week 3×2

 Select the teacher leadership practice that you prefer and explain why. 

Many rural California high schools are impacted by the disadvantages of poverty, non-English speaking students, limited
resources, changing demographics, and challenges of the rural context. Focusing on contemporary leadership theories and
school-community interrelationships, this qualitative study examines the practices of educational leaders in three high-
performing, high-poverty, rural California high schools. The authors employed case study methodology using a variety
of data sources including document analysis, interviews, and observations. Cross-case findings revealed that the local
educational leadership had effectively employed multiple instructional, distributed, and transformational practices to
improve student outcomes, and had established multiple formal and informal linkages with institutional entities outside of
the school to accomplish their missions. Contributors to school-wide success in each case included: focus on instruction,
standards, and expectations; strengths of teachers, and; development of multiple support systems for students with varying
needs. Educational leaders in the schools studied with the highest poverty rates and highest percentages of English Language
Learners made significant improvements in student achievement through active involvement of parents and the mobilization
of other external and community resources.

Citation: Masumoto, M., & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). Case Study of Leadership Practices and
School-Community Interrelationships in High-Performing, High-Poverty, Rural California High
Schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(9). Retrieved [date] from http://jrre.psu.edu/
articles/24-1

Marcia Masumoto and Sharon Brown-Welty
California State University, Fresno

Journal of Research in Rural Education, 2009, 24(1)

Case Study of Leadership Practices and
School-Community Interrelationships in High-Performing,

High-Poverty, Rural California High Schools

Introduction

California’s large rural population has unique
attributes, with high proportions of minority students and
English Language Learners, and a growing percentage of
economically disadvantaged children (California Department
of Education, 2005). Unlike the declining agrarian and rural
regions in other parts of the nation, many of California’s
rural areas are experiencing population growth.

Between 1970 and 2000, the child population in
the San Joaquin Valley, a predominantly rural region of
California, grew faster than the state average, increasing
by 20% (Goodban, Hedderson, Ortiz, & Branton, 2004).
During the same period, the percentage of White children
in the San Joaquin Valley decreased from 75% to 43% and
the percentage of Latino/a children more than doubled,
growing from 17% to 39% (Goodban, et al., 2004, p. 6).
Approximately 25% of San Joaquin Valley students are
classified as English Language Learners (Jepsen & deAlth,
2005).

In a 2003 national state-by-state comparative analysis,
Rural School and Community Trust reported that classes

in California’s rural schools were big, enrollment was
fluctuating, and relatively little money was funneled into
classrooms and school-level administration (Beeson &
Strange, 2003). Rural teachers were found to be paid less
when compared to other California teachers. Beeson and
Strange contended that the status of rural schools in California
was critical, particularly as one of the states “where rural
communities’ educational needs may be unjustly lost in the
political shuffle of state politics. No child deserves to be lost
in the shuffle” (p. 13).

Within the context of California’s rural areas, the
challenges faced by students are immense as they navigate
the educational system while seeking their dreams of quality
of life, successful careers and postsecondary education.
Perhaps the notion of being rural is too vague, inconsistent,
and out-dated for this urban-centric and populous state.
Perhaps rural/small town students are square pegs trying to
fit the round holes of the public (urban-based) school and
university systems. Perhaps the challenges of poverty and
large numbers of multiethnic and English Language Learner
(ELL) students are more complex than rural educational
leaders are prepared to manage.

2 MASUMOTO AND BROWN-WELTY

America received a wake-up call in 1983 from the
National Commission on Excellence in Education’s A
Nation at Risk report, which argued that American students
were too poorly educated to effectively compete in the
global marketplace (Goldberg & Harvey, 1983). The report
spawned an avalanche of school reform efforts including
conferences such as the President Bush’s Governor’s
Conference on Education in 1989, numerous studies and
reports including the Effective Schools Research of the
1980s and 90s (Levine & Lezotte, 1995), and the 1987 report
Leaders for America’s Schools (Griffiths, Stout, Forsyth, &
National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1988).
The Effective Schools Research, as reported by Levine
and Lezotte (1995) identified several key characteristics of
effective schools including outstanding leadership, effective
instructional and organizational arrangements, monitoring
of student progress, and high operational expectations and
requirements for all students. Educational reform efforts
spurred by A Nation at Risk created a sense of urgency
culminating at the national level by implementation of the
No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 (Coeyman, 2003).

In tandem with an emphasis on educational reform,
increasingly complex social conditions continue to
compound the challenges faced by educators across the
nation, including those in rural communities. Practices
resulting in disparities between socioeconomic and ethnic
subgroups of students as measured by standardized tests
of academic achievement were central foundations for the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (U.S. Department of
Education, 2001). NCLB represents our nation’s collective
movement towards school reform, to increase overall
achievement of all students while minimizing, and ideally
eliminating, achievement gaps between subsets of students.
The current reform movement requires all educators,
including rural educators, to identify and acknowledge
inappropriate practices that hinder academic achievement,
replacing those practices with evidence-based instructional
practices (Alston, 2004).

Many of California’s rural educational leaders are
faced with changing demographics, economic uncertainty,
and pressures of governmental school reform initiatives due
to poor academic performance, unacceptable graduation
rates and/or low college matriculation rates. The dire
circumstances stipulate changes in school procedures and
instructional practices, requiring major and concerted
efforts for innovation, improvement, or redesign which are
the primary tasks of educational leaders.

Using case study methodology, this qualitative study
attempts to identify dominant leadership practices with
specific attention given to instructional, distributed, and
transformational leadership and leader-initiated school-
community interrelationships for the purpose of improving

student achievement and school success. The research
sought to determine how educational leaders were perceived
to have influenced the success of the school through their
practices.

This study focused on two primary research questions.
First, what contemporary leadership practices, specifically
transformational, distributive and instructional leadership,
are employed by educational leaders of successful high-
poverty rural California high schools? Second, in what
ways do educational leaders of successful high-poverty
rural California high schools interface with the community
to overcome challenges of poverty, educational reform and
rural circumstances to enhance student outcomes?

School Leaders in Rural Schools

Leaders are vital to successful organizations,
communities, and rural schools. Leaders come in many
forms, serve many functions, exhibit many styles and
are seen in many venues. Accordingly, management and
organizational literature is rich with descriptions of leadership
types: formal, informal, assumed, assigned, autocratic,
democratic, team, dispersed, shared, collaborative, servant,
primal, and contrarian leadership to name a few (Bolman
& Deal, 1997; Chrispeels, 2004; J. Collins, 2001; Fowler,
2004; H. Gardner, 1995; J. W. Gardner, 1990; Goleman,
Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002; Sample, 2002; Wheatley, 1992).
In the rural school setting, educational leaders range from
teacher leaders, principals, superintendents, and school
board members to student leaders, parent leaders and
community leaders involved with the school. Regardless of
the leadership label, there are universal characteristics that
commonly surface when considering qualities of effective
leaders: sense of vision, ability to set goals and plan, personal
charisma, strong communication skills (particularly verbal
and negotiation abilities), strong sense of self and personal
convictions, relationship and empathy skills, and the ability
to motivate and influence others. It is this last virtue, the
ability to activate others to follow, which actually defines
leadership itself.

Many of the essential characteristics of effective school
leaders have been identified in the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium’s (ISLLC) Standards for School
Leaders. ISLLC includes standards such as “A school
administrator is an educational leader who promotes the
success of all students by collaborating with families and
community members, responding to diverse community
interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources”
(Murphy & Shipman, 1999, p. 218). Those ISLLC standards
were found to have been incorporated into the licensure and
preparation requirements for administrators in California
(Murphy, Yff, & Shipman, 2000). Kaplan, Owings, and

3

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND SCHOOL-COMMUNITY INTERRELATIONSHIPS

Nummery (2005) found that principals who were at school
sites for at least five years and had high ratings on ISLLC
school leadership standards had higher achieving schools
compared to those led by lower-rated principals.

Recent educational literature has turned its focus on
contemporary theories of leadership surrounding the notions
of change, collaboration, and performance improvement.
The following definitions were used for this study:

Transformational leadership theory describes
leadership practices necessary to facilitate change. Critical
factors characterizing effective transformational leadership
are individual consideration, intellectual stimulation,
inspirational motivation, and idealized influence (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Fullan (2003) acknowledged
that change forces exist at three levels: the school and
community, the district, and the state, thus requiring leaders
to fully understand and engage in the change process at
multiple levels.

