tricia browne-ferrigno, phd lawrence w. allen, edd€¦ · fullan’s sustainability elements as...

Fullan’s Sustainability Elements as Framework

1

Fullan’s Sustainability Elements as a Framework to Assess the Lasting Impact of Systemic

Leadership Development Efforts

Tricia Browne-Ferrigno, PhD Project Director, Principals Excellence Program

Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership Studies University of Kentucky, 111 Dickey Hall

Lexington, KY 40506-0017 859-257-5504

[email protected]

Lawrence W. Allen, EdD President, L. Allen Consulting, Inc.

204 Hawthorne Drive, Nicholasville KY 40356 859- 619-3083

[email protected]

Brenda Maynard Director of Instruction, Pike County Schools

P. O. Box 3097, Pikeville, KY 41502 606- 433-9250

[email protected]

Jim Jackson, EdD Training Consultant, Educational Testing Service

1235 Kimbel Drive, Frankfort, KY 40601 502- 695-0793

[email protected]

Nancy Stalion Project Coordinator, Principals Excellence Program

270- 519-2308 [email protected]


2

From Change Efforts to Sustained Innovation

Using an extensive review of literature to support his proposition, Fullan (2005a)

identified eight elements essential for leading sustainable innovation efforts. The elements are

named and described consecutively in the following subsections. Educational leaders must

ensure that all of these conditions are met to make reform efforts systemic and lasting.

Element 1: Public Service with a Moral Purpose

A publicly funded system of education is the “the cornerstone of a civil, prosperous,

and democratic society” (Fullan, 2003b, p. 3); thus, educators must understand that the “moral

imperative of school leadership” (p. 31) is a deeply ingrained, broadly shared understanding

that learning is the core purpose of schooling. Every school must provide every student

opportunities to achieve academically and develop requisite personal and social skills.

Collective efforts are required to raise achievement expectations and close gaps in student

learning, to ensure social justice for individuals and organizational justice for institutions, and

to improve social environments within schools and districts.

Element 2: Commitment to Changing Context at All Levels

Setting achievement goals and mandating changes alter only parts of an education

system. Changing the context—to create the potential for sustained innovation—requires

broad and purposeful interaction within and across all levels. Moreover, educational leaders at

every level must instill and maintain a shared moral purpose for the desired change.

Element 3: Lateral Capacity Building through Networks

Creating a system that sustains innovation requires leadership capacity building and

collaborations with and among multiple stakeholder groups. Networks of like-minded


3

individuals sharing common visions about the future provide the requisite synergy to expand

innovation and support its sustaining influences.

Element 4: Intelligent Accountability and Vertical Relationships

Change initiatives often create interconnected, systemic problems that must be

appropriately identified and corrected. Openness in sharing problems, issues, and concerns

requires communication avenues across and between all levels and shared commitment to that

transparency through vertical relationships.

Element 5: Deep Learning

Collective problem solving, adaptation, and continuous improvement foster deep

learning in systems that sustain innovation. Deep learning through collective problem solving

necessitates expanded interactions between and across all levels. Adaptation and continuous

improvement are risk-laden activities because failure occurs often during early attempts at

change; yet without risk-taking and failed attempts, second-order change rarely happens. An

innovation-supporting system allows intelligent failure, a concept embracing both forgiveness

and remembrance.

Element 6: Dual Commitments to Short-term and Long-term Results

Innovation sustainability encompasses short- and long-term results; thus, educational

change agents need to set incremental targets and take appropriate action to obtain early

results. Attaining short-term benchmark goals is critical for sustaining goal achievement.

Element 7: Cyclical Energizing

A repeating pattern of energy expended toward implementation followed by stable

periods to allow for adaptation and reflection generates sustainable innovation. Fullan (2005a)

perceives cyclical energizing as “a powerful new idea” that “needs to be a fundamental


4

element of our sustainability strategizing” (p. 27). After publication of his leadership and

sustainability model, Fullan (2005b) introduced the concept of resiliency, borrowed from

Abrahamson (2004) who posits that successful change adoption requires two seemingly

conflicting forces—activity and rest.

Like individuals developing and maintaining athletic prowess, organizations engaged

in innovation implementation require alternating periods of intense change movement and

periods of stability creation, two counterbalancing phases essential to pacing successful

systemic change. With energy consistently expended toward adoption of innovation,

employee performance often remains at rudimentary levels. Initiative overload creates

frustration, anger, and cynicism and leads to spin-off chaos hampering goal achievement.

