Introduction
School administrators are tasked with meeting the needs of all students. Administrators accomplish this through the staff that work with children on a daily basis. A plan to artfully distribute leadership maximizes the collective capacity of the school. It also limits the dissatisfaction that may arise among staff and teachers when they feel as if their voices are not being heard and their expertise is being dismissed. So as we examine distributed leadership as a potential model to move education forward in the modern day, this research paper provides a measure of distributed leadership that allows us to gauge implementation. With measures in hand, this research paper specifically analyzes the correlation between distributed leadership and teacher
turnover rates. However, researchers do not have to stop with this correlation between these distributed leadership measures and teacher turnover rates. Analysis with other school characteristics can provide meaningful understanding of the role that
distributing leadership can play in a school. We now can systematically measure distributed leadership for many schools and can see the impact on teacher retention. This researcher paper has potentially cracked open the door for future studies.
Research Questions and Hypothesizes
There were two research questions for this study. First, the study sought to answer whether or not teacher perception surveys could be used to create a measure of
measure of distributed leadership could be calculated using teacher perception surveys given to a large number of staff across a state. The second research question was based on the study’s ability to answer the first research question in the positive. It asked, if a measure of distributed leadership could be created, what correlation might exist between the measure created and the ability of schools to maintain their current teaching staff. Teachers who were leaving the teaching profession noted that they left the classroom due in part to not having enough input into the decisions that affect them and their roles as teachers (Sutcher, Darling-Hammond & Carver-Thomas, 2016). Thus, I hypothesized that there should be a correlation between the perceptions of leadership distributed in a school and a school’s overall teacher turnover rate. Moreover, there should be an inverse relationship, where a change in the perception of distributed leadership aligns with an opposite change in the teacher turnover rate.
Data
Data for this study comes primarily from the 2016 North Carolina Teaching Working Conditions Survey for non-charter public schools. This survey is given to teachers and staff across the state of North Carolina every two years. Questions that were used as part of this research were identified using a literature review of distributed leadership, including a survey created by Hairon & Goh (2015). Data collected was school-level data and shared the overall percentage of staff at a school who agreed or strongly agreed with a specific question.
Additional data was collected regarding school characteristics as well. I found and documented the following information for each non-charter public school that participated in the Teacher Working Conditions Survey: district, EDS percentage, EVAAS growth scores, achievement scores and teacher turnover rates. The district
information pertains to which district the school is a part of. The EDS percentage was a five-point range that captures the level of poverty for the student body at each school. Achievement scores were a measure of a school’s performance on end-of-grade and end- of-course tests (Performance and Growth of North Carolina Public Schools Executive Summary, 2018). EVAAS growth scores were a measure of the average student growth at a school on these same end-of-grade and end-of-course assessments (Performance and Growth of North Carolina Public Schools Executive Summary, 2018). For teacher turnover rates, I collected the percentage of teachers who left each school during the 2015 and 2016 years.
Methods
Once I had collected data from the North Carolina Teaching Working Conditions Survey, I created two measures of distributed leadership. For the first measure of distributed leadership (DL1), I averaged the percent of staff who agreed or strongly agreed with each question identified from the literature review. For the second measure of distributed leadership (DL2), I used confirmatory factor analysis to confirm that the questions were indicators of the latent factor of distributive leadership. I created a model using a subset of questions from the broader set identified through the literature review. This smaller subset of questions showed that they each were significantly
influenced by the underlying, latent factor of distributed leadership. I then assessed the goodness of fit of this model using SRMR, RMSEA, DFI and TFI. Each of these
goodness of fit indices showed the model to be a good or acceptable fit. Then, taking the smaller sub group of questions, I created the second measurement of distributed
strongly agreed with the identified questions for each school. After creating these two measures, I used a paired sample t Test to compare the two measures.
Once these two measures were calculated for each non-charter public school that participated in the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey, I compared the measures with specific school characteristics. I focused on verifying a correlation
between these measures and teacher turnover rates. First, I used a bivariate correlation analysis to determine if there is a relationship between the two distributed leadership measures and teacher turnover rates. I then used a bivariate correlation analysis to compare the relationship between each distributed leadership measure and four other school characteristics: EDS percentage, EVAAS growth scores, achievement scores, and district. After comparing these school characteristics with the distributed leadership measures, I used a regression analysis to examine the distributed leadership measures with teacher turnover rates while controlling for the other school characteristics.
Findings and Analysis of Findings
Identification of Questions/Indicators for Distributed Leadership Measures After collecting and analyzing the data noted above, I turned back to the research questions for this study to determine key findings for this research paper. The first research question dealt with the ability of a researcher to use large statewide teacher perception surveys to develop a distributed leadership model that is a good fit for the data collected. Using that model, I created a specific measure of distributed leadership. The first model I created was based on a literature review on distributed leadership. The eleven questions identified from this literature review are noted in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Questions identified in the Distributed Leadership Model 1 from the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey and their Components.
