TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT iv.
LIST OF TABLES vii.
DEDICATION xi.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xii.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
A. The Study 3 B. Theoretical Framework 4
C. Significance of the Research 7
D. Limitations of the Research 8
E. Definitions of Terms 9 F. Assumptions of the Research 11
G. Theoretical Framework: Transformational Leadership 12 H. Summary 15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 18
A. Leadership Theories 19 B. Major Leadership Theories 20 a. Transformational Leadership 20 b. Transactional Leadership 26 c. Situational Approach 27 C. Dependent Variables: Transformational Measures 29 D. Independent Variables 30
a. School Leadership and Culture 30 b. School Socioeconomic Status (SES) 33
c. Race 37
d. Student Achievement 38
e. Teacher Characteristics 41 f. Principals Characteristics 42
E. Related Studies 43
F. Summary 45
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY 47
A. Sample and Population 47
B. Elementary Schools 47
C. Central Park Public Schools 48
D. Variables 49 a. Independent Variables 51
b. Dependent Variables 51
E. Instrumentation 52
F. Hypotheses 55
G. Overall Transformational Leadership Behaviors 55
H. Subleadership Behaviors 56 I. Data Collection 57 J. Data Analyses 57
K. Limitations of the Research 60 L. Summary 60 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS 62
A. Major Findings: Overall Leadership Behaviors 63
a. School Characteristics 63
b. Teacher and Principal Characteristics 63
B. Major Findings: Subleadership Behaviors 63
a. School Characteristics 63 b. Principal Characteristics 65
c. Teacher Characteristics 65 A. The Leadership Questionnaire: The Instrument 66 B. Data Analysis 67
C. Hypothesis Testing 68 a. Overall Leadership and Socioeconomic Status (SES) 68
b. Overall Leadership and Racial Composition 70
c. Overall Leadership and School Achievement 73 d. Overall Leadership and Principal Characteristics 76
e. Overall Leadership and Teacher Characteristics 82
f. Subleadership Behaviors and School Characteristics 88
g. Summary 104 D. Major Findings 105
b. Hypothesis Testing 108
c. Significance 109
E. Summary 110
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS 112 A. The Study 112 B. Finding about the Population 113
a. School Characteristics 114 b. Teacher Characteristics 115
c. Principal Characteristics 116
C. The Instrument 117
D. Summary 118 E. Hypothesis Testing 119
a. Overall Leadership and School Characteristics 119
b. Overall Leadership and Principal Characteristics 125
c. Overall Leadership and Teacher Characteristics 127
d. Subleadership Behaviors and School Characteristics 130 F. Limitations 138
G. Significance 140
H. Summary 140 I. Implications 143
J. Future Research 145
K. Conclusion 146 L. References 150 Appendix 168
Appendix A: IRB Approval Form 168
Appendix B: Durham Public School Approval Form 170
Appendix C: Consent Forms 174
Appendix D: Survey and Leadership Questionnaire 179
Appendix E: Tables 185
ABSTRACT
The Influences of School Variables on the Principals’ Instructional
Leadership Style in Elementary Schools in an Urban Setting
Gwendolyn Jackson Cooper
Federal and state mandates to produce higher levels of student performance are
challenging for school principals. Principals’ overall responsibility is to facilitate teaching and learning designed to enhance student achievement. More specifically, it is the responsibility of the principal to create an environment conductive to learning (Walters, Morzano, & McNulty, 2003). Principals’ leadership behaviors have long been the focus of education research because policy makers expect principals to provide the foundation for organizational effectiveness
(Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Recent studies of principals’ leadership revealed that the shaping of a school’s success is dependent on the principal’s leadership and the influence of major school characteristics: (a) students’ socioeconomic status (SES), (b) racial composition, and (c)
academic achievement. Transformational leadership in education is a paradigm that focuses on providing schools with (a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration.
In this study, 101 elementary school teachers rated the leadership behaviors of
elementary school principals from an urban school district in central North Carolina. The major independent variables were the students’ SES, racial composition, and academic achievement.
Principal and teacher demographics were also independent variables.
The dependent variables were overall transformational leadership behavior of the
principal, and the four transformational leadership subvariables (specifically, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration). These behaviors were measured by a modified Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Data from the leadership questionnaire were analyzed using the F-test, a statistical model used to compute and test the mean scores between factors. Significant ANOVA results were followed up with a post-hoc analysis using the Scheffe post-hoc test in order to determine specifically where the differences exist. Two-way analysis of variance tests were conducted to explore effects between dependent and independent variables.
Findings revealed that principals were rated as having an overall positive leadership style that reflected transformational leadership. Principals in schools with low SES exhibited less positive transformational leadership behaviors compared to principals in schools with high SES.
Teacher’s age and years of experience did not influence how teachers rated the principal leadership style. Principal’s age and years experience did not influence how teachers rated their leadership behavior.
The leadership traits of individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation were influenced by the schools’ SES. Idealized influence was not influenced by the school’s SES. Findings indicated that schools with high SES had a significant correlation with the transformational leadership behaviors of individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation.
