relationships among leadership styles, school …
TRANSCRIPT
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG LEADERSHIP STYLES, SCHOOL CULTURE,AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
By
ELIZABETH A. LE CLEAR
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOLOF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2005
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Jim Doud for agreeing to be my committee chair and
providing me with encouragement and support throughout this endeavor. He has been a
role model and mentor to me as an administrator. I have taken many of his ideas and
suggestions to heart and am continually striving to improve.
I would also like to thank my committee members: Fran Vandiver, Diane
Hoppey, and Colleen Swain. They all have provided me with encouragement and
support, and I am very grateful. I would like to thank my boss, Jim TenBieg, the principal
of Westwood Middle School. He has encouraged, supported, and given me the flexibility
to continue through this long process. He is simply the best.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, who have taught me to love and value
education and have continually supported me with all my dreams with guidance and
patience. I thank my grandmother who has prayed for me each and every night. I thank
my sister, Jill, and Horace, who not only listen but have also given me support and
encouragement. This has been a difficult road, and it has been possible only because of
my husband and my children’s support and patience.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Delimitations and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Historical Overview of Leadership Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Defining Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Contemporary Views of Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Definition of Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Cultural Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Leaders Shape Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Culture and Student Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Professional Learning Communities and Student Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Leadership and Student Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ-II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
iv
3 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30School Culture Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Survey Instrument Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Implications and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Recommendations for Future Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
APPENDIX
A QUESTIONNAIRE PACKETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
List of Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Principal Consent Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Teacher Consent Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
B SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SURVEY (SIQ II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
3-1 Transformational leadership scale statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3-2 SIQ II statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3-3 Comparison of grade and SES for the district and sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3-4 School grades, SES and population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4-1 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4-2 MLQ-5X leadership styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4-3 SIQ II culture component statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4-4 Leadership styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4-5 Personal teacher efficacy and leadership styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4-6 Parent/Student satisfaction and leadership styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4-7 Professional learning community and leadership styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4-8 Performance of students with disabilities and leadership styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4-9 Belonging to the school community and leadership styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4-10 School culture, leadership styles and school grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4-11 School culture, leadership styles, school grade, and socioeconomic status . . . . 41
4-12 Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction with school grade, and SES . . . . . 42
4-13 Leadership styles, personal teaching efficacy with school grade, and SES. . . . . 42
4-14 Leadership styles, performance of students with disabilities with school grade,and SES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
vi
4-15 Leadership styles, professional learning community with school grade, andSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4-16 Leadership styles, belonging to the school community with school grade, andSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4-17 Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4-18 Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction with SES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4-19 Leadership styles, personal teacher efficacy with school grade and SES . . . . . . 45
4-20 Leadership styles, professional learning community with school grade, andSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4-21 Leadership styles, belonging to the school community with school grade, andSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4-22 Summary of significant results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
vii
ABSTRACT
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Schoolof the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG LEADERSHIP STYLES, SCHOOL CULTURE,AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
By
Elizabeth A. Le Clear
December 2005
Chair: James L. DoudCochair: Fran VandiverMajor Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between perceived
effective school culture, principal leadership characteristics, and student performance as
measured by the Florida Comprehensive Academic Test (FCAT). The assumption in this
study was that principal leadership styles and school culture were expected to enhance
student achievement. A leadership survey and school culture survey were used as
assessment tools. Student achievement was assessed by using the school grade that was
based upon student FCAT data.
The findings of this study demonstrated that there are specific characteristics of
the transactional and transformational leadership styles that affect school culture. The
data provided evidence that school culture and leadership styles are significantly related
to student achievement. Transactional leadership affected school culture in the areas of
parent/student perceptions, professional learning communities, and teacher efficacy.
viii
Transformational leadership affected school culture in the areas of personal teaching
efficacy and professional learning communities. When student socioeconomic status and
school grade were added as predictors, transformational and transactional leadership
remained significant. Socioeconomic status affected two school culture components:
(a) belonging to the school community and (b) performance of students with disabilities.
Principals directly impacted student learning through the school culture they
fostered. It is important that principals practice both transactional and transformational
leadership and understand their effect on school culture. Only with informed practice
will schools be able to meet the needs and challenges associated with all students
achieving at high levels.
1
CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
What is leadership? Deal and Peterson (1999) describe the role of leadership as
“the creation, encouragement, and refinement of the symbols and symbolic activities that
give meaning to the organization” (p. 10). “When principals practice leadership as
pedagogy, they exercise their stewardship responsibilities by committing themselves to
building, to serving, to caring for and protecting the school and its purposes”
(Sergiovanni, 1996, p. 95). They are the living “logos” because their words and actions
convey what is valued in the school setting (Deal & Peterson, 1999).
The history of leadership in education began as top-down hierarchical
management. The boundaries for these leaders were tightly controlled. Administrators
strived to be distant, proper, serious, and impersonal. The communication was formal,
controlled, and from the top. The leadership style was management, and focused on
coordinating and monitoring activities.
Education managers in the 1980s transformed into instructional leaders (Schein,
1992). Why the transformation? Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) suggest that
student achievement began directing all activities. Donmoyer and Wagstaff (1990) offer
a broad view of instructional leadership, noting that all leadership activities, including
routine managerial tasks, affect student learning. All tasks are considered to contribute
as much to improve learning as to direct instructional behaviors. McEwan (1998)
described instructional leadership as both traditional management and a human
2
component. Traditional management roles include planning, time management,
leadership theory, and organizational development. The human component consists of
the communicating, motivating, and facilitating roles of the principal. Leithwood et al.
(1999) describe instructional leaders as ones who provide constant support to the
instructional staff. Instructional leaders were concerned with curriculum and the
academic direction of the programs within a school.
The 1990s brought the transformational leader. The transformational leader has
the ability to encourage change in others (Leithwood et al., 1999). This change is
accomplished by using a collaborative, shared decision-making approach that empowers
teachers.
Principals must show strong leadership no matter what their style. Strong
principal leadership is defined as having knowledge of teaching and learning processes
and the power to motivate other members of the organization to achieve and work toward
the common good of the school. Leithwood et al. (1999) see strong administrators as
having the ability to know the leadership behaviors that match the needs of the school’s
stakeholders. The literature is consistent on the position that strong leadership by the
principal is needed with regard to an important aspect of the school, its culture (Bandura,
1993; Bolman & Deal, 1984; Sackney, 1998).
Culture, in simplest terms, is described as the people’s beliefs and perceptions of
their workplace (Sackney, 1998). Culture is a term that tries to capture the informal,
implicit, often unconscious side of any human organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982).
Schein (1992) defines culture as a pattern of group learned assumptions that are taught to
new members. These assumptions include the current and historical decisions that are
made within a group to solve problems. These decisions are based on institutional heroes
3
and traditional ways of handling decisions and situations within a school setting. Culture
is the knowledge and symbols that frame the interpretations and standards of
appropriateness within a group or group setting. A strong positive culture enables people
to feel better about what they do, so they work harder (Deal & Kennedy, 1982).
Cultural literature has focused on change, suggesting that an effective
organization may be defined as one which creates a culture that inspires its members to
pursue continuous improvement through change. This change has the capacity to make
people proactive and creative problem-solvers. Leaders must realize the power of culture
within an organization. Organizational culture has been identified as a critical element,
vital to successfully improving the teaching and learning in schools (Fullan, 1993; Stolp,
1994).
School effectiveness research has shown that school culture is related to student
achievement (Sackney, 1998). A study by Sweetland and Hoy (2000) demonstrated that,
after socioeconomic status, school culture had a more powerful effect on student
achievement than any other variable. Teachers who felt empowered and part of a team,
and who felt supported by their principals and colleagues, enjoyed a sense of collective
efficacy and higher achievement scores were the result. Administrators and teachers with
a shared belief in the power to produce effects through collective action promote higher
levels of academic progress (Bandura, 1993).
Improvement efforts were likely in schools where positive professional cultures
had norms, values, and beliefs that reinforced a strong educational mission. Culture was
a key factor in determining whether improvement was possible (Deal & Peterson, 1990).
Schein (1992) wrote,
The bottom line for leaders is that if they do not become conscious of the culturesin which they are embedded, those cultures will damage them. Cultural
4
understanding is desirable for all of us, but it is essential to leaders if they are tolead. (p. 15)
Educational researchers agree that, as the leaders of individual schools, principals
impact the school’s culture (Deal & Peterson, 1990; Sashkin & Sashkin, 1993;
Sergiovanni, 1995). School culture can be modified by leadership and the decision
making process of the leadership. A principal can positively or negatively affect the
school culture (Bandura, 1993).
Shaping the culture within the school is a focus of principals. Leadership traits
continue to be studied so that principals can strive for a more complete understanding of
how to mold a positive culture within their schools for an ultimate gain in student
performance. School culture has been positively tied to student achievement, so it is
imperative that school leaders or principals foster a positive school culture and practice
effective decision making (Sackney, 1998).
School culture can be controlled and modified (Bandura, 1993). A principal’s
leadership style can enhance, encourage and nurture a positive school culture. Most
leaders draw from multiple leadership styles and recognize that the ethic of caring has
becoming increasingly important. Leaders who are positive, responsive, committed,
persuasive, effective, and inspiring are capable of enhancing culture within a school
(Sackney, 1998).
Principals who are assertive instructional leaders promote high expectations for
students by continuously focusing on instruction and emphasizing the importance of
academics and student achievement. They must be excellent role models with a well-
articulated mission statement. Culture-changing leaders use the collaborative process for
decision making and maintain an on-going staff development program that regularly
5
receives and discusses staff performance. These behaviors can positively change or
enhance a school’s culture and positively enhance student achievement (Sackney, 1998).
Making schools more effective requires building and reshaping the hidden and
taken-for-granted rules that govern day-to-day behavior. Principals need to be aware that
schools need a culture that encourages productivity, high morale, confidence, and
commitment. This type of culture can grow through human interaction and knowledge of
the power of culture (Peterson, 1988). Principals must also acknowledge and nurture the
rituals, traditions, ceremonies and symbols that already express and reinforce positive
school culture (Stolp, 1994).
Statement of the Problem
Traditional managers were accustomed to hierarchical management that focused
on fairness as the equal application of policies and law. The organizational boundaries
were tightly controlled and leaders strived to be proper, serious, impersonal, and
detached.
The role of the traditional manager changed from manager to instructional leader
to transformational leader. Principals must recognize that to positively influence student
learning, they must nurture and enhance a positive school culture. There is little
evidence regarding specific actions a principal must take to shape a school’s culture so
that a positive reform will take place in the classroom. Therefore, it is important for
school principals to know which leadership styles or behaviors positively affect school
culture and, ultimately, student learning.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among the perceived
school culture, principal leadership characteristics, and the relationship between school
6
culture and student performance as measured by the Florida Comprehensive Academic
Test (FCAT).
• What characteristics or behaviors of principals are associated with positive schoolculture?
• Is school culture a predictor of FCAT scores?
• Is there a relationship between school culture and student achievement as assessed bythe FCAT scores?
• Are there demographic facts (e.g., SES) associated with school culture?
Research Hypotheses
Three hypotheses provided the bases for the study:
• Leadership characteristics of the principal positively affect school culture.• School culture affects student achievement.• Leadership characteristics and school culture affect student achievement.