Conversely, during periods of stability, accomplishments are celebrated, new procedures and

practices are institutionalized, and progress is monitored. Resisters have time to learn how to

work in changed environments, while the needs and expectations of those outside the

organization can be addressed (Abrahamson, 2004).

Sustainability requires both perseverance and flexibility to develop organizational

resiliency toward further change adoption. This necessary component of change—cycles of

activity and rest—is often misunderstood or ignored by educational change agents who fail to

realize that true innovation adoption requires significant time commitment and energy

expenditure. Those most closely affected by change need time dedicated to adaptation,

reflection, and performance improvement about the new expectations.

Element 8: The Long Lever of Leadership

Sustainability of innovation requires leaders at all levels, not simply leadership by one

individual or one group. Effective change agents build leadership capacity throughout their


5

organizations, beginning when innovation efforts are first considered. Leaders at all levels

sustain successful innovation through their collective efforts.

Methodology to Assess Sustainability of District Efforts

This assessment is part of the evaluation of an advanced leadership development

program supported by a grant from the US Department of Education. The program goals were

aimed at reculturing school leadership and expanding the pool of principal candidates.

Because both formative and summative evaluation was a condition for proposal funding, the

case study design was used (Stake, 1995). Data collection began with commencement of

learning activities in January 2003 and continued at regular intervals to June 2005 when the

last program-evaluation group interviews were conducted. Perspectives of participants and

supporters were captured at intervals throughout the study.

Data Sources and Analysis Strategies

Data used for evaluation were available from three sources. First, reflections by

members of all participant and support groups (i.e., cohort members, mentor principals,

district leadership team, cohort instructors) were collected through questionnaires, surveys,

and group interviews. The second data sources were observations of participants during

program activities (i.e., biweekly cohort meetings, three summer institutes, presentations to

authentic audiences) and during school visits. The final data sources were documents (e.g.,

participants’ application materials and research reports, district’s administrator evaluation

protocol, school and district reports).

Progressive analyses of questionnaire responses, interview transcriptions, and

participant writing employed qualitative techniques (e.g., Kvale, 1996; LeCompte &


6

Schensul, 1999). Member checking by district administrators and cohort instructors ensured

accuracy of numerous technical and research reports.

Study Participants

The federal grant supported the delivery and evaluation of intensive leadership

development for two cohorts composed of principals, assistant principals, and teachers

holding administrator certification. All 30 cohort members (diverse based on position, gender,

professional experiences) provided insider perspectives about the impact of the program;

outsider perspectives were gained from district administrators, mentor principals, and cohort

instructors. A total of 41 individuals participated in this case study to evaluate the district’s

unique model of leadership development.

Contextual Influences

The high-need rural school district is located in eastern Kentucky, a region of Central

Appalachia miles distant from any metropolitan area. The population of its service area is 98

percent “white persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin” (US Census Bureau, 2000). High

school graduates comprise 62% of the population over age 25, but only 10% within that group

have completed a post-secondary degree despite availability of local colleges. Thirty-three

percent of the households reported annual incomes under $15,000 during the latest census;

approximately 30% of the children under the age of 18 live in poverty. Although the district’s

average rate of participation by students in free or reduced lunch programs is 69%, schools

located in remote communities have participation rates above 90%.

Article Framework

What follows is our assessment of the district’s efforts to transform the principalship

into a model of learner-centered leadership to improve student and school performance. Once


7

again, Fullan’s (2005a) sustainability model serves as the framework. The number and

descriptor of an element in the model followed by a component of the district initiative

identify each section.

Element 1: Service with Moral Purpose—New District Expectations

The district began its service-with-moral-purpose transformation when a new

superintendent was appointed in 1998. He inherited an educational system hindered by a $1.5

million budgetary deficit and complacent about student learning. The school board expected

him to eliminate the deficit and transform the district. As a county resident and 40-year

veteran educator, he understood well the challenges he faced.

The superintendent’s first task was to decrease employment throughout the system by

eliminating 350 positions, compounding the county’s high unemployment rate. Although the

department of education assigned monitors to assist with deficit elimination and the transition,

the superintendent alone had to face the public’s varied responses to his initial actions.