was a low response rate and an uneven distribution between the different levels of independent variables. For example, the data revealed 20.8% of the schools were low SES, 24.8% were moderate SES, and 54.5% were high SES. Ten percent of the schools were considered to be high achieving, 46.5% were moderate achieving schools, and 41.6% were low achieving schools, and finally 8.9% of the schools had a low percentage of minority students, 37.6% had a moderate
percentage of minority students, and 53.5% had a high percentage of minority students. The reader should consider these weaknesses when considering the validity of this study.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Frequency Distribution: School Socioeconomic Status (SES) 185 Table 2 Frequency Distribution: School Racial Composition 185 Table 3. Frequency Distribution: Student Achievement 185 Table 4. Frequency Distribution: Principal Age 186 Table 5. Frequency Distribution: Principal Years of Experience as a
Principal 186
Table 6. Frequency Distribution: Teacher Age 186
Table 7. Frequency Distribution: Teacher Experience 187 Table 8. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Results for the Dependent
Variable 187
Table 9. Leadership Style Scale and Subscales: Score Ranges and Midpoints 187 Table 10. Descriptive Statistics: Leadership Style Dependent Variables 188 Table 11. ANOVA Table: Leadership Behavior and Student
Socioeconomic Status (SES) 188
Table 12. Mean Scores for Leadership Behavior and
Student Socioeconomic Status (SES) 189
Table 13. ANOVA Table: Leadership Behavior: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and School Racial Composition 189 Table 14. Mean Scores for Leadership Behavior: Student Socioeconomic Status (SES)
and School Racial Composition 190
Table 15. ANOVA Table: Leadership Behavior: Student Socioeconomic Status (SES) and
Student Achievement 191
Table 16. Mean Scores for Leadership Behavior: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Student Achievement 192 Table 17. ANOVA Table: Leadership Behavior: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Principal’s Age 193 Table 18. Mean Scores for Leadership Behavior: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Principal’s Age 194
Table 19. ANOVA Table: Leadership Behavior: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Principal’s Experience 195
Table 20. Mean Scores for Leadership Behavior: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Principal’s Experience 196
Table 21. ANOVA Table: Leadership Behavior: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Teacher’s Age 197
Table 22. Mean Scores for Leadership Behavior: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Teacher’s Age 198
Table 23. ANOVA Table: Leadership Behavior: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Teacher’s Experience 199
Table 24. Mean Scores for Leadership Behavior: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Teacher Experience 200
Table 25. ANOVA Table for Idealized Influence: Student Socioeconomic Status
Table 26. Mean Scores for Idealized Influence: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Student Academic Achievement 202 Table 27. ANOVA Table: Idealized Influence: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) 203
Table 28. Mean Scores for Leadership Behavior: Idealized Influence: Student
Socioeconomic Status (SES) 203
Table 29. ANOVA Table for Idealized Consideration: Student Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Student Academic Achievement 204 Table 30. Mean Scores for Idealized Consideration: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Student Academic Achievement 205 Table 31. ANOVA Table for Idealized Consideration: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) 206
Table 32. Mean Scores for Idealized Consideration: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) 206
Table 33. ANOVA Table for Intellectual Stimulation: Student Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Student Academic Achievement 207 Table 34. Mean Scores for Intellectual Stimulation: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Student Academic Achievement 208 Table 35. ANOVA Table for Intellectual Stimulation: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) 209
Table 36. Mean Scores for Intellectual Stimulation: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) 209
Table 37. ANOVA Table for Inspirational Motivation: Student Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Student Academic Achievement 210 Table 38. Mean Scores for Inspirational Motivation: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) and Student Academic Achievement 211 Table 39. ANOVA Table for Inspirational Motivation: Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) 212
Table 40. Mean Scores for Inspirational Motivation; Student Socioeconomic Status
(SES) 212
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Ricky D. Cooper; children, DeRickeo, Sharron, and D’Andrea Cooper; and father, Emanuel Jackson.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to my dissertation chair, Dr. Frank Brown, for his continuous support and encouragement. He provided crucial knowledge and guidance throughout the preparation of this dissertation. I am grateful to my committee members, Dr. James Veitch and Dr. Suzanne Gulledge, for their willingness to provide suggestions and provide me with additional expertise in improving this dissertation.
I also want to honor God, for giving me the strength and the opportunity to pursue and complete a life-long dream. To my husband, Ricky Cooper, who sacrificed so much of his time. Thank you so much for being the world’s greatest husband and father to our children. To my children, DeRickeo, Sharron, and D’Andrea, I appreciate all of the sacrifices that they made. To my father, Emanuel Jackson, who gave me unconditional support and encouraging words during this entire process.
Special thanks go to my two sisters, Lorraine Scott and Regina Crumpler, for their constant encouragement and prayers. They would always remind me that I could do all things through Christ who strengthens me when I became overwhelmed and wanted to quit.
I definitely honor God for allowing me the privilege and opportunity to accomplish a lifelong dream. There is no way I could have completed this task without His help.
1 Chapter 1
Introduction
Since the creation of the principalship in American education, educators have struggled to describe the position in the social and educational contexts of their time. Theorists and analysts at various times have labeled principals “bureaucratic executives,” “humanistic facilitators,” and, most recently, “instructional leaders” (Lashway, 2003a).
Because school leadership is complex and multifaceted (Ramsey, 1999), the role of the school principal has become increasingly challenging. Principals have seen their roles broaden from administrative and managerial duties (e.g., budget oversight, operations, and discipline) to curriculum development, data analysis, and instructional leadership (Task Force on School Leadership, 2002). In their efforts to improve student performance, principals must develop and implement strategies that involve many stakeholders, including students, teachers, parents, local businesses, and other community members. Principals must possess the leadership skills and knowledge to successfully accomplish these goals.
In addition to the expansion of the principal’s role, they are constantly challenged by federal and state mandates that have been designed to produce high levels of student
2
Policy makers expect principals to provide the foundation of organizational effectiveness (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Recent studies of leadership, investigating how effective instructional leadership predicts school learning, conclude that shaping school culture is a key factor in school improvement (although it should be pointed out that other school variables, such as students’ socioeconomic status [SES] and racial composition, also influence student achievement) (Barnett, 2005; Evans, 1996; Krug, 1992; Lucas & Valentine, 2002).
This research was conducted at the elementary level. Elementary schools were selected over middle and high schools because the early stages of formal or organized education could be considered the most critical years in the schooling process. Basic knowledge and fundamental skills necessary for life are taught at this level and the curriculum is similar for all students. In addition, the researcher was unable to find similar studies at the elementary level conducted in North Carolina, and perceived a need for such a study.
Elementary school teachers in a mid-size urban school district in central
North Carolina were the participants in the study. Only elementary teachers who taught students in kindergarten through fifth grade participated. The teachers were asked to complete a
questionnaire providing their perception of their principals’ leadership behaviors. They completed a modified version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), a 45-item Likert scale questionnaire designed by Bass and Avolio (2004) to measure principals’
3 The Study
This study sought to expand existing understanding and knowledge of transformational leadership as it relates to school principals in different school environments. Specifically, it investigated the relationship between four transformational leadership behaviors and certain school factors: the school’s socioeconomic status, racial composition, and student academic achievement. These factors are important because they contribute to the unique culture of a school and affect a school’s academic achievement. Utilizing teacher-based information from the MLQ, this study attempted to determine (a) the leadership behaviors of the elementary principals as rated by teachers, (b) if teacher characteristics affect the way principals are rated, and (c) if there is a relationship between transformational leadership behaviors of principals and three additional school variables: the school’s SES, racial composition, and student academic achievement.