Component Questions
Empowerment Q6.1 b. Teachers are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction.
Q6.1 c. Teachers are relied upon to make decisions about educational issues.
Q6.1 d. Teachers are encouraged to participate in school leadership roles. Q6.5 Teachers have an appropriate level of influence on decision making in this school. (E, CE)
Developing leadership Q6.1 a. Teachers are recognized as educational experts.
Q6.1 b. Teachers are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction.
Q6.1 d. Teachers are encouraged to participate in school leadership roles. Q6.1 g. Teachers are effective leaders in this school.
Q7.1 a. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with statements about leadership in your school
that there is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect in this school. Q7.3 e. The school leadership makes a sustained effort to address teacher concerns about teacher leadership.
Shared decisions Q6.1e. The faculty has an effective process for making group decisions to solve problems.
Q6.1g. Teachers are effective leaders in this school.
Collective engagement Q2.1 b. Teachers have time available to collaborate with colleagues. Q6.1 d. Teachers are encouraged to participate in school leadership roles. Q6.1 e. The faculty has an effective process for making group decisions to solve problems.
Q6.1 g. Teachers are effective leaders in this school.
Q6.5 Teachers have an appropriate level of influence on decision making in this school.
Q7.1 i. The school improvement team provides effective leadership at this school.
Note. Categories were used from Hairon and Goh (2015). Questions were all identified from the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey given in 2016.
Using confirmatory factor analysis, I was able to create a second model of
distributed leadership. I began with all eleven questions in the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey identified through the literature review. I then examined the goodness of fit indices and removed questions until the indices were a good or
acceptable fit. The model of distributed leadership that was a good fit for the observed data involved six questions that are identified in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2. Questions identified in the Distributed Leadership Model 2 from the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey and their Components.
Components Questions
Empowerment Q6.1 b. Teachers are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction.
Q6.5 Teachers have an appropriate level of influence on decision making in this school.
Developing leadership Q6.1 b. Teachers are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction.
Q6.1 g. Teachers are effective leaders in this school.
Q7.1 a. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with statements about leadership in your school
that there is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect in this school. Q7.3 e. The school leadership makes a sustained effort to address teacher concerns about teacher leadership.
Shared decisions Q6.1 g. Teachers are effective leaders in this school.
Q6.1e. The faculty has an effective process for making group decisions to solve problems.
Collective engagement Q6.1e. The faculty has an effective process for making group decisions to solve problems.
Q6.1 g. Teachers are effective leaders in this school.
Q6.5 Teachers have an appropriate level of influence on decision making in this school. (E, CE)
Note. Categories were used from Hairon and Goh (2015).. Questions were all identified from the 2016 North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey, and ones selected as indicators were done so using confirmatory factor analysis using the STATA software package.
The questions identified using confirmatory factor analysis fell under the four components of distributed leadership identified through Hairon and Goh’s (2015) literature review. Two questions, 6.1b and 6.5, were identified under the component empowerment. Empowerment occurs as teachers or staff members are allowed and encouraged to make meaningful decisions (Hairon & Goh, 2015). Question 6.1 b measures the underlying trust teachers feel as they are given autonomy to make
professional decisions. The distribution of leadership relies upon this communication of this trust from formal leaders to staff (Day et al., 2009). The feeling from teachers and staff that they are trusted is aligned with feeling empowered. Question 6.5 asks teachers to reflect on their influence on decisions. Again, an appropriate amount of influence on decisions is akin to an appropriate amount of empowerment.
Four questions, 6.1b, 6.1g, 7.1a, and 7.3e, were identified under the component developing leadership. Developing leadership employs leaders to build leadership expertise (Hairon & Goh, 2015). This includes helping informal leaders see a problem and act appropriately, motivate others to work towards a goal, understand the skills and abilities of team and using that knowledge accordingly, understand the context of the situation, and build shared responsibility (Hairon & Goh, 2015). Question 6.1g
examines the overall perception of how productive the development of staff has been. Question 7.3e measures the perception staff have towards the work formal leaders have taken towards developing the staff in the building.
Developing Leadership also require trust. Trust is a key component that was repeatedly referred to in the literature review. The act of distributing leadership is an act of trust (Day et al., 2009). This trust in part refers to staff perceiving that formal school leaders believe that those who have been given leadership roles and
responsibilities have the ability and the motivation to see their work through completion (Day et al., 2009). This is evident in 6.1b, where teachers perceive their administration to either trust or not trust their leadership in their own classroom to make appropriate and professional decisions. Trust is also multi-directional and does not just move from a formal leader to a staff member. An environment where trust is at the core of the
distribution of leadership (Day et al., 2009). Without trust, a culture of distributed leadership cannot exist (Harris, 2013).