Distributed or collaborative leadership theory
emphasizes the need for leaders at the top to share or
distribute leadership functions amongst individuals across
and between organizations (Chrispeels, 2004). Models of
distributive leadership range from collaboration of teachers
while planning instruction to formal partnerships between
multiple organizations to implement college preparation
programs.

Instructional leadership theory focuses on the leader’s
influence on student achievement: how he/she positively
affects teachers, the outcomes of teaching, and raises student
performance (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
2004; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Current
research on instructional leadership stresses the role of the
site-based leader in setting directions, developing people,
and making the organization work (Leithwood et al., 2004).
The principal may share the responsibility of instructional
leadership with other educational leaders through provision
of resources and guidance for teachers, communicating
vision and expectations, creating a positive organizational
culture and professional learning communities, and
exhibiting a visible presence in the school (Leithwood,
2005; Waters et al., 2003).

Because of constant challenging dynamics and few
layers of administrative staff to turn to, rural educational
leaders are dependent on others to help accomplish their
shared goals (Chalker, 1999). Central to the discussion of
instructional leadership for rural schools, Bauch (2000)
argued that there are six unique attributes of rural schools
in terms of community context which may be identified as
assets: social capital, sense of place, parent involvement,
strong church ties, school-community-business partnership,
and community as curriculum. While physical, geographic

and ideological circumstances may tempt rural leaders to
function independently, sharing leadership functions with
others within the school, within the community, and outside
the local entity is fundamental to garnering support and
resources for the school (see, e.g., Hadden, 2000).

School-university partnerships, for example, constitute
one such collaborative leadership model of value to rural
schools, particularly high schools (Bauch, 2000). Several
examples of school-university partnerships specific to
California include university outreach efforts, parent
education, professional development opportunities,
development of place-based curriculum and instruction
programs, career development, and educational research
(Arnold, 2004; California Academic Partnership Program,
1998; Castro, 2004; Strategic Review Panel on UC
Educational Outreach, 2003).

Challenges faced by a rural school district due to
changes in the community were documented in a case
study of a Midwestern district that had experienced a major
influx of population resulting in suburbanization of the rural
community (Howley et al., 2005). Three major unforeseen
challenges emerged: first was the development of an identity
crisis throughout the educational organization; second, goal
ambiguity resulted from emerging culture clashes between
old and new, rural and suburban constituencies; and third,
because of historically conservative fiscal practices of
frugality and balance juxtaposed with new state reform
requirements, ambiguities in resource allocation evolved.
Out-moded operational practices within the new context
resulted in inadequate allocation of resources and lack of
capacity to access needed resources to meet organizational
needs. The lessons of Howley et al.’s research are equally
valuable to leaders of schools in rural California communities
similarly experiencing growth and suburbanization or
challenged by other changes in demographics. Rural
educational leaders need to be courageous and willing to
go against the grain to proactively address community
dynamics and the diverse needs of rural students (Chalker,
1999).

In sum, current research describes a myriad of socio-
cultural challenges that rural schools and communities face,
often centered around the impact of poverty and diversity.
Research also suggests that the roles of educational leaders
are significant to teachers, instruction, and outcomes of
student learning and achievement. Finally, the dynamics
of change call for leadership strategies that are flexible
and responsive to contextual circumstances, despite the
countervailing forces that may exist in the school and broader
environment. This study documents prevalent practices of
educational leaders in three successful high-poverty rural
California high schools.

4 MASUMOTO AND BROWN-WELTY

Methodology

Consistent with common characteristics of case study
research, an interpretive, multiple case study approach was
utilized for this study (Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Merriam,
1998; Strauss, 1987). Following the model proposed by
Strauss (1987), the cross-case study basic design process
relied on interviews as a primary data source, supported
by document review, content analysis, and observation.
The research initially focused on constructing a descriptive
picture of characteristics and practices evident in each rural
school, then moved to analysis of each case individually
based on thematic development, and finally general
conclusions were drawn from cross-site analysis identifying
major themes and patterns common to the three cases.

One of the initial issues central to the research design
dealt with the complexities surrounding selection of
definitions for rural. To be consistent with studies using
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) data, this
study utilized two locale codes (seven and eight) based on
the metro-centric 2000 US Census data in place at the time
of the study (National Center for Educational Statistics,
2005b). Locale code seven (7) indicates a rural school or
district in any incorporated place, Census designated place,
or non-place territory within a Core Based Statistical Area
(CBSA). Locale code eight (8) indicates a rural school or
district that is physically located inside any incorporated
place, Census designated place, or non-place territory not
within a CBSA or Consolidated Statistical Area (CSA) and
defined as rural by the Census Bureau. The two locale codes
were the most conservative and objective measures of rural
schools available at the time of this study and identified
California high schools that were indisputably rural.

Sample/Participants

A nonprobability sample selection process began with
the total population of 163 public high schools in California
that were classified as rural (as described above).1 The
sample of schools was further refined by identifying
California rural high schools that were high-poverty if they
had 35% or more students participating in the free/reduced
price lunch program (Education Data Partnership, 2005b)
or were eligible for federal Title 1 funding as reported by
the NCES CCD website (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2005a).

Sample selection continued to be narrowed by two
levels of criteria to determine high-performance indicators
of school success as reported on the California Department
of Education (CDE) Ed-Data website (Education Data
Partnership, 2005a). The first performance criterion was

1 With more recent changes in local codes, the schools in this
study nonetheless remained rural.

meeting federal Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) accountability
standards for all subgroups in the school for both 2004 and
2005. Next, state level comparative criteria were considered
to narrow the selection of schools. Selected schools had
to meet three or more of the following criteria for high
schools: 2005 Academic Performance Index (API) scores
above the state median, 2005 above average proficiency
rates for English Language Arts (ELA), 2005 above average
proficiency rates for Math, graduation rates above the
state average for five most recent years 1999-2004, lower
than average four-year drop out rates for 2004, and above
average 2004 A-G completion rates (course requirements
for University of California admission).

Consistency in leadership was the final factor used for
sample stratification. Due to high turnover of principals
in successful rural California high schools (we found that
only two principals of the top ten schools had been in their
positions for five years and five principals were new in the
schools), qualifying schools had to have current principals
in leadership roles at the school site for more than one
year and have had impact on the previous year’s student
achievement rates. From the remaining stratified pool of
five schools suitable for this study, a purposive sample of
three high schools were selected based on diversity of ethnic
make up and proportions of English Learners.

Of the group of schools meeting all specified factors,
contacts were made to the high school principals by
telephone to introduce the study, and assess willingness
to participate. None of the qualifying schools contacted
declined to participate.

Potential interviewees at each high school included at
least ten individuals, including but not limited to the following:
superintendent, principal, other site-based administrative
leaders (counselors and/or assistant principals), teachers and
teacher leaders including department chairs in core subject
areas (math, English, science, social studies), middle/feeder
school principals, parents, and other community members.
Community members sought for participation in the study
included representatives from county offices of education,
consultants who had worked with the school, university
partners, business partners, civic leaders, and volunteers
involved with the school. The composition of respondents
for each school varied based on the recommendations of
the principal, defined positions within the local education
agency, and the availability, accessibility, and willingness
of subjects to participate.

Data Collection

This study engaged a three-stage approach to data
collection, an introductory phase beginning with the initial
assessment and telephone contact, a preliminary phase, and
a focused phase. The preliminary phase of data collection

5LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND SCHOOL-COMMUNITY INTERRELATIONSHIPS

began after approval was gained from the three selected
schools. A descriptive profile of school and district data was
compiled from state and local sources to inform the research
process. Through discussions with the primary contact at
each site, lists were developed of potential interviewees,
meetings, activities appropriate for observations, and dates
for site visits. Secondary sources of information such as
accreditation self studies/reports, School Accountability
Report Cards, student handbooks, curriculum handbooks,
and master schedules were reviewed. Descriptive data were
extracted from secondary sources prior to and during the
focused phase describing community demographics (e.g.,
basis of local economy, population changes, poverty rates,
property values, distance from closest metropolitan area and
other pertinent community factors), district demographics
(e.g., total student population, geographic service area,
number and names of feeder schools and districts,
organizational structure, current district mission/vision
statement(s), school board member roster, district funding
data), and school demographics (e.g., total enrollment, state-
designated subgroups, percentages of students receiving
free/reduced school meals, ethnic breakdown of students,
graduating class size, faculty size, ethnic breakdown
of faculty, job descriptions, specified high school goal
statements, and instructional plans).

Site visits were scheduled during February and March,
2006 with educational leaders and other interviewees as
recommended and coordinated through the school contact
person. Focused data collection during site visits ranged
from four to seven days, spanning two to six weeks from
first to last visit at each site. Site visits included campus
tours, formal and informal observations and interviews.