The responsibilities of principals have become more challenging (Chirichello, 2004) because society has become more complex and its demographics are constantly changing (Coles, 2005). Principals must respond to increasing diversity among students: i.e., their cultural
background, immigration status, income disparities, physical and mental disabilities, and
4
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study is “transformational leadership” (Bugenhagen, 2006; Hay, 2003; Smith & Piele, 2006). Transformational leadership behaviors include (a) developing a shared vision by all stakeholders; (b) developing subordinates into leaders; (c) sharing leadership responsibilities; (d) motivating subordinates to meet the organizational goals; and (e) promoting expectations of continuous improvement among teachers and staff (Evans, 1996; Scope, 2006). Evans’s and Scope’s studies investigated how effective instructional
leadership predicts school learning environment constructs. Evans (1996) studied the relationship between elementary school principals as transformational leaders and organizational outcomes among 18 principals as viewed by their teachers. Schools whose principals showed high transformational leadership behaviors had higher organizational effectiveness than schools whose principals showed low transformational leadership behaviors. Scope (2006) studied the leadership styles of 39 successful middle schools in Indiana. He defined success as whether the school met or exceeded the average score on the Indiana State Standard Test. He concluded that their predominant leadership style was transformational, and that there is a relationship between transformational leadership and a more positive school culture. A review of the school leadership literature suggests that principals who implement transformational leadership behaviors promote better organizational effectiveness (Smith & Piele, 2006).
However, there are some disadvantages of the transformational leadership style. The morality of transformational leadership has been questioned. One key criticism is its potential for the abuse of power. Transformational leaders motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of the effects on the followers. These leaders may also exert a very
5
tendencies, thriving on power and manipulation. Moreover, some followers may develop a dependency and form strong and unhealthy bonds with their leaders. Bass (Hay, 2003) notes, transformational leadership lacks the checks and balances of influences and power that could help avoid dictatorship and oppression of a minority on a majority. This was the case of the massive Jonestown suicide led by The Rev. Jim Jones. Additionally, a study conducted by Barnett, McCormick, and Conners in 2001 of twelve secondary schools in New South Wales, Australia revealed that teachers may be distracted from concentrating on learning-and-teaching , for example, by taking time away from students to be involved in the corporate school initiatives an inspirational transformational principal expects of them. These concerns regarding the
morality of transformational leadership have been addressed by stating that to be truly transformational, leadership must have a moral foundation (Hay, 2003).
Utilizing transformational leadership theory, this study investigated the leadership behaviors of elementary school principals as viewed by teachers. This study defines transformational leadership by four behavior types (Avolio & Bass, 2004): (a) idealized influence), (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration.
6 1. Teachers
a. Chronological age
b. Number of years as a teacher 2. Principals
a. Chronological age
b. Number of years as a principal 3. School
a. Students’ socioeconomic status b. Racial composition
c. Academic achievement
This study assessed the leadership behaviors of principals in elementary schools as viewed by 101 elementary teachers in a mid-size urban school district (Central Park Public Schools) located in central North Carolina. The school district is comprised of 54 schools: 29 elementary, 10 middle, and 1 secondary (grades 6–12), as well as 12 high schools, 1 alternative school, and 1 hospital school. The district enrolls 32,749 students and has 4,600 employees, including 2,300 full-time teachers. It is the seventh largest school system in the state.
7
Significance of the Research
This study investigated the relationship between leadership behaviors and school
characteristics, as defined by four transformational leadership behaviors and their relationship to school variables: (a) students’ socioeconomic status, (b) racial composition, and (c) student academic achievement. The researcher could not locate any research at the elementary level that reviewed these transformational leadership behaviors and the school variables included in this study.
Several studies have investigated the relationship between the leadership behaviors of principals and student achievement, but most were not been conducted in an environment as politically driven as today’s assessment-based educational system. The mandates of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to produce high levels of student performance and to staff schools with highly qualified teachers have led to school-level accountability nationwide. Most states have also mandated additional school-level accountability measures as well. Educators are expected to thrive in this assessment-driven environment and meet the academic and
developmental needs of their students, and the principal’s leadership is expected to be the key ingredient for school-level success (Fullan, 2001). Educational leaders continue to focus on resource allocations and process requirements, but today’s leaders must also focus on developing skills necessary to motivate school personnel to improve student learning (Kearns, 1996). These accountability demands require differing and better leadership skills by principals (O’Donnell & White, 2005). Teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ behaviors should provide useful
information about how different school environments and factors influence principals’
8
Principals must be able to promote success for all students. Therefore, they should possess the necessary expertise to create academic environments for a diverse student body that promote academic excellence (Johnson & Uline, 2005). The accountability system required by federal and state governments are demanding that schools improve the achievement levels of all students. Principals need to be aware of how school, teacher, and principal variables may influence their leadership behaviors. School leaders need to understand how the unique characteristics of their school may affect their behavior (Deal & Peterson, 1990). This study researched these issues.
Findings from this study should contribute to research on principals’ transformational leadership behaviors and may further clarify the importance of transformational leadership in educational settings. A better understanding of the impact of school variables on leadership behaviors may give school district leaders valuable information to support their principals and schools as well as providing new school principals with helpful information for school
improvement. For principals, data from this study should provide insights about the relationship between school variables and their leadership behaviors. Moreover, these data should help guide leadership practices needed to improve schools’ performance. For institutions of higher
education and professional development programs, the results from this study may guide the preparation of public school administrators. Finally, information from this study should provide the basis for a dialogue about how to improve schools with a diverse student enrollment.
Limitations of the Research
9
leadership styles of elementary school principals, limitations do exist. Data were collected using a specific questionnaire to determine if there is a relationship between principals’ leadership (as perceived by teachers) and selected school factors: (a) socioeconomic status, (b) racial
composition, and (c) academic achievement level. Principals’ leadership behaviors were selected using a questionnaire designed to assess transformational behavioral traits. The questionnaire measured four leadership behaviors: (a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration. This study was limited to one school district and one school level (i.e., elementary schools). Measures of the leadership behaviors of elementary school principals are based upon teachers’ perceptions, which may be limited by their willingness to provide their true perceptions of their principals.
This study will measure the influence of three school variables on principals’ leadership behaviors: (a) the students’ SES, (b) racial composition, and (c) academic achievement level. Other variables not measured that may influence the leadership behaviors of principals are parental involvement, teacher-student interactions, and principals’ interpersonal skills
(Appalachia Educational Laboratory of Danita, 2005; Billing, Jamie, Fitzpatrick, & Kendrick, 2005). This research measured only the transformational leadership style as measured by one instrument, which may pose a limitation on the findings.