Two questions, 6.1g and 6.1e, were identified under the component shared
decisions. Shared decision making occurs when the authority to make decisions is given to informal leaders in the building who collaboratively work to find optimal solutions (Hairon & Goh, 2015). Questions 6.1g and 6.1e both measure the perception of staff as to teachers’ productivity in making shared or group decisions. Finally, three questions, 6.1e, 6.1g, and 6.5, were identified under collective engagement. Collective engagement results from the actions of a leader as he or she inspires staff involvement towards the schools vision and goals (Hairon & Goh, 2015). Questions 6.e, 6.1g, and 6.5 each measure how the staff at a school are collectively engaged in the work of teaching and learning.
Also of note, of the eight constructs identified as part of the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey, the model developed through confirmatory factor analysis had questions that fell under just two constructs. Four of the questions were under construct six, teacher leadership. Two of the questions were under construct seven, school leadership.
There were five questions from the original eleven in the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey identified through the literature review that did not create a model for distributed leadership that was a good fit for the overall data. These questions are identified in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3. Questions identified in the Distributed Leadership Model 1 from the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey but not identified as part of the
Distributed leadership Model 2.
Constructs Questions
Time Q2.1 b. Teachers have time available to collaborate with colleagues. Teacher Leadership Q6.1 a. Teachers are recognized as educational experts.
Q6.1 c. Teachers are relied upon to make decisions about educational issues.
Q6.1 d. Teachers are encouraged to participate in school leadership roles. School Leadership Q7.1 i. The school improvement team provides effective leadership at this
school.
Note. Constructs were identified as part of the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey.
Two of the questions that were not a good fit, Question 6.1d and 7.1i, do not necessarily apply to all staff, or all staff would not necessarily have direct experience with elements noted in the question. School improvement teams and other leadership roles could or could not be present in a school and some to many staff would not know about their impact. Question 6.1c on the surface seems that it should align with the two other questions focused on decision-making. This question, however, did not show to create a model of distributed leadership that was a good fit to the data observed. Most likely, the wording of the question led to this disconnect. Educational issues as a term may be seen as large, overarching problems with our current educational system. If this were true, then the perceived power over decisions involving educational issues would be seen to exist outside of the school building and potentially would not reflect decision- making at the school level. Question 2.1b was expected to be part of the model for distributed leadership. Distributed leadership involves collective capacity building (Walker & Riordan, 2010). Time to collaborate with colleagues is critical in building
However, time to collaborate with colleagues does not have to align with a distributed model. Time with colleagues could involve implementing top-down directives. This possibility provides a potential reason why this question did not fit as an indicator for the latent factor of distributed leadership. Finally, the question 6.1a does not fit with the second model of distributed leadership I developed using confirmatory factor analysis. This question seems to align with the area of trust, yet it does not fit with the model. This may be due to the word “expert” and perceptions around what this might mean to those taking the survey.
After creating measures for distributed leadership (DL1 and DL2) using questions from the North Carolina Teacher Working Condition Survey identified through the literature review (DL1) and questions identified through confirmatory factor analysis (DL2), I compared these two measures using a paired t Test and found that they were significantly different from each other. These findings can be seen in Table 4.7.
Distributed Leadership Measures and School Characteristics
To answer the second question of this research paper, I needed to examine the relationship between distributed leadership and the teacher turnover rates at a school. To accomplish this, I compared each measure with the school turnover rate to see if there was a correlation. The results of these bivariate correlation analyses can be seen in Table 4.8. Both measures of distributed leadership show a small but significant and negative correlation with teacher turnover rates. As the measure of distributed leadership for schools increase, the teacher turnover rate at schools decrease.
To ensure that this correlation is truly between distributed leadership and teacher turnover rates, I used a multiple regression analysis to control for school characteristics of EDS, school level, EVAAS growth scores, achievement scores, and
district. The results of this analysis are in Table 4.9. When examining the EDS percentages in schools, I found a small but significant positive correlation with both distributed leadership measures. These were unexpected result, as I had thought that as the level of poverty increased in a school, it would become more likely that a principal would implement a top down decision-making process. However, these findings did not support that supposition. One potential reason for these positive correlations is that schools with effective distributed leadership models are more likely to identify and then help students and families apply for free and reduced lunch status. In this case, these schools with a higher DL1 or DL2 measure would have a higher percentage of EDS as compared to its actual level of poverty then schools that are less able to identify and process students for free and reduced lunch status. More study into this positive correlation is needed.
The achievement score had a low but significant correlation with both measures of distributed leadership as well. When controlling for other school characteristics, this measure had a significant but not practically meaningful correlation with both
distributed leadership measures. It is also important to consider the study by Leithwood and Mascall (2008) that found a link between student achievement scores and
distributed leadership. That study looked at 180 schools across 45 districts (Leithwood