Collective trust: a social indicator of instructional capacity Curt M. Adams Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, University of Oklahoma, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this study is to test the validity of using collective trust as a social indicator of instructional capacity. Design/methodology/approach – A hypothesized model was advanced for the empirical investigation. Collective trust was specified as a latent construct with observable indicators being principal trust in faculty (PTF), faculty trust in principal (FTP), faculty trust in colleagues (FTC), and faculty trust in students (FTS). It was hypothesized that enabling school structure is directly related to the latent collective trust construct and collective trust is directly related to school performance. Data were collected in the spring of 2010/11 from teachers and students in 85 schools in an urban school district in a southwestern state. A partially latent structural regression model was tested in AMOS 7.0. Findings – Results of the measurement model support the theoretical relationship among faculty trust in principal, faculty trust in colleagues, faculty trust in students, and principal trust in faculty. Both directional hypotheses were supported: enabling school structure had a strong, direct effect on a culture collective trust and collective trust had a strong, direct effect on school performance. Research limitations/implications – The sample consisted of schools in one urban district in the southwestern part of the USA, and collective trust only operationalized the social dimension of instructional capacity. Practical implications – Regular and consistent measures of collective trust have the potential to improve how administrators at site and district levels manage the implementation of improvement strategies designed to build capacity. Originality/value – Many theoretical discussions treat trust as a constitutive property of capacity building, but few studies have empirically tested a priori models that specify relationships among structures and processes aligned with instructional capacity, collective trust, and school performance. Keywords Instructional capacity, Collective trust, School improvement, Trust, Schools, Performance management Paper type Research paper School improvement has become big business in the USA and across the world. Everywhere you turn there seems to be a reform model, intervention, evaluation framework, or technology marketed as an innovative and proven tool to increase student achievement. The problem is that marketing and reality do not always converge. The cumulative effect of the school improvement industry in the USA and elsewhere has arguably been tepid progress and little sustained change (Darling- Hammond, 2005; Harris, 2011; Honig, 2009). Rowan (2002) argues that few schools and school systems have realized the proclaimed promises of innovations and reforms. Fullan (2010) suggests persistent achievement gaps, sporadic improvement, and reduced capacity for whole system change has been the legacy of unprecedented spending on predefined interventions marketed as effective products to turnaround schools. Two streams of research are critical to consider as we face yet another wave of large- scale school improvement initiatives. First, is the nearly six decades of school reform The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm Received 20 December 2011 Revised 2 April 2012 17 May 2012 30 May 2012 Accepted 31 May 2012 Journal of Educational Administration Vol. 51 No. 3, 2013 pp. 363-382 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0957-8234 DOI 10.1108/09578231311311519 363 Collective trust