standards Project (abbreviated report) and the Na-
tional Standards Report (extended technical report) are both
free and available at www.nationalautismcenter.org. The re-
mainder of this article briefly describes the methods applied,
the major outcomes, and the implications of this report for
school psychologists.

M e t h o d

The Project began with input from 45 autism experts who spe-
cialized in treatment and/or applied research. This team of ex-
perts developed the conceptual model for evaluating the lit-
erature. Over 7,000 abstracts spanning a 50-year period were
compared against the inclusionary

R e s e a r c h – B a s e d P r a c t i c e

NASP members can join an
online discussion about this
article in the Communities
area of our website:

www.nasponline.org/communities

C
o

u
r

t
e

sy
o

f
A

n
A

s
t

A
s

iA
k

A
lA

m
A

r
o

s
s

k
A

ls
k

i

NASP Testifies at U.S. Senate Hearing
on Children and Disaster Recovery
B y a n a S ta S i a k a l a M a r o S S k a l S k i

On December 10, 2009, Dr. Melissa Reeves, chair of the PREPaRE workgroup, presented oral and writ-ten testimony on behalf of NASP at a hearing of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. This subcommittee
is chaired by Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and it was by her invitation that NASP was included in
the event. Senator Landrieu is currently drafting legislation to address the specific needs of children fol-
lowing a major crisis or natural disaster. NASP staff and leaders are working with her office to ensure that
the important role that schools play in disaster recovery is explicitly recognized in this legislation.

Melissa’s testimony highlighted this priority. She reviewed the role that schools have played follow-
ing every major disaster or crisis including events like 9/11, the Gulf Coast hurricanes, and high profile
school shootings. She described the short- and long-term psychological effects that children experience
and the unique characteristics of their responses over time. In particular, Me-

A d v o c a c y i n A c t i o n

[ c o n t i n u e d o n pa g e 2 6 ]

[ c o n t i n u e d o n pa g e 6 ][ c o n t i n u e d o n pa g e 2 4 ]

Melissa Reeves
and Senator Mary
Landrieu on Capitol hill
december 10

s
u

p
r

ij
o

n
o

s
u

h
A

r
jo

t
o

/i
s

t
o

C
k

p
h

o
t

o

© 2 0 1 0 , N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g i s t s26 | C o m m u n i q u é | January/February 2010, Volume 38, Number 5

RTI Leadership Decisions
[ c o n t i n u e d f r o m pa g e 1 ]

prior to being identified as learning disabled. RTI is school reform. It is about ensur-
ing that schools create structures and use teaching resources that effectively meet the
needs of all students. It is about the way that schools use screening, formative, progress
monitoring, diagnostic, and summative assessments to ensure that instruction is dif-
ferentiated and that interventions are implemented for all students not demonstrating
proficient levels of achievement. It is about schools ensuring that they are using a guar-
anteed and viable core curriculum for all students and that students below proficient
are instructed with research-based interventions. RTI is about data driven dialogues
that provide teachers opportunities to collaborate about data driven instruction on the
group and individual level. And, lastly, RTI is about identifying students with specific
learning disabilities who fail to respond to research-based interventions, implemented
with fidelity, based on progress monitoring data.

School leadership teams need to consider four major components when moving
to a fully functioning RTI model that meets the needs of all students in the school.
School teams must consider school structures and use of teaching resources, imple-
mentation of core and intervention curriculums, use of a variety of assessment tools,
and facilitation of data driven dialogues.

S C h o o L S t R u C t u R e S a n d u S e o F t e a C h i n g R e S o u R C e S

Historically, teachers have had the autonomy to teach their grade level or content area
based on their knowledge of content and standards. Teachers have been responsible
only to their classroom of students. In an RTI model, however, school reform efforts
challenge the school and each teacher to “open their doors” and to be collectively
responsible for the learning of all students in the school. In order for RTI to be im-
plemented effectively, school leadership teams must, therefore, examine their school
structures.

School leaders must ask themselves:

How will we schedule classroom teachers, intervention teachers, special educa- n
tion teachers, and other teaching resources to ensure that all students receive
core, grade-level instruction?
How can we schedule teachers to ensure that all students who are below aca- n
demic proficiency receive interventions?
How can we schedule teachers to ensure that we are challenging students above n
proficiency in grade-level standards?
Who will teach Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions to students? n
How will the budget support the necessary instructional resources? n

C o R e C u R R i C u L u M a n d R e S e a R C h – B a S e d i n t e R v e n t i o n S

The standards-based educational reform movement of the 1990s helped to establish
national and state standards or benchmark proficiency levels that students are ex-
pected to achieve at each grade level. This movement helped educators across the
nation increase educational rigor and informed curriculum developers. In addition,
the standards-based movement, along with technological advancements in education,
pushed teachers to engage students more in learning, communicate learning goals to
students, provide specific feedback to students regarding their learning, and assess
students in relation to a benchmark. The RTI model requires education systems to go
one step further: ensure that the core curriculum is not only “guaranteed and viable,”
which has a strong correlation with academic achievement (Marzano, 2000), but also
that core curriculum and intervention curriculums are research-based.

Research indicates that approximately 38% of fourth-grade students and up to 70%
of poor students, often minority students who live in urban or isolated settings, dem-
onstrate inadequate reading skills (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005).
However, studies have indicated that an emphasis on both classroom instruction and
targeted interventions can result in all but 2–5% of children learning basic reading
skills in first grade (Mathes et al., 2005). In addition, older students who struggle with
reading can also become proficient readers if the remediation is intensive, expert, and
long-term (Torgesen et al., 2001). According to Batsche and colleagues (2005), “re-
search-based, scientifically validated interventions/instruction provide our best shot
at implementing strategies that will be effective for a large majority of students.”

School leaders, therefore, must evaluate their current instructional program and
ask themselves:

Do all students in our school have access to grade-level, core curriculum that n
is “guaranteed and viable,” as well as research-based? If not, what changes are
necessary in core curriculum to ensure that a research-based, guaranteed, and
viable curriculum is offered at grade level to all children in reading, writing, and
mathematics?
Are there research-based intervention resources available for students in need n
of Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions in reading and mathematics? If not, what in-

Sally Whitelock, NCSP, is a school psychologist serving as an assistant principal at Brown International
Academy in Denver, CO.

tervention resources is the school going to implement?
Are teachers trained effectively in the core curriculum and the intervention cur- n
riculums in order to instruct the curriculum with fidelity while also differentiat-
ing appropriately?

S C R e e n i n g , S u M M at i v e , F o R M at i v e , P R o g R e S S M o n i to R i n g ,

a n d d i a g n o S t i C a S S e S S M e n t S

Assessments have been used for a long time in educational settings to evaluate stu-
dent learning, identify students for special education, and evaluate school effective-
ness. However, in an RTI model that meets the needs of all students, educators are
required to use assessment tools to:

Identify students at risk of reading or mathematics failure (screening). n
Inform instructional decisions (progress monitoring and formative n
assessments).
Determine if students below proficient are closing the achievement gap n
with their peers who are demonstrating proficient achievement (progress
monitoring).
Determine if interventions are successful and if students are responding to in- n
terventions (progress monitoring).
Determine if the student has significant areas of weakness that are interfering n
with the student’s ability to learn (diagnostic).
Determine if students have learned the required educational standards n
(summative).
Determine if the students in the school are achieving proficient levels of learn- n
ing (summative/high stakes testing).

Therefore, it is not enough for a school to develop a systematic, three-tiered struc-
ture and to provide instruction using research-based core and intervention curriculums.
Schools must also have effective assessment tools to support instructional decision-
making. In addition, schools have external assessment requirements, placed on them
by the state or district, which they must adhere to, but which may or may not support
them in impacting learning.

School instructional staffs, therefore, need to become adept in administering, in-
terpreting, and analyzing a multitude of assessments. School leadership teams may
also need to identify additional assessment tools to support decision making in an
RTI model. School teams must ask themselves:

Do we have a quick, valid, reliable, predictive screening assessment that can n
identify students at risk of academic failure? When and how are we administer-
ing this tool? Are we using this data to place students in intervention groups?
Do we use data to inform instructional decisions? What data do we use? How do n
we use this data to differentiate instruction in the classroom to ensure that all
students are learning?
Do we have progress monitoring assessments that are quick, sensitive to prog- n
ress in the short term, predictive, valid, and reliable? Do we use this data to
determine if students are responding to interventions? If students are not re-
sponding to interventions, do we adjust the intervention? Do we use this data to
support special education identification?
Do we have diagnostic assessments that support us in making instructional de- n
cisions for students who are receiving interventions but not making adequate
progress? Do we use this information to support changes in instruction? Do we
use this data to support special education identification?
Do we have summative assessment data that supports grade level and school- n
wide decision making? Do we analyze this data for grade-level and school-wide
strengths and weaknesses? Do we use this data to make professional develop-
ment decisions for our school? Do we use this data to support the development
of school improvement plans?

data d R i v e n d i a Lo g u e S

In RTI practice, decisions are based on the judgment of professionals informed di-
rectly by student achievement data (Batsche et al., 2005). There have been several
models for data driven decision making, including a problem-solving model (Batsche,
2006), setting challenging goals and effective feedback (Marzano, 2003), data-driven
dialogue (Wellman & Lipton, 2004), and others. The school reform effort means that
school professionals collaboratively look at data to identify students in need of inter-
ventions, inform instruction, differentiate in the classroom, and identify students for
special education. Schools who implement core and intervention curriculums with
fidelity while also differentiating based on student performance data ensure that all
students learn.

Since data driven dialogues are relatively new to education reform efforts, most
teachers are not trained in how to interpret data and differentiate instruction informed
by data. Therefore, school leadership teams need to consider the following:

How are summative and high-stakes testing data discussed within the school? n

© 2 0 1 0 , N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g i s t s January/February 2010, Volume 38, Number 5 | C o m m u n i q u é | 27

Does the school collaboratively interpret data and use it to design school im-
provement plans?
How is summative testing data discussed and analyzed at the grade or content n
level? Is data used to determine power standards, overall strengths, and overall
weaknesses? Is this data used to make class-wide instructional decisions? Is it
used to identify target groups of students?
How is screening data used? Is it used to identify intervention groups? n
How is progress monitoring and formative assessment data used? Is there a n
process to problem solve for individual students who are not making adequate
progress? How are decisions about changing interventions made?
What is the protocol for data driven dialogues? Have teachers been trained in n
interpreting and analyzing data? Have teachers been trained to make SMART
goals and action plans that inform instruction? Is there a culture of collabora-
tion that supports teachers in learning from each other?

C a S e S t u dy: t h e R t i M o d e L at B R o w n i n t e R n at i o n a L

At Brown International Academy, we systematically put an RTI model into place in
the school. As we implemented the model, we consistently improved upon the four
components listed above. We considered the school schedule/structure and teaching
resources, the core and intervention curriculums, the assessment tools used, and the
data driven decision making process. School teams, especially in schools with high num-
bers of at-risk students, need to simultaneously consider each of these components.

We strategically developed a “flooding model,” in which we flooded grade levels
with teacher resources during small group reading instruction and math instruction.
In order to achieve this, we used the school special education teachers and hired in-
tervention teachers to support reading and math intervention, thus ensuring three
tiers of instruction/interventions. A master schedule was developed in order to use the
special education (Tier 3) and intervention (Tier 2) teachers effectively. The master
schedule provided the following:

Classroom teachers who provided small group instruction and independent n
practice for all partially proficient, proficient, and advanced students, thus en-
suring that all students were challenged at their instructional level.
Special education teachers who provided 1 hour daily of direct instruction with a n
research-based intervention curriculum to students in need of Tier 3 interventions.
Intervention teachers who provided 1 hour daily of direct instruction with a n
research-based intervention curriculum to students in need of Tier 2 interven-
tions in reading and math.
Grade level core curriculum in reading, writing, and science/social studies daily n
to all students in the grade level (no students were removed from core instruc-
tion to receive intervention support).

In a school setting, it is often impractical to make several significant changes in
curriculum in one year. Therefore, the first step was to implement a core curriculum
in reading and math and then in writing. Next, the school trained special education
teachers and intervention teachers in research-based interventions. Since research-
based interventions should be implemented with fidelity, we chose a small number of
interventions and trained teachers sufficiently. The following curriculums are used:

Core curriculum for all students: Reading—Open Court and Accelerated Reader; n
Writing—Writing Alive; Math—Everyday Math
Tier 2 interventions: Reading—Six Minute Solutions, Corrective Read- n
ing, KPALS; Math—Larson math/iSucceed computer math program, Number
Worlds Tier 2
Tier 3 interventions: Reading—Wilson, Fundations; Math—Larson math/iSuc- n
ceed computer math program, Number Worlds Tier 3.
As successes occurred or weaknesses were determined, we continued to exam- n
ine resources for our school. Currently, the school is working with Renaissance
Company to pilot Math Facts in a Flash and Accelerated Math.

In Denver Public Schools, we are required to administer several assessments every
year. The state assessment, the Colorado Student Assessment Program, is required for
all 3rd–5th grade students in reading, writing, and mathematics. In addition, all 2nd–5th
graders are required to complete the district benchmark assessment in reading, writ-
ing, and mathematics. Lastly, the district requires the DRA2 to be administered to all
K–5th grade students as a yearly reading assessment. Brown uses all three assessments
as summative assessments and determines school-wide and grade-level goals based
on this data. In addition, the leadership team at Brown determined that additional
assessments were needed to identify students at risk of academic failure. Thus, the
DIBELS, STAR Early Literacy, STAR, and STAR math are given three times per year to
all students. The greatest value of these assessment measures is that they are predic-
tive of academic success and sensitive to change. Therefore, these assessment tools
are also used for progress monitoring of students in intervention groups. Lastly, the
school uses Accelerated Reader quizzes and classroom based assessments as formative
assessments to ensure that all students are learning the learning objectives.

At the center of our RTI model, however, is our data team process and our student
intervention team process. At Brown International, the administrators meet weekly
with each grade level team to review assessment data, interpret and analyze data, iden-
tify possible explanations of the data, develop SMART goals, and develop action plans
for target groups of students. A 6-week rotation was created in which the teams spend
2 weeks discussing reading, 2 weeks discussing writing, and 2 weeks discussing math.
A 6-week action plan for each content area is created each rotation. This collaborative
discussion challenges teachers to instruct the core curriculum while also differentiating
based on the current achievement data. If individual students continue to struggle to
learn necessary skills even after the action plan is implemented for the target groups
of students, then the student is referred to the student intervention team. At student
intervention team meetings, a problem solving approach occurs in which the problem
is identified, an intervention plan is developed, and a progress monitoring plan is es-
tablished. It is through the data team process and student intervention team process
that the instructional team at Brown International ensures that all students receive
the instruction necessary to learn. However, without the schedule, curriculum, and
assessment tools in place, the data team process would not be able to occur.

S u M M a Ry

Implementation of RTI is a school reform effort. Change is challenging. However, imple-
mentation of RTI as reform in the inner cities, with high numbers of students at risk of
academic failure and school drop out, provides even more challenges. Through strategic,
systematic, school-wide efforts, however, it can be done. School leadership teams can
ensure that all children learn and that all children have a multitude of opportunities as
they grow up in our education system. School leadership teams must ask the difficult
questions and make the difficult changes to ensure that all students learn. n
References

Batsche, G. (2006). Problem solving and response
to intervention: Implications for state and dis-
trict policies and practices. Warner Robins, GA:
Council of Administrators of Special Educa-
tion, Inc.

Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J.,
Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Re-
sponse to intervention: Policy considerations and
implementation. Alexandria, VA: National As-
sociation of State Directors of Special Educa-
tion, Inc.

Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., An-
thony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C.
(2005). The effects of theoretically different
instruction and student characteristics on the
skills of struggling readers. Reading Research
Quarterly, 40, 148–182.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005).
National assessment of educational progress:
The nation’s report card. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education.

Marzano, R. J. (2000). A new era of school re-
form: Going where the research takes us. Aurora,
CO: Mid-continent Research for Education
and Learning.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools:
Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Torgensen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K.,
Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway,
T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for
children with severe reading disabilities: Im-
mediate and long-term outcomes from two
instructional approaches. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 34, 33–58.

Wellman, B., & Lipton, L. (2004). Data-driven
dialogue: A facilitator’s guide to collaborative
inquiry. Sherman, CT: Mira Via, LLC.

congressman towns is a Friend of children
Congressman Edolphus Towns (NY-10) accepted a NASP 2009 Special Friend of Children
Award during School Psychology Week last November. Congressman Towns was a lead
sponsor in the House of Representatives of the “Increased Student Achievement Through
Increased Student Support Act.” Shown here with Congressman Towns is (L-R) Deitra Re-
iser (NASP Public Policy Fellow), Stacy Skalski (NASP Director, Public Policy), and Susan
Gorin (NASP Executive Director).

N A S P N e w s

C
o
u
r
t
e
sy
o
f
A
n
A
s
t
A
s
iA
k
A
lA
m
A
r
o
s
s
k
A
ls
k
i

Copyright of Communique (0164775X) is the property of National Association of School Psychologists and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

RTI Meeting: High School

RTI Meeting: High School
Program Transcript

MALE SPEAKER: Shared leadership is one effective model used in the
implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports. It is often used in problem
solving, and monitoring progress of individual students, for example.

In this meeting of a high school problem solving team, you will see individuals
taking on a wide range of educational roles. Each participating, contributing, and
at times leading the discussion. Think about the individual contributions of each
participant. Who appears to be leading? What role does the administrator play?

Are there competencies and actions that help participants be effective in meeting
the goals of the group? Or that hinder the group’s effectiveness? Lastly, what
might be some of the priorities that individuals taking on leadership roles need to
set to further the goals of this professional learning community?

STEVE RICHTER: OK, the next thing is freshman appointments. And Dr. Means,
Ms. Tate, Ms. Swanson, you’re going to start noticing on your calendar– even
next week– as far as those freshman that had multiple F’s in the core classes,
there’s going to be appointments with those parents.

So Nicki’s been making those calls, so those appointments are going to start
happening next week. So it’s going to be on your Outlook calendar. She’s just
putting them in to fit around whatever else you going on.

Some parents have called back, and said they can’t come until after 5 o’clock. So
we’ll hold those off until down the road.

LAURA LASHEVER: Phone interviews maybe?

STEVE RICHTER: We’ll just try to get them in the best we can.

LAURA LASHEVER: Or possibly 7:30 in the morning?

STEVE RICHTER: Well yeah. That was an issue with some parents, just getting
here because of work schedules.

LAURA LASHEVER: So which key people are going to be in those?

STEVE RICHTER: It’s just going to myself and the counselor, and then we’ll call
the Dean in as necessary. Or Mr. Henry as far as attendance. So we’ll just go
from there. Tracking sheet– This is one that was brought up last time, and I think
what we want to do– it’s obviously a need. People have expressed that even.
Even the other PST groups have talked about it.

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1

RTI Meeting: High School

I think what we want to do next time– we may set the agenda aside as far as
students, and spend the primary time just in the conference room, getting on the
whiteboard, and developing our tracking sheet.

LAURA LASHEVER: You’re talking about a sheet that we use to mark the
interventions that we’re using in the various tiers.

STEVE RICHTER: What’s going on, just put it all together in one form.

LAURA LASHEVER: So that it has a written component, so that it doesn’t get lost
in translation.

STEVE RICHTER: Yes. So we’re going to work on that. So if you have ideas, I
know we had a few things from other districts. I got one from Rolling Meadows.
So we’ll just bring those.

And we’ll spend some time just going through that. and basically creating it.

WILLIAM MEANS: Could you share the document from Rolling Meadows?

STEVE RICHTER: And actually I just found that off their website, under their
Teacher Resources. OK. Next let’s talk about the first student. This is just a
follow up on student number one, I know Sue, you wanted to bring it up again.

SUZANNE SWANSON: Right. Last week at the meeting there were a couple
suggestions from everybody. The first suggestion was that I call the parent for a
meeting, and I did do that, and mom came in right away. Mom was very
supportive, and went ahead and filled out the parent survey that we have.

And then the student came in and filled out the student interview that we have.
So I have these here. As I said the parent was really very supportive, and she
was all about whatever we could do for her son. I talked about possible co-taught
classes, because that was another idea that came out of this meeting. And she
was interested in that possibility as well.

But first I wanted to talk to student number one face to face. And I just wanted to
share some of the observations I had. When I had him come in, I had him fill out
the student survey. He spent a lot of time filling out the interview. I mean he really
put a lot of thought and effort. As you can just tell, he really took his time. It
wasn’t anything he just– so I was impressed with that.

When I was speaking with his mom and him, he really had no facial expressions
whatsoever. He did say he was distracted just so very easily by other students,
and I asked if there was any ADHD or anything in the family, and the answer was
no per mom, and himself.

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 2

RTI Meeting: High School

We went over every class, we talked about every class. He said he attends Math
Lab off and on, and then he stops. Homework is an issue with this young person,
he seems to have no motivation whatsoever. And according to the student
interview, he says he’s happy, but at the same time he can be angry.

And the only other thing or two I’ll say is he says he doesn’t like it here. Period.
He doesn’t like it here, he can’t really explain why, except that he’s very
distracted by other kids who misbehave. He does a lot of his work, but he doesn’t
turn it it. He can’t remember to turn it in.

He thinks for himself– and his mom believe that the Project Recovery program
that we have would be most beneficial for him.

ADRIENNE ISQUITH: What year is he again?

STEVE RICHTER: I’ll just go through just so everybody remembers. He’s a
sophomore with only two credits, should have six. We went through the
[INAUDIBLE] folder, didn’t see anything that really gave us any more information.
Project Recover was recommended through his adviser, [INAUDIBLE],

He is on attendance contract currently. He had all F’s at his last progress report.
And he was in Interactive Language Skills, Math Academy last year as a
freshman. And I know you’ve had some contact.

In the spring last year it looked like he had a number of classrooms problems.
But he only two or three contacts this year with you.

BRIAN VALERUGO: Yeah. Very good, there really isn’t any behavior concerns.

ROD HENRY: His attendance is better this year than last year. So that helps his
chances for Project Recovery correct?

STEVE RICHTER: Absolutely.

ADRIENNE ISQUITH: Does he not have any interest in sports or anything to kind
of grab him?

SUZANNE SWANSON: No, he really doesn’t.

LAURA LASHEVER: He says he’s not interested in any outside clubs, he’s not
participating at all.

ROD HENRY: I know he tried out for basketball last year, and I think that was
more of this is what my friends are doing, so I might as well try to do it.

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 3

RTI Meeting: High School

STEVE RICHTER: I mean even going back, and looking at some academic
history, his Explore scores from his initial Explore before entering ninth to his
Practice Explore to Plan, it’s all flat. I mean there’s been really no growth that
we’ve seen from the benchmark testing.

ADRIENNE ISQUITH: What do people think about Project Recovery for him?

STEVE RICHTER: I’ll ask you. I mean what do you think?

FEMALE SPEAKER: He’s not– he’s not.

STEVE RICHTER: And really, we don’t want it to be an alternative placement.
That’s not what we want, it’s truly to recover credit. Which he is– right now he’s
four credits behind. It’s an academic concern of why you would want to go there,
not because of any other reason.

LAURA LASHEVER: So there are two factors that I’m hearing. one is that there’s
family issues that could be chaotic. That the older brother’s not a role model
particularly, and how to go through school and what to do. And Suzanne I
thought I heard you say you touched the ADHD piece, but then you mentioned
Flat Affect. When he speaks there’s no emotion, right?

SUZANNE SWANSON: There was no emotion. If it was you and me, and I asked
you a question– Ask me a question.

ADRIENNE ISQUITH: How are you feeling today Suzanne?

SUZANNE SWANSON: I’m fine.

LAURA LASHEVER: So that’s called Flat Affect. That’s Flat Affect.

SUZANNE SWANSON: I was trying, really trying.

LAURA LASHEVER: Even though there’s not a history of ADHD is there a history
of psychiatric anything in the family?

SUZANNE SWANSON: No.

LAURA LASHEVER: And when you talked with the mother about that what was
the response? No? Or not interested in looking at it? Because I’m thinking, and
I’m hearing you say no motivation, no follow through, there are a lot of
components that sound like depression in there to me.

It’s not ADHD, it sounds like depression. So wherever he’s going to go, if he
doesn’t have the energy– he’s sort of articulate. It’s interesting, if you look at that
interview

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 4

RTI Meeting: High School

STEVE RICHTER: But just again, sometimes it’s always the depression, the Flat
Affect is. But if you know the mom, know the sibling.

LAURA LASHEVER: I don’t.

STEVE RICHTER: They’re very similar, yes.

WILLIAM MEANS: Did he have any ideas of what needed to be different for him
to be successful? Other than to check out, escape, go to the computer based
program? Is there anything?

SUZANNE SWANSON: He was willing to try lab again. And we talked about me
following up with him. And his turning in of the assignments. Because he said to
me well I do them in Math Lab. I’m like, well where are the assignments? Well I
don’t turn them in.

ADRIENNE ISQUITH: Well that’s the case. There are a lot of kids, I don’t quite
get that.

SUZANNE SWANSON: I don’t get that either. But so I said I would follow up with
him and see, because I certainly didn’t want him to be like oh yeah I’m going
Project Recovery and hey I’m out of here. Because I wanted him to try to work on
where he’s at before we get to that point.

LAURA LASHEVER: So starting with that point. So he does the assignments?
Right? He says he does the assignments.

SUZANNE SWANSON: He says he does, right.

LAURA LASHEVER: So what would happen if we created an intervention around
that to get him to actually turn the assignment in? Like a folder that he gets in
that room. The teacher holds a folder for him, and checks it maybe in the
beginning. I know this is high school, and not elementary school, but if you want
to try and teach a kid to do it better, then you have to train him to do it better.

So if you left a folder in that room with his name on it, that would be the
homework folder, and he would have a deal that he would slip that stuff in there
that day. If it’s not there then the teacher the next day would say to him I know
you did this, where is your homework? Go get your bag, I expect for you to have
two pieces in here tomorrow, or whatever. Something like that.

SUZANNE SWANSON: So I will contact the parent about exploring counseling
options, and talk with the teacher, and probably the math lab teacher about this
folder for the assignments.

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 5

RTI Meeting: High School

STEVE RICHTER: I already have him on the list for Project Recovery for second
semester as a potential to go when we make those final decisions. The bigger–
we can work around this the last couple of weeks– issue too is that he is four
credits behind.

BRIAN VALERUGO: And likely to fail all his classes this semester.

STEVE RICHTER: And I think he’s looking for a light at the end of the tunnel.

LAURA LASHEVER: And how hold is he again?

STEVE RICHTER: 16.

ADRIENNE ISQUITH: I like when he said I like to think outside of the box most of
the time. That’s very clever. So maybe we need to start thinking outside of the
box to meet him.

LAURA LASHEVER: For him there. But that could also be a safeguarding thing
Adrienne, and that could be him saying I’m different, and that’s why I’m not
making it.

STEVE RICHTER: And the one thing is if we did send him to Project Recovery
now, and if he continues to be motivated, in the program, he makes the program
work for him, because of his age, he’ll be back. Within a year back on track. We
catch him early enough, the more likely he’ll be back.

SUZANNE SWANSON: So he can make up enough credits to be a junior when
he comes back.

LAURA LASHEVER: And come back and graduate from here.

SUZANNE SWANSON: That’s cool. I didn’t realize that.

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 6