Definition of Terms
10
Leadership. One’s ability to bring people together, accomplish a common goal, and create and sustain a culture that supports high expectations, for both students and adults in a school.
Leadership style. The manner in which a leader uses power, makes decisions, and interacts with others (Smith & Piele, 2006).
Socioeconomic status. The percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch in the school.
Racial Composition. The percentage of Caucasian/White and non-Caucasian/racial minority students in the school.
Student Achievement. Information from standardized tests scores as a measure of student academic growth. The North Carolina End-of-Grade Tests in mathematics and reading were used to measure the number of students in grades 3–5 with scores at levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 as mandated by North Carolina.
Transformational Leader. A leader who finds collaborative ways of engaging with the school community to meet school goals (Liontos, 1991).
Leadership Questionnaire. A survey instrument that measures leadership behaviors of principals in four areas:
1. Idealized influence. The leader is admired, respected, and trusted. The leader considers others’ needs over his or her own. Followers and subordinates identify with and want to emulate such leaders;
2. Inspirational motivation. The leader behaves in a manner that motivates others by
11
3. Intellectual stimulation. The leader motivates his or her followers’ efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and
approaching old situations in new ways. New ideas and creative solutions to problems are solicited from followers;
4. Individualized consideration. The leader considers each individual’s need for
achievement and growth through coaching and mentoring staff, students, and teachers to reach their highest level of potential. Individual differences, needs, and desires are recognized (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Age of teacher. Refers to chronological age of the teacher.
Experience of teacher. Refers to the number of years teachers have taught school.
Age of principal. Refers to chronological age of the school principal.
Experience of principal. Refers to the number of years served in the role as a principal. Assumptions of the Research
Local, state, and federal governments will continue to enact and enforce educational accountability measures for public schools. Pressure is being felt at all levels of schooling: by students, teachers, principals, and superintendents to improve education as measured by
accountability standards. Today’s principals are being held accountable by superintendents and school boards on how well teachers improve student learning. An assumption can be made that principals and teachers are eager to gather information about how to maximize effectiveness at the school building level.
12
leadership behaviors to improve their schools (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). Also, because principals must develop and manage new collaborations with other social and community agencies that serve their students, they may need new strategies to maximize effectiveness at the school level. It is assumed that principals will want to learn leadership behaviors that will lead to improved academic achievement.
Research suggests that principals who pay more attention to their school’s environment have greater opportunities to produce more effective schools (Barnett, 2005; Kelly, Thornton, & Daugherty, 2005). Studies that focused on relationships between principal’s leadership and school climate, found that effective leadership led to a substantially boost in students’ academic achievement and that principals’ leadership behaviors positively affect teacher efficacy in
meeting students’ needs (Bonaros, 2006; Layton, 2003). Teachers have an important voice in this study. Responses from the participating teachers should provide vital information concerning how principals can best support teachers and improve the teaching environment. It can be assumed that pertinent information gathered in this study may be utilized by principals to better support teachers and improve students’ academic achievement.
Theoretical Framework
There are many leadership styles practiced by school principals, but is there a particular style that is best suited for public elementary schools? A review of the literature suggests that transformational leadership style could possibly be the best approach for principals (Bonaros, 2006; Layton, 2003; Scope, 2006).
13
have brought about a shift in perceptions concerning the most appropriate leadership style in education (Bogler, 1999). Over the past three decades, there has been a rapid transition in educational leadership to a greater focus on instructional leadership in schools (Lucas & Valentine, 2002). In addition, principals face complex moral, interpersonal, instructional, managerial, and political demands. Because of these demands, principals now realize the
necessity of enabling teachers to assume and perform leadership roles (Greenfield, 1995). As the primary leaders of their schools, principals are expected to share leadership with students, parents, teachers, and other administrators (Darlington-Hammond, 1993). Thus, the
transformational leadership style has gradually moved to the center of the discourse as the one best suited for bringing visionary leadership to schools. School principals who succeed use a wide range of strategies to motivate staff to bring about change and improvements in their schools (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990).
Transformational leadership embraces participatory decision making (Treslan, 2006). It involves shared decision making, collaboration, and empowerment for teachers and staff. Transformational leaders tend to communicate a clear vision for their school that their
subordinates can identify. Transformational leaders tend to build group members’ ownership by involving them in the decision-making process.
The term “transformational leadership” was first discussed by Burns (1978) and later extended by others (e.g., Bolden, Gosling, Marturano, & Dennison, 2003). Burns and Bass (1978) based their work on leadership among Army officers and business executives. Later, the concept of transformational leadership was adapted by education scholars to assess the ability of a school’s leader to work collaboratively with teachers to improve students’ academic
14
Researchers (Lucas & Valentine, 2002) also concluded that transformational leadership emphasizes engagement between leaders and others that encourages them to (a) go beyond self-interest, (b) work toward values-driven, higher-level goals, (c) participate in shared decision making, and (d) develop school-based solutions to challenges. Transformational leader behavior appears to be well suited for school leaders (Tucker-Ladd, Merchant, & Thurston, 1992).
Principals who implement more transformational behaviors are characterized as more flexible, versatile, and responsive (Durgnan & MacPherson, 1993), and promote a more collaborative school culture (Anderman, Belzer, & Smith, 1991; Barnett & McCormick, 2004; Bulach, Malone, & Castleman, 1995; Kelly, Thornton, & Daugherty, 2005).
The specific conception of transformational leadership used for this study is a result of work by Avolio and Bass (2004). They define transformational leaders as those who motivate others to do more than they originally thought possible and who develop subordinates into leaders. Principals must have the ability to empower others to become leaders. Avolio and Bass (2004) also believe transformational leaders display four behaviors that characterize this style of leadership: (a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration (Smith & Piele, 2006):
1. Idealized influence. The leader is admired, respected, and trusted. The leader considers others’ needs over his or her own. Others identify with and want to emulate their leader. 2. Inspirational motivation. The leader behaves in a manner that motivates others by
providing meaning and greater challenge. Thus, both individual and team spirit are aroused; the leader builds enthusiasm and optimism among followers.
15
situations in new ways. New ideas and creative solutions to problems are solicited from followers.
4. Individualized consideration. The leader pays attention to each individual’s desires for achievement and growth by acting as a coach or mentor and encourages them to reach their highest level of potential; individual differences, needs, and desires are recognized. These leadership practices are encompassed in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Avolio & Bass, 2004) that was used in this study. Other widely used leadership instruments measuring leadership behaviors seemed less valid because the MLQ provides a description of principals’ behavior that is part of the most common dialogue among education professionals. The other leadership instruments may give a good description of leadership behavior but are less common and understood among education professionals.