Instrumentation
For this study, the measurement of principal leadership was accomplished using
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X; Bass & Avolio, 1990), a 45-item
survey. The measurement for school culture was the School Improvement Questionnaire
(SIQ-II; Webb & Pajares, 1996), a 76-item survey.
Definition of Terms
• Charisma: a leader’s personal, magnetic, and mystical qualities that generate powerand influence and build identification with the leader.
• Collective efficacy (CE): characterized by satisfaction and by the commitment of theentire faculty and each individual for academic excellence and professional growth.
• Collegiality: a stress on academics and professional growth.
• Contingent reward (CR): an arrangement where work is exchanged for pay (Bass,1985).
7
• Effectiveness (EFF): a leader’s effectiveness as seen by both self and others inmeeting the job-related needs of followers, representing followers’ needs to higher-level managers, contributing to organization effectiveness, and performance by theleader’s work group (Bass, 1985).
• Extra effort (EE): the extent to which coworkers or followers exert effort beyondthe ordinary (Bass & Avolio, 1990).
• Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT): a criterion referenced test usedin the state of Florida to assess student performance and teacher accountability.
• Idealized influence (II): followers’ abilities to identify with a leader and the goals ofthe organization.
• Individualized consideration (IC): leader’s understanding of the needs of eachindividual follower. The leaders work continuously to get followers to develop totheir full potential (Bass & Avolio, 1990).
• Intellectual stimulation (IS): a process in which subordinates are encouraged tothink of old problems in new ways, thereby sparking broader problem awareness andproducing creative solutions.
• Instructional leadership (IL): principal’s role with student learning, specificallystudent academic performance, goal development and implementation, shaping theschool culture, and management of the instructional program.
• Job satisfaction: a sense of contentment and feeling valued as a professional.
• Laissez faire leadership (LF): a leadership style that abdicates responsibility, delaysdecisions, offers no feedback, and makes little or no effort to help followers satisfyneeds, achieve goals, or grow personally. It is a hands-off approach to leadership(Bass & Avolio, 1990).
• Leadership behaviors (LB): the actions of the principal that foster relationshipswithin the school community.
• Management-by-exception, Active (MBEA): a process by which leaders watch andsearch for deviations from rules or for good performance and recognizeaccomplishments (Bass & Avolio, 1990).
• Management-by-exception, Passive (MBEP): a process by which the leaderintervenes only if standards are not met (Bass & Avolio, 1990).
• Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X): a survey instrument thatmeasures perceived leadership styles.
8
• Personal efficacy: characterized by satisfaction and by the commitment of eachindividual for academic excellence and professional growth.
• Policy say-so: the process by which administrators share powers and help others useit in constructive ways to make decisions affecting themselves and their work.(Sackney, 1998).
• Professional learning communities: teachers and administrators in a school thatcontinuously seek and share learning and then act on what they learn to enhancestudent achievement
• School culture: “the underground stream of norms, values, beliefs, traditions, andrituals that has built up over time as people work together, solve problems, andconfront challenges” (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 3).
• Student achievement: an assessment of student performance in a given discipline orskill area.
• School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ II): a survey instrument that measuresschool climate.
• Teacher efficacy: self-perceived belief in one’s capabilities to bring about desiredoutcomes (Bandura, 1977).
• Teaming: when teachers are grouped together for common planning or collaborationdepending on their grade level or subject area.
• Transformational leadership (TS): a leadership style that inspires and motivatesfollowers to demonstrate commitment to a shared vision. Leaders engage inbehaviors that clearly communicate high expectations to followers and encouragecollegiality and cohesiveness.
• Transactional leadership (TF): a leadership style that occurs when leaders interveneto make some correction and generally involves corrective criticism and negativereinforcement. The leader engages in active management and intervenes whenfollowers have not met standards or problems arise.
Theoretical Framework
From an applied perspective, school culture is of great importance to principals,
as well as other school leaders, because of its positive link to student achievement
(Sackney, 1998; Sweetland & Hoy, 2000). Research suggests that school culture can be
modified to encourage school improvement and higher student achievement (Bandura,
9
1993: Leithwood et al., 1999). School leaders need to assess the weaknesses and
strengths of the school culture and to focus on improving the areas of weakness and
building on the strengths.
Delimitations and Limitations
Delimitations
• The sample is limited to elementary school principals and teachers in kindergartenthrough fifth grade classrooms in a north central Florida county.
• This study does not encompass all individuals within a school’s culture. Studyparticipants included only teachers and the principal of each individual school. Otherstaff members, such as secretaries, office staff, cafeteria employees, aides andcustodians, were excluded.
Limitations
• All participants in the school climate survey are employed in the same FloridaCounty.
• There was no provision for open-ended questions on the survey.
Significance of the Study
The study added to the information already established by other researchers
regarding functions or actions principals attended to when shaping their school cultures.
Findings may also prove useful to school leaders interested in improving achievement.
Ash and Persall (1999) noted student learning must be the focus of educational efforts,
while school leaders create systemic change to pursue higher levels of student
achievement. The study explored the relationship between principal leadership
characteristics and school culture as assessed by teachers and the principal at the
elementary school level. Differences between schools in terms of size, demographics,
and principal and teacher experience were explored. Principals may use the information
to understand a school’s individual culture and then how to nurture or change an already
10
existing culture. Educators may utilize the findings to better understand which leadership
behaviors enhance a positive school culture and improve student achievement.
Although a plethora of information exists separately on instructional leadership,
culture, and student achievement, further research is needed to determine the relationship
between instructional leadership culture and student achievement. Additional research
could provide correlational data between instructional leadership, achievement, and
culture at the elementary level.
Summary
Schools are under scrutiny to educate all students to higher academic standards.
Thus, administrators are searching for ways to increase student achievement. Principals
must encourage teachers to utilize successful methods of instruction to accommodate all
students and modify their own leadership styles to accommodate the needs of their
teachers, staff, and community. The literature supports that principals can meet these
challenges of diverse student populations with a strong positive school culture that
includes professional growth and shared values.
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature that provides support for further
development of an explanation regarding how leaders might increase certain leadership
behaviors for the purposes of developing a positive school culture and increasing student
achievement. The chapter also provides further exploration of school culture and its
effect on student achievement.
11
CHAPTER 2REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to explore correlations among principal leadership,
school culture, and student achievement. This chapter presents an overview of research
relevant to this study. The topics discussed include historical overview of leadership
roles, defining leadership, contemporary views of leadership, definition of culture,
cultural leadership, leaders shaping culture, culture and student achievement, and
leadership and student achievement.
Historical Overview of Leadership Roles
The job of school principal began in the 1890s when the Committee of Twelve
proposed a plan to improve schools by adding professional leadership and assigned
individuals to become principals. Principals emulated the top-down hierarchical
management style of the business sector. They viewed themselves as managers of a
school and their decisions focused on budget, building, supplies, and schedules. They
expected teachers to teach the curriculum. Administrators strived to be proper, serious,
impersonal, and detached. The organizational boundaries were tightly controlled and
communication was formal, controlled, unidirectional, and from the top. Superintendents
strictly controlled the governance of schools from a central position. Principals were
guided by central policy.
12
A distinction between managers and leaders was made by Wolcott (1984) in The
Man in the Principal’s Office.
A manager, as his title suggests, is a person who manages other human beings(i.e., he tells them what to do) and makes his living at it. The professionalmanaging of men is an ancient and respectable form of human activity, with ahistory that reaches back to the Mesopotamian Neolithic era. A manager isdistinct from a leader: the manager’s word is backed by force; the leaders by thewillingness of persons to follow. (p. 325)
A manager is defined in the literature as one who manages the affairs of the
organization but does not lead the organizational group toward a common vision or goal.
Managers plan, coordinate, and monitor, which are all part of being a school leader;
however, managers do not inspire, guide, and persuade. The major difference between
managers and leaders is that managers are concerned with directing and leaders are
concerned with influencing (Marshall, 1988). The two concepts of leadership and
management are not independent of each other, but instead are interrelated. Schein
(1992) suggested the need for strong leadership and strong management if the
organization is to be healthy. Strong leadership and weak management may create chaos,
while strong management and weak leadership may develop a change-resistant
organization that eventually becomes dysfunctional. He writes that today’s principal has
evolved from the manager in the 1950s to the instructional leader of the 1980s to the
transformational leader in the 1990s.
The shifts from “manager” to “leader” to “instructional leader” to
“transformational leader” gave principals new expectations. With each shift came a need
for different skills in order to be successful in leading an effective school. Instructional
leadership focused principals’ attention on improving technical instructional activities by
close monitoring of teachers’ and students’ classroom work (Duke, 1987; Leithwood &
13
Montgomery, 1986). Principals were developing more uniform approaches to teaching,
and tightening supervisory practices (Rowan, Bossert, & Dwyer, 1983). McEwan (1998)
described the instructional leader as comprised of the traditional management leadership
with an added human component. Traditional managers were interested in planning, time
management, leadership theory, and organizational development. The human component
consisted of communicating, motivating, and facilitating roles of the principal.
The transformational leader of the 1990s posits that employees are leaders
themselves and that these leadership attributes need to be nurtured and encouraged by the
leader. The leader needs to create an environment that will satisfy the psychological
needs of the employee, foster self-actualization, and allow autonomy. As a result of this
approach, new leaders will emerge (Johnson, 1996). Blasé and Anderson (1995)
suggested that facilitative leadership increases the opportunity for involvement in
leadership and power sharing. Sharing power by empowering others means increasing
power for themselves and others (Blasé & Blasé, 1996). Sergiovanni (1995) suggests the
focus of transformational leadership motivates employees to a higher level of efficiency
and commitment. Transformational leadership encourages potential by increasing
expectations and fulfilling higher order needs. King’s (1989) study showed a greater
level of satisfaction and effectiveness in school settings where transformational
leadership was practiced. She examined linkages between 208 Louisiana teachers and
their perceptions of the leadership found within the K–12 and higher educational
institutions with which they were affiliated. Using the MLQ, she found transformational
leadership had a measurable, incremental effect in the predictability of teacher
satisfaction and effectiveness.
14
Barth (1980) suggested that the role of the principal continues to be defined in
response to management and union relationships and the size and complexity of the
modern school. The additional responsibilities of the principal include social services,
food service, health care, recreation, transportation, and accountability for students’
academic performance and are the typical norms in today’s schools.
Defining Leadership
There are various definitions of leadership in the literature. Leadership can be
defined as a process that directs and organizes individuals (Kotter, 1990). Leadership is
the art of weaving relationships in both an official and unofficial capacity and motivating
others to evolve and grow, complete their work, and learn from the process (Burns, 1978;
Depree, 1989; Gardner, 1990). Garfield (1986) wrote of peak performers who translated
mission into practice and were always willing to evolve and grow, to complete their work
and learn from it, and to exemplify the phrase “to be better than I ever was.” Bennis
(1989) wrote, “leadership is like beauty—hard to define, but you know it when you see
it” (p. 123).
There are two aspects of leadership: (a) the art of leadership, which involves
vision, modeling, renewal, judgment, power, and trust; and (b) the science of leadership,
which includes team building, communication, decision-making, conflict management,
planning, and resource allocation. In a study of administrators at the California School
Leadership Academy, Marsh (1992) reported that two views of instructional leadership
emerged from the study. One view was process-oriented in nature. From this
perspective, instructional leadership became an avenue that involved teachers in
improvement and decision making. The other view was comprehensive in nature. It
encompassed the developmental supervision of teachers and the examination of school
15
culture, as they both influenced instruction. Principals who held a comprehensive view
exhibited a complete vision of instruction.