Observations were made of educational leaders in action
during formal events such as staff meetings, board meetings,
site council and advisory meetings as well as observations
of interactions with students and others in their daily
activities.

Between 10 and 12 interviews were conducted at
each site with a range of school personnel and community
members (see Table 1). Each interview followed a
predetermined interview schedule allowing in-depth probing
as appropriate. Interviews lasted between 45 minutes and 2
hours. All interviews were conducted individually with the
exception of one small group interview with three parents
at Rosland.2 Interviews with parents and community leaders
were useful for triangulation of data obtained from school
sources and helped to increase validity. All interviews began
with an explanation of voluntary participation, an overview
of the general purpose of the study, and an introduction of
the researcher.

Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. The
researcher took notes during all interviews, and recorded
field notes and journal entries throughout the data collection
process. Follow-up site visits (two in Rosland, three in
Thomasville), follow-up interviews (two in Thomasville),
and follow-up telephone interviews (three in Marvin) were
conducted to clarify and complete data collection. Data
collection continued until sufficient material was obtained
for saturation of relevant ideas. Data were carefully sorted,
coded, structured, and restructured to draw thematic
conclusions through analysis.

2 Pseudonyms have been used in place of the actual names
of schools and communities involved to protect the identities of
individuals participating in or influenced by the study.

Table 1
Interview Respondents across Study Sites

Rural High Schools

Respondents

Marvin Rosland Thomasville

School Personnel
Superintendents 2 1 0
Principals 1 1 2
Teachers 3 3 3
Counselors 1 0 1
Advisors 0 1 0

Community Members
Parents 4 3 2
Business Leaders 1 1 2

Total 12 10 10

6 MASUMOTO AND BROWN-WELTY

Topics of interest examined in the study included:
vertical articulation with feeder schools and colleges,
horizontal interaction/collaboration within school (teaming,
collaboration within and across departments), outside of
school (principals networks, intra district interaction with
continuation schools and other programs), outside of district
(formal business or university partners, county offices of
education, consultants), influences of community context,
impacts of change, and leadership practices.

Data Analysis

Primary methods of data analysis used were consistent
with qualitative case study methodologies as recommended
by Alasuutari (1995), Strauss (1987), Merriam (1998) and
Marshall and Rossman (1999). Over 45 hours of interviews,
field notes and observations made in each school district of
meetings, group functions and conversations, and content of
multiple documents per site led to individual case analysis
and complex cross-case comparative analysis. The researcher
thoroughly, systematically, and intensively analyzed
data through constant comparison and organization to
produce meaning from complex information. Triangulation
methodology was actively utilized to enhance the validity
and reliability of data. Three peer researchers analyzed
several interviews and extracted thematic findings to ensure
interrater reliability.

Case Background

All three schools in the study were four-year public high
schools with high poverty rates in rural California locations.
A description of each study site follows.

Case #1, Marvin High School, is in the small,
unincorporated town of Marvin surrounded by massive
agricultural flatlands in northern California. It is in
the smallest of the four school districts in the county,
approximately 45 miles from the closest city of over
50,000 and the closest State University, and about 75 miles
from a city over 200,000. Approaching town, drivers pass
open fields, a hunting preserve, trucking operations, grain
elevators and a country market. There is one flashing red
light near the railroad tracks approaching the center of town
and no other signal lights.

Marvin High School had an enrollment of 132 at the time
this study was undertaken. The 2004-5 student enrollment
was 62% White, 36% Hispanic, 6% English Learners, and
59% free and reduced priced meal program participants.
The school had a student-teacher ratio of 14.2 to 1, and
student to computer ratio of 2.4 to 1. The school achieved
an average California Academic Performance Index (API)
score of 798 and ranked 9 out of 10 deciles compared to all

other high schools in the state.3 Due to Marvin’s small size,
no API similar school ranking was reported.

Despite high proportions of students in poverty, Marvin
High School had never been in Program Improvement
status, nor had it received special funding for school
underperformance. Marvin received federal Title I funding
based on proportions of students in poverty, as well as
approximately $1,100,000 per year in supplemental funding
from the State as a Necessary Small High School (NSHS)
to maintain a teaching staff of 11 fully credentialed teachers
suitable for the size of the school.

Though small, materials describing the school such as
handbooks, Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC) accreditation reports, and master schedules indicated
that the school offers a range of coursework suitable to enable
graduates access to colleges and universities of their choice
and fulfilling the needs of students who are academically
at-risk and English Language Learners (ELL). Academic
courses and supports are supplemented by a set of intra- and
extra-curricular activities that enhance college preparation
opportunities as well as development and reinforcement of
vocational and life skills. Interviews of staff, parents, and
the community business person, as well as examination of
school materials such as newsletters, letters, and student
and faculty handbooks, provided evidence of great pride in
the school’s focus on student-centered development and the
importance of a joint effort between home and school.

Case #2, Rosland High School, is in a small,
unincorporated town surrounded by dairies, alfalfa fields,
cotton, almond groves, and other agricultural establishments
in central California. While designated rural, with a
population of over 2,400, Rosland is nonetheless located
within a metropolitan county, approximately 25 miles south
of an urban center of close to 500,000. Connected to Rosland

3 The Academic Performance Index (API) measures the
performance of a specific school site (CDE, 2008). Several tests
are used to establish a school’s API score, which results in a score
of between 200 and 1,000. The statewide performance target for
all schools is a score of 800. Each year the school’s base score
is generated from the test scores achieved during that academic
year, and a target score based on a calculation of approximately
a 5% increase (for those schools whose API scores were between
200 and 690) over the previous year is given for the next year.
In addition to the API score, two separate rankings based on
deciles are assigned to each school. The first decile ranking is the
statewide ranking where the API score from every school in the
state is compared statewide to all other API scores for each school
of the same type (elementary, middle, or high school). The second
decile ranking is called the Similar Schools Ranking where the
API scores are compared to 100 most similar schools given their
geographic and demographic composition. The Similar Schools
Ranking is the approach taken to compare schools that face similar
challenges and have similar opportunities (CDE, 2008).

7LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND SCHOOL-COMMUNITY INTERRELATIONSHIPS

by a new freeway, the nearby metropolitan area is home to
one state university and several private colleges. There are
also four community colleges within 40 miles.

A huge sign which announces “Rosland High School:
A school of choice” is posted by the school on the main
road approaching the school. The school mission statement,
handbook, and curricular documents describe Rosland as a
comprehensive, four-year high school with a well-rounded
educational program and diverse course offerings ranging
from core academic classes, career/technical education,
Advanced Placement, and various intervention and student
support classes. According to school and district informants,
Rosland’s priority is to provide a rigorous and challenging
curriculum for all students. Operating on a traditional
calendar, the educational programs are designed to provide
the skills and tools necessary for students to explore their
creativity while developing a strong educational base.

Rosland High School enrolled 539 students in 2004-5
with a student population that was 21% White, 77%
Hispanic, 21% English Learners, and 71% free and reduced
price meal program participants. The school had a student-
teacher ratio of 19.2 to 1, and student to computer ratio of
3.2 to 1. The school achieved an average API score of 726
and ranked 7 (out of 10) compared to all other high schools
in the state and 10 (out of 10) similar school ranking. The
2005 scores represented an increase of 165 points since
2002, and an increase in statewide ranking from 2 to 7.

Rosland High School was in Program Improvement
(PI) status for two years at the turn of the millennium and
received special funding from the State for school-wide
improvement for underperforming schools. Even though
funds were available at the time, the district did not hire
outside consultants or coaches for school improvement
purposes. According to the Superintendent, PI status was
a catalyst for critical change. “We were really pressed
to look deep and make fundamental changes. Now we
have standards, we have benchmarks and we analyze
data. All those things we never did before. It’s really the
accountability piece that’s really forced our hand,” explained
the Superintendent.

Rosland has a student body that reflects a wide array
of student needs and demographics. Academically there are
English Learners and Special Education students, mid-range
students and high achieving students. Most students have
family ties to agriculture. “Some students are from a high
socioeconomic class, and then there are also those whose
parents work on those farms,” noted one school employee.
“It’s very important that our teachers understand where our
kids are coming from. A lot of kids also work on the ranches
and help support their families. Some of them are children of
the land owners, some of the workers employed by the land
owners.” A teacher spoke of Rosland’s students, “There’s a
lot that you have to take into consideration. … Family issues,

health issues that come with poverty and some of them are
migrants.” Many students are children of immigrants from
Mexico, some who are non-citizens. Others are second,
third or fourth generation Mexican American, the majority
of whom are Spanish-speaking.