Summary
This study investigated transformational leadership as it relates to school principals in various school environments. It investigated the relationship between elementary school principals’ leadership behaviors as perceived by teachers and certain school characteristics. Utilizing teacher-based information from the MLQ, this study attempted to determine (a) the leadership behaviors of the elementary principal as rated by teachers, (b) if teacher
characteristics affect the way principals are rated, and (c) if there is a relationship between transformational leadership behaviors of principals and three school variables: the schools’ socioeconomic status, racial composition, and student academic achievement.
16
outlining the research project was sent to the elementary school principals. Principals and teachers were assured of confidentiality. After permission was granted, teachers were contacted via email. Teachers who wished to participate completed the Leadership Questionnaire and returned it.
As previously stated, this study investigated the relationship between elementary school principals’ leadership behaviors as perceived by teachers and certain school characteristics. The dependent variable is the principals’ leadership behaviors; and the independent variables are school, principal, and teacher characteristics.
The theoretical framework for this study is transformational leadership (Bugenhagen, 2006; Smith & Piele, 2006). Transformational leaders are considered highly effective in school administration (Nicholson, 2003a). Principals exhibiting transformational behaviors are
considered particularly effective in accomplishing desired school outcomes, such as improving teaching and learning, collaborative decision making, and creating more responsive and
innovative educational environments (Thomas, 1997). Many transformational leaders seek to empower stakeholders (i.e., students, parents, teachers, and community members) to set goals, work as a team with stakeholders, devote time to building relationships, and create opportunities for others to think about how schools can improve students’ academic achievement (Reinhartz & Beach, 2004).
17
transformational leadership behaviors should be placed in schools regardless of school factors. Therefore, it seems approximately that the perceptions of elementary teachers about the
18 CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
Introduction
This study investigated the relationship between elementary school principals’ leadership behavior (as perceived by teachers) and certain school characteristics. The study assessed the leadership behaviors of elementary principals in a mid-size urban school district in central North Carolina. The teachers completed a leadership questionnaire. Data were used to determine if the characteristics of schools, teachers, and principals influence principals’ leadership behaviors, using a transformational view of organizational measures to describe the principals’ leadership (Avolio, 2007; Barnett, 2005 Barnett & McCormick, 2004; Hart; 2001; Johnson, 1993; Smith & Piele, 2006).
This chapter is divided into four sections, and reviews the literature on the present study’s dependent and independent variables and the relationship between them: (a) leadership theories, (b) transformational measures, (c) leadership and independent variables, and (d) related studies.
1. The first section reviews the literature related to several leadership theories, transformational leadership style, and school improvement.
2. The second section discusses studies that have utilized transformational descriptions of leadership.
3. The third section reviews research related to school leadership as influenced by schools’ socioeconomic status, racial composition, and students’ academic achievement.
19 describe leadership behaviors.
Leadership Theories
Organizations are generally hierarchical in nature, are not very democratic, and
emphasize social control (Owens, 2001). Scholars are seeking ways to make these hierarchical organizations more democratic by focusing on different leadership behaviors (Kezar & Carducci, 2006). As a result, process-oriented perspectives of leadership, which emphasize participant empowerment, cross-cultural understanding, collaboration, cognitive complexity, and social responsibility, are often considered when attempting to soften the harsh nature of the hierarchical organizations. Leadership has changed throughout history, but current literature suggests that the heroic, controlling, and distant leaders of the past are being replaced with leaders who focus more on teamwork and collective visions (Allison, 1996).
Studies on nonmilitary leadership reveal a change from “great man” and “trait” theories to “transformational” leadership (Bolden et al., 2003). Earlier theories focused mostly on the characteristics and behaviors of leaders, whereas later theories began to consider the role of followers and subordinates and the contextual nature of leadership. Scholarly analyses of leadership from the 1900s to the 1950s differentiated between leaders and followers. Because researchers were unable to find a single trait or combination of traits that fully explained successful leaders’ abilities, they began to examine situational influences on leaders’ skills and behaviors (Mendez-Morse, 1992). Subsequent leadership studies attempted to classify the behaviors of effective and ineffective leaders (Bolden et al., 2003). To better understand what factors contribute to making leaders effective, researchers used contingency (or situational) models to examine the affect of personal and organizational variables on leadership
20
Major Leadership Theories
There are three major theoretical frameworks that have dominated leadership research since 1930: (a) the trait approach (1930s and 1940s), (b) the behavioral approach (1940s and 1950s), and (c) the transformational approach (1960s and 1970s) (Reference for Business, 2006). The basic premise of trait theory is that effective leaders are born, not made. Leadership trait research examined the physical, mental, and social characteristics of individual traits, such as height, intelligence, birth order, and socioeconomic status (Allen, 1998; Avolio, 2007; Bolden et al., 2003; Mendez-Moore, 1992). The basic principle of behavioral leadership is that leaders’ behaviors exhibited go beyond their physical, mental, or emotional traits (Reference for Business, 2006). In the 1970s, scholars began to focus on a leader’s charisma and leadership effectiveness (Stewart, 2006). Thus, transactional and transformational leadership behaviors were introduced. Transactional leaders take the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of exchanging something of value (Barnett, 2005). Transformational leadership
behaviors include (a) developing a shared vision by all stakeholders, (b) developing subordinates into leaders, (c) sharing leadership responsibilities, (d) motivating subordinates to meet the organizational goals, and (e) promoting expectations of continuous improvement among teachers and staff (Evans, 1996; Scope, 2006).
Transformational Leadership
21
exchanges between organizational members (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Reinhartz & Beach, 2004); in contrast to transactional leadership traits where individuals engage with organizational members to create connections that increase motivation and morality among leaders and subordinates (Hsu, Bell, & Cheng, 2002). Transformational leaders look for motives in subordinates and seek to satisfy their higher ordered needs. This form of leadership leads to a relationship that transforms subordinates into leaders and leaders into moral agents (Stewart, 2006).
Transformational leaders motivate others to do more than they originally thought possible, and it develops subordinates into leaders (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The process of transforming subordinates empowers them, gives them the responsibility for fulfilling organizational goals, and develops their ability to determine their own course of action.