School Accountability Demands: Learning by All Students

The Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 reconstructed the state system of P-12

public schooling and introduced school accountability. The previous superintendents ignored

student learning, with the consequence that by 1998 the district ranked among the lowest

performing of the 176 systems in the state. After addressing immediate budgetary issues, the

superintendent turned his attention to improving teaching and learning. He invited other new

district administrators to work with him as a leadership team to improve school and student

performance. With a shared goal to transform the district into an exemplar of progressive

growth, the team sought commitment by every employee to the belief that all children can


8

learn. This vision is embedded in the district’s “Success For All” slogan adopted in 2000 that

is still used.

Preparing for Systemic Change: Transformation Challenges

Among many elements in the district-initiated reform agenda was the creation and

delivery of continuous professional development for principals that emphasized visionary

instructional leadership to assure “success for all” students without exception. Seeds for a

transformed principalship were sown, but two challenges to achieving success became

apparent. First, a survey of then-current principals revealed that most viewed themselves as

competent managers, not instructional leaders. Successful change adoption required principals

with appropriate dispositions and skills for leading instructional programs. Second, the survey

indicated projected principal vacancies in half the schools due to retirements within 5 years.

Many teachers held administrator certification, but few aspired to be principals, motivated to

earn graduate degrees in educational administration to increase their salaries, not change

careers.

Element 2: Commitment to Changed Context—Reconceptualized Leadership

The leadership team realized that it was going to ask principals to assume a role for

which they were not prepared. The team then brainstormed what an ideal principal would

know and be able to do, deciding that she or he (a) understands the state’s core content and

learning goals, (b) believes that all children can learn at high levels, (c) has a thorough

knowledge of curriculum and assessment, (d) demonstrates instructional leadership within the

school community, (e) shows evidence of being a master teacher, (f) works well as a

collaborative team member, (g) shows evidence of being a lifelong learner, and (h)


9

understands the teaching and learning process. With this shared vision in mind the team began

transforming the culture of administrative practice.

Focused Outcomes: Student Learning and School Improvement

The superintendent changed the monthly principals’ meeting to a leadership academy

where, instead of spending the majority of time on management issues, the activities focused

on discussions and activities about instructional leadership. This changed emphasis introduced

new school-leadership expectations. A year later, the leadership team began developing

principals’ skills in public relations and communication about instructional issues. After

release of the state accountability results in October 2000, press conferences were introduced.

Principals and their school-based governance councils were required to present their annual

school improvement activities at school board meetings, sharing what they had done in the

buildings to improve teaching and learning. These new expectations forced principals to

demonstrate publicly their abilities as instructional leaders.

Changing All Levels: Standards-based Leadership Practice

In 1998 Kentucky adopted without modification the Interstate School Leaders

Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders (Council of Chief State School

Officers, 1996) as the framework to prepare and evaluate administrators. However, in 2001

most practicing principals had only limited understanding about the Standards. The district

hired a leadership consultant to facilitate professional development activities and provide on-

site coaching support for principals. One activity during an academy meeting had far-reaching

impact. Small groups of principals and district administrators were formed and charged with

developing examples of school-leadership performance for each indicator in the Standard.

Although the groups struggled at first, they eventually became totally focused on instruction


10

and the Standards and asked if they could work with their school staffs to develop definitions

for multiple performance levels. According to the leadership consultant, this activity provided

a “great opportunity for principals, teachers, and central office staff to talk about what the

system expected, what good practice would look like, and how that would be implemented.”

This widespread effort disseminated the vision of a principalship emphasizing leadership for

learning and resulted in a new administrator evaluation rubric.

Achieving Critical Mass: External Catalyst Needed

A sustained commitment to ensuring learning for all students, a new vision for school

leadership, ongoing professional development, and collaboratively constructed performance

expectations for principals introduced change. Although district leaders were pleased with

initial results, they wanted to move the transformation to critical mass. The team designed a

framework for a district “principals’ excellence program” and then sought help from

professors who served as consultants.

Element 3: Lateral Capacity Building—Principals Excellence Program

A team of professors refined and expanded the district’s proposal into an advanced

leadership development program incorporating recommended best practices in principal

preparation (e.g., instructional teams of professors and practitioners, school-based research

supported by mentor principals). A unique feature was the cohort composition: carefully

selected principals, assistant principals, and teachers holding administrator certification. The

program designers perceived that having diverse cohorts would achieve both primary goals: a

recultured principalship and an expanded candidate pool. The partnership received a 3-year

$500,000 federal grant in October 2002 to implement and evaluate its novel leadership

development plan.