Case #3, Thomasville High, is nestled in the center
of a small, unincorporated town of .6 square miles that is
surrounded by vast flat fields of cotton, sugar beets, alfalfa,
field and row crops, and agricultural establishments on the
western side of the San Joaquin Valley. Thomasville is a
small farming community flanked by huge farms which
produce agricultural goods for national and international
consumption. With a population of slightly over 800
consisting of approximately 40% foreign born residents,
Thomasville is home to an elementary school and a high
school. It is approximately 45 miles from an urban center of
over 500,000 with one state university and several private
universities. There are two community colleges within
45 miles, the closest 32 miles away. The community is
accessible by country roads and highways with no signal
lights, no freeways, and spotty cell phone reception.

School materials, including mission statement,
handbooks, WASC reports and curriculum resources
describe Thomasville High School as a comprehensive, four-
year high school with course offerings focused on literacy
and core academics suitable for meeting California college
entrance requirements, and a few career/technical education
and elective opportunities including Advancement Via
Individual Determination (AVID), computer applications,
automotive, and home economics. An Ivy League
College program was available and Honors and Advanced
Placement courses provide opportunities for high achieving
students as were intervention and support classes for ELL
and lower-performing students. Like the other two schools,
Thomasville offered major sports for boys and girls and a
range of extracurricular activities including band, Future
Farmers of America (FFA), Future Business Leaders of
America (FBLA), and other clubs.

Thomasville High School enrolled 461 students in
2004-5 with a student population that represented 3% White,
95% Hispanic, 41% English Learners, and 94% free and
reduced priced meal program participants. Approximately
120 students were enrolled in the Migrant Education
Program. The school had a student-teacher ratio of 16.8 to 1,
and student to computer ratio of 2.0 to 1. In 2005 the school
achieved an average API score of 656 and ranked 4 (out of
10) compared to all other high schools in the State and 9
(out of 10) in Similar School Ranking. The 2005 API scores
represent an increase of 202 points since 2002, an increase
in statewide ranking from 1 to 4 and an increase in Similar
Schools Ranking from 2 to 9. In 2002 under the previous
leadership of a Latina principal, Thomasville High School
launched a major effort to improve student achievement and

8 MASUMOTO AND BROWN-WELTY

turn around school-wide performance with the assistance
of special funding for under-performing schools and an
external consultant specializing in curriculum.

The three schools were selected for the study based on
various state level achievement factors: Marvin High School
met all possible state level criteria; Rosland High School
surpassed the median State API score, had graduation rates
above State averages for the most recent five consecutive
years, and had low dropout rates; and Thomasville High
School had above average proficiency rates in both English
Language Arts and in Math, high graduation rates, and low

dropout rates. Table 2 profiles the three schools based on
school characteristics, demographics, and achievement
factors.

Findings

Marvin High School Findings

All interviewees in Marvin described extremely high
academic standards, encouraged and enforced school
wide. The academic program was enhanced by multiple

Table 2
Profiles of Three California Rural High Schools Studied, 2004-5 Academic Year

Case Study Schools

Marvin Rosland Thomasville

School Characteristics

Enrollment 135 539 461
2003-04 district revenue per student4 7,856 6,993 9,271
Total teaching staff 11 30 30
Teachers, White 9 22 18
Teachers, Hispanic 0 6 8
Fully-credentialed teachers 11 30 29
Students per teacher 14.2 19.2 16.8
Student-to-computer ratio5 2.4 3.2 2.0

School Demographics

% students, eligible free/reduced lunch 63 71 94
% students, White 63 21 3
% students, Hispanic 36 77 95
% students, ELL 6 21 41

Academic Achievement

2005 school API score6 798 726 656
% students proficient or above in ELA, 20057 69 39 44
% students proficient or above in mathematics assessment,
20058

56 44 66

2004 graduates, total 33 108 100
4-year dropout rate9 0 .8 .8
% 2004 graduates meeting state A-G requirements10 85 22 19

4 2003-04 statewide average revenue per student was 7251.
5 Statewide average student-to-computer ratio was 4.2.
6 Statewide median API score, 2005, was 696.
7 Statewide average ELA proficiency rate, 2005, was 42%.
8 Statewide average mathematics proficiency rate, 2005, was 45%.
9 Statewide average 4-year dropout rate, 2001-05, was 13.3%.
10 Statewide percentage of graduates meeting state A-G requirements, 2005, was 33.7%.

9LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND SCHOOL-COMMUNITY INTERRELATIONSHIPS

student support systems, low student to teacher ratios,
substantial one-on-one guidance, and a high volume of
school to home communications regarding individual
student progress substantiated by observations and review
of school communications and state reports. A new and
growing population of ELL students was found to challenge
instructional practices across the school. Substantiated by
WASC review documents and school schedules, parents and
staff identified multiple student support and intervention
mechanisms initiated within recent years emphasizing
instruction and learning. Academic support for students
included mid-day and after-school tutorials, weekly progress
reporting, and individual student monitoring.

According to school staff and parents, administrative and
teacher leaders shared numerous leadership responsibilities
and distributed leadership across the small staff. Serious
emphasis was given to instruction, including monitoring
of teachers, collaborative planning, and curriculum
modification resulting in new instructional programs and
practices. A unique feature of Marvin’s program was a 40
minute tutorial structured into the master schedule for all
students. Close supervision of teachers and regular formal
evaluations have led to involuntary teacher turnover in
recent years.

Because the school was seen as the focal point of
the small community, there were multiple examples of
interdependence between school and community. Multiple
formal and informal mechanisms were established between
the school and businesses in the community for FFA, FBLA
and sports, as well as with entities outside of the community
for college access opportunities.

The school benefited from community support to
meet concrete needs such as improvements for athletics,
scholarships, and career opportunities. In most cases
identified, school staff members were responsible for
initiating help from individuals and organizations in the
region. Though formal organizational resources in this rural
county were limited, multiple linkages with individuals,
organizations, and colleges outside of the community
fulfilled a variety of student needs.

School Site Council and Board communications
were the primary formal mechanisms for receiving input
from parents and community members. Multiple written
communications were sent to parents in both English and
Spanish. However, few school mechanisms were identified
that were designed to enhance engagement of Latino and
non-English speaking parents and community members as
a means of improving student achievement outcomes. Most
respondents were critical of the insufficient engagement
with the Latino community in particular. Some parents
expressed concerns that the principal was “too strict,” yet
they acknowledged what they perceived as the positive
academic outcomes of that strictness. On campus, numerous

direct and specific mechanisms were in place for struggling
students connecting the high school and the continuation
school, and multiple activities and services were available
to support the majority of students with goals for college
or careers in business or agriculture. Two community
issues were looming in the future for the district and
school: impending development and population growth,
and increasing numbers of ELL students. These issues
were expressed by school and community informants in
interviews as well as at the observed school board meeting.

Rosland High School Findings

The leadership structure at the district level had
been relatively stable under the guidance of the current
superintendent who had been with the district over 11 years,
five as high school principal, and 6 years in the district office.
During this time, major efforts were initiated to change
school operations, improve instruction, increase student
achievement, and expand programmatic opportunities. In
the last 6 years Rosland had three principals: one moved
into an assistant superintendent role in the district after four
years, the next returned to the classroom after one year of
administration and remains as a key teacher leader, and the
new principal was promoted from an assistant principal
position. Two new assistant principal/counselors were
also identified as formal members of the leadership team
along with key program directors/teacher leaders, the office
manager, and operations managers. Department chairs and
co-chairs also actively engaged in leadership functions
around assessment, curriculum, and instructional issues.

Identified as an underperforming and a PI school five
years earlier, Rosland demonstrated steady improvement in
student achievement based on federal AYP targets and State
accountability measures, raising API scores by more than
215 points in five years. All sources indicated “we’re not
done yet” in terms of progress and improvements yet to be
accomplished. Instructional factors contributing to Rosland’s
success were found to be based on clear standards and high
expectations, emphasis on effective teaching, support systems
responsive to needs of students, and building connections
between students and school. Instructional, distributed, and
transformational leadership practices at school and district
levels were important elements contributing to changes in
classroom instruction and increased student achievement.
Multiple indicators identified consistency amongst leaders
vertically and horizontally in the organization with credit
shared between the Superintendent and other educational
leaders.

Numerous formal and informal linkages were found
to contribute to various avenues of school success and
student achievement. The school and district capitalized on
partnerships with other districts in a Joint Powers Agreement,

10 MASUMOTO AND BROWN-WELTY

and with businesses and colleges to optimize financial and
human resources, academic support, and college-career
preparation. School-community interrelationships were
found to be mutually supportive. Students were required to
conduct community service projects each year with teacher
guidance. A general level of comfort and trust existed
between community and school, due to the stability of
district leadership, tenure of the superintendent, and feeling
that things “seemed to be working” from the community
perspective. Both the superintendent and principal
expressed concerns that the community was not particularly
critical, and perhaps complacent towards the school district.
The superintendent further explained that students came
to Rosland High School from feeder schools in multiple
communities and school districts with different standards
and expectations. This represented an additional complex
and important challenge for administrators and board
members. These identified challenges were contrasted by
parents who indicated a high level of trust in the school
board and administrators to support high standards and “do
the right things.” While the school made multiple efforts to
communicate with parents in their primary languages and
several Latino staff members informally served as liaisons
to the Spanish-speaking community, most respondents
(administrators, teachers, parents) felt that additional efforts
were needed to improve relationships and engagement of
the community to improve student outcomes.

Thomasville High School Findings

Formal leaders of Thomasville High School included a
new superintendent who was appointed during the course of
this study, the third in four years; a new principal who had
been a teacher/counselor and curriculum coordinator at the
school for three years, the sixth principal in eight years; a
new vice principal/curriculum coordinator who had been a
teacher in the district for several years; and two counselors,
one new and one eight years at the school. The high school
also had a few teacher leaders who filled key leadership
roles and other informal leaders such as bilingual office
staff. All interviewees in Thomasville expressed frustration
about the tumultuous board-level politics and “revolving
door” of district and site level leadership over recent years.

Because the high school was previously designated as
an under-performing school, multiple outside consultants
had been involved with school improvement and systemic
redesign three to four years prior to this study. Since that
time, substantial changes in instructional practices and new
intervention and support systems were established. The
school made significant improvements raising API scores
over 200 points and the average math and language arts

proficiency rates to levels significantly above State averages.
The turnaround had been momentous.

Having been an instrumental instructional leader
throughout the school’s turnaround efforts, the principal
was identified as the key person responsible for facilitating
change at Thomasville High. Instructional, distributed,
and transformational leadership practices were evident
in this school. According to parents, teachers, and school
leaders, the current and the previous principal had both
been successful in leading instructional change despite
turnover and lack of stability at the district, and passive
resistance of several veteran teachers. Numerous new
technological resources and information systems had been
implemented to enhance instruction and communications.
As instructional leaders, the principal and vice principal
were actively and collaboratively involved with curriculum
improvement, teacher development, data-driven decision
making and engaging teachers in open conversations about
teaching practices. Leadership functions were shared by the
principal with others including the vice principal, counselors,
designated teacher leaders, and office manager.

School and community interrelationships were
numerous, formal and informal, collaborative and
engaging. Leaders at this school made conscious and
significant efforts to nurture healthy relationships and two-
way communications to actively engage people from the
communities served to focus on priorities of the school
including their turnaround efforts. The principal explained:

We went out and talked to everyone we could out
in the communities. I went to the feeder schools
and held meetings with parents and students.
They were all in English and in Spanish. We
had several parent events where we just talked
about the tests and scores. Mom and dad had to go
over their student’s test scores before they could
register. Sharing information with parents was
big.

Partnerships with parents, business professionals, and
organizations were established to address college, career,
and technical needs of students and families. Extensive
efforts were made to actively involve Latino and non-English
speaking people in support of students. Resources were
strategically utilized to overcome drawbacks of poverty,
rural circumstances, and non-English speaking communities.
Though the benefits of change were acknowledged, parents
and community members complained about the reduction in
elective course offerings due to the emphasis on remedial and
core academic courses in the transition to raise achievement
school-wide.

11LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND SCHOOL-COMMUNITY INTERRELATIONSHIPS

Cross-case Findings

Three primary findings were discovered in this study
based on similarities across all three cases, including:

Prevalence of1. strong contemporary leadership
practices of distributive leadership,
instructional leadership, and transformative
leadership were found at all three sites;

Multiple formal and informal mechanisms of 2.
school-community linkages were established
to accomplish each school’s mission and
enhance student outcomes.

Common contributors to school success3.
were found at all three sites including clear
and direct focus on instruction, standards,
and expectations; strength of teachers, and;
multiple support systems for students with
various needs.

The following discussion will focus on each of the
three major findings.

Prevalence of Strong Contemporary Leadership Practices

Formal and informal educational leaders in all
three schools effectively utilized multiple instructional,
distributive, and transformational leadership practices
to enhance outcomes for students. Leaders made efforts
to ensure student needs were addressed regardless of the
existing challenges of poverty and rural location.

Leaders in the three schools applied contemporary
instructional leadership practices such as developing
professional learning communities involving collaboration
amongst teachers for curriculum and lesson improvements,
use of multiple assessments, and data-centered decision
making. Such practices were found to be vital for classroom
and school-wide improvements and greater achievement of
students. For example, Rosland’s superintendent reflected:

We need time for professional development. We
need training. We need to talk. We need to redesign
the entire calendar and budget. … I don’t think
we’re done in terms of success, but I think we are
moving. We are creating a professional learning
community in this high school that isn’t easy to
do. (We) bring teachers and even classified people
on board together in terms of everybody taking
accountability for learning, setting a high standard,
and expecting kids to get it.… We’re moving out
of it being a student issue to it being an adult

issue.… Our focus is on instructional leadership
and student achievement.… We understand where
the priorities are. The community understands the
priorities are in the classroom and that’s their
expectation of us.

These findings were consistent with instructional
leadership practices described by Leithwood, et al. (2004),
Marzano (2003), Waters, et al. (2003), and others. Because
of strong instructional leadership with a focus on standards
and high expectations, leaders and teachers in all three high
schools described the departure of some former teachers
as “a good thing,” and felt that teacher turnover was not
necessarily negative as frequently implied by researchers
(Certo & Fox, 2002; Ingersoll, 2003; Patterson, Roehrig, &
Luft, 2003). This study found that over recent years, teachers
in the three high schools who did not embrace the culture of
high expectations and whose impact on learning did not meet
defined standards either voluntarily left the schools, were
terminated, or were counseled and transitioned to positions
more suitable to their strengths. For example, Marvin’s
principal explained, “I’m not afraid to make changes if I
need to, if we get a teacher who’s not willing to put forth
the effort.… I do a lot of walk-throughs. I do two formal
observations (per teacher) a year.” Consistent with other
research, some of the schools reported that they had lost
some teachers because of distances from urban residences
(Harris, 2001; Little & Miller, 2003).

Distributive leadership practices involving sharing,
collaboration, co-leadership, partnerships and other
models as described by Castro (2004), Chrispeels (2004),
Griffith (2004), Hadden (2000) and others were found
consistently in all three schools. Teacher leaders were
identified in all three cases, and collaborative leadership
practices involving teachers, counselors, and administrators
were found in management teams, cabinet groups, and
learning communities. As an example, Marvin’s teacher
leaders, counselor, and principal shared responsibility
for many functions and activities across the school, from
preparing for student rewards and examining curriculum for
improvements, to planning and implementing testing across
the school.

In all three cases evidence was found of multiple
changes in structure and practices due to transformational
leadership. Many new programs, systems, and procedures
were established that were lead by former and current
site leaders, some with the help of external leaders and
consultants. Specific examples were observed of changes
that had been implemented to minimize achievement
gaps and signs of inequity on each campus. From many
accounts, the reason Thomasville raised API scores and
met AYP targets was due to changes that were focused
on improving instruction, setting standards, and raising

12 MASUMOTO AND BROWN-WELTY

education students to develop work skills with city hall in a
nearby city. Similar to the other two schools, Thomasville had
formal partnerships with university programs like University
of California (UC) Scholars, California Student Opportunity
and Access Program (Cal SOAP), Upward Bound, and
interagency partnerships with the AVID Program, ROP, the
County Office of Education and an Ivy League program
coordinated by another school district. These examples
of interagency collaboration indicate an established track
record of mutually beneficial interrelationships developed
to enhance student outcomes and overcome drawbacks of
poverty and rural circumstances.

Other formal interagency linkages were found in
each community connected to financial resources. While
extending financial resources was seen to be an ongoing
challenge across schools, in all three cases the educational
leaders had developed alliances with outside agencies to
maximize resources through partnerships and multi-agency
grants. The five-district Joint Powers Authority (JPA) of
which Rosland was a partner was an example of the power of
joining resources and collaborative leadership. Through the
JPA, Rosland was able to provide transportation to students
following after school activities and maintain state of the
art technology and support. These findings emphasize the
importance of interagency and intercommunity collaboration
(see, e.g., Sarason & Lorentz, 1998).

Formal and informal community supports were also
evident in all three schools for career education and extra
curricular programs including FFA, FBLA, band, athletics,
and other activities enhancing student skills and abilities
in multiple arenas. Local businesses served as formal ROP
training sites, and local professionals served as resource
people for classes and program competitions through
less formal arrangements. Examples of other informal
linkages included business people who donated services or
goods to the schools. Indicative of close interrelationships
between high school and community, each community
attended and supported school sports events, concerts,
fundraisers, and other activities. School leaders proudly
reported about numerous individuals and organizations in
all three communities who supported students by providing
scholarships for graduates. The community linkages
described in the study benefited the students and were
consistent with multiple sources in the educational literature
(Bauch, 2000; Jackson, 2000; Johnson & Malhoit, 2004;
Rural School and Community Trust, 2004).

Support provided to communities by students in each
school was another type of formal school-community link
identified. The schools expected and/or required students
to participate in community service functions, including
beautification projects, providing labor for community
functions, and donations for holiday baskets and other similar
efforts. All three high schools hosted a major community

expectations. Beginning with rewriting the curriculum
to focus on state standards with the help of a consultant,
moving to more systemic changes of organization-wide
realignment of the curriculum, and targeting exit exam
standards, then establishing instructional supports based
on higher expectations, all indicators emphasized that
focusing on improvement was one explanation for success.
Transformational practices in the three cases supported the
contemporary notions described by multiple researchers
(Barnett, McCormick, & Conners, 2001; Bate, Khan,
& Pye, 2000; Calabrese, 2002; Fullan, 2003; Griffith,
2004; Normore, 2004; Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas,
Smith, Dutton, & Kleiner, 2000; Silins & Mulford, 2002;
Zimmerman, 2005).

Leadership challenges identified in each of the three
cases involved access to and development of resources,
including financial and human resources, and school board
leadership. Regarding fiscal issues, major differences
between the three districts studied were found. Of the three
schools in the study, Rosland, the district with the lowest
revenue per student, had done the most in terms of actively
managing its resources. Creative and collaborative solutions
were indicative of leadership strengths at the district level as
suggested by Fowler (2004) and are consistent with studies
identifying diverse resource needs of rural districts (Huang,
1999; Kollars, 2003).

Multiple Formal and Informal School-Community
Linkages

Findings also identified that educational leaders in
all three schools had established multiple formal and
informal linkages with sources outside of the school and
community to accomplish their mission and enhance student
outcomes. Each school had established formal linkages with
individuals and community entities to provide valued and
needed services to students. All three schools enjoyed strong
community support of their sports programs. However,
athletics were not a major focal point for the schools.

Examples of formal school-community linkages
included interagency collaboration providing college access
resources and information to students and families such as
Upward Bound and Talent Search administered by colleges
in the region, tutors, and after school enrichment staff and
volunteers. Because the rural communities served by the
three schools had few resources of their own, most of the
formal linkages identified were dependent on colleges and
organizations in outlying cities.

Formal relationships that were documented at
Thomasville included a business partnership group to
initiate an expansion of vocational education opportunities
established by counselors and the Regional Occupational
Program (ROP) teacher, and an arrangement for special

13LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND SCHOOL-COMMUNITY INTERRELATIONSHIPS

goals. Some linkages were initiated by the school, while
others were initiated by the partner entity. These linkages
were found to be extremely important to the educational
leaders in the three schools. Effective educational leadership
practices suggest that all stakeholders and constituencies
be engaged with organizational change efforts for the best
student outcomes (Clarke & Wildly, 2004; Dinham, 2005;
Fullan, 2003; Rural School and Community Trust, 2004;
Senge et al., 2000; Waters et al., 2003).

Common Contributors to School Success

Three common and fundamental contributors to
school-wide success surfaced through data analysis of the
three schools studied including: clear and direct focus on
instruction, standards, and expectations; strong teachers, and;
multiple support systems for students with various needs.
While other elements were found to contribute to school
success in each of the three cases, such as small size and
close relationships in Marvin, these three factors appeared
to be essential ingredients leading to the acquired levels
of success across all three schools. This finding provided
context for the other findings dealing with leadership and
school-community interrelationships.

Leithwood et al. (2004) and Waters et al. (2003)
emphasize the importance of setting direction and focus on
instruction in their meta-analyses on critical instructional
leadership functions. Emphasis on standards and expectations
that were monitored through multiple measures were key
components of instructional focus. In all three cases, directed
focus on instruction, standards, and expectations across the
school was found to begin with leaders who set the tone for
direction and shared it with others across the organization,
from students to parents, teachers, and support personnel.
One Thomasville teacher reported, “The greatest impact in
the last five years has been our youngest administrators and
the new teachers. … (They) had the guts and backbone to
set things in motion.”

Effective teachers, the second element identified as
critical to the success of the three schools studied, were
broadly recognized as one of the most direct influences
on student learning (Marzano, 2003; National Research
Council, 1999). At Rosland, a community member spoke
of the teachers:

We have some strong teachers. We have very few
long-time teachers; a lot of our staff is new. If it
doesn’t work, they aren’t here any more. One or
two years, if they haven’t got it, they’re out. Our
teachers are committed to teaching.

event such as a rodeo, parade, or festival each year as a
means of civic engagement. In all cases, the community’s
use of school facilities for recreation and other activities
was another way the school supported community needs.

Community interrelationships would not be possible
without adequate communication mechanisms. The three
schools were found to utilize a variety of formal and informal
communication strategies with parents and the community
at large. For example, Rosland communicated with parents
through telephone calls, letters, contracts, newsletters, and
handbooks. The school used an automated telephone system
to leave messages for parents about school events in English
and Spanish. The principal proudly reported personal calls
and automated calls could be made to every home, “They are
told in their own language that they are welcome to school.”
Parent communication also occurred through invitations to
student recognition events where interpreters and audio-
transmitting equipment were regularly available and used to
ensure non-English speaking parents could fully participate.
Formal communication mechanisms that engaged parents
with the school to gain input for planning and decision
making included School Site Councils, English Language
Advisory Committees, and boosters’ organizations. Leaders
in the three schools who practiced two-way communication
with constituencies, facilitated active interrelationships,
developed mutual learning contexts, and collaborated on
solutions, were successful at improving student outcomes
and community problem-solving.

Differences between the three campuses were observed
based on the amount of two-way communication with
parents and the broader community for the purposes of
improving academics and student outcomes and minimizing
achievement gaps. Leaders in all three schools emphasized
establishing better relationships with Latino and non-
English speaking parents and community as a priority. They
also all worried about community growth and the influx of
a more diverse and/or challenging student population. The
variation between the three schools appeared to be related
to the immediacy of impending changes. Thomasville, the
school with the highest percentage of Hispanics and English
Learners, had the strongest two-way relationships with the
community and was developing educational opportunities
on their campus for adults in the community. These findings
were found to be consistent with multiple studies regarding
factors related to success of Latina/o students (Goldenberg,
Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001; Zambrana & Zoppi,
2002). Two of the three schools had Latino and bilingual
office personnel who were seen to be vital to school-parent
and school-community interrelationships.

In summary, there were multiple formal and informal
linkages established between the schools and community,
and schools and entities outside of the community to meet

14 MASUMOTO AND BROWN-WELTY

There is no leeway for students to fall behind and
slip between the cracks. Parents are called when
their kids have a C-. We get progress reports,
and also get deficiency notices. The principal
brings them in and asks what’s going on with
the student. He can tell if it’s laziness or if the
student is struggling; they have study periods and
after-school tutoring to help them catch up.

Across all sites, support systems for college bound and
high-performing students were also available in the forms
of personalized academic planning, college application and
financial aid advising and assistance, college and career
guidance, and field trips to colleges and other non rural
locations.

Educational leaders and teachers also believed that
extra curricular programs, specifically FFA and FBLA, were
critical supports to student achievement and goal attainment
in many forms. Student support systems in all three schools
served as a means of overcoming disadvantages of poverty,
lack of English language proficiency, and rural circumstances
as identified in the literature (Bottoms & Carpenter, 2004;
Chenoweth & Galliher, 2004; Keren Zuniga, 2005; Lapan,
Tucker, Kim, & Kosciulek, 2003). Many of the student
support systems found on all three campuses resulted from
collaboration with external entities and extensive school-
community interrelationships.

While state and district-reported dropout rates for
each of the schools studied were well above state averages,
interviewees at all three schools, including the three
principals and teacher leaders, expressed concerns about
the difficulty of tracking students from school to school.
There was uniform concern about students who may “fall
between the cracks” and end up dropping out of the system.
This notion appeared to be a motivator for the educational
leaders to do the best they could to provide support for all
students.

Discussion

The authors found much evidence to support a direct
relationship between effective leadership and student
achievement in the three high-performing, high-poverty
rural high schools. A few surprises surfaced that were not
directly related to the primary findings of this study but
warrant discussion.

In all three cases very few high school faculty members
or administrators lived in or near the school community. A
few of the teachers at each high school were reported to
have grown up in the community, but very few actually
lived there. The vast majority of teachers in the three
schools were reported to be commuters. Thus, opportunities
for informal exchanges were limited to a few classified staff

Rosland’s principal added:

We expect the best behind every door, teachers
understand that. They know we expect the
best teachers every day. We don’t have time
not to do that. We’re completely honest about
that, and expectations of teachers will never be
compromised.

Many teacher leaders were also identified in the schools
studied, further reinforcing their value and impact. One
English teacher, who had been at Marvin for over 30 years,
was mentioned by every person interviewed as a primary
reason for student and school success. She was identified as
one of the most respected and most demanding teachers in
the region. “She doesn’t excuse things. The kids know she’s
tough and fair. She is part of the institution itself.” Another
teacher explained, “A lot of my success is from her help.
She helps with the structure of the curriculum. She sees the
bottom line is teaching students. She knows that is what’s
most important.”

The challenge of teacher recruitment and retention
was substantiated by educational leaders in the three
schools. This finding is important as principals have the
ability to directly impact the quality of teachers and the
types of teachers employed at the school through their
responsibilities for teacher recruitment and selection,
professional development, supervision and evaluation
(Arnold, Newman, Gaddy, & Dean, 2005; Collins, 1999;
Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). It was clear from all cases that
having the right teachers in the right classrooms was not
a coincidence, but a result of good leaders setting clear
standards and expectations, and providing direct guidance
through frequent class observations and feedback.

The third contributor to school success identified in the
three schools was the presence of multiple types of supports
for students with varied needs. Student support systems for
struggling students in all three schools included, but were
not limited to, regular assessments, individualized tutorials
and frequent school-parent communications regarding
student progress. The value of one-on-one, small group
and focused tutorial opportunities is well established in the
literature as effective instructional practice (E. M. Lopez,
2001; Marzano, 2003; National Research Council, 1999).
The parent communication function is also well documented
as an important element to student achievement, especially
in high schools and with Latino students (Epstein, 1995;
Goodwin, 2000; Hickman, Greenwood, & Miller, 1995;
Lam, 1997; G. R. Lopez, 2001; Simon, 2001). The level
of expectations at Marvin resulted in highly intense focus
on student progress and timely communications between
teachers, students, parents, and the school. One parent
reported:

15LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND SCHOOL-COMMUNITY INTERRELATIONSHIPS

to enhance student outcomes. They discover ways to utilize
and stretch resources to help students, regardless of location
or lack of funding.

Third, despite the many constraints and challenges of
high poverty and rural contexts, effective rural educational
leaders utilize a variety of leadership practices to develop
formal and informal linkages with multiple community
sources to help accomplish their mission. Valuable school-
community linkages are based on collaboration and active
engagement of parents and constituencies from throughout
the school and the community. School-community linkages
extend beyond the local community to agencies and
organizations with mutual interests, including colleges and
universities that may be a significant distance from the high
school.

In view of remarkable accomplishments of the rural
California schools studied, new challenges were identified
in each case related to increasingly diverse student needs,
changing population dynamics, and limited resources. With
over 324,000 students comprising California’s rural student
population, there is need for further research efforts focusing
on rural education issues in the state. Further investigation
in rural high schools would be suitable regarding principal
turnover, ELL students and the interface between schools
and non-English speaking communities, district level
leadership and school board issues, and school-community
interdependencies in areas of governance, finances, growth
and development.

This study offers practical implications for policy makers,
educational leaders, universities and other organizations
providing support to rural educators and school systems in
California. Rural high school leaders need to be nurtured
and supported to develop skills and practices necessary to
serve the diversity of student needs, to support and enhance
performance of teachers, and to engage multiple sectors
of the community in the mission of achieving optimal
outcomes for all students. Rural educational leaders capable
of engaging others to address goals and student needs create
synergistic solutions that extend resources often resulting in
outcomes that surpass expectations.

References

Alasuutari, P. (1995). Research culture: Qualitative method
and cultural studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.

Alston, J. A. (2004). Informed commentary: The many faces
of American schooling: Effective schools research
and border-crossing in the 21st century. American
Secondary Education, 32(2), 79.

Arnold, M. (2004). Guiding rural schools and districts:
A research agenda: Mid-Continental Regional
Educational Laboratory (MCREL).

members who resided in the community. Staff residing in
the community were seen as significant assets to school-
community interrelationships and proved to be valuable
resources for two-way exchange, particularly if they were
bilingual.

In all three cases the high school was identified as the
center of community. Close and intermingled relationships
between the rural high schools and the communities
fulfilled unexpressed needs and mutually affected students
and communities. Since the schools were highly visible in
the community, school leaders were vulnerable and open to
intense scrutiny and criticism by community members.

Even though the schools and districts had established
track records of formal and informal linkages with entities in
the community as well as outside agencies, the practice was
not always applied to all areas of need such as enhancing
supports for ELL students or accessing additional financial
resources. Establishing effective parent and community
participation of Spanish-speaking individuals in the day-to-
day activities of the schools was not found to be consistent
across the three sites, even when leaders in all three sites
expressed this as a need. Multiple references were made
about local individuals and companies with substantial
financial resources and interests in each of the school
systems. However, there was no evidence in any of the three
districts of local educational foundations, established funds,
or other efforts to access local sources of extra revenue for
purposes beyond scholarships.

Having successfully implemented changes within
their schools, leaders in each of the schools were found to
be experienced change agents. While those same leaders
were aware of the issues and had established mechanisms
of communications with the community to solve school
challenges, they had not fully applied those same skills to
addressing community-based challenges such as population
growth.

Conclusions

Based on the discoveries and findings of the three case
studies and an understanding of the complexities faced by
rural educational leaders in high-poverty rural California
high schools, the following major conclusions are made.

First, effective leadership was found to be an important
factor for student achievement and school performance.
Formal leaders who positively impact student achievement,
share leadership responsibilities with others, facilitate
change and focus on instructional improvements for all
students.

Second, leaders in successful rural high schools
maintain a school-wide focus on instruction and high
expectations, develop multiple support systems for students
with varying needs, and capitalize on strengths of teachers

16 MASUMOTO AND BROWN-WELTY

Chrispeels, J. H. (Ed.). (2004). Learning to lead together:
The promise and challenge of sharing leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Clarke, S., & Wildly, H. (2004). Context counts: Viewing
small school leadership from the inside out. Journal of
Educational Administration, 42(4/5), 555.

Coeyman, M. (2003, April 22). Twenty years after ‘a nation
at risk.’ The Christian Science Monitor.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make
the leap. And others don’t. New York: HarperCollins
Publishers Inc.

Collins, T. (1999). Attracting and retaining teachers in rural
areas. Retrieved January 16, 2005, from http://www.
ael.org/page.htm?&id=396&pd=99.

Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding
educational outcomes. Journal of Educational
Administration, 43(4/5), 338.

Education Data Partnership. (2005a). Ed-data: Fiscal,
demographic and performance data on California’s K-2
schools: Education Data Partnership.

Education Data Partnership. (2005b). Fiscal, demographic
and performance data on California’s K-12 schools:
Glossary of terms: Education Data Partnership.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships:
Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan,
76, 701-712.

Fowler, F. C. (2004). Policy studies for educational leaders:
An introduction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.

Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. New
York: RutledgeFalmer.

Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of
leadership. New York: Basic Book.

Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free
Press.

Goldberg, M., & Harvey, J. (1983). A nation at risk: The
report of the national commission on excellence in
education. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(1), 14.

Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier,
H. (2001). Cause or effect? Longitudinal study of
immigrant Latino parents’ aspirations and expectations,
and their children’s school performance. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 547.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal
leadership: Realizing the power of emotional
intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.

Goodban, N., Hedderson, J., Ortiz, M., & Branton, L. (2004).
The state of the great central valley of California:
Assessing the region via indicators. Modesto, CA: The
Great Valley Center.

Arnold, M., Newman, J. H., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C.
B. (2005). A look at the condition of rural education
research: Setting a direction for future research. Journal
of Research in Rural Education, 20(6), 1-25, http://
www.jrre.psu.edu/articles/20-6 .

Barnett, K., McCormick, J., & Conners, R. (2001).
Transformational leadership in schools—panacea,
placebo or problem? Journal of Educational
Administration, 39(1), 24.

Bate, P., Khan, R., & Pye, A. (2000). Towards a culturally
sensitive approach to organization structuring: Where
organization design meets organization development.
Organization Science, 11(2), 197-211.

Bauch, P. (2000). School-community partnerships in rural
schools: Leadership, renewal and sense of place,
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. New Orleans, LA: ERIC.

Beeson, E., & Strange, M. (2003). Why rural matters:
The continuing need for every state to take action on
rural education. Arlington, VA: Rural School and
Community Trust.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing
organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bottoms, G., & Carpenter, K. (2004). Factors affecting
mathematics achievement for students in rural schools
[research brief] (No. 03V04). Atlanta, GA: Southern
Regional Education Board.

Calabrese, R. L. (2002). The school leader’s imperative:
Leading change. International Journal of Educational
Management, 17(7), 325-332.

California Academic Partnership Program. (1998). A primer
on educational partnerships: Ingredients for success:
California Academic Partnership Program.

California Department of Education. (2005). Fact book
2005: Handbook of education information: California
Department of Education.

Castro, J. I. (2004). Promoting leadership development and
collaboration in rural schools. In J. H. Chrispeels (Ed.),
Learning to lead together, (pp. 327-341). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Certo, J., & Fox, J. (2002). Retaining quality teachers. The
High School Journal, 86, 57-75.

Chalker, D. M. (Ed.). (1999). Leadership for rural schools:
Lessons for all educators. Lancaster, PA: Technomic
Publishing.

Chenoweth, E., & Galliher, R. V. (2004). Factors influencing
college aspirations of rural West Virginia high school
students. Journal of Research in Rural Education,
19(2). Retrieved August 11, 2005 from http://www.
umaine.edu/jrre/19-2.htm.

17

Johnson, J., & Malhoit, G. (2004). Best fiscal management
practices for rural schools. Arlington, VA: Rural School
and Community Trust.

Kaplan, L. S., Owings, W. A., & Nunnery, J. (2005). Principal
quality: A Virginia study connecting interstate school
leaders licensure consortium standards with student
achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(643), 28.

Keren Zuniga, J. K. O. M. W. (2005). Science education for
rural Latino/a students: Course placement and success
in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
42(4), 376-402.

Kollars, D. (2003, December 14). Paying for schools:
Dollars and nonsense. Fresno Bee, pp. A1, A13-A15.

Lam, S. F. (1997). How the family influences children’s
academic achievement. New York: Garland
Publishing.

Lapan, R. T., Tucker, B., Kim, S.-K., & Kosciulek, J. F.
(2003). Preparing rural adolescents for post high school
transitions. Journal of Counseling and Development:
JCD, 81(3), 329-342.

Leithwood, K. (2005). Understanding successful principal
leadership: Progress on a broken front. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43(6), 619-629.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom,
K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning.
Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement (CAREI).

Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1995). Effective schools
research.

Little, P., & Miller, S. (2003). School district personnel
selection practices: Exploring the effects of demographic
factors on rural values within a person-organization fit
model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago,
IL.

Lopez, E. M. (2001). Guidance of Latino high school students
in mathematics and career identity development.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 23, 189-207.

Lopez, G. R. (2001). Redefining parental involvement:
Lessons from high-performing migrant-impacted
schools. American Educational Research Journal,
38(2), 253.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing
qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.

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

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005).
School leadership that works: From research to results.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND SCHOOL-COMMUNITY INTERRELATIONSHIPS

Goodwin, B. (2000). Raising the achievement of low-
performing students [policy brief] (Policy brief
offering research-based suggestions for improving the
achievement of marginalized students). Aurora, CO:
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational
leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover,
and school performance. Journal of Educational
Administration, 42(3), 333.

Griffiths, D. E., Stout, R. T., Forsyth, P. B., & National
Commission on Excellence in Educational. (1988).
Leaders for America’s schools the report and papers of
the national commission on excellence in educational
administration. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Pub. Co.

Hadden, P. D. (2000). When the school is the community:
A case study of Fourche Valley School, Briggsville,
Arkansas. In C. B. Howley & H. L. Hobart (Eds.),
Small high schools that flourish: Rural context, case
studies and resources (113-137). Austin, TX: Southwest
Educational Development Lab.

Hammer, P. C. (2001). Joining rural development theory
and rural education practice. Retrieved May 30, 2005,
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/
ERICServlet?accno=ED467305.

Harris, M. (2001). Lessons from prairie teachers. Action in
Teacher Education, 23, 19-26.

Hickman, C., Greenwood, G. & Miller, M.D. (1995).
High school parent involvement: Relationships with
achievement, grade level, SES and gender. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 28, 125-134.

Howley, A., Carnes, M., Eldridge, A., Huber, D., Lado, L.,
Kotler, R., et al. (2005). The poor little rich district:
The effects of suburbanization on a rural school and
community. Journal of Research in Rural Education,
20(9), 1-14.

Huang, G. G. (1999). Sociodemographic changes: Promises
and problems for rural education. Retrieved August 6,
2005, from http://library.educationworld.net/a8/a8-114.
html.

Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage?
Seattle, WA: Universityof Washington, Center for the
Study of Teaching Policy.

Jackson, C. W. (2000). Flourishing in the face of adverse
conditions: A case study of thrasher school, Booneville,
Mississippi. In Small high schools that flourish: Rural
context, case studies, and resources (pp. 103-112).
Charleston, WV: Southeastern Regional Vision for
Education and AEL, Inc.

Jepsen, C., & deAlth, S. (2005). English Learners in
California schools (research report). San Francisco:
Public Policy Institute of California.

18 MASUMOTO AND BROWN-WELTY

Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton,
J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth
discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone
who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Schools as learning
organisations: The case for system, teacher and student
learning. Journal of Educational Administration,
40(4/5), 425.

Simon, B. S. (2001). Family involvement in high school:
Predictors and effects. National Association of
Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 85, 8-19.

Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects
of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher
turnover? American Educational Research Journal,
41(3), 681.

Strategic Review Panel on UC Educational Outreach.
(2003). Forging California’s future through educational
partnerships: Redefining educational outreach. Los
Angeles: University of California.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social
scientists. Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge
University Press.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No child left behind
act of 2001: Executive summary. Retrieved October
11, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/
exec-summ.html.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced
leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the
effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO:
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science:
Learning about organization from an orderly universe.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Zambrana, R. E., & Zoppi, I. M. (2002). Latina students:
Translating cultural wealth into social capital to improve
academic success. In D. d’Anda (Ed.), Social work with
multicultural youth (pp. 33-53): The Haworth Press.

Zimmerman, J. A. (2005). Making change at a junior high
school: One principal’s sense of it. American Secondary
Education, 33(2), 29-38.

Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education
and Learning.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study
applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Murphy, J., Yff, J., & Shipman, N. (2000). Implementation
of the interstate school leaders licensure consortium
standards. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 3(1), 17.

Murphy, J. & Shipman, N. (1999). The interstate school
leaders licensure consortium: A standards-based
approach to strengthening educational leadership.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(3),
1-19.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005a).
Common core of data: Build a table: National Center
for Educational Statistics.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005b).
Navigating resources for rural schools: What’s rural?
Rural/urban classification, 2005, from http://nces.
ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/Definitions.asp#Metro.

National Research Council. (1999). How people learn:
Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

Normore, A. H. (2004). The edge of chaos: School
administrators and accountability. Journal of
Educational Administration, 42(1), 55.

Patterson, N., Roehrig, G., & Luft, J. (2003). Running
the treadmill: Explorations of beginning high school
science teacher turnover in Arizona. The High School
Journal, 86, 14-22.

Rural School and Community Trust. (2004). Beating the
odds: High performing, small high schools in the rural
south. Arlington, VA: Rural School and Community
Trust.

Sample, S. B. (2002). The contrarian’s guide to leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sarason, S. B., & Lorentz, E. M. (1998). Crossing
boundaries: Collaboration, coordination, and the
redefinition of resources. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.