Eventually, subordinates will assume some of the leader’s responsibilities (Bugenhagen, 2006; Stewart, 2006). In addition, transformational leaders have the ability to increase subordinates’ awareness of the importance of designated outcomes, as well as opening their eyes to ways of achieving those outcomes (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Transformational leaders motivate others to transcend their immediate desires for the sake of organizational goals (Allison, 1996; Barnett, 2005; Bugenhagen, 2006; Homrig, 2001).
22
The transformational leadership is considered highly effective for describing school administration (Nicholson, 2003b). Principals exhibiting transformational leadership are considered more effective in accomplishing desired school outcomes, such as faculty development, improved teaching and learning, collaborative decision making, and more
responsive and innovative environments Schools with transformational leadership are expected to be purposeful and collaborative, and faculty and staff are empowered with leader skills (Thomas, 1997).
Transformational leadership in schools should help schools to better meet their major goals. First, leaders should assist staff develop and maintain a collaborative, professional school culture (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990). This goal is accomplished by involving staff in collaborative goal setting, reducing teacher isolation, sharing leadership with others by delegating power, and actively communicating the school’s norms and beliefs. Second, transformational leaders should foster teacher development by giving teachers a role in solving nonroutine school problems. Third, transformational leaders appear to be better able to help teachers solve problems more effectively (Liontos, 1991).
23
academic student performance (Reinhartz & Beach, 2004). Studies of transformational leadership indicate that this form of behavior by principals helps schools improve students’ academic achievement, increase teachers’ satisfaction, and teachers’ perception of principals’ effectiveness.
Evans (1996) studied the relationship between elementary school principals as
transformational leaders and organizational outcomes among 18 principals as viewed by their teachers. The School Organizational Factors Questionnaire was used to measure teachers’ perceptions of organization outcomes. The study concluded that there is a positive correlation between a principal’s leadership style and schools’ effectiveness. Schools whose principals showed high transformational leadership behaviors had higher organizational effectiveness than schools whose principals showed low transformational leadership behaviors.
Lucas and Valentine (2002) conducted a study to assess the relationship among principal transformational leadership behavior, and school culture. The sample population consisted of 12 middle schools. The researchers used the Principal Leadership Questionnaire, the Team
Leadership Questionnaire, and the School Culture Survey. The results indicated principals as the primary source of identification and communication of their schools’ vision, because the
leadership team seemed to provide intellectual stimulation to teachers, and the leadership team served as a source of support for teachers. However, the influence of factors measuring school culture revealed that the leadership team rather than the principal, alone, had the greatest impact on teachers’ collaboration and unity of purpose.
24
to determine if transformational leadership led to increased levels of teacher satisfaction, subordinate perception of principal effectiveness, and increased willingness on the part of teachers to give extra effort. A questionnaire was used to collect data from 478 middle school teachers, who served as department chairs or team leaders. Layton found no correlation between transformational leadership behaviors and increased student academic achievement. However, principals’ transformational leadership was positively related to increased teacher satisfaction, a greater perception of principal effectiveness, and their increased willingness to give extra effort.
Bonaros (2006) attempted to establish an empirical link between principals’
transformational leadership and student academic achievement. Like Layton (2003), Bonaros examined the relationship between principals’ transformational leadership and increased levels of teacher satisfaction, willingness to give extra effort, and their perceptions of principal effectiveness. The study was conducted in 21 inner-city elementary schools, and data were collected using a transformational questionnaire completed by 203 teachers. Unlike Layton, Bonaros found that principals’ transformational behaviors were linked to increased student academic achievement. However, both Layton and Bonaros found that principals’
transformational leadership was also positively related to increased teacher satisfaction, a greater perception of principal effectiveness, and the willingness by teachers to give extra effort.
Bonaros concluded that transformational leadership was positively related to better elementary education for inner-city schools.
Echoing Bonaros’s work, Scope (2006) studied the leadership styles at 39 successful middle schools in Indiana. He defined success as whether the school met or exceeded the state average score on the Indiana State Standard Test as perceived by principals on the
25
style was transformational, (b) there is a relationship between transformational leadership and a more positive school culture, (c) and there is a positive relationship between a higher
transformational leadership and school culture.
Most leadership theories place the organizational leader at the apex of the organization, where the role of management is one of hierarchical control (Avolio, 2007). In this approach, the leader controls time, fiscal resources, and subordinates. Traditional leadership theories focus on single leaders within an organization, rather than multiple leaders. In the past, problems within an organization were generally of such magnitude that a single leader could solve them and take the organization forward. Today, complex organizational problems generally cannot be solved with this model of leadership. Because of major demographic shifts, few communities resemble their counterparts of the 1950s and 1960s. The political, cultural, and social environments of the past are changing; U.S. society is changing, and its leaders need to change as well (Allison, 1996).
26 Transactional Leadership
According to Burns (1976), relations between most organizational leaders and followers are transactional: a leader approaches followers with the goal of exchanging one thing for another. Transactional leadership may be defined as one person’s taking the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of exchanging something of value. The exchange can be economic or political in nature. In other words, transactional leadership occurs when the leader and follower exchange goods and services in order to accomplish independent objectives. The leader and follower agree to what must be done in order to receive the reward or avoid
punishment (Barnett, 2005).
Two factors determine the behavioral components of transactional leadership (Thomas, 1997; Bogler, 1999): contingent reward and management-by-exception. Contingent reward refers to a situation in which the leader rewards the follower upon completing an agreed-upon task. Management-by-exception relates to a situation in which the leader provides negative feedback for failure to meet agreed-upon standards. The general goal of transactional leadership is to maintain stability—instead of promoting change—through regular economic and social exchanges that achieve specific goals for both leaders and followers. These leaders aspire to encourage consistent performance from followers that allows them to meet agreed-upon goals. Transactional leaders use rewards and punishments to promote performance (Hay, 2007).
Bass (1990) suggests that transactional and transformational leadership lie at opposite ends of the spectrum. Transactional leadership draws authority from established power
27
leaders manage by satisfying followers’ self-interest, transformational leaders inspire and stimulate followers to set aside personal interests, replacing them with a collective or team purpose (Hay, 2007).
Situational Approach
Although behavioral theories may help leaders and managers develop effective leadership behaviors, they provide little guidance about what constitutes effective leadership in different settings or situations. In response, situational leadership theories posit that an individual’s leadership style is contingent upon a variety of variables including situation, personnel, task, organization, and environment. Some well-known situational theories are Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1964), Hersey-Blanchard Leadership Theory (1977), and Robert House’s Path-Goal Theory (1971).
The first major situational theory, developed by Fred Fiedler in 1964 (Allison, 1996), postulated that there is no single best way for leaders to lead; instead, leadership requirements
28
of moderate control. In situations of low control, task-oriented leaders are again more effective (Allison, 1996).
Hersey and Blanchard’s (1977) situational leadership theory is based on the amount of direction and socioemotional support leaders must provide, depending on the situation and maturity level of the followers (Allison, 1996). Their approach differs from Fiedler’s model in two ways (Allen, 1998; Allison, 1996; Thomas, 1997). First, it is based on the assumption that leaders can change their behaviors to fit the situation, instead of rearranging the situation to fit their approach. Second, the primary situational variable is subordinates’ level of task maturity, which is made up of job maturity (i.e., the ability to do a particular job) and psychological maturity (i.e., willingness or confidence to do the work).
Robert House’s (1971) path-goal theory is a situational model that hinges upon a leader’s effectiveness in increasing the follower’s motivation (i.e., a variation of the expectancy theory of motivation). A central premise is that subordinates accept leaders’ behavior when it is both satisfying and instrumental to their satisfaction. Leaders’ behavior also provides the support and rewards necessary to elicit effective performance; in fact, a leader’s primary function is to enhance the subordinates’ performance in terms of both personal characteristics and environmental pleasures. Findings from this line of research indicate that when tasks are structured, subordinates are less inclined to participate and more accepting of directive leadership (Allison, 1996).
Although trait, behavioral, and contingency leadership theories have all contributed to our understanding of leadership, no single theory has provided a completely satisfactory
29
the 1970s, several alternative theoretical frameworks for the study of leadership have been advanced, notably transactional and transformational leadership (Reference for Business, 2006).
Dependent Variables: Transformational Measures
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Rater Form (MLQ) by Avolio and Bass (2004) and the Leadership Practice Inventory (LPT) by Kouzes and Posner (2003) are two
instruments that have been developed to measure transformational leadership. The MLQ contains 45 items that helps identify the four major behaviors of transformational leadership: idealized influenced, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. The LPT contains items that identify the five practices of exemplary leadership and leadership strengths. This instrument also gives specific suggestions on how to improve in the performance of each of the five leadership practices (Hautala & Routamaa, 2006).
Shaw (1980) conducted a study that utilized the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (Form XII). Shaw surveyed 423 teachers in 15 Orange County, Florida, elementary schools to determine the extent to which unexpected teacher absences can be
explained by teacher morale, selected teacher and school characteristics, and teacher perception of the leadership behaviors of principals. The research found that (a) teacher perceptions of leadership were significantly different in schools with high absenteeism than in schools with average or low absenteeism; (b) teacher morale differed significantly in schools with high, average, and low absenteeism; and (c) significant difference existed in teacher perceptions of principal leadership in high and low morale schools.
30
in Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools in Tennessee. Thirty-three teachers from each school participated in the study. Gallivan concluded that (a) principals perceived themselves similarly; (b) teachers whose schools operate under a site-based council perceived their principal’s
leadership style differently; (c) site-based principals perceived their leadership styles differently from non–site-based principals; and (d) there were gender-linked differences between principals’ self-perceptions of their leadership styles and the perception of their teachers.
Daniels (2005) utilized the Principal Leadership Questionnaire (PLQ) developed by Leithwood and Jantzi (1996) to investigate the relationship between six distinct transformational leadership behaviors and SES, racial composition, and academic achievement of students in North Carolina middle schools. She surveyed 308 teachers in three North Carolina school districts. The results indicated that school characteristics; and teacher and principal characteristics influenced the way teachers rated principals’ leadership style. The findings revealed that middle school principals’ total (overall) leadership styles are significantly
influenced by school achievement and African American student enrollment, teacher gender and age and principal characteristics of age, experience at the school and education.
Independent Variables
School Leadership and Culture
31
educators have not adopted a consistent definition of school culture, most agree that school culture is a shared understanding of how things are done (Ward, 2004). School culture is influenced by external cultures, most notably the culture of the local school system and
surrounding community (Smith & Piele, 2006). A school’s culture includes patterns of values, beliefs, and traditions that have been formed over the course of its history (Deal & Peterson, 1990). Ward (2004) views a school’s culture as the policies and norms that are shaped, enhanced, and maintained by school personnel.
Research on school principalship consistently concludes that the principal sets the tone and influences the school climate. Researchers believe that an effective school is directly linked to the principal’s leadership style (Barnett, 2005). The principal’s leadership style has been linked to school climate: a positive climate can enhance staff performance, promote higher morale, and improve students’ academic achievement. School climate may be the most important ingredient of a school successful instructional program. Without a school climate that facilitates a harmonious and well-functioning school, a high degree of students’ academic achievement is difficult (Kelly et al., 2005).
32
Several researchers have found a positive relationship between school culture and students’ academic achievement. Bulach et al. (1995) found a relationship between students’ academic achievement and school climate. The study investigated the relationship among selected variables in 27 elementary schools in western Kentucky. The results revealed a positive relationship between student academic achievement, school climate, student socioeconomic status (SES), and parent and community involvement. Barnett and McCormick (2004) investigated the effects of principals’ leadership style on students’ academic outcomes and concluded that the principals’ leadership style affects school goals, structure, personnel, and overall school culture. Data on principals’ leadership, collected from a sample of 373 teachers, confirmed that there is a relationship between the principal’s leadership style and the school’s culture. The results also highlighted the importance of principal-teacher relationships in developing a positive school culture.
Le Clear (2005) explored the relationship between school culture, principals’ leadership, and students’ academic performance in Florida. Assessment tools included a leadership survey, a school culture survey, and the schools’ academic rating. The study revealed two major findings: characteristics of both transformational and transactional leadership styles affect school culture, and the school culture and principals’ leadership style are significantly related to students’ academic achievement. Le Clear concluded that principals influence students’ academic achievement through the school culture they foster.
33
principals’ perceptions of their own leadership styles with teachers’ perceptions of their
principals’ leadership styles. The principals and teachers completed a Leader Behavior Analysis Questionnaire and a Development and School Climate Assessment Questionnaire. Results indicated that teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ effectiveness are related to school climate.
These studies concluded that the principal’s leadership style is linked to a school’s culture. It is important for principals to be aware that the tone, they set influence the school climate and students’ academic achievement. Principals must create an environment where trust is felt by school personnel, students, and parents (O’Donnell & White, 2005).
School Socioeconomic Status (SES)
Principals must fill multiple roles, but their primary responsibility is to facilitate effective teaching and student learning. Over time, principals’ leadership contributes to higher students’ academic achievement (Waters et al., 2003).
Students’ current SES is a variable that principals cannot change. However, O’Donnell and White (2005) found that a student’s SES is related to their academic achievement. They also found that a school’s overall SES is correlated with principals’ leadership style, which varies in response to a school’s overall SES. The following studies highlight the relationship between leadership and students’ SES.
34
teachers with professional development opportunities. Each study investigated the characteristics of high performing schools. Effective schools in urban areas with high percentages of students living in poverty were found to encourage these factors.
Cotton (2003) found that principals in schools with a substantial number of poor children are less likely to show stronger instructional leadership (a focus on academic preparation) than principals of schools where children are mostly middle class or affluent. Principals in schools with high SES are more likely to manage instruction (a greater focus on academic preparation) than their counterparts in schools with low SES, but they are also and more collaborative (Cotton, 2003). Principals at low SES schools are more likely to be managers than leaders.
Several researchers have investigated the characteristics of high-performing schools and schools that successfully closed the achievement gap between students of higher and lower SES. Research points to the principal as instructional leader as the key element in the success of students from low SES backgrounds in achieving higher academic success (Appalachia
Educational Laboratory of Danita, 2005; Billing et al., 2005). Owoaje (2006) concluded that the following instructional behaviors must be implemented to transform a low-performing school with students from low socioeconomic backgrounds into a high-performing school: (a)
35
expectation among teachers that all students can learn; and (d) a vision of clear instructional objectives for monitoring and assessing students’ performance (Sanders, 1999).
Effective leadership is essential for a successful school. To address the dearth of studies conducted in small and rural schools, Edington, Di, and Romeo (1988) investigated 24 public elementary schools in rural New Mexico. They investigated the relationship between principals’ leadership strategies and students’ academic achievement in schools containing a mix of
White/Caucasian, Hispanic, and Native American students. Schools participating in the study had an enrollment of 500 or fewer students and a principal who had been at the school for more than one year. Eighth-grade teachers in each school rated their principals on participation, role clarification, supervision, and charismatic leadership. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the effect of principals’ leadership qualities as influenced by students’ socioeconomic status and students’ ethnicity on the eighth-grade students’ academic test scores. The researchers concluded that students’ SES was related to their test scores. However, the teachers’ perception of the principals’ charismatic leadership was positively related to students’ test scores.
36
largely Anglo and/or economically advantaged. The research included state accountability data and site visits. The visits enabled the researchers to conduct a categorical analysis of
instructional practices and identify common behaviors exhibited by principals and teachers in schools with high achievement, high minority enrollment, and high poverty levels. They found several characteristics in schools with high poverty and high academic achievement: (a) a focus on academic achievement, clear curriculum choices, frequent assessments of student progress, and multiple opportunities for improvement; (b) an emphasis on nonfiction writing; and (c) collaborative scoring of students’ work. These schools also had strong leadership from their principals.
Reeves (2003) concluded that instructional leadership is the determining factor for high student academic achievement. His results are similar to the conclusion of a study conducted by Carter (2002). At least 75% of the students in Carter’s studies came from low-income families, yet they scored in the 65th percentile or higher on national examinations. By contrast,
nationwide, low-income students in schools with 75% or more of students from low income families typically score below the 35th percentile. Carter concluded that at such schools
principals and teachers demand excellence and reject the notion that poor students cannot learn. The studies by Carter (2002) and Reeves (2003) suggest that school leadership has a strong impact on the academic achievement of students from low-income homes.
37
improving students’ academic achievement to principals, it is imperative that principals become stronger instructional leaders.
Race
Today, the United States’ educational system is more racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse. Until the 1980s, educators felt confident in their ability to provide all students from various backgrounds with a quality education. But today, educators feel that it is imperative to develop diverse skills to teach children from diverse backgrounds.
Jerman (2001) produced a profile of principals and instructional leadership behaviors based upon teacher perception as a way of determining how minority students influence
leadership. The study included 72 principals assessed by 360 teachers in North Carolina. Racial composition of schools was included as one of the variables. The findings did not support a relationship between principal leadership style and school racial composition.
38
are codependent. Therefore, principals must exhibit leadership behaviors that positively influence students from all racial groups.
Student Achievement
Studies on effective leadership show attributes that are likely to improve students’ academic achievement: (a) appropriate leadership, (b) high expectations for students’ academic achievement, (c) effective instructional programs and practices, (d) consistent discipline, (e) closely monitored student progress, and (f) strong parental involvement (Billing et al., 2005; Reeves, 2003; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2004). Researchers have concluded that school principals are important in producing school success (Sanders, 1999). Gullall and Lofton (1996) found that strong principal leadership was reflected in the achievement of students, and in the interactions with school personnel and community. Research on effective schools acknowledges the difficulty of linking specific leadership practices directly to students’ academic achievement. However, some studies highlight the indirect effects of principals’ leadership style on teacher motivation, commitment, and innovation (Barnett, 2005). After reviewing 15 years of effective schools’ research, Hallinger and Heck (1998) concluded that effective principals influence students’ academic achievement by manipulating internal processes and contextual factors.
In 1987, Andrews and Soder conducted a study involving the Seattle School District. They found a relationship between principals’ leadership and academic achievement.
39
instructional leadership behaviors) than in those schools where the leaders were rated average or weak regarding instructional leadership behaviors (Johnson, 1993).
Krug (1992) examined how instructional leadership and school climate predict academic outcomes with information from 72 principals assessed by 1,523 teachers in Illinois. The study examined the relationship between schools’ instructional climate and academic achievement. The dimensions of instructional leadership included (a) defining the mission, (b) managing curriculum and instruction, (c) supervising and supporting teaching, (d) monitoring student progress, and (e) promoting instructional climate. Measures on the instructional climate included (a) accomplishment, (b) recognition, (c) power, and (d) affiliation. A significant positive
correlation was found between the principals’ instructional leadership and students’ academic achievement. Because the correlations were strongest in all four dimensions of instructional climate, Krug (1992) concluded that there is a strong relationship between instructional leadership and academic outcomes.
Comman (2005) investigated the relationship between elementary school principals’ leadership behavior and students’ academic achievement. The study sought relationships among the leadership variables of (a) principals’ flexibility, (b) effectiveness, and (c) students’ academic achievement. The study addressed principals’ flexibility as situational leaders and their