11

Unique Development Strategies: Program Design

Two 15-member cohorts engaged in weekly learning activities throughout a calendar

year and worked with district and school administrators and teacher leaders during three

summer institutes that focused on leadership for learning. The four recurring themes within

the Standards—“a vision for success, a focus on teaching and learning, an involvement of all

stakeholders, a demonstration of ethical practice” (Hessel & Holloway, 2000, p. 21)—framed

the curriculum. Every cohort member was released from work responsibilities one day each

week to participate in program activities. On an alternating schedule, participating principals

and teachers either (a) worked as small inquiry teams at their assigned mentors’ schools or (b)

participated in a seminar-workshop facilitated by professors and administrators.

Capacity Building: New Perceptions about School Leadership

At the midpoint of each cohort’s learning activities, participants were asked to share

how participation was changing their perceptions about the principalship. A teacher aspiring

to become an elementary principal noted that she had “learned that being a leader involves

more than just running the school.” She realized that leaders must guide their staffs in

identifying their own and their school’s strengths and weaknesses, building on the strengths

and finding “ways to address weaknesses.” She concluded, “It’s all about educating children

in a caring and more productive way.”

For a first-year principal, the cohort activities made him aware of multiple required

responsibilities, such as organizing, prioritizing, listening, and communicating, and helped

him overcome his feelings of “isolation and incompetence.” He also learned that “even the

most experienced administrator is taxed for time and energy to deal with the many demands

of a principalship.”


12

Veteran principals participating as cohort members indicated they had discovered

things that changed their professional practices. For example, an elementary principal wrote

he now realizes that “changing school culture is not an overnight project.” He also learned

that it is “not a sign of weakness” for principals to acknowledge they are “not all knowing or

all doing” and that “using valuable human resources” is critical. After participating in the

program for 3 months, another veteran principal candidly admitted that at first he did not

think he needed to participate. A few months later, he realized that he needed to make time to

better his district, school, and self.

Element 4: Accountability and Relationships—Research and Mentoring

Cohort members conducted disciplined inquiry about student-learning concerns twice

during the program, first in an elementary and then in a secondary setting. While investigating

instructional programs in schools other than where they worked, cohort members developed

collegial relationships among themselves and with their mentor principals. The cross-school,

administrator-teacher interactions expanded professional networks and support systems

throughout the district.

Purposeful Work: Student Learning Accountability

Near the close of their yearlong training, participants were asked to describe how the

leadership development activities helped them understand accountability issues. An

elementary principal described the program as a “needs-based curriculum tailored” to the

district that stimulated her thinking about student-learning issues. Now she takes time “to

reflect about the role of social justice” in her school. A Title I coordinator wrote about the

importance of closing education gaps and noted the insights and strategies gained by

participants to make “learning equal for all students.”


13

According to a mentor principal, the field-based research not only gave cohort

members opportunities to work in schools other than their own, but also provided valuable

information to the host schools.

Having a team come into the school, conduct research, gather and analyze data, and

then share that information was useful to the principal and teachers in preparing next

steps for improving instruction to increase student achievement. The [cohort members]

brought an unbiased view to the school.

Furthermore, her school used the recommendations to “improve teaching and student

achievement” in her school.

Lateral Capacity Building: Relationship Networks

A novice principal benefited from “developing collegial relationships” with veteran

districts in the district. Now when faced with challenging issues, she is “comfortable asking

[them] for advice or assistance.” Additionally, several veteran principals participated as

cohort members and also served as field-based mentors. One of them suggested that having

cohort members work in schools throughout the district provided “positive professional

experiences.”

Accountability and Networking: Key Program Elements

The program specifically focused on instructional-leadership practice, and the cohort

instructors provided a variety of learning activities to stimulate thinking about accountability,

relationship networks, and distributed leadership. The mentor principals were trained to guide

inquiry teams in conducting action research; more importantly, they opened their schools to

scrutiny. They were present when the inquiry teams shared their research findings to the entire

administrative community during a luncheon at the close of each semester. The mentor


14

principals’ willingness to reveal problems in their schools exemplifies the deep learning that

has developed within the district.

Element 5: Deep Learning—Continuous Improvement and Adaptation

The instructors spent considerable time engaging cohort participants in perception-

broadening activities that challenged them to explore issues systemically. Their intent was

twofold: (1) to enhance collaboration and develop relational trust and (2) to stimulate thinking

about districts as educational systems. In their survey responses near the close of each cohort,

participants assessed how well the program developed school leaders able to promote learning

success for children and youth in rural schools.

A high school teacher selected to be an elementary school principal just before

beginning the program reported that he learned to “better delegate authority” and “be a

successful instructional leader.” A novice assistant principal perceived that “participants’

perspectives about education” were broadened and their abilities to “be more reflective, make

research-based decisions, and develop leadership skills” in others were enhanced. Other

respondents indicated that the program stimulated innovation because instructors “encouraged

cohort members to think outside the box.” The focus on collaboration and cooperation helped

an elementary teacher realize that they “worked for the district, and not just one school.”

An elementary mentor principal volunteered to support a second inquiry team because

the experiential-learning component provided cohort members “opportunities to observe how

school leaders are addressing equity issues.” Additionally, because “the culture in eastern

Kentucky is unique,” she believes that each school in the district faces different challenges in

promoting “learning and success for all children.”


15

The program’s attention to rural education filled a void in the preparation of rural

school leaders according to one cohort member. This school librarian volunteered to conduct

a literature review for her inquiry team’s action research report, but she could not find

information relevant to the challenges faced by “school leaders in rural districts.” She found

the opportunities “to collaborate with each other in rural settings” quite meaningful.

The district administrator responsible for the evaluation of school administrators

offered a different perspective about the program’s contribution. Few new residents relocate

to eastern Kentucky for a variety of reasons; thus, districts there “are not able to recruit

administrators” from elsewhere. Instead, they must develop “school leaders with a broader

scope of understanding” about their impact on student learning, which the program did.

Element 6: Dual Commitments—Authenticity and Relevance

The leadership team used the dual-commitment strategy to transform the principalship.

By envisioning an ideal principal, stakeholder groups working with the Standards were able

to develop performance indicators aligned with the new expectations. By requiring principals

to talk publicly about their school improvement efforts and accountability results, the broader

community learned that instructional leadership is a critical component of the principalship.

By cultivating a culture valuing continuous professional development, mentors were available

to guide inquiry teams and cohort members understood their weekly release from work was

important.

The district’s model of leadership development assured authenticity and relevance.

Peppered throughout program-evaluation data are references to the powerful learning that

occurred by having teachers and principals participate together. During a group interview, a

veteran middle school principal stated that the program “is probably as close to . . . being a


16

principal as you can get.” A peer described the interaction between administrators and

teachers as “an eye opener for aspiring principals,” a way for them learn first hand what is

really required to lead schools and an experience he wished he had. A personal revelation for

him as a cohort member was that “the principalship doesn’t have to be isolated, lonely work.”

During the group interview with the leadership team and cohort instructors, a district

administrator asserted that the field-based experiences were especially powerful because

program participants now “understand the role of the principal.” They also have “the big

picture” of school leadership, something that aspiring principals do not gain during preservice

preparation. A high school assistant principal shared a similar perspective drawn from her

dual experiences as a cohort member and mentor. The leadership development program gave

active and aspiring administrators “a practical view of the role of principals” because they

used research data they collected and analyzed to “address real problems in schools.”

Additionally, a veteran teacher wrote on a survey that “traditional models of

professional development often present theory but do not link [it] to practice.” In the past she

received “an abundance of resources” during training events but did not have opportunities

“to practice what had been taught.” She particularly appreciated the field-based learning

component of the program because she was able to integrate “theory and practice through

actual experiences within schools and with other administrators.”

Element 7: Cyclical Energizing—Innovation, But No Rest

When the superintendent began his tenure in 1998, many schools in the district were

among the lowest performing in Kentucky based on school-accountability measures. The

leadership team worked tirelessly for 7 years to transform the district, and their efforts have

been noticed. The superintendent was selected by his peers as the Kentucky Superintendent of


17

the Year for 2004. A high school in a remote area of the district, once scheduled for closing

due to poor performance, was recognized by the state department of education in 2005 as a

pacesetter for its steady improvement. Data spanning the recent 4 years (e.g., scores on

accountability tests, graduation and attendance rates, disciplinary actions) indicate improved

academic and personal performance among students throughout the district. The team’s focus

on learner-centered leadership development has made a difference.

Evidence of the second important component of cyclical energizing—stability

creation—does not appear in program-evaluation data. In fact, during the June 2005 group

interviews, cohort members and mentor principals talked positively about what they had

learned, but also candidly talked about their fatigue. Several stated that they needed time to

apply what they learned. Further, despite being reminded that the superintendent was eligible

for retirement after completing his 47th year of service, the interviewees almost unanimously

viewed him as the individual solely responsible for assuring sustainability of the district’s

leadership development efforts.

The superintendent and his leadership team have been the driving force for change in

the district, working tirelessly to develop principals and teachers willing and able to provide

optimum learning opportunities for the students they serve. Even during implementation of

the sponsored leadership development program, the district launched other initiatives aimed at

improving teaching, learning, and leading. Principals and teachers seem to be experiencing

initiative overload due to the continuous cycle of innovation implementation.

Element 8: Long Lever of Leadership—Leaders at All Levels

The learning activities delivered through the leadership academy in the late 1990s

began developing instructional leaders among then-current principals and school-council


18

members. These early efforts exemplified to the broader community new administrative

expectations in the district. Leadership capacity expanded further when veteran, novice, and

aspiring principals worked together during the grant-sponsored leadership development

program. Mentoring stimulated growth for practicing and prospective principals alike and

helped to reculture the principalship and expand the candidate pool.

Principals who participated in the first cohort learned the value of asking others to

assume leadership responsibilities during their weekly absences, discovering in the process

that building leadership capacity in their schools was an unanticipated but very welcomed

outcome. The principals nominated their teacher leaders to participate in the second cohort; in

turn, the teachers suggested ways for their cohort peers to distribute leadership within their

schools. Bases on analysis of program-evaluation data, program participants appear to value

distributive leadership both as a means to develop future leaders and as a way to share

instructional responsibilities.

Prospects for Sustained Leadership Development Efforts

The superintendent began changing leadership practices in 1998 by inviting district

administrators to work with him to transform the school system and institute changes toward

the goal of “success for all” students. The leadership team envisioned an ideal principal that

reframed the principalship from school management to learner-centered leadership. The

district and its university partner designed an innovative approach to advanced leadership

development and received a grant to implement and evaluate their ideas. Recognition from

external sources and recent accountability about student performance suggest that the

district’s efforts over the past 7 years have yielded positive results.


19

This assessment identified two potential stumbling blocks to sustained influences of

the district’s long-term initiative: (1) the absence of a rest cycle to support innovation

adaptation and evaluation, and (2) the lack of a broad-based effort among leaders at all levels

to sustain innovation. Both elements can be easily addressed, provided the leadership team

perceives their importance. Based on the remaining essential elements in Fullan’s (2005a)

leadership and sustainability model, the district’s systemic effort to reculture the principalship

shows promise of lasting impact.

Endnote

1Original draft was presented at the February 2005 meeting of the American Association for

School Administrators in San Antonio, TX.

References

Abrahamson, E. (2004). Change without pain: How managers can overcome initiative

overload, organizational chaos, and employee burnout. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Interstate School Leaders Licensure

Consortium: Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author.

Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and real-life

problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA:

Falmer.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer.

Fullan, M. (2003a). Change forces with a vengeance. London: Farmer.

Fullan, M. (2003b). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.


20

Fullan, M. (2005a). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin.

Fullan, M. (2005b, February). Resiliency and sustainability. The School Administrator, 16-18.

Fullan, M., & Ontario Principals’ Council. (2006). Leadership and sustainability: A

multimedia kit for professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hessel, K., & Holloway, J. (2002). A framework for school leaders: Linking the ISLLC

Standards to practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Kentucky Education Reform Act, Kentucky Revised Statute, KRS 160.345 (1990).

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data.

Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.

Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the school house: How to support and sustain

educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Short, P. M., & Greer, J. T. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from

innovative efforts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


21

United States Census Bureau. (2000). Pike Count, Kentucky. Retrieved October 17, 2003, from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/21/21195.html

tricia browne-ferrigno, phd lawrence w. allen, edd€¦ · fullan’s sustainability elements as...

Documents