Sergiovanni (1990) defined leadership as consisting of four concepts: bartering,
building, bonding, and banking. Bartering provides the initiative to get things started,
while building and bonding allow for the support and inspiration needed in school
improvement. Banking insures a routinization of school improvement efforts.
Contemporary Views of Leadership
Senge (1990) emphasized that learning organizations demand a new view of
leadership and described leaders as designers, stewards, and teachers responsible for
learning.
Such leaders cannot be trained in a few focused workshops. The ability of suchpeople to be natural leaders, as near as I can tell, is the by-product of a lifetime ofeffort . . . to develop conceptual and communication skills, to reflect on personalvalues and to align personal behavior with values, to learn how to listen and toappreciate others and others’ ideas. (p. 360)
Gepford (1996) conducted a study of perceived leadership styles in low
socioeconomic elementary schools in South Carolina. The sample consisted of 45
principals and 225 teachers that had been employed in their current positions for at least
6 years. The Multifactor-Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X (Bass & Aviolo, 1990) was
the instrument administered to teachers and principals. Gepford’s findings indicated that
no one particular leadership style of the principal determined the success of a school.
Recommendations of the study suggested that principals use a flexible style of leadership
conducive to the school’s culture and plans for school improvement.
Cheng (1991) also conducted a study of leadership styles and school effectiveness
in 64 secondary schools in Hong Kong. He found that principals displaying high
relationship and high initiating structure were the most effective in teacher-principal and
teacher-teacher interactions.
16
Covey, Miller, and Miller (1994) emphasized that in order to have a total quality
program your leader must have personal quality. Sergiovanni (1990) added, “No matter
how competently managed a school may be, it is the extra quality of leadership that
makes the difference between ordinary and extraordinary performance” (p. 18). He also
concluded that, “Organizational empowerment begins with individual empowerment.
That’s why work on our deep inner life and integrity are so important” (p. 202).
Bolman and Deal (1984) took the position that a successful leader must
understand and integrate the subcultures of an organization. They discussed four frames
of an organization: structural, human resources, political, and symbolic. All of these
frames are found in varying degrees in all organizations. An effective leader must
possess the wisdom to identify and successfully use each frame within that particular
organization.
Successful principals are visible, knowledgeable, and are positive promoters of
programs and faculty (Grace, Buser, & Struck, 1987; Levine & Lezotte, 1995; Wendel,
Hoake, & Joekel, 1993). Effective principals provide a clear and common vision that puts
students first and see that this vision is communicated clearly and effectively to all
stakeholders. The cohesion among staff that encourages a productive climate and
collaboration are also important attributes.
Definition of Culture
There are various definitions of culture, but none is universally accepted (Deal &
Peterson, 1999). While most people have a sense or understanding of culture, they find it
difficult to define (Schein, 1992). Wilson and Corcoran (1988), in their study of
effective high schools, perceived school culture as a set of linkages that included “the
system of collectively accepted meanings, beliefs, values, and assumptions that
17
organizational members use to guide their regular, daily actions and interpret their
surroundings. These linkages have been likened to the glue that holds organizations
together” (p. 70). Deal and Peterson (1990) emphasized shared values as a defining
aspect of culture:
Organizations usually have clearly distinguishable identities manifested in theirmembers’ patterns of behavior through rituals and norms. The concept of culturehelps us understand these varied patterns—understand what they are, how theycame to be, and how they affect performance. (p. 3)
Owens (1995) proposed that culture refers to assumptions, the behavioral norms,
and beliefs of an organization. Definitions throughout the literature agree that the people
who exist within an organization develop culture in time. As members are added, they
are taught what is acceptable and why it is acceptable as a result of their immersion in the
culture of the organization (Deal & Peterson, 1999; Erickson, 1987; Schein, 1992).
Cultural Leadership
Leaders must become aware of the culture of which they have become a part
(Schein, 1992). Bulach (2001) asserted that “a principal who fails to identify his or her
school’s existing culture before attempting to change it will meet with resistance” (p. 48).
Leaders must know the widely recognized leaders in a school as well as the less visible
people who may make the school more successful or can be the greatest obstacle
(Glickman, 2003). If a leader is to lead, then it is necessary for the leader to have a clear
understanding of the existing culture. Leadership itself is an expression of culture.
Leadership as cultural expression seeks to build unity and order within anorganization by giving attention to purpose, historical and philosophical traditionand ideals and norms which define the way of life within the organization andwhich provide the bases for socializing members and obtaining their compliance. Developing and nurturing organizational value patterns and norms represent aresponse to felt needs of individuals and groups for order, stability, and meaning.(Sergiovanni & Corbally, 1984, p. 106)
18
When an organization faces an unfamiliar risk, issue, or problem, it bases its first
response on the leader’s values because the group as a whole has limited or no
knowledge of how to resolve the problem (Schein, 1992). Vision and values are the
foundation of school culture; core values, implicit or explicit, reside at the heart of every
institution or organization. “The people in a school construct their values by the way
they address its challenges in ordinary and extraordinary times” (Sizer & Sizer, 1999,
p. 12). “Principals who can balance a variety of pressures while never losing sight of
their values best inspire and serve the school community” (Day, 2000, p. 56). “Vision
and values form a school’s mission and purpose, instilling the intangible forces that
motivate teachers to teach, school leaders to lead, children to learn, and parents and
community to have confidence in their school thus shaping the definition of success”
(Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 24). Maehr and Midgley (1996) proposed that schools act
based upon how they have defined their purpose. McCall (1994) saw the principal as the
determining factor for “what set of values will be the guiding stars for the school as it
steers a new course” (p. 13). “The principal’s values joined with those of other
stakeholders will ultimately determine the destiny of the school” (p. 31). School
administrators play a big part in what beliefs, values, and assumptions are the most
important in the existing school culture, as they can determine what is communicated to
whom, who receives resource allocations, and who is in receipt of rewards and
disciplinary action (Sergiovanni, 1995).
School culture is also experienced through rituals and ceremonies. “Principals
can shape culture by participating in and encouraging the rituals that celebrate important
values” (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 24). Ceremonies are an extension of the rituals. They
are a complex, culturally sanctioned way to celebrate success, communicate values, or to
19
recognize social contributions of staff and/or students. These celebrations provide an
effective means of cultivating a goal-oriented culture where improvement efforts are
reinforced and recognized (Schmoker, 1996). Ceremonies give a purpose to meaning,
and provide the school community a chance to reflect on the beliefs and values
associated with those ceremonies (Deal & Peterson, 1999). “Without ritual and
ceremony, transitions remain incomplete, a clutter of comings and goings” (Bolman &
Deal, 1991, pp. 110-111). These ongoing significant events often become traditions as
the school’s culture strengthens, ever reinforcing values and beliefs associated with the
schools.
Cultural patterns and traditions evolve over time. They are initiated as the schoolis founded and thereafter shaped by critical incidents, forged throughcontroversies and conflict, and crystallized through triumph and tragedy. Culturetakes form as, over time, people come with problems, stumble onto routines andrituals, and create traditions and ceremonies to reinforce underlying values andbeliefs. (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 49)
The primal forces behind this process are the school leaders who nudge culture in one
direction rather than another.
Leaders Shape Culture
Leadership and culture are intimately linked, and a school’s culture can be
developed, influenced, and managed (Trice, 1993). Many different leadership models
are effective in shaping a positive culture that continuously improves a school. Sashkin
and Sashkin (1993) suggest that leaders model culture and build values. They suggest
that leaders reweave old traditions and stories into present realities and new vision. The
actions of a building principal are central to the development of a school culture that is
conducive to high levels of academic achievement and learning (Firestone & Wilson,
1995). Principals mold and shape culture on a daily basis. “What is often labeled as
20
‘fluff’ is more often the stuff of leadership and culture” (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 61).
Schein (1992) writes complacency regarding leadership or cultural management is
unacceptable because they are both central to understanding organizations and making
them effective.
Enlightened leadership can change culture by changing the assumptions on whichthe culture is built. The leader who sets out to do this must have knowledge ofthe existing culture and be aware of the organization’s key concerns. The goalwill be to re-create a positive shared vision and trust. (James, 1996, p. 143)
A principal, more than any other individual, is responsible for a school’s culture.
Deal and Peterson (1999) wrote that the principal, being in the leadership
position, has great influence on a school’s culture: “It is important to remember the
formidable nature of school leaders’ unofficial power to reshape school culture toward an
‘ethos of excellence’ and to make quality an authentic part of the daily routine of school
life” (p. 86). School leaders have a profound influence on the work habits and
perspectives that mark a successful school.
Reitzug and Revves (1992) described empowerment as a way of shaping school
culture. Empowering teachers enables them to examine and critique their own situations
with a view of improving educational situations. Blanchard, Carlos, and Randolph
(1996) wrote that empowerment must start at the top or it will go nowhere. Leadership is
no longer top-down. Principals should create a school culture in which decisions are
made collaboratively. A principal’s primary task should focus on analyzing and
understanding the existing culture and being aware of teachers’ needs, feelings,
perceptions, and attitudes (a’Campo, 1993).
The role most critical to successful change is that of the principal. Common
vision, shared philosophies, and trusted leadership are all entwined in a successful
21
organization. (Saphier & King, 1985). “The culture keeps work focused on meeting and
exceeding customer success and satisfaction. A change in culture is achieved in a large
part due to the intrinsic motivation of all members, a socially-defined vision, and a
commitment to continual improvement” (Snyder, Wolf, & Acker-Hocevar, 1995, p. 7).
A leader who is deliberate in role modeling, teaching, and coaching encourages a positive
culture (Schein, 1992). Principals must influence the establishment and maintenance of
a positive school culture for schools to be productive, and must be committed so that the
culture can grow and endure (Lezotte & Bancroft, 1985; Snyder, Wolf & Acker-Hocevar,
1995). Elmore (2002) wrote
The job of administrative leaders is primarily about enhancing the skills andknowledge of people in the organization, creating a common culture ofexpectations around the use of those skills and knowledge, holding the variouspieces of the organization together in a productive relationship with each other,and holding individuals accountable for their contributions to the collective result.(p. 15)
Principals begin this process of influencing culture by recruiting and selecting
teachers with shared norms and values. Building collegiality and collaboration on the
shared goals and values, encouraging staff development that is student oriented,
modeling behaviors that encourage student achievement, and celebrating and rewarding
teachers by sharing stories of success and accomplishments are also positive steps toward
the building of culture (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990; Lightfoot, 1996; Peterson, 1988;
Schein, 1992).
Culture and Student Achievement
Does school culture affect student achievement? A study by Brookover et al.
(1978) investigated the relationships among a variety of school-level climate variables
and mean school achievement in a random sample of Michigan elementary schools. The
study concluded that some aspects of school social environment clearly make a
22
difference in academic achievement of schools. A favorable climate with high academic
standards is a necessary condition for high achievement. The social-psychological
climate is an integral component of school culture and student achievement.
This study also established that the school composition does not necessarily
determine school climate. Sackney (1998) wrote that school culture influences
psychological processes and achievement and is subject to change as stakeholders’
perceptions change. Teachers who are empowered professionals encourage positive
student achievement. Teachers working and participating in a school culture high in
collective efficacy promoted higher levels of student achievement (Bandura, 1993).
Sweetland and Hoy (2000) demonstrated that in their school culture research of 86 New
Jersey middle schools, after socioeconomic status, school culture was the next most
powerful variable in student achievement. Teachers who were empowered, supported,
and respected by their principal and colleagues, showed higher student achievement
scores.
Weber (1971) studied third graders in four inner-city schools in New York,
Chicago, Kansas City, and Los Angeles. These schools were selected because their
reading achievement scores were at or above the national average. He concluded that
schools do make a contribution to student achievement, and itemized common elements
found in these successful programs as strong leadership, continuous evaluation of pupil
progress, and an environment conducive to learning. Murnane’s (1981) literature review
of effective schools research in the 1970s arrived at a similar conclusion of “schools
matter, and more specifically, that the key element of schools that matters the most are
the people” (p. 27). Strong administrative leadership can make a difference in student
learning. These findings have clear implications for school leaders.
23
Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement
Teacher efficacy is the beliefs and professional knowledge and the manners in
which these beliefs and professional knowledge influence teaching behaviors. Pajares
(1996) reports an individual’s perception of his or her ability is often a better predictor of
their capabilities than what he or she can actually accomplish, since self-efficacy beliefs
help determine what an individual does with the knowledge and skills that he or she
possesses. An individual’s efficacy beliefs can influence and enhance their
accomplishments and well being in numerous ways.
Teacher efficacy has been found to influence teacher behavior, such as effort,
innovation, planning and organization, persistence, resilience, enthusiasm, willingness to
work with difficult students, and commitment to teaching and career longevity.
Motivated and confident teachers are more effective. Teachers make decisions based
upon their beliefs; these decisions and actions have significant impact upon the learning
experiences provided for students (Soodak & Podell, 1996). Students achieve more,
exhibit greater motivation, and have a higher level of perceived self-efficacy when their
teacher possesses a higher level of perceived teacher efficacy (Guskey & Passaro, 1994).
Professional Learning Communities and Student Achievement
Professional learning communities can be described as a collegial group of
teachers and administrators in a school who are united in their commitment to student
learning. They work and learn together to enhance student achievement. Professional
learning communities can be seen as a powerful staff development tool that has the
potential to enhance teaching and improve student achievement.
Teachers who feel supported in their own ongoing learning and classroom
practice are more committed and effective than those who do not receive such support.
24
McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) suggested that when teachers have opportunities for
collaborative inquiry and learning related to it, they are able to develop and share a body
of wisdom acquired from their experiences. This collaboration can enhance their
effectiveness as professionals so that students benefit. The learning community provides
a positive environment for teacher networking, cooperation among colleagues, expanded
professional roles and increased teacher efficacy in meeting the needs of all students
Rosenholtz (1989).
Leadership and Student Achievement
A principal’s leadership is critical to the achievement of students (Murphy, 1998).
Huff, Lake, and Schaalman (1982) investigated the relationship between a principal’s
leadership traits and student achievement. Their findings support the hypothesis that
principals in high-performing schools have different attributes than their counterparts in
low-performing schools. For example, they found that in high performing schools,
principals have stronger affective traits and cognitive analytical skills. They also found
high performing principals to be more focused and involved with change. Beare,
Caldwell, and Milliken (1989) found that “outstanding leadership has invariably emerged
as a key characteristic of outstanding schools” (p. 13). “Effective leadership is a
multifaceted process that is often defined through both subjective and objective measures
of leader behavior and its effect on organizational processes and outcomes” (Davis, 1998,
p. 59). A study by Andrew and Soder (1987) reported the behaviors of instructional
leaders impacted the performance of student achievement, especially low achieving
students. Their findings showed that, as perceived by teachers, achievement scores in
reading and mathematics showed significant gains in schools with strong instructional
leaders compared to schools with weak instructional leaders.
25
A slightly different approach in studying the relationship between leadership
styles of principals and achievement outcomes was implemented by Fuller (1989) when
he investigated what principals report they do in an effort to enhance student
achievement. Principals included in the sample had to exhibit two characteristics: (a)
they had to be in the school for at least 4 consecutive years, and (b) the California
Achievement reading, writing, and mathematics program mean scores of their third grade
students had to continuously improve or decline between 1985 and 1988. Fuller utilized
a rational decision making behavior instrument to solicit principals’ recollections
concerning what they did about the problem of student achievement in their respective
schools. Principals with improving student achievement scores indicated it was their
personal goal to raise student scores, tended to own the problem more than principals in
schools with declining student achievement scores, and also recognized the problem was
complex and needed in-depth analysis. In contrast, principals in the schools with
declining achievement scores, tended to delegate responsibilities in dealing with the
problem, to claim that it was not under their control, or to minimize the magnitude of the
problem.
Hallinger, Bickman, and Davis (1996) reported no direct effect of leadership
styles on student achievement, but they did suggest there is an indirect effect on school
effectiveness through actions that form the school’s culture. Heck, Larsen, and
Maccoulides (1990) suggested the relationship between a principal’s leadership style and
levels of student achievement is extremely complex. Rather than a particular style, they
found principals of high-achieving schools evidenced more incidences of involving staff
in decisions and parents in programs, protecting faculty, communicating goals and
expectations, recognizing achievement, observing teachers, securing resources, and
26
evaluating programs. Their findings indicated the relationship between leadership and
achievement is indirect and probably two directional. Hallinger and Heck (1998)
conducted a study exploring the relationship between leadership and student achievement
for the years 1980 through 1995. Their results showed leaders have an indirect, but
measurable, effect on how well students’ achieve in their schools. The greatest influence
the principal exercised was through the development and implementation of a clear
vision, a coherent mission and attainable goals.
The link between the leadership styles of the principal, culture, and student
achievement is more indirect.
Accumulating evidence has shown that principals influence student achievementindirectly through establishing school goals, setting high student and staffexpectations, organizing classrooms, allocating resources, promoting a positiveand orderly learning environment, and communicating with school staff, parents,and community groups rather then directly through training teachers to betterinstruct, visiting classrooms, and making frequent teacher evaluations. (Griffith,1999, p. 287)
Eberts and Stone (1988) determined that a principal’s effect on student
achievement results from his/her interactions with teachers. The interactions include
identifying clear objectives, spending time in classrooms, providing support and
guidance as well as rewards and incentives. The principal accepts accountability for
student achievement (Brewer, 1993).
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X)
This study used the MLQ (Form 5X) version of Bass’ (1985) leadership
conceptualization. The MLQ 5X contains five transformational leadership elements. A
principal’s style of leadership, according to the authors, can be classified as one of the
following: transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire. Thirty-six (36) questions help
define these leadership styles. Transformational leaders and subordinates raise one
27
another to higher levels of morality and motivation. These types of leaders also tend to
raise the consciousness of followers by appealing to their higher ideals and moral values
such as liberty, justice, equality, peace, and humanitarianism. The MLQ describes these
leader behaviors as Idealized Influence–Attributed, Idealized Influence–Behavior and
Inspirational Motivation. Transactional leaders motivate followers by appealing to their
self-interest. Transactional leadership involves values, but these values are related to the
exchange process, such as honesty, fairness, responsibility. In contrast, laissez-faire
leadership represents an avoidance of responsibility and action by the leader. In addition
to the transactional/transformational factors of leadership, Bass (1985) developed three
contextual factors that indirectly supplement an understanding of an organization’s
effectiveness relative to leader’s style. These three contextual factors are extra effort,
effectiveness, and satisfaction. The MLQ includes nine questions that address these
factors.
School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ-II)
The SIQ-II is comprised of 76 items. The first 22 items are demographic multiple
choice questions, the remaining 54 Likert scale items relate to six school climate factors
of collegiality, collective efficacy, personal efficacy, job satisfaction, policy-say so, and
teaming.
Collegiality stresses academics and professional growth. Teachers set high
reasonable leaning goals for their students as well as themselves, encouraging positive
growth and a culture that is conducive to learning. Collective efficacy and personal
efficacy are characterized by satisfaction and respect for the competence of colleagues,
warm and friendly interactions, and engagement in the teaching task. There is a
commitment of each individual and the entire faculty for academic excellence and
28
professional growth (Sweetland & Hoy, 2000). Policy say-so addresses shared decision
making and empowerment; it is a process by which administrators share powers and help
others use it in constructive ways to make decisions affecting themselves and their work
(Sackney, 1998). Job satisfaction increases when teachers feel valued as professionals.
When teachers have an active role in planning the school’s goals and making decisions
concerning curriculum and instruction, satisfaction is higher. Teachers are empowered
and know that their professional judgment is respected and valued.
Teaming reduces teacher isolation and enhances teacher collaboration. This
results in greater collective motivation and commitment toward the school’s mission and
goals, increased satisfaction, and a willingness to put forth extra effort for the good of the
group.
Summary
Principals are held accountable for academic achievement of diverse populations
of students. Research suggests differing opinions when discussing a direct link between
principal leadership styles, school culture, and student achievement.
The literature is in agreement that vision, openness, and trust are key components
of effective leadership. Without these key ingredients, the specific strategies used by
principals to gain a positive school culture will be ignored or, worse, sabotaged.
Sincerity, active reflection, and personal professional growth can reform the cultures of a
school so that it may become a more productive learning environment.
Chapter 3 provides an overview of the design of the study, and the hypotheses
and research questions are stated. Both the leadership and school culture instruments are
presented with reliability coefficients. Procedures are explained regarding the process of
the preparation for the study as well as for the data analysis.
29
CHAPTER 3METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship among the perceived
school culture, principal leadership characteristics, and the relationship between school
culture and student performance as measured by the Florida Comprehensive Academic
Test (FCAT). This chapter will discuss the instrumentation and methodology utilized to
gather and analyze the data for the study.
Participants
The population for this study included 22 elementary schools with 320
elementary classroom teachers employed in a north central Florida school district. All of
the teachers were surveyed. Prior to data collection, it was determined that a minimal
acceptable sample size would be 50% or 160 respondents. The sample included state-
certified classroom teachers who taught kindergarten through fifth-grade students one-
half time or greater during the time this study was conducted. Excluded from this sample
were individuals whose assignments were not direct classroom teaching (i.e., curriculum
resource teachers, behavior resources teachers, teachers on special assignment, media
specialist, guidance counselors, assistant principals, and principals).
Variables
The independent variables in this study were perceived principal behaviors that
included Charisma, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration, Contingent
Reward, Management-by-Exception, and Laissez-Faire as measured by The Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire 5X (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1990). The leaders form was
30
developed to be completed by an individual to measure his/her self-perceived leadership
styles. The second independent variable, school culture, was measured by the School
Improvement Questionnaire.
The dependent variable was the participants’ opinions about school culture as
assessed by the SIQ-II survey. The outcome of the SIQ-II survey was used as the
dependent variable in this study because the researcher attempted to discover whether
leader behaviors and characteristics impact a school’s culture and student achievement.
Instrumentation
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X was developed and
tested by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio (1990). The instrument is copyrighted by Bass
and Avolio and published by Mind Garden, Inc. It was developed to measure aspects of
transformational, transactional, and nonleadership leadership styles as well as outcomes
of leadership. The 45-item instrument contains 12 scales:
• Idealized influence (attributed). • Idealized influence (behavior). • Inspirational motivation. • Intellectual stimulation. • Individualized consideration. • Contingent reward. • Management-by-exception (active).• Management-by-exception (passive).• Laissez-faire leadership. • Extra effort.• Effectiveness.• Satisfaction.
Idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration were transformational leadership style scales measured by the MLQ.
Contingent reward and management-by-exception were transactional leadership style
31
scales and laissez-faire leadership was the nonleadership component. See Table 3-1 for a
sample statement in each area.
Table 3-1. Transformational leadership scale statementsTF - Idealized influence Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be
accomplished.
TF - Inspirational motivation Instills pride in me for being associated with him
TF - Intellectual stimulation Seeking differing perspectives when solvingproblems
TF - Individualized consideration Considers me as having special needs, abilities,and aspirations form others
TR – Contingent reward Discusses in specific terms who is responsible forachieving performance targets
TR - Management-by-exception Focuses attention on irregularities mistakes andexceptions and deviations from standards
LF – Nonleadership Is absent when needed
All of the leadership style scales have four items per scale. Leadership styles
scores for each of the nine leadership style scales represent the average scores for the
items in each scale. Transformational leadership styles scores are derived by averaging
the scores from the items contained in the idealized influenced, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration scales; a total of 20 items.
Transactional leadership styles scores were derived by averaging all of the scores from
the items in the contingent reward and management-by-exception scales, a total of 12
items. Because laissez-faire leadership was the only scale measuring nonleadership,
nonleadership style score was equivalent to the laissez-faire leadership scale score.
In their MLQ technical report, Bass and Avolio (1990) discussed the construct
validation process associated with the MLQ-5X. An early version was evaluated by a
panel of six leadership scholars, and their recommendations were included in the final
instrument development. Since that time, 14 samples have been used to validate and
cross-validate the MLQ Form 5X. The MLQ-5X was selected for use in this study
32
because of the data indicating reliability and validity of the instrument. Alpha reliability
coefficients for the MLQ-5X rater form scales have all been shown to be above .82 with
the exception of management-by-exception (.79) and laissez-faire (.77). The reliability
coefficients for the rater form subscales yielded a range of .77 through .95.
School Culture Instrument
School culture was assessed through the School Improvement Questionnaire
(Webb & Pajares, 1996). The SIQ was developed by the College of Education at the
University of Florida as part of on-going research in the area of school climate. The SIQ
was developed in 1996 and revised in 2001. The SIQ II is comprised of 76 items. The
first 22 items were multiple-choice demographic questions. The remaining 54 were 10-
point, Likert scale items relating to school climate. The anchors on the Likert scale items
included disagree totally to agree totally, no confidence to complete confidence or near
perfect confidence, and no say or influence to total say or influence. The SIQ II
exploratory factor analysis indicated that a six-factor solution presented a good
approximation of the structure. The six school climate factors were collegiality,
collective efficacy, personal efficacy, job satisfaction, policy-say so, and teaming. Table
3-2 provides sample questions on the SIQ II.
Table 3-2. SIQ II statementsCollegiality Teachers in this school are continually learning and seeking
new ideas.
Collective efficacy There is a great deal of cooperating among teachers at thisschool.
Personal efficacy My job provides me with continuing professional stimulationand growth.
Job satisfaction I feel little loyalty to the teaching profession.
Policy-say-so How much say do you have in policy making at your school?
Teaming How much can your colleagues influence what you teach?
33
Design of the Study
This section includes information about testing the hypotheses, drawing the
sample, controlling for biases, and preparing the instrument and survey packets. Two
surveys were used in this study, with each survey requiring less than 20 minutes to
complete. Names of all certificated classroom teachers were obtained from the County’s
School Board. All teachers in each elementary school were asked to complete both
surveys. Data on leadership and school culture were collected by the instruments
previously discussed.
Testing the Hypotheses
The first hypothesis stated the leadership styles and behaviors of the principal
affect school culture. This hypothesis was tested using correlation and regression
analysis to show which of the three leadership styles were significantly correlated with
school culture.
The second hypothesis stated that school culture was not a predictor of FCAT
scores. Results from the comparison of the SIQ II and FCAT scores demonstrated the
strength of the relationship between school culture and FCAT.
The third hypothesis stated that there was no correlation between school culture
and student achievement as assessed by FCAT scores. Results from the comparison of
the SIQ II and the FCAT scores demonstrated the relationship between school culture
and student achievement.
Data Collection
The population for this study was drawn from elementary schools in a north
central Florida school district. Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the
district. Elementary schools in the district were sent a full packet and received a phone
34
call from the researcher. A follow-up phone call was made to schools that did not
respond. As the study progressed, 6 schools declined to participate for various reasons.
There were 4 additional schools that did not respond; yet no notice or reason of refusal to
participate was given. The removal of these schools brought the actual number of
schools to 12 and teachers queried to 175. This is a return rate of 57%, which exceeded
the minimum number of responses required.
For each school, a single transformational leadership score was computed by first
averaging all the teachers’ responses for each survey statement associated with each
transformational component: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. The average individual teacher
transformational component scores were then averaged to arrive at a single composite
transformational leadership score. A similar procedure was followed for transactional
and laissez-faire leadership scores per the MLQ procedure outlined in Bass and Avolio
(1990). Average responses were similarly obtained for the three MLQ factors:
effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort.
Student socioeconomic status, the percent of students who were eligible for free
or reduced-price lunch in each school, was used as an added predictor. The free and
reduced-price lunch statistics were compiled from the county’s free and reduced-price
lunch records. The free and reduced-price lunch percentages ranged from 22.7% to
88.4%. School grades were obtained from state records. These grades ranged from A to
D. This grade was compiled by student achievement scores assessed by the Florida
Comprehensive Assessment test. Table 3-3 describes the district statistics compared to
the sample schools. Table 3-4 describes the sample school’s statistics.
35
Table 3-3. Comparison of grade and SES for the district and sampleDistrict Sample
Socioeconomic status 55.9% 53.2%School grade B B
Table 3-4. School grades, SES and populationSchool Grade % SES No. StudentsA* C 40.0 447B D 88.4 471C A 41.5 657D A 71.0 206E A 33.0 701F A 56.0 531G A 37.0 739H B 84.0 270I B 73.0 316J A 22.7 752K A 39.0 556
* Denotes magnet school
Summary
This chapter described the process that the researcher went through in order to
complete the study. Research instruments were identified that would allow for objective
analysis and demonstrated adequate reliability.
Chapter 4 presents the analysis of data for this study. Descriptive statistics are
presented to help the reader better understand the data. Multiple regression findings are
presented and explained.
36
CHAPTER 4RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among the perceived
effective school culture, the principal’s leadership characteristics, and student
performance as measured by the Florida Comprehensive Academic Test (FCAT). This
chapter is divided into two parts. The first section includes a table of abbreviations
(Table 4-1) and describes the sampling method used and the data obtained. The second
section describes the statistical findings for each of the following three hypotheses
presented.
• Leadership characteristics of the principal affect school culture.• School culture affects student achievement.• Leadership characteristics and school culture affect student achievement.
Table 4-1. AbbreviationsMLQ-5X Multifactor leadership questionnaireSIQ II School improvement questionnaireTF Transformational leadershipTS Transactional leadershipLF Laissez-faire leadershipSES Student socioeconomic statusGRADE Schools grade for student achievement determined by the fcatPPSAT Perceptions of parent/student satisfactionPTE Personal teaching efficacyPSWD Performance of students with disabilitiesPLC Professional learning communityBTSC Belonging to the school community
Survey Instrument Statistics
The analysis of the MLQ-5X (Table 4-2) and SIQ II (Table 4-3) questionnaire
responses included the computation of means and frequencies and the utilization of
37
analyses of variance. Mean scores for each school were determined by averaging the
individual responses to each item school wide. In order to compare student achievement
in high performing schools, the mean responses for schools receiving an A or B grade
were compared with mean scores of C or D schools. The level of significance for this
study was set at p< .05. A correlation study is appropriate for this research problem
because the issue being studied is the degree to which there is a relationship between
leader behaviors, positive school culture, and student achievement. Table 4-2 displays
the descriptive statistics and reliability indicators for these leadership types.
Table 4-2. MLQ-5X leadership styles
Items MeanStandarddeviation Reliability
TF 20 3.91 .65 .91TS 12 2.86 .42 .50LF 4 1.61 .65 .61
The first section of the SIQ reflects demographic and direct teaching information.
The second section requests belief and attitude responses, and the third section was the
focus of subsequent analyses. The sum score for each item was calculated for each
school. This sum was then weighted by the number of teachers’ who participated in that
school. Due to the large number of items, the few reverse-scored items (37, 40, 42, 44,
and 45) were eliminated as a simple method to control for potential misscoring and
misrepsonse. The final set of 51 items had a reliability of .66 (Table 4-3).
The SIQ II school culture components analysis with a varimax rotation was used
to reduce these items to several dimensions. The results suggested 9 components with
eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Subsequent inspection of factor loadings reduced the scale
to 29 items with 5 underlying dimensions as reported in Table 4-3: (a) parent/student
satisfaction with a reliability of .89, (b) personal teacher efficacy with a reliability of .90,
38
(c) school-wide performance of students with disabilities with a reliability of .99,
(d) professional learning community with a reliability of .90, and (e) belonging to the
school community with a reliability of .79.
Table 4-3. SIQ II culture component statistics
SIQ II Items MeanStandarddeviation Reliability
Total 51 327.62 12.40 .66 Parent/student satisfaction 8 52.54 6.63 .89 Personal teacher efficacy 7 48.72 4.19 .90 Performance of students with disabilities 4 23.53 4.70 .99 Professional learning community 7 48.32 5.02 .90 Belonging to the school community 3 16.27 2.46 .79
Research Questions
Research Question 1: What Characteristics or Behaviors of Principals AreAssociated with Positive School Culture?
The first hypothesis stated that leadership characteristics of the principal affect
school culture. The results reported in this section support the acceptance of this
hypothesis. Table 4-4 provides evidence that transactional leadership was significantly
related to the school culture. That is, higher levels of transactional leadership are
associated with higher levels of school culture.
Table 4-4. Leadership styles
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
B Std. error Beta t Sig.Constant 303.00 8.47 36.0 .00
MLQ TF average .89 1.61 .05 .6 .58
MLQ TS average 9.11 2.28 .31 4.0 .00*
MLQ LF average -2.90 1.65 -.15 -2.0 .08
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
The school culture survey (SIQ II) consists of 5 components. The component,
personal teacher efficacy, is shown in Table 4-5. Transformational and transactional
39
leadership are significantly related to personal teacher efficacy. That is, higher levels of
transactional and transformational leadership are associated with higher levels of
personal teacher efficacy.
Table 4-5. Personal teacher efficacy and leadership styles
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
t Sig.B Std. error BetaConstant 38.17 2.83 13.52 .00MLQ TF average 1.38 .54 .22 2.57 .01*MLQ TS average 2.18 .76 .22 2.86 .01*MLQ LF average -.70 .55 -.11 -1.27 .21 Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
Table 4-6 reports the component parent/student satisfaction in the school culture
survey (SIQ II). Transactional leadership was significantly related to perceptions of
parent/student satisfaction. That is, higher levels of transactional leadership are
associated with higher levels of parent/student satisfaction.
Table 4-6. Parent/Student satisfaction and leadership styles
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
t Sig.B Std. error BetaConstant 39.30 4.53 8.70 .00MLQ TF Average .11 .86 -.01 -.10 .90MLQ TS Average .39 1.21 .34 4.42 .00*MLQ LF Average .05 .88 -.10 -1.20 .24Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05
Transformational leadership and laissez-faire were significant to the SIQ II
culture component, professional learning communities. Table 4-7 shows significance of
both leadership styles to professional learning community. That is, higher levels of
transformational leadership are associated with higher levels of professional learning
communities. Higher levels of laissez-faire leadership resulted in lower levels of
professional learning communities.
40
Table 4-7. Professional learning community and leadership styles
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
B Std. error Beta t Sig.Constant 44.10 3.19 13.80 .00
MLQ TF Average 2.27 .61 .30 3.74 .00*
MLQ TS Average -.49 .86 -.04 -.60 .57
MLQ LF Average -2.02 .62 -.26 -3.20 .00*
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
The two components of the SIQ II that did not show significance with principal
leadership style were performance of students with disabilities and belonging to the
school community. Table 4-8 shows no significance in principal leadership styles in the
area of performance of students with disabilities. Table 4-9 shows no significance in
principal leadership styles for the component belonging to the school community.
Table 4-8. Performance of students with disabilities and leadership styles
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.Constant 24.45 3.38 7.24
MLQ TF average -.46 .64 -.06 -.70 .48
MLQ TS average .83 .91 .07 .91 .37
MLQ LF average -.93 .66 -.13 -1.40 .16
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
Table 4-9. Belonging to the school community and leadership styles
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
B Std. error Beta t Sig.Constant 16.21 1.76 9.22 .00
MLQ TF average .56 .33 .15 1.68 .10
MLQ TS average -.87 .47 -.15 -1.85 .07
MLQ LF average .23 .34 .06 .67 .50
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
Research Question 2: Is School Culture a Predictor of FCAT Scores?
The second hypothesis stated that school culture affects student achievement as
reflected in the school grade. The results reported in this section support the acceptance
41
of this hypothesis. Table 4-10 shows that, when incorporating school grade, transactional
leadership was significantly related to the school culture survey (SIQ II). That is, higher
levels of student achievement are associated with higher levels of school culture.
Table 4-10. School culture, leadership styles, and school gradeUnstandardized
coefficientsStandardizedcoefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.Constant 41.76 4.66 8.97 .00
MLQ TF average -.16 .85 -.02 -.19 .85
MLQ TS average 5.46 1.21 .35 4.52 .00*MLQ LF average -1.25 .88 -.12 -1.41 .16
School grade -2.03 1.01 -.15 -2.02 .05*
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
Student socioeconomic status was added to see if it affected the perceived culture
or the leadership style. Table 4-11 shows that transactional leadership remained
significant with the added predictor socioeconomic status.
Table 4-11. School culture, leadership styles, school grade, and socioeconomic status
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.Constant 309.92 9.50 32.62 .00
MLQ TF average .28 1.66 .02 .17 .86
MLQ TS average 9.05 2.28 .31 3.97 .00*
MLQ LF average -2.95 1.66 -.15 -1.77 .08
School grade -1.45 1.91 -.06 -.76 .45
SES -0.06 0.05 -.10 -1.33 .19
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
Four components on the school culture survey (SIQ II) were significantly related
to achievement as reflected by school grade. They included perceptions of parent/student
satisfaction, personal teaching efficacy, performance of students with disabilities and
professional learning community. The students’ socioeconomic status was added as a
second predictor.
42
Table 4-12 shows that when adding both school grade and student socioeconomic
status with the component parent/student satisfaction, transactional leadership remained
significant. That is, when adding school grade and socioeconomic status, higher levels of
transactional leadership are associated with higher levels of parent/student satisfaction.
Table 4-12. Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction with school grade, and SES
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
t Sig.B Std. error BetaConstant 52.13 4.62 11.30 .00MLQ TF average -1.36 .81 -.13 -1.70 .10MLQ TS average 5.19 1.11 .33 4.69 .00*MLQ LF average -.91 .81 -.09 -1.10 .26School grade -1.26 .93 -.09 -1.40 .18SES -.13 .02 -.41 -5.80 .00*
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05
School grade and socioeconomic status were both significantly related to the
school culture component, personal teacher efficacy. Table 4-13 shows school grade and
socioeconomic status were significant to personal teaching efficacy. Transactional
leadership continued to be significant with the added predictors. That is, when adding
school grade and socioeconomic status, higher levels of transactional leadership are
associated with higher levels of personal teaching efficacy.
Table 4-13. Leadership styles, personal teaching efficacy with school grade, and SES
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
t Sig.B Std. Error BetaConstant 42.30 2.36 18.0 .00MLQ TF average .51 .41 .08 1.2 .22MLQ TS average 1.85 .57 .19 3.3 .00*MLQ LF average .00 .41 -.02 0.0 .82School grade 4.15 .48 .47 8.7 .00*SES -.10 .01 -.52 -9.0 .00*
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
43
School grade and socioeconomic status were significantly related to the school
culture component, performance of students with disabilities. Table 4-14 shows that
when adding both school grade and socioeconomic status to performance of students with
disabilities the result was significant. However, none of the leadership styles remained
significant.
Table 4-14. Leadership styles, performance of students with disabilities with schoolgrade, and SES
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
t Sig.B Std. error BetaConstant 24.40 3.35 7.30 .00MLQ TF average -.90 .59 -.13 -2.00 .12MLQ TS average .57 .80 .05 .70 .48MLQ LF average -.40 .59 -.05 -1.00 .51School grade 4.37 .68 .44 6.50 .00*SES .00 .02 -.27 -4.00 .00*Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
Table 4-15 shows that, when adding both school grade and socioeconomic status
with professional learning communities, the result was significant. Transformational and
laissez-fair leadership continued to be significant with the added predictors. That is,
higher levels of achievement as reflected in school grade and socioeconomic status are
associated with higher levels of professional learning community. Laissez-fair leadership
had a negative significance with professional learning communities. That is, higher
laissez-fair leadership is associated with lower levels of professional learning
communities.
Table 4-16 shows the school culture component, belonging to the school
community, was significant with the predictor student socioeconomic status. That is,
higher levels of student socioeconomic status are associated with higher levels of
belonging to the school community. The added predictor, school grade, was not
significant.
44
Table 4-15. Leadership styles, professional learning community with school grade, andSES
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
B Std. error Beta t Sig.Constant 41.00 3.43 12.00 .00
MLQ TF average 2.35 .60 .30 3.80 .00*MLQ TS average -.60 .82 -.05 -1.00 .47MLQ LF average -1.70 .60 -.23 -3.00 .00*School grade 2.88 .69 .27 4.20 .00*SES .00 .02 -.02 .00 .80
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
Table 4-16. Leadership styles, belonging to the school community with school grade,and SES
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
B Std. error Beta t Sig.Constant 18.60 1.94 9.60 .00MLQ TF average .36 .34 .10 1.10 .29MLQ TS average -.90 .47 -.15 -2.00 .06MLQ LF average .22 .34 .06 .60 .52School grade -.60 .39 -.11 -2.00 .15SES .00 .01 -.17 -2.00 .03*
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
Research Question 3: Is There a Relationship Between School Culture and StudentAchievement as Assessed by the FCAT scores?
Hypothesis 3 states that leadership characteristics and school culture affect
student achievement as reflected by the school grade. The results reported in this section
support acceptance of this hypothesis. Table 4-17 shows transactional leadership was
significantly related to the perception of parent/student satisfaction. That is, higher levels
of transactional leadership are associated with higher levels of parent/student satisfaction.
Table 4-18 provides evidence that the added predictor, student socioeconomic
status, showed significance to the school culture component, parent/student satisfaction.
When incorporating socioeconomic status into this model, transactional leadership
remained significant. That is, higher levels of socioeconomic status are associated with
higher levels of parent/student satisfaction and transactional leadership.
45
Table 4-17. Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
t Sig.B Std. error BetaConstant 39.27 4.53 8.66 .00MLQ TF average -.11 .86 .01 -.13 .90MLQ TS average 5.39 1.21 .34 4.42 .00*MLQ LF average -1.05 .88 -.10 -1.19 .24Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05. Table 4-18. Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction with SES
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
t Sig.B Std. error BetaConstant 50.97 4.55 11.21 .00MLQ TF average -1.37 .81 -.13 -1.69 .09MLQ TS average 5.14 1.11 .33 4.64 .00*MLQ LF average -.78 .81 -.08 -.97 .34SES -.14 .02 -.42 -6.07 .00*Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
Table 4-19 describes that, when incorporating the added predictors school grade
and socioeconomic status, both were significant to personal teacher efficacy.
Transactional leadership remained significant. That is, higher levels of socioeconomic
status and achievement are associated with higher levels of personal teaching efficacy
and transactional leadership.
Table 4-19. Leadership styles, personal teacher efficacy with school grade, and SES
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
t Sig.B Std. error BetaConstant 42.27 2.36 17.90 .00MLQ TF average .51 .41 .08 1.23 .22MLQ TS average 1.85 .57 .19 3.26 .00*MLQ LF average -.10 .41 -.02 -.20 .82School Grade 4.15 .48 .47 8.74 .00*SES -.11 .01 -.52 -9.20 .00*Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
46
Table 4-20 shows that transformational leadership and laissez-fair leadership are
significant to professional learning community. The added predicator, student
achievement, was also significant. That is, higher levels of school grade are associated
with higher levels of professional learning community and transformational leadership.
Higher levels of school grade are associated with lower levels of laissez-faire leadership.
Laissez-fair leadership had a negative association with professional learning
communities.
Table 4-20. Leadership styles, professional learning community with school grade, andSES
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
t Sig.B Std. error BetaConstant 40.95 3.43 11.90 .00MLQ TF average 2.30 .60 .30 3.83 .00*MLQ TS average -.60 .82 -.05 -.70 .47MLQ LF average -1.74 .61 -.23 -2.90 .00*School grade 2.88 .69 .27 4.17 .00*SES .00 .02 -.02 -.30 .80Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
Table 4-21 shows that belonging to the school community was significant when
incorporating socioeconomic status into the model. School grade was not significant.
That is, higher levels of socioeconomic status are associated with higher levels of
belonging to the school community.
Table 4-21. Leadership styles, belonging to the school community with school grade, andSES
Model
Unstandardizedcoefficients
Standardizedcoefficients
t Sig.B Std. error BetaConstant 18.64 1.94 9.60 .00MLQ TF average .36 .34 .10 1.06 .29MLQ TS average -.89 .47 -.15 -1.90 .06MLQ LF average .22 .34 .06 .64 .52School grade -.57 .39 -.11 -1.50 .15SES .00 .01 -0.17 -2.10 .03*Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.
47
Summary
The findings of this study demonstrate that there are specific characteristics of the
transactional, transformational, and laissez-fair leadership styles that affect school
culture. The data also provided evidence that school culture and leadership styles are
significantly related to student achievement as reflected in the school grade and
leadership characteristics. Table 4-22 summarizes the significant results. These results
will be further clarified and discussed in Chapter 5, along with implications for school
leaders and recommendations for further study.
Table 4-22. Summary of significant results
CultureSIQ II
Student/parentsatisfaction
Personalteachingefficacy
Performancestudents
withdisabilities
Professionallearning
communities
Feeling apart of thecommunity
MLQTF
+ +
MLQTS
+ + +
MLQLF
–
Grade + + + +SES + + + + +
+ Denotes significant scores.– Denotes a negative significant score.
48
CHAPTER 5SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among the perceived
effective school culture, principal leadership styles, and student performance as measured
by the Florida Comprehensive Academic Test (FCAT). This chapter provides a
summary of the study, a discussion of the results, conclusions, implications, and
recommendations for future research.
Summary of the Study
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) was utilized to rate leadership
traits of principals. The School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ II) was utilized to rate
school culture. Both surveys relied on teacher ratings. School grades and socioeconomic
status of a north central Florida county were accessed through the Florida Department of
Education.
Twelve (12) of the 22 elementary schools (57%) in the county participated in the
study. The data received were analyzed to determine the relationship among leadership
styles, school culture, and the effect on student achievement. Socioeconomic status and
school grade were added as additional predictors. The results were reported in chapter 4.
Discussion of Results
Research Question 1: What Characteristics or Behaviors of Principals AreAssociated with Positive School Culture?
Leadership characteristics of the principal affect school culture (SIQ II). The
results of this study show statistical significance of transactional and transformational
49
leadership with school culture. Higher levels of both transactional and transformational
leadership were associated with higher levels of school culture. This study’s findings
were consistent with Schein (1992), Bulach (2001), Sergiovanni and Corbally (1984),
and McCall (1994) who found that principal leadership had significant effects on school
goals, school culture, policies and organization. Bolman and Deal (1984) took the
position that a successful leader must understand and integrate the subcultures of the
organization. In this study, the use of transactional leadership resulted in a positive
school culture as rated by teachers. Transactional leadership and practices are central in
maintaining an organization. The transactional leadership traits are important to the
organization in that they regulate day to day activities. These behaviors contain elements
of activity, inactivity, effectiveness and ineffectiveness (Bass & Avolio, 1993). A
principal’s leadership style enhances, encourages and nurtures a positive school culture.
Transactional leadership is active management, and occurs when leaders intervene to
make some correction and generally involves corrective criticism.
Transformational leadership was found to be significant with two school culture
(SIQ II) components. Transformational leadership is visionary leadership. Higher levels
of transformational leadership were associated with higher levels of professional learning
communities and personal teacher efficacy. These findings were consistent with
researchers who examined visionary leadership and the correlation to effective school
leadership and a positive school culture (Deal & Peterson 1999; Leithwood & Jantzi,
1990; Sashkin & Sashkin, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1995). The transformational leader has
the ability to encourage change in others (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). This
change is accomplished by using a collaborative, shared decision-making approach that
empowers teachers. A’Campo (1993) wrote that a principal’s primary task should focus
50
on analyzing and understanding the existing culture and be aware of teacher’s needs,
feelings, perceptions, and attitudes.
Research Question 2: Is School Culture a Predictor of FCAT Scores?
The second hypothesis stated that school culture affects student achievement.
The results of this study showed that school culture has a significant effect on student
achievement. This finding is consistent with those of Sackney (1988), Sweetland and
Hoy (2000), Bandura (1993), and Brookover et al. (1978) who found that aspects of
school culture clearly make a difference in, and can be a powerful contributor to, student
academic achievement. SIQ II components that related positively to student achievement
were personal teaching efficacy, performance of students with disabilities and
professional learning community.
Research Question 3: Is There a Relationship Between School Culture and StudentAchievement as Assessed by the FCAT Scores?
The third hypothesis stated that leadership characteristics and school culture
affect student achievement. This study found statistical significance among the
relationship between transactional leadership and parent/student satisfaction, teacher
efficacy and professional learning community. Consistent with Fuller (1989),
transformational leadership was found to be significant to professional learning
community and teacher efficacy.
The findings of this study differed markedly from Hallinger, Bickman and Davis
(1996), who found that there was no direct effect of leadership styles on student
achievement. In this study transactional leadership was found to have a significant link
to student achievement. McMillian (1996) suggested the relationship between a
51
principal’s leadership style and levels of student achievement is extremely complex.
This study affirmed the complexity of this relationship, showing significance with
perception of parent/student satisfaction, teacher efficacy, professional learning
community, and transactional and transformational leadership styles with student
achievement.
Bass, Waldman, Aviolo, and Bebb (1987) suggested transactional and
transformational leadership styles are complimentary and leaders must possess both to be
effective. Leaders are often flexible and findings indicate no one particular leadership
style of the principal determines the success of the school (Gepford 1996; Sackney 1998;
Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). The findings of this study support the
significance of transactional and transformational leadership styles to school culture.
Principals who know what leadership behaviors match the needs of the school’s
stakeholders are more able to foster a positive school culture.
Research Question 4: Are There Demographic Facts (e.g., SES) That AreAssociated with School Culture?
The findings of this study suggest a significant relationship exists between SES
(as indicated by the percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch) and school
culture. The school culture survey (SIQ II) components showed statistical significance
when socioeconomic status was added as a predictor with the culture components
parent/student satisfaction, personal teaching efficacy, and performance of students with
disabilities. Higher levels of socioeconomic status were associated with higher levels of
parent/student satisfaction, personal teaching efficacy, and performance of students with
disabilities. This finding was consistent with that of Sweetland and Hoy (2000), who
52
found that a student’s socioeconomic status was a powerful indicator of student
achievement.
Implications and Conclusions
This section presents implications and conclusions of perceived effective school
culture, principal leadership styles and student performance.
Implications for Principal Preparation and Practicing Principals
• School district staff development and university programs need to train elementaryprincipals in both transformational (visionary) and transactional leadership (day-to-day). The combinations of both leadership styles were found to positively effectschool culture and student achievement. This study found that both transactional andtransformational leadership are significant to the school culture and studentachievement. Principal preparation should include the theory of transactional andtransformational leadership styles as well as opportunities to see and experience thecomplexities of leadership.
• School district staff development need to provide a mentoring program to increaseand enhance the leadership skills of both aspiring and practicing school principals.
• School culture was found to positively affect student achievement. School districtstaff need to provide professional development training for principals and aspiringprincipals that emphasizes understanding school culture and how to assess and bringpositive change to that culture. The findings of this study suggest that principals needto focus on enhancing three areas of school culture: (a) professional learningcommunities, (b) teacher efficacy, and (c) the feeling of being a part of thecommunity.
• Principals must be flexible, and use a combination of transactional andtransformational leadership styles that meet the needs of all stakeholders.
• Professional learning communities are important to a positive school culture. Laissez-faire leadership has a negative association with professional learningcommunities. Principals need to recognize and avoid laissez-faire leadershipbehaviors with regard to professional learning communities.
• Principals who are placed in a school with low socioeconomic status and low studentachievement must have a thorough understanding of transactional andtransformational leadership. They must also have a deep understanding andcommitment to shape and change the school’s culture in the areas of teacher efficacyand professional learning.
53
• School districts need to focus on a systematic way to study each school’s culture sothey might better match the school’s needs with principals who possess theknowledge, skills, and understanding required to shape and change the culture of suchschools.
• School principals are accountable for student achievement. School culture was foundto impact student achievement. A school culture assessment, as part of the principalevaluation process, would provide an additional measure of potential leadereffectiveness and promote continuing professional learning of principals.
Conclusions
• Transactional leadership significantly affected student achievement and three schoolculture components: parent/student satisfaction, personal teaching efficacy, andprofessional community. That is, higher levels of transactional leadership wereassociated with higher levels of student achievement and school culture.
• Transformational leadership had a significant relationship with two specific schoolculture components: personal teaching efficacy and professional learningcommunity.
• Student socioeconomic status was significantly related to school culture and studentachievement in four school culture areas: parent/student satisfaction, personalteaching efficacy, performance of students with disabilities, and belonging to theschool community
• School culture was found to be significantly related to student achievement in threeschool culture areas: personal teaching efficacy, performance of students withdisabilities, and professional learning communities.
• Laissez-faire leadership was significantly related to the school culture area:professional learning communities. Higher levels of laissez-faire leadership wereassociated with lower levels of professional learning community.
Recommendations for Future Study
This section presents recommendations for future study. This study has
researched a narrow portion of the educational leadership field and can be expanded in
many ways. The recommendations that follow are based upon insights gained from this
and related studies, and may provide additional insight into the relationships between and
among effective school culture, principal leadership styles and student performance.
54
• This study was conducted in a medium-sized school district in North Central Florida. A study which utilized school districts across the state or region might morethoroughly demonstrate whether the relationship between the principal’s leadershipstyle and school culture provide a more generalizable finding regarding therelationship among leadership styles, school culture, and student achievement.
• This study did not address gender or experience levels as a principal. The totalnumber of years teaching, and other leadership experiences may provide informationuseful to school systems in making appropriate decisions on administrativepromotions and placements.
• This study did not address secondary schools. Similar studies that addresselementary and secondary schools should be done to see if the findings are consistentwith this study.
• A similar study that matches both high performing and low performing schools bysize and socioeconomic status may provide additional useful information.
• This study did not control for socioeconomic status. A similar study that addressessimilar socioeconomic populations with varying student performance may provideadditional useful information.
Summary
The findings of this study demonstrated that there are specific characteristics of
transactional and transformational leadership styles that affect culture. The data provided
evidence that school culture and leadership styles are significantly related to student
achievement. When socioeconomic status and school grades were added, transactional
and transformational leadership remained significant.
Principals directly impacted student learning through the school culture they
foster. It is important that principals practice both transactional and transformational
leadership and understand its effect on school culture. Only with informed practice will
schools be able to meet the needs and challenges associated with a diverse student
population with diverse academic needs.
55
APPENDIX AQUESTIONNAIRE PACKETS
Appendix A contains the information included in the questionnaire packets that were
sent to the schools and school district administrators. Bass and Avolio (1990)
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) is not included in the appendix because
Bass and Avlio do not wish to have it reproduced. The following is an outline of which
documents were sent to principals, teachers, and school district administrators.
List of Documents
Principals
1. Principal letter2. SIQ II questionnaire3. MLQ questionnaire4. Self-addressed, stamped envelope
Teachers
1. Teacher letter2. SIQ II questionnaire3. MLQ questionnaire4. Scantron to use with SIQ II questionnaire5. Scantron to use with MLQ questionnaire6. Self-addressed, stamped envelope
School District Administrators
1. Letter requesting permission to do research
56
Principal Consent Letter
Dear Colleague:
I am a doctoral student at the University of Florida in the Department ofEducational Leadership working under the direction of Dr. James L. Doud, 258ENorman Hall, (352)392-2391 x263.
I am writing to request your participation in my dissertation study which willexplore the relationship between leadership behaviors of the principal, school culture andstudent achievement.
This study involves the completion of one survey. Principals and teachers will beasked to complete a questionnaire to asses their perception of the school’s culture orprincipal’s leadership style. Principals will be asked to complete the culture survey. Thequestionnaire should take approximately 20 minutes of your time. You do not have toanswer any question you do not wish to answer. There are no known personal risks orbenefits to participating in this study. You have the right to withdraw you consent anddiscontinue participation in the project at any time. Unfortunately there will be nocompensation provided for your time and effort other than my eternal gratitude.
Your teachers have also been asked to participate in this study. Data will be keptconfidential to the extent provided by law. Enclosed you will find a self-addressed,stamped envelope so that you can return your questionnaires directly to me. Thismeasure is to ensure confidentiality. I will be happy to answer any questions pertainingto this study before or after you have completed the surveys. Please contact me at:
Elizabeth Le Clear8405 SW 51st LaneGainesville, Florida 32608(352)[email protected]
If you have questions or concerns about rights of the research participants pleasecontact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at:
UFIRB officeBox 112250University of FloridaGainesville, Florida 32611-2250(352)392-0433
Thank your for signing and dating this letter and returning it with yourquestionnaire as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A. Le Clear
57
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in theprocedure and I have received a copy of this description/
__________________________ ________________Signature of participant Date
58
Teacher Consent Letter
Dear Colleague,
I am a doctoral student at the University of Florida in the Department ofEducational Leadership working under the direction of Dr. James L. Doud, 258ENorman Hall, (352)392-2391 x263.
I am writing to request your participation in my dissertation study which willexplore the relationship between leadership behaviors of the principal, school culture andstudent achievement.
This study involves the completion of two surveys. Principals and teachers willbe asked to complete questionnaires to assess their perception of the school’s culture andprincipal’s leadership style. These questionnaires should take approximately 40 minutesof your time. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Thereare no known personal risks or benefits to participating in this study. You have the rightto withdraw you consent and discontinue participation in the project at any time. Unfortunately there will be no compensation provided for your time and effort other thanmy eternal gratitude.
Data will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Enclosed you willfind a self-addressed, stamped envelope so that you can return your questionnairesdirectly to me. This measure is to ensure confidentiality. I will be happy to answer anyquestions pertaining to this study before or after you have completed the surveys. Pleasecontact me at:
Elizabeth Le Clear8405 SW 51st LaneGainesville, Florida 32608(352)[email protected]
If you have questions or concerns about rights of the research participants pleasecontact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at:
UFIRB officeBox 112250University of FloridaGainesville, Florida 32611-2250(352) 392-0433
Thank your for signing and dating this letter and returning it with yourquestionnaire as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A. Le Clear
59
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate inthe procedure and I have received a copy of this description.
__________________________ ________________Signature of participant Date
APPENDIX BSCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SURVEY (SIQ II)
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
REFERENCES
a’Campo, C. (1993). Collaborative school cultures: How principals make a difference.School Organization, 13, 119-127.
Andrews, R. L., & Soder, R. (1987). Student achievement and principal leadership.Educational Leadership, 44(6), 9-11.
Ash, R., & Persall, M. (1999). The principal as chief learning officer. NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals, 84(616), 15-22.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Barth, R. S. (1980). Run school run. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: FreePress.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990) Transformational leadership development: Manualfor the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response tocritiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory andresearch: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-88). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Bass B. M., Waldman, D. A., Aviolo, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformationalleadership and the falling dominos effect. Group and Organizational Studies, 12,73-87.
Beare, H., Caldwell, B. J., & Milliken, R. H. (1989). Creating an excellent school: Somenew management techniques. New York: Routledge.
Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
Blanchard, K., Carlos, J., & Randolph, A. (1996). Empowerment takes more than aminute. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
69
Blasé, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: Fromcontrol to empowerment. New York: Cassell.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1996). The fire is back: Principals sharing school governance.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managingorganizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (1991). Reframing in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (1995). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey of spirit.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, D. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from U.S. high schools.Economics of Education Review, 12, 281-292.
Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, F. K., &Wisinbaker, J. M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and schoolachievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 301-318.
Bulach, C. R. (2001, April). A four-step process for identifying and reshaping schoolculture. Principal Leadership, 1, 48-51.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cheng, Y. C. (1991). Leadership style of principals and organizational process insecondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 29(2), 25-37.
Covey, S. A., Miller, R. & Miller, R. (1994). First things first. New York: Simon &Shuster.
Davis, S. H. (1998). Superintendents’ perspectives on the involuntary departure of publicschool principals: The most frequent reasons why principals lose their jobs.Education Administration Quarterly, 34, 58-90.
Day, C. (2000). Leading schools in times of change. Philadelphia: Open University.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rite and rituals ofcorporate life. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The principal’s role in shaping school culture.Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
70
Depree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell.
Donmoyer, R., & Wagstaff, L. (1990). Principals can be effective managers andinstructional leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 74 (525), 20-29.
Duke, D. L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York:Random House.
Eberts, R. W., & Stone, J. A. (1988). Student achievement in public schools: Doprincipals make a difference? Economics of Education Review, 7, 291-299.
Elmore, R. F. (Jan./Feb. 2002). The limits of “change.” Harvard Education Letter, 18(1),8-15.
Erickson, F. (1987). Conceptions of school culture: An overview. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 23(4), 11-24.
Firestone, W. A., & Wilson, B. L. (1995). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages toimprove instruction: The principal’s contribution. Educational AdministrationQuarterly, 21(2), 7-30.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. New York: Palmer.
Fuller, J. F. (1989). Decision-making patterns of elementary school principals and theimprovement of student achievement. Doctoral dissertation, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara.
Gardner, H. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press.
Garfield, C. (1986). Peak performers: The new heroes of American business. New York:Avon.
Gepford, J. (1996). Relationship between school success and the leadership style of theprincipal in low socio-economic schools. Doctoral Dissertation, University ofSouth Carolina, Columbia.
Glickman, C. D. (2003). Holding sacred ground. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Grace, L., Buser, R., & Stuck, D. (1987). What works and what doesn’t: Characteristicsof outstanding administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 71(502), 72-76.
Griffith, J. (1999). The school leadership/school climate relation: Identification of schoolconfigurations associated with change principals. Education AdministrationQuarterly. 35, 267-291.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of constructdimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643.
71
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, andstudent reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 527-549.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring principal’s contribution to schooleffectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptionsof transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,73, 695-702.
Heck, R., Larsen, T., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Principal leadership and schoolachievement: Validation of a causal model. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
Huff, S., Lake, D., & Schaalman, M. (1982). Principal differences: Excellence in schoolleadership and management. Boston: McBer.
James, J. (1996). Thinking in the future tense. New York: Simon & Shuster.
Johnson, B. J. (1996). Types of educational leadership in a postindustrial society. TheUrban Review, 28, 213-232.
King M. I. (1989). Extraordinary leadership in education: Transformational andtransactional leadership as predictors of effectiveness, satisfaction andorganizational climate in K-12 and higher education. Doctoral dissertation,University of New Orleans, LA.
Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. NewYork: Free Press.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990, June). Transformational leadership: How principalscan help reform school cultures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theCanadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED323622).
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changingtimes. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. J. (1986). Improving principal effectiveness: Theprincipal profile. Toronto: OISE Press.
Levine, D. & Lezotte, L. (1995). Effective schools research. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M.Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 525-547).New York: MacMillian.
72
Lezotte, L. W., & Bancroft, B. A. (1985). Growing use of effective schools model forschool improvement. Educational Leadership, 43, 23-27.
Lightfoot, S. L. (1996). On goodness of schools: Themes of empowerment. PeabodyJournal of Education, 63(3), 9-28.
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO:Westview.
Marsh, D. D. (1992). Enhancing educational leadership. Education and Urban Society,24, 386-409.
Marshall, C. (1988). Analyzing the culture of school leadership. Education and UrbanSociety, 20, 262-273.
Marshal, C., Patterson, J., A., Rogers, D. L., & Steele, J. R. (1996). Caring as a career:An alternative perspective for educational administration. EducationAdministration Quarterly, 32, 271-294.
McCall, J. R. (1994). The principal’s edge. New Jersey: Eye on Education.
McEwan, E. (1998). Seven steps to effective instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin.
McLaughlin, W. M., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching andlearning. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary SchoolTeaching, Stanford University.
Murphy, J. (1998). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the studyof instructional leadership. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 117-139.
Owens, R. G. (1995). Organizational behavior in education (5th ed.). Needham Heights,MA: Prentice-Hall.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of EducationalResearch, 66, 543-578.
Peterson, K. D. (1988). Mechanisms of culture building and principals’ work. Educationand Urban Society, 20, 250-261.
Reitzug, U. C., & Revves, J. E. (1992). “Miss Lincoln doesn’t teach here”: A descriptivenarrative and conceptual analysis of a principal’s symbolic leadership behavior.Education Administration Quarterly. 28, 185-219.
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teacher’s workplace: The social organization of schools. NewYork: Longman.
73
Rowan, B., Bossert, S. T., & Dwyer, D. C. (1983). Effective schools: A cautionary note.Educational Researcher, 12, 24-31.
Sackney, L. (1988). Enhancing school learning climate: Theory, research and practice.SSTA Research Centre report # 180. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from http://www.ssta.sk.ca/research/school_improvement/180.htm#issues
Saphier, J., & King, M. (1985). Good seeds grow in strong cultures. EducationalLeadership, 42(7), 67-73.
Sashkin, M., & Sashkin, M. G. (1993). Principals and their school cultures:Understandings from quantitative and qualitative research. In M. Sashkin & H. J.Walberg (Eds.), Educational leadership and school culture (pp. 100-123).Berkeley, CA: McCuthean.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker, M. J. (1996). Results: The key to continuous school growth. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday Currency.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinaryperformance in schools. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). The principalship. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse. How is it different? Why is itimportant? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Corbally, J. E. (1984). Leadership and organizational culture.Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Sizer, T. R., & Sizer, N. F. (1999). The students are watching: Schools and the moralcontract. Boston: Beacon Press.
Snyder, K. J., Wolf, K. M., Acker-Hocevar, M. (1995). Changing schools to quality workcultures: Issues and dilemmas. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of theBritish Educational Management and Administration Society, Oxford, England.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of amulti-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401-411.
Stolp, S. W. (1994). Transforming school culture: Stories, symbols, values & the leader’srole. Eugene,, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse.
74
Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes:Toward and organizational model of student achievement in the middle schools.Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 703-729.
Trice, H. M. (1993). Occupational subcultures in the workplace. New York: CornellUniversity Press.
Webb, R. B., & Pajares, F. (1996), School Improvement Questionnaire. Gainesville, FL:Center for School Improvement, University of Florida.
Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: For successful schools.Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
Wendel, F., Hoake, F., & Joekel, R. (1993). Project success: Outstanding principalsspeak out. The Clearing House, 67(1), 52-54.
Wilson, B. L., & Corcoran, T. B. (1988). Successful secondary schools. London: Falmer.
Wolcott, H. F. (1984). The man in the principal’s office. Prospect Heights: Waveland.
75
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Elizabeth Le Clear was born in a small farming community in Western
Pennsylvania to Richard and Mary Sagrati. Her parents loved her unconditionally and
preached the value of education, and gave her the courage to pursue her dreams with their
love, encouragement, and support.
She had wanted to be a music teacher from fifth grade. She attended West
Virginia University and graduated with a B.M. in both vocal and instrumental music.
Her first teaching position was at Wingate Oaks Center in Broward County, Florida. Her
work with children with severe disabilities has left a profound effect on her person and
career.
The principal at Wingate Oaks Center encouraged her to pursue a Masters in
Educational Leadership. She attended and graduated from Florida Atlantic University.
After 7 years of teaching music, She moved to Gainesville, Florida. She taught one year
of math to seventh graders at C. H. Price Middle School and then became the assistant
principal. During her tenure at C. H. Price, she received a Specialist Degree in Education
from the University of Florida, with an emphasis in exceptional student education.
She transferred to Hawthorne Junior Senior High School as the assistant principal
and began her doctorate at the University of Florida. She later transferred to Westwood
Middle School. She has been at Westwood for 6 years as the Assistant Principal for
Curriculum.