Published on

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT? By William Greb MARIAN UNIVERSITY A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Specialization: Leadership Studies Under the Supervision of Marilyn J. Bugenhagen, Ph.D., chairperson Jon Nicoud, Ph.D. Moreen Travis Carvan, Ed.D. Fond du Lac, Wisconsin April 2011
  2. 2. All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 UMI 3468985 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. UMI Number: 3468985
  3. 3. iii ABSTRACT PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT? William Greb The purpose of this quantitative correlational research study was to develop a better understanding of how successful principals lead and more importantly how they help their students achieve at higher levels through their role as principal. The study focused on the principal’s role in providing instructional leadership as defined by Krug (1992), transformational leadership as defined by Bass and Avolio (1995), specifically in the context of elementary education, and measuring the effect these principal leadership constructs have on student achievement. The study was designed to determine if there was a benefit derived by principals who attend to at least three of the five dimensions of instructional leadership and practice at least three of the four transformational leadership behaviors. The five dimensions of instructional leadership are: defining mission, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and supporting teaching, monitoring student progress, and promoting instructional climate. The four transformational leadership behaviors are: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. The study sample was drawn from public schools in Cooperative Educational Service Agencies 2-12 in the State of Wisconsin, an area that covers 90% of the state excluding the large metropolitan areas in and around Milwaukee. Results revealed no statistically significant
  4. 4. iv correlations between principals who did or did not exhibit transformational and or instructional leadership and higher academic student performance. Post-hoc analysis revealed statistically significant correlational coefficients between management-by-exception passive and high student achievement r = .515 for reading, r = .479 for language arts, and r = .567 for math with n = 31 and p < .05, two tails. These findings indicate that previous research findings may be in question for both instructional leadership and transformational leadership constructs.
  5. 5. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my research advisor, Dr. Marilyn J. Bugenhagen. I am grateful to have had her advising me through this research study. Dr. Bugenhagen is cognizant of the time and effort invested in this type of work and pragmatically helped me to addresses the challenges and frustrations that accompany it. Throughout the course of my program, Dr. Bugenhagen has been the driving force which has taken me to a higher plain, mentally, and professionally. I sincerely thank my committee members for the time and effort they spent in this process, Dr. Moreen Travis Carvan and Dr. Jon Nicoud. Dr. Carvan and Nicoud are exceptional individuals who I admire in the classroom setting. I would also like to thank Dr. Randall J. Koetting who saw my potential to succeed as a member of the doctoral program. I would like to thank Dr. Zhao Xia Xu, my classmate and colleague, for assisting me with gathering additional participants for my study, for sharing both our successes and frustrations, and for being a friend through this process. I would also like to thank my parents for recognizing the value of education, ensuring I had a sound foundation at an early age for future learning, and instilling in me the work ethic that has enabled me to be successful in all my endeavors.
  6. 6. vi PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT? BY William Greb SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Approved Date Signature Marilyn J. Bugenhagen Ph.D. Committee Chairperson Signature Moreen Travis Carvan Ed.D. Committee Member Signature Jon Nicoud Ph.D. Committee Member Signature Edward Ogle, Ed.D. Executive Vice President Academic & Student Afairs
  7. 7. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………...…………….………… 1 Purpose Statement ……………………………………………….…… 3 Context ………………………………………………………….…….. 3 Theoretical Base ………………………………………….………….... 5 Research Question ………………………………….…………………. 8 Method ……………………………………….…………………….….. 9 Assumptions …………………………….………………………….…. 10 Delimitations and Limitations ……….…………………………….….. 11 Significance of Research …………………….……………………..…. 12 Conclusion ………………………………….…………………………. 15 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………...………………………... 18 Effective Schools Movement .………………..……………………….. 19 Full-Range Leadership: Transformational and Transactional ….……… 40 Transformational Leadership Studied in Educational Context ………... 45 Summary ………………………………………………………………. 58 III. METHOD ………………………………...……………………………… 61 General Framework ………………………………………….………... 61 Hypotheses ………………………………………………….…………. 63 Data Collection Procedure(s) ……………………………….…………. 64 Sample Design …………………………………………….…………… 67
  8. 8. viii Instrumentation …………………………………………….………….. 68 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………….. 80 Limitations ………………………………………………….…………. 83 Summary ………………………………………………………………. 84 IV. RESULTS ……………………………...………………………………... 85 Demographics …………………………………….…………………… 85 Data Collection Procedures …………………………….……………... 90 Preliminary Analytical Issues ……………….………………..……….. 93 Hypothesis Tests ………………………………….…………………… 99 Summary of Results …………………………………………………… 128 V. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………... 130 Discussion ……………………………..…………………….………… 134 Implications ………………..………………………….……….……… 145 Contribution of This Study …...……………………….……….……… 148 Limitations …………………………………………………….………. 150 Recommendations for Future Research ……………………….………. 151 Summary …………………………………………………….………… 153 REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………. 156 APPENDICES Appendix A: Definition of Terms ………………………………………. 170 Appendix B: Principal Invitation Letter of Participation ……………….. 174 Appendix C: IRB Approval Email ………………………………………. 177 Appendix D: Teacher Letter of Consent ………………………………… 182
  9. 9. ix Appendix E: Principal Invitation Letter of Participation ………………... 185 Appendix F: Teacher Invitation Letter of Participation ………………… 188 Appendix G: Second Teacher Invitation Letter of Participation ………… 191 Appendix H: IRB Approval Email ………………………………………. 194
  10. 10. x LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Content Validation: Average Agreement on Items Among Judges ……… 70 2. Reliability Estimates for the Instructional Management Subscale ………... 71 3. Subscale Inter-item Correlation Matrix …………………………………… 73 4. Subscale Inter-item Correlation Matrix for this Study …………………… 74 5. Subscale Inter-item Correlation Matrix (after aggregation to depict the Krug model) …………………………………………………………… 75 6. Summary of Criteria to Assess the Adequacy of the Instructional Management Rating Subscales ……………………………………………. 76 7. Inter-item Correlational Matrix for Transformational Behavior for this Study ................................................................................................ 80 8. Participants Years as Principal (n = 31) ………………………………….. 86 9. Participant Principals’ Age (n = 31) ………………………………………. 86 10. Women Participants Years as Principal (n = 17) ………………………….. 87 11. Women Participant Principals’ Age (n = 17) ……………………………… 87 12. Men Participants Years as Principal (n = 14) ……………………………... 88 13. Men Participant Principals’ Age (n = 14) …………………………………. 88 14. Rater Participants Years with Principal (n = 107) ………………………… 89 15. Rater Participant Age (n = 107) …………………………………………… 90 16. Leader and Rater Simple Statistics and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Comparison ………………………………………………… 94 17. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses ……………………..………… 100
  11. 11. xi 18. Kendall’s tau-b Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses ………………………..102 19. Spearman’s rho Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses ………………………. 104 20. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses with specific WKCE score ranges (n = 31) ………………………………………………106 21. Kendall’s Correlation Matrix - Hypotheses with specific WKCE score ranges (n = 31) ………………………………………………109 22. Spearman’s Correlation Matrix - Hypotheses with specific WKCE score ranges (n = 31) ………………………………………………112 23. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Men Principals (n = 14) ………………………………………………………… 113 24. Kendall’s tau-b Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Men Principals (n = 14) …………………………………………………… 115 25. Spearman’s rho Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Men Principals (n = 14) …………………………………………………… 117 26. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Women Principals (n = 17) ………………………………………………………… 119 27. Kendall’s tau-b Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Women Women Principals (n = 17) ……………………………………………….. 121 28. Spearman’s rho Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Women Principals (n = 17) ……………………………………………….. 123 29. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Laissez-faire for Principals (n = 31) ……... 125 30. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Laissez-faire for Women Principals (n = 17) ………………………………………………………… 126
  12. 12. xii 31. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Laissez-faire for Men Principals (n = 14) ………………………………………………………… 127 32. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Management-by-Exception Passive For Principals (n = 31) ……………………………………………………. 128
  13. 13. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The quality of a school in the PK-12 arena is affected by how its internal processes work to constantly improve its performance. One such internal process involves leadership. As its basic purpose, instructional leadership designates the school principal as the central school figure to continuously articulate the school’s mission and vision to the school’s staff and community. The school principal oversees curriculum and instruction management and facilitates teachers’ professional development that is supportive of best practice. The school principal monitors student progress to provide individual attention for specific students and to identify areas of curriculum and instruction in need of change or improvement. The school principal is also tasked with promoting a positive learning environment. However, there is question regarding the principalship and school administration in general. According to Murphy (2002): For some time now, the [education] profession has been marked by considerable ferment as it has struggled to locate itself in a post behavioral science era. During this era of turmoil, the historical foundations of the profession have been thrown into question, especially the legitimacy of the knowledge base supporting school administration and the appropriateness of programs for preparing school leaders. (p. 177) Leadership, in education and in business, is an evolving discipline. School principals and aspiring administrators need to become familiar with leadership as a discipline to practice, learn their strengths and weaknesses, infuse themselves with best practice so they can provide leadership that best fits their circumstances, and work diligently to perfect and implement the behaviors that will enable deep sustained improvement in schools.
  14. 14. 2 A range of leadership theories were developed encompassing characteristics from a broad understanding that evolved from the early industrial era to the rapidly changing political, business, and educational perspectives of the 21st century. In the field of PK-12 education, during the past twenty eight years there have been a number of notable studies of instructional leadership (e.g. Andrews & Soder, 1987; Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982; Dwyer, 1985; Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger & Murphy , 1985; Leithwood, Begley, & Cousins, 1990; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982). Although there has been significant work in developing theoretical constructs of leadership for the PK-12 educational arena and attempts to define leadership in broad terms, the focus on defining instructional leadership has been prevalent for the past twenty years. While Leithwood and Steinbach (1993) produced a study on total quality leadership that involved transformational leadership, the majority of research involving the effects of transformational leadership in the PK-12 educational arena has occurred since 2000. According to Krug (1992), instructional leadership is a combination of five dimensions of the principal’s role: “defining mission, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and supporting teaching, monitoring student progress, and promoting instructional climate” (p. 5). A basic understanding of these five dimensions of instructional leadership is: defining mission is framing the school’s goals, purpose, and mission to drive decision making and design. Managing curriculum and instruction is structuring programs and curriculum so there is coherence and alignment both within specific curricula and across programs. Supervising and supporting teachers involves providing professional development that incorporates various strategies related to instruction and learner needs. Supporting teachers also involves developing teacher’s human capital. Monitoring student progress is a process which involves interpreting and assessing relevant data to produce criteria for teacher instruction that best meets individual
  15. 15. 3 learner needs. Promoting instructional climate is the development of a sound learning environment. Krug presented empirical evidence that a direct correlation exists between these five dimensions of instructional leadership and student achievement. Purpose Statement The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of how successful principals lead and more importantly how they assist their students achieve at higher levels through their role as principal. The study was conducted to determine if there existed a benefit derived for students in terms of higher academic achievement if principals attend to the various dimensions of instructional leadership and practice transformational leadership behaviors. Context The demand on the school principal, in terms of managerial work, is a result of a number of factors. State and federal departments of educations’ require creation of new policy writing, policy review and up-dating. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) introduced significant requirements that demand accountability through testing and a growing number of reporting documents. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) also has significant requirements to which all schools must conform and require administrative oversight on the part of the principal. This continually growing work load consumes an exceptional amount of time in the work day. The result is that important instructional leadership dimensions of the principal’s work load, defined by Krug (1992b) as “defining mission, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and supporting teaching, monitoring student progress, and promoting instructional climate” (p. 5) often are not attended to nearly as much as it should be.
  16. 16. 4 The U.S. Department of Education conducted a policy forum on educational leadership over a two day period involving more than forty leading experts in the field of leadership. “Most participants agreed that the number one characteristic of an effective leader is the ability to provide instructional leadership. Yet . . . some studies suggest that as many as three-quarters of current principals are not skilled instructional leaders” (Riley, McGuire, Lieb, & Dorfman, 1999, p. 4). According to Peterson (1989) Universities, colleges, and professional organizations that educate school administrators . . . during in-service workshops should design distinctive training activities. These activities could focus on exerting influence through others, building school cultures, and shaping improvement programs in . . . school settings. Without more attention from principals, policy makers, and those training administrators, instructional leadership in . . . schools may remain relatively weak, when it could have a powerful impact on school improvement (p. 6). Identifying leadership behavior school principals need to encompass and display may or may not be the key to success in public education since each behavior may or may not match with an individual principal’s personality. However, given the consensus of participants of the U.S. Department of Education policy forum on educational leadership it does seem to have merit that principals should develop behaviors that foster leadership. Peterson (2002) suggested that “Over the next 5 years, districts are expected to replace more than 60% of all principals” (p. 213). The five years Peterson referred to have since passed. Since the most significant work in developing and defining instructional leadership occurred during the late 1980’s and 1990’s one might expect that academia would have evolved to prepare
  17. 17. 5 the individuals who are new to the principalship role. Unfortunately, Grogan and Andrews (2002) state that many institutions follow tradition, “most university-based programs for the training of aspiring principals . . . might best be characterized as preparing aspiring principals … for the role of a top-down manager” (p. 238). The emphasis on student achievement and accountability for learning has raised the bar for students to leave the K-12 arena with the ability to succeed in a global economy by means of sound preparation for post secondary learning or having harnessed the skills necessary to move directly into the work force (Fulmer, 2006). Principals need preparation as instructional leaders to set high standards for achievement, to create a positive school culture for learning, and to develop the vision and school mission which entails a shared sense of purpose throughout their school’s community which will enable students to be academically successful (Chrispeels, 2002; Hallinger, 2003). On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Fulmer (2006) states: State and national standards have been enacted and implemented in an attempt to improve student achievement and close the achievement gap (e.g., CSAP and NCLB). Since this legislation, responsibilities for principals have burgeoned to the extent that some fear the job can no longer be done by one person. (p. 110) This drive for accountability and raising achievement of all students to meet their potential for learning has placed a significant focus on instructional leadership. The debate as to whether PK-12 education should or should not be driven by state and national standards was not addressed. NCLB has placed principals and PK-12 administrators, in general, in an accountability mode so that all students will be successful learners. Theoretical Base
  18. 18. 6 This study draws from two theoretical constructs including instructional leadership (Krug, 1992b) and full-range leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Three decades of research exists that supports current beliefs and understandings of instructional leadership. The idea of instructional leadership began as a result of backlash within the education research community to the 1966 Coleman report that suggested family background was the major determinant of student achievement (Coleman et. al., 1966). Factors such as poverty or a parent’s lack of education prevented children from learning regardless of the method of instruction or school (Edmonds & Frederiksen, 1979; Jencks, 1972; Lezotte, 1992; Mace-Matluck, 1987). Coleman’s report stimulated spirited reactions that instigated a number of studies: • D’Amico (1982), The Effective Schools Movement: Studies, Issues, and Approaches • Edmonds (1979), Effective schools for the urban poor • Edmonds & Frederiksen (1997), Search for Effective Schools: The Identification and Analysis of City Schools that are Instructionally Effective for Poor Children • Frederiksen (1980), Models for Determining School Effectiveness • Hallinger & Heck (1998), Exploring the principal’s contribution to school Effectiveness: 1980-1995 • Klitgaard & Hall (1975), Are there unusually effective schools? • Weber (1971), Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools. These studies were initiated during what is referred to as the effective schools movement in the United States. Although a jump to transformational leadership occurred, Hallinger (2005) shows that instructional leadership is very much alive in his article: “Instructional Leadership and the School Principal: A Passing Fancy that Refuses to Fade Away”.
  19. 19. 7 During the late 1980’s and beyond, education research in the area of leadership in general jumped to transformational leadership studies such as: • Barnett, McCormick & Conners (2001), Transformational Leadership in Schools: Panacea, Placebo, or Problem? • Gardin (2003), Impact of Leadership Behavior of Principals on Elementary School Climate • Gulbin (2008), Transformational Leadership: Is it a Factor for Improving Student Achievement in High Poverty Secondary Schools in Pennsylvania • Hallinger (2003), Leading Educational Change: Reflections on the Practice of Instructional and Transformational Leadership • Jantzi & Leithwood (1996), Toward an Explanation of Variation in Teachers Perception of Transformational Leadership • Leithwood (1992), Transformational Leadership: Where does it Stand? • Leithwood & Jantzi (1999a), Transformational School Leadership Effects: A Replication • Leithwood & Jantzi (1999b), The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Organizational Conditions and Student Engagement with School • Leithwood & Jantzi (2000b), The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Organizational Conditions and Student Engagement with School • Leithwood & Jantzi (2006), Transformational School Leadership for Large-Scale Reform: Effects on Students, Teachers, and their Classroom Practices • Leithwood, Jantzi & Fernandez (1993), Secondary School Teachers’ Commitment to Change: The Contributions of Transformational Leadership • Leithwood & Steinbach (1993), Total Quality Leadership: Expert Thinking Plus Transformational Practice
  20. 20. 8 • Marks & Printy (2003), Principal Leadership and School Performance: An Integration of Transformational and Instructional Leadership • Mills (2008), Leadership and School Reform: The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Missouri Assessments • Philbin (1997), Transformational Leadership and the Secondary School Principal • Ross & Gray (2006), Transformational Leadership and Teacher Commitment to Organizational Values: The Mediating Effects of Collective Teacher Efficacy • Verona & Young (2001), The Influence of Principal Transformational Leadership Style on High School Proficiency Test Results in the New Jersey Comprehensive and Vocational High Schools. Suddenly, instructional leadership took a backseat in the research community. This change may have been warranted, but instructional leadership should continue to play a role in educational leadership research in conjunction with transformational leadership. Research Question The focus of this study was to explore the principal’s role in providing instructional leadership as defined by Krug (1992), transformational leadership as defined by Bass and Avolio (1995), specifically in the context of elementary education, and measuring the possible effect this principal leadership has on student achievement. Hypotheses address the correlation of instructional leadership in conjunction with transformational leadership and student achievement outcomes as measured by standardized testing which measure instructional outcomes. The research question this study explored, “What is the effect of transformational leadership in conjunction with instructional leadership on student achievement?”
  21. 21. 9 Independent variables were instructional leadership and transformational leadership practices. The dependent variable was student achievement. Method This study utilized a correlational approach to examine two leadership constructs, instructional leadership and transformational leadership, in the realm of elementary principalship in public schools. This study attempted to determine if there existed a correlation between principals who practiced both instructional leadership and transformational leadership resulting in instruction that fostered higher student academic achievement. Further, what correlation existed between principals who practiced one of the two constructs or neither with student academic achievement for comparison to student academic achievement with principals who perform both constructs. Participating principals completed both the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS), Hallinger (1982), and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) short- Self Report surveys developed by Bass and Avolio (1995) while their respective teacher participants completed the PIMRS teachers’ survey, Hallinger (1982) and MLQ-5X rater survey. “The first published version of the MLQ … contained 67 items measuring the [full-range- leadership] FRL Model (with 37 of these items assessing transformational leadership)” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p.21). This study used the Bass and Avolio 1995 revised version of the MLQ (5X). “The current, revised form of the MLQ (5X) … is substantially refined and contains 36 standardized items, 4 items assessing each of the nine leadership dimensions associated with the FRL model” (p. 21). Between 1983 and 2008, 119 doctoral studies have used the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PMIRS) to collect data relating to instructional leadership (Hallinger,
  22. 22. 10 2008). In terms of reliability, Hallinger (2008) states “while relatively few researchers using the instrument sought to replicate the initial findings, several did. The replication studies of reliability and validity included Howe (1995), Jones (1987), Nogay (1995), Sawyer (1997), Taraseina (1993), [and] Wotany (1999)” (p. 24). Assumptions The most important assumption being made was that there would be significant statistical difference in Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Examination (WKCE) results for students who have principals who practice both instructional leadership and transformational leadership versus students who have principals who do not practice these leadership constructs. Another assumption was that principals actually practiced the five, or at least three of the five, dimensions of instructional leadership rather than designating various dimensions of instructional leadership to other staff members. Furthermore, that teachers of principals’ who designate dimensions of instructional leadership to other staff members would still identify their principal as exercising instructional leadership through others when completing the PIMRS teacher survey. There was an assumption that principals would not be attributed leadership constructs that were occurring in a school, if the occurrence could not be attributed to the principal, but rather another staff member or members. An assumption was made that there would be enough practicing elementary principals who have been operating in their current building for at least three years and further that at least 60 would be willing to participate in this study. It was anticipated that principals, as professionals, would have a desire to be involved in a study that could potentially assist academia to better prepare future principals for the jobs they will do.
  23. 23. 11 An assumption was made that teachers would be willing and perhaps eager to participate in this study, by rating their principal, for the purpose of assisting their principal in terms of professional growth. Some of these assumptions are drawn from the researcher’s belief that as professionals, principals and teachers would be interested in participating in research that may help improve student instruction and they would take the time to complete the surveys. This belief stems from what the researcher feels is a duty or a responsibility that is embedded with being a professional. Delimitations and Limitations As with all correlational research, there is limited possibility of causal inferences. Although the instructional leadership model as defined by Krug (1992) and transformational leadership construct by Bass and Avolio (1995) may have significant empirical evidence to support theoretical rational, this study was devised to identify cause-and-effect relationships. Gall, Gall, and Borg (2005) state It is difficult to make inferences about cause and effect from results of a correlational study. When variables A and B are correlated, researchers cannot definitively conclude that A caused B, that B caused A, or that both A and B are caused by some third variable, C. (p. 220) In this study there may have been significant factors such as the socioeconomic background of students, teacher expertise, and other anomalies that could have skewed survey results. Another limitation of correlational research can be chance findings. It was possible for variables to correlate by chance alone rendering future replication of the study unlikely to generate similar findings (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2005).
  24. 24. 12 The fact that student achievement was measured for correlation purposes using Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE) results should not present an issue for reproducing this study in the future, however the WKCE will be replaced in the next few years with another form of testing and this could present a limitation. One limitation for this study was that results may not be generalized across middle and senior high school settings. A delimitation existed due to the fact that transactional leadership behaviors were not initially considered within the context of the hypotheses. Had all aspects of full range leadership been incorporated in the hypotheses, there would have been a wider depth of leadership understanding in the elementary educational arena for future research to reaffirm or disprove. A limitation may exist due to the lack of large metropolitan schools within the study. Larger school districts have resources that are not available in smaller districts. Significance This study focused on the premise that one of the most accepted definitions of instructional leadership involving five broad dimensions: defining mission, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and supporting teaching, monitoring student progress, and promoting instructional climate, as determined by significant research over several decades, is not leadership, but rather a list of managerial functions necessary to master and implement through a form of leadership. These include: • Austin (1978), Process Evaluation: A Comprehensive Study of Outliers • Brookover & Lezotte (1979), Changes in School Characteristics Coincident with Changes in Student Achievement • D’Amico (1982), The Effective Schools Movement: Studies, Issues, and Approaches
  25. 25. 13 • Edmonds (1979), Effective Schools for the Urban Poor • Frederiksen (1980), Models for Determining School Effectiveness • Hallinger (1982), The Development of Behaviorally Anchored Rating for Appraising the Instructional Management Behavior of Principals • Hallinger & Murphy (1985), Assessing the Instructional Management Behavior of Principals • Krug (1990a), Leadership and Learning: A Measurement-Based Approach for Analyzing School Effectiveness and Developing Effective School Leaders • Krug (1990b), Current Issues and Research Findings in the Study of School Leadership • Krug (1992a), Instructional Leadership: A Constructivist Perspective • Krug (1992b), Instructional Leadership, School Instructional Climate, and Student Learning Outcomes • Leithwood & Montgomery (1982), The Role of the Elementary School Principal in Program Improvement • Lunenburg (1990), The 16PF as a Predictor of Principal Performance: An Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods • New York State Department of Education (1974), School Factors Influencing Reading Achievement: A Case Study of Two Inner City Schools • New York State Department of Education (1976), Three Strategies for Studying the Effects of School Process • Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston & Smith (1979), Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and Their Effects on Children • Weber (1971), Inner-City Children can be Taught to Read: Four Successful Schools) over several decades
  26. 26. 14 Principals, or principal’s designees, need to attend to these five dimensions of school management to provide the K-12 arena with a sound basis for high academic achievement; however the process with which these dimensions are administered may or may not be defined as leadership. The process could be managerial in nature. Broadly defined, management is a “secondary social practice through which administrative regulation and control is established and maintained over those activities and relationships in which non-managerial practitioners are engaged by virtue of their membership of communities of primary productive practice” (Reed, 1984, p.281). Traditional functions of management involve planning in terms of meeting goals and being ready for crises, staffing in terms of recruiting and training, organizing in terms of time management and team building, controlling in terms of quality of methods, productivity, and people, and leading through communication and motivation. Drucker (1986) identifies five basic operations of the managerial role: set objectives, organize, motivate and communicate, measure, and develop people. These five basic operations are similar to the five dimensions of Krug’s definition of instructional leadership: setting objectives is similar to defining mission, organize could match up with managing curriculum and instruction, developing people is similar to supervising and supporting teaching, measurement is similar to monitoring student progress, and motivating and communication could relate with promoting instructional climate. Drucker (1986) suggests that leadership “cannot be created or promoted. It cannot be taught or learned” (p. 158). He repeatedly remarks that management is no substitute for leadership, but “management cannot create leaders. It can only create the conditions under which potential leadership qualities become effective” (p. 159). However, the primary functions of management involves organizing and controlling something where “leadership is an influence
  27. 27. 15 relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes” (Rost, 1993, p. 102). Bennis and Nanus (1985) espoused that leadership is not about control, direction, and manipulation nor is it restricted to charismatic people, but that leadership is usually found in ordinary people and is open to all; essentially stating that all people have potential for leadership. Further, the reason leadership was lacking in society may be because leadership had been largely overlooked as a topic for serious academic research and that people did not understand it. These researchers argue that leadership can be created, promoted, and learned. In the PK-12 arena, is the principal a manager or leader? Is the principal both? What is the nature of the principal’s primary duties and responsibilities and if those duties and responsibilities are managerial in nature, what effect in terms of student achievement would transformational leadership play in carrying out these duties and responsibilities? Conclusion Rost (1993) provides a rather long list of definitions or understandings of leadership that could lead one to believe that the study of leadership has been somewhat elusive. Leadership in the field of education is no exception; significant research has been conducted throughout the evolution of the effective schools movement since the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Early on, the main research thrust centered on instructional leadership as a construct through the late 1990’s and continuing to a significantly lesser degree on through 2010. The introduction of transformational leadership as a construct, mainly by Leithwood, in the field of education started in the 1990’s (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996; Leithwood, 1992; Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1998; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Fernandez, 1993; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1993; Lezotte, 1992; Liontos, 1992; Philbin,
  28. 28. 16 1997), but has mainly taken off after 2000 (Barnett, McCormick, & Conners, 2001; Dorward, 2009; Estapa, 2009; Fisher, 2003; Gardin, 2003; Gulbin, 2008; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood, Aitken, & Jantzi, 2001; Leithwood, & Jantzi, 2000a; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Lyles, 2009; Marks & Printy, 2003; Mills, 2008; Niedermeyer, 2003; Ross &Gray, 2006; Verona & Young, 2001; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003). Research began to focus more on how principals do what they do rather than what they do as a shift in the study and research of leadership in general towards transformational leadership took place. Two major studies were conducted that involved both constructs together, Hallinger (2003) Leading Educational Change: Reflections on the Practice of Instructional and Transformational Leadership and Marks and Printy’s (2003) Principal Leadership and School Performance: An Integration of Transformational and Instructional Leadership, but other than those two, there appears to be a clean and decisive break in the research where instructional leadership research nearly stopped and transformational leadership research took off. With all that had been learned and developed within the instructional leadership construct in the three decades leading up to the year 2000, perhaps there is still a place for it in conjunction with transformational leadership or some other leadership behavior that is conducive to higher student academic achievement. Within the realm of elementary principal leadership, this study uses a correlational approach to examine the relationships between transformational leadership conceived by Burns (1978) and later extended by Bass (1985) and operationalized by Bass and Avolio (1988), instructional leadership as defined by Krug (1992), and academic achievement measured by Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE). This study may add to existing research suggesting change is necessary in the way principals are trained for the PK-12 educational arena. This effort should inspire greater
  29. 29. 17 attention for research involving instructional leadership as a model in conjunction with the behaviors of transformational leadership. With the ensuing need for all students to attain proficiency required by NCLB, principals, as central leaders within their schools, need to be better equipped to lead their respective staffs to meet the demands of raising the overall academic achievement of students. This research should provide answers as to how this challenge needs to be addressed. This study provides a new perspective on how the two constructs, instructional leadership and transformational leadership, work in tandem. A review of previous research in the areas of instructional leadership and transformational leadership was conducted to ascertain previous knowledge and build upon what was known. Appendix A provides a definition of terms. Elementary principals throughout the state of Wisconsin, excluding the large metropolitan area in and surrounding Milwaukee, Wisconsin, were invited to participate in this study. Of the well over 1000 principals invited to participate, 31 completed two surveys, the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS), Hallinger (1982), and the MLQ-5X, Bass & Avolio (1995). A minimum of three teachers associated with each principal also completed the rater form of the two surveys. Analysis was then conducted on the collected data, Pearson’s correlation, Kendall’s tau- b, and Spearman’s rho tests were used to determine if there was a correlation between leadership behaviors and higher student academic performance as measured by the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Examination (WKCE). Principals need the necessary tools to be effective educational leaders to facilitate high student achievement. On-going research is necessary to determine what the tools are and how principals need to use them. This research project adds to that necessary knowledge.
  30. 30. 18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review of literature provides an examination of the roots of the effective schools movement and how it leads to the formation of instructional leadership as a K-12 education leadership construct. Instructional leadership is a composition of what it is believed that principals in the K-12 educational arena need to focus on to ensure high academic achievement. The review then examines research findings pertaining to full-range leadership. Specifically, the review focuses on transformational leadership and to a lesser extent transactional leadership, spotlighting transformational leadership as it is studied in educational context. The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of how successful principals lead and more importantly how they assist their students achieve at higher levels through their role as principal. To determine this, it is important to reveal the nature of the principal’s primary duties and responsibilities and what leadership behaviors provide the necessary means to provide the environment that leads to high student achievement. This research study was conducted to determine if there was a benefit derived for students in terms of higher academic achievement if principals attended to the various dimensions of instructional leadership and practiced transformational leadership behaviors. The literature review examines how instructional leadership developed through the effective schools movement in terms of what it is, how research and educational literature has shaped its’ understandings and meaning among educators, and what has been prescribed as best practice to be successful in facilitating high student achievement. The literature review also examines the beginnings of transformational leadership, the history of how transformational
  31. 31. 19 leadership fits within the full-range leadership construct, and the research that has been done involving transformational leadership studied in educational context. Through examination of the past three decades of principal leadership research, there is a distinction between the effective school movement research centered on instructional leadership and the introduction of principal leadership research centered on transformational leadership. With the exception of an article by Hallinger (2003) and Marks and Printy’s (2003) study, there is a gap in the research where a jump was made from instructional leadership to transformational leadership research. Although there have been a number of dissertations published in this area, major works involving both instructional leadership and transformational leadership constructs appears to be lacking. Effective Schools Movement To develop an understanding of instructional leadership it is necessary to examine its origin through the evolution of the effective schools movement. “Lezotte (1986) has identified four ‘critical’ periods that mark the epochs of the Movement’s evolution: 1966-76, 1976-80, 1980-83, and 1983-present [1986]” (Mace-Matluck, 1987, p. 5). Beyond these time frames research began to focus more on how principals do what they do rather than what they do. It is during the timeframe between 1986 and the present that a jump took place from studying instructional leadership to transformational leadership. Effective Schools Movement 1966-1976. The first critical period identified by Lezotte spans ten years. Notable historical landmarks that occurred during and just prior to this period include the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunity Survey (Coleman; 1966). The Civil Rights Act “sought to ensure equal rights of all citizens, including equality of educational opportunity in public
  32. 32. 20 schools. In conjunction with the Civil Rights Act, Congress provided funding under which Coleman and his colleagues conducted [the] . . . Equal Educational Opportunity Survey” (Mace- Matluck, 1987, p. 6). The Coleman report concluded that family background was the major determinant of student achievement. Factors such as poverty or a parent’s lack of education prevented children from learning regardless of the method of instruction or school (Edmonds & Frederiksen, 1979; Jencks, 1972; Lezotte (n.d.); Lezotte, 1992; Mace-Matluck, 1987). Lezotte (no date) states: “the report stimulated a vigorous reaction, instigating many of the studies that would come to define the research base for the Effective Schools Movement” (np). Accordingly, Klitgaard and Hall set out, along with other colleagues, to explore the question, “Do effective schools exist?” Their 1974 report is important for historical as well as substantive reasons: it was the first rigorous, large-scale effort to identify effective schools. (Mace-Matluck, 1987, p. 8) What they found was strikingly different than the Coleman report. Klitgaard and Hall (1974) used regression analysis of achievement data, but focused on the top 100 and bottom 100 outlier schools present in a study by Fetters, Connors, and Smith who had reanalyzed the Coleman data and “constructed a histogram of residuals from their regression of achievement scores against various background measures of 2,392 schools” (p. 94). Klitgaard and Hall were able to identify schools that “were statistically ‘unusual,’ but [stated] whether they were unusually effective depends on one’s subjective scale of magnitude” (p. 104-105). High achieving schools “comprised 2 to 9 percent of the sample and averaged about 0.4 to 0.6 of an interstudent standard deviation above the mean per test” (p.104). Others, who followed in this line of research, were also able to identify schools that made a difference in achievement scores for all children regardless of the student’s socio-economic background (D’Amico, 1982; Edmonds,
  33. 33. 21 1979; Edmonds & Frederiksen, 1979; Frederiksen, 1980; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Lezotte, 1992; Mace-Matluck, 1987; Weber, 1971). This spurred a number of researchers to determine the factors relevant to the disparity between effective and non-effective schools. A study conducted by Weber (1971) sought to identify operating processes of successful inner-city schools serving urban poor children. Weber’s study examined four successful inner- city schools, among 95 nominated, via case study. He found several factors that were common to the four: Strong leadership [in three cases it was the principal, in the other it was the area superintendent]; High expectations [school staff held high expectations with regard to school achievement of inner-city children]; Good atmosphere [school climate was characterized by order, a sense of purpose, relative quiet, and pleasure in learning]; careful evaluation of pupil progress; and Strong emphasis on reading” [; Weber’s outcome measure focused on reading] (p. 30). Ronald Edmonds states subsequent research showed that factors including “leadership, expectations, atmosphere, reading emphasis, and assessment” (1979, p. 16) substantiate that Weber was correct. Furthermore, “in 1974, the State of New York’s Office of Education Performance Review published a study that [also] confirmed certain of Weber’s major findings” (p. 16). Mace-Matluck (1987) cited six outlier studies, three from New York, one from Maryland, one from Michigan, and one from Delaware conducted in this time frame stating “the results of these outlier studies are amazingly consistent” (p. 10). Review of studies, two in New York State and one in Austin Texas: School factors influencing reading achievement: A case study of two inner city schools (New York State Department of Education, 1974), Three strategies for studying the effects of school process (New
  34. 34. 22 York State Department of Education, 1976), and Process Evaluation: A Comprehensive Study of Outliers (Austin, 1978) shows consistent findings for high-achieving schools in the following areas: principals exercised instructional leadership, set high expectations for student and teacher performance, school staff had greater experience, higher teacher ratings, teachers were open to trying new things, schools tended to have open space facilities, and a learning environment with fewer discipline problems. During this initial period of the effective schools movement, it became clear that effective schools did exist and more importantly that socio-economic status, although prevalent in terms of schools with low achievement, was not the deciding factor. The foundation had been laid for researchers to answer a far more daunting question. What are the factors that must be addressed to change schools to be become more effective? Effective Schools Movement 1976-1980. During the second period 1976-1980 of the school effectiveness movement, several characteristics and correlates of effective schools were identified. Edmonds (1982) formally identified five characteristics of effective schools in a paper entitled Programs of School Improvement: An overview. These initial characteristics were as follows: (1) the leadership of the principal notable for substantial attention to the quality of instruction, (2) a pervasive and broadly understood instructional focus, (3) an orderly, safe climate conducive to teaching and learning, (4) teacher behaviors that convey the expectation that all students are expected to obtain at least minimum mastery and (5) the use of measures of pupil achievement as the basis for program evaluation. (p. 6)
  35. 35. 23 According to Mace-Matluck (1987) the list of correlates changed somewhat during the late 70’s and early 80’s. Mace-Matluck made this assertion upon her interpretation of the results of the following case studies: “Brookover and colleagues at Michigan State (1979), Brookover and Lezotte (1979), Rutter and colleagues from England (1979), the California State Department of Education (1980), Glenn (1981), Levine & Stark (1981), and Venezky & Winfield (1981)” (p. 8). Review of these studies and others revealed there was a change that occurred. However, it had to do more with Mace-Matluck’s, as well as others, interpretation and the wording of the resulting correlates. Through review of a number of secondary source articles that repeated the new wording of correlates, it appears that this may have opened the door to misunderstandings of the correlates. Leadership of the principal derived from the original major works referred to leadership in the following ways: strong administrative policies, behaviors, and practices (or instructional leadership); strong leadership; a crucial instructional role; and a demanding leader. Many secondary source publications placed the label “instructional leadership” on these findings and referred to it as strong leadership. In several articles, authors also made reference for the need for principals or instructional leaders to be more involved in the instructional process which evolved into the need for instructional leaders to managing curriculum and instruction. The term instructional leadership took on meaning, but lacked a definition. Similarly, ‘a pervasive and broadly understood instructional focus’ (Edmonds, 1982) throughout the secondary literature was referred to as ‘a clear set of goals and an emphasis for the school’ and later evolved into the school mission, but the primary research actually identified this as the establishment of student expectations. The correlate: ‘an orderly, safe climate conducive to teaching and learning,’ (Edmonds, 1982) was seldom mentioned as a separate correlate, but rather as an extension of what ‘strong
  36. 36. 24 leadership’ provided in the primary research. However, the secondary literature took hold of this as a stand alone correlate that appeared frequently in the literature. The correlate ‘teacher behaviors that convey the expectation that all students are expected to obtain at least minimum mastery’ (Edmonds, 1982) was actually characterized in the primary research in terms of stress on non-school factors often leads to a justification for failure, high expectations on the part of teachers, and belief that all children can learn. Again, the secondary literature developed a misrepresentation, high expectations by staff for student achievement. Although there is general congruence in meaning it is important to note that obtaining at least minimum mastery was lost in the translation. The correlate ‘use of measures of pupil achievement as the basis for program evaluation’ (Edmonds, 1982) evolved into frequent monitoring of student progress throughout most secondary literature. This was perhaps the most significant change and diverged greatly from the intent of the primary research findings. The primary research spoke of follow-up monitoring of the children’s abilities for the purpose of remediation and re-teaching. The essence of monitoring student achievement was two fold in the primary research findings. It was to ensure students who failed to master minimum skill had further instruction and to ensure that teachers learned to make necessary adjustments in terms of future direct instruction. A new correlate emerged during this time frame. The primary research was fairly consistent about the necessity of an effective school wide staff training program. However, this correlate is also an interpretation of a number of different findings. Primary research referenced it as teachers need to be well trained, staff development must be tied to the instructional program, and continuous in-service training is necessary. Some primary research made reference to experienced staff and tenured staff as being important for high achieving schools. These
  37. 37. 25 findings evolved from primary research centered on determining what the factors were in schools of poor black children, and a few that simply studied socioeconomic disadvantaged urban schools, that enabled them to be generally successful. This resulted in literature review works and articles that solidified the correlate as a necessity for effective schools. The practice of the interpretation of these correlates by well know researchers such as Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee (1982), Bridges (1982), Edmonds (1982), Hallinger & Heck (1998), Leithwood & Montgomery (1982), Lezotte (1992), etc., found throughout available literature, i.e. Review of Educational Research, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, North Central Association Quarterly, National Elementary School Principal, Principal Leadership, American Educational Journal, Educational Researcher, etc., generated a list of effective schools characteristics that appear to be sound on the surface. However, it appears the term “instructional leadership,” albeit commonly used, was still open to wide interpretation. A study published by Brookover and Lezotte (1979) involved eight Michigan schools, six of which were identified as improving and two as declining in achievement, expanded the list of correlates finding 10 factors attributed to higher student achievement. The ten factors attributed to providing higher student achievement were: • Improving schools accept and emphasize the importance of basic reading and math objectives • Staff of improving schools believe all students can master basic skills objectives and they believe the principal shares this belief • Staff of improving schools expect higher and increasing levels of expectations from their students
  38. 38. 26 • Staff of improving schools assume responsibility for teaching basic reading and math skills and are committed to do so • Staff of improving schools spend more time on achieving basic reading and math skills objectives • Principals at improving schools are likely to be assertive instructional leaders and disciplinarians and they assume responsibility for the evaluation of the achievement of basic skills objectives • Staff at improving schools accept the concept of accountability based on standardized testing • Teachers at improving schools are generally not satisfied or complacent, they tend to experience tension and dissatisfaction with low student achievement • Parent involvement differences between improving and declining schools remains unclear, however there appears to be less parent contact in improving schools • Improving schools do not emphasize paraprofessional involvement or heavy teacher involvement in the selection of students for compensatory education programs. (Brookover & Lezotte, 1979, pp. 66-69) Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, and Smith (1979), found seven significant constants existed in successful schools. Successful schools held higher expectations for children to achieve; spent more time on the lesson topic rather than setting up equipment, distributing materials and dealing with discipline; provided a variety of rewards, praise and appreciation, specifically important was the use of frequent immediate positive reinforcement; put effort into providing a pleasant and comfortable learning environment; enabled opportunities for a greater percentage of the student body to take on responsibilities and have input on the general operations of the school; teacher continuity held both advantages and disadvantages depending
  39. 39. 27 on how well the individual student got along with the teacher; and functioned as a coherent whole with agreed ways of doing things, provided a consistent process for checking student work, and planned lessons and curriculum jointly. From these correlates and identified characteristics, a definition of effective schools began to take shape. Mace-Matluck (1986) (as cited in Mace-Matluck, 1987) developed a composite definition based on a survey of the current literature. However, she acknowledged details varied among researchers and studies and indicated some aspects of the composite definition may have been attributed to secondary source works. An effective school is one in which the conditions are such that student achievement data show that all students evidence an acceptable minimum mastery of those essential basic skills that are prerequisite to success at the next level of schooling. (p. 11) Unfortunately, with the inconsistent findings in studies, it was still difficult to identify a definitive recipe that principals could focus attention towards. The focus of the majority of studies during this time frame concerned primary grades involving reading and math skills. It is for this reason that it is important to note that the conceptual form of a list of characteristics, for successful schools, for any given study needs to be viewed in line with the focus of the study that generated the list. Studies prior to this time frame and some during this time frame were not directly focused on primary grade reading and math skills. Some studies searched for generalizations among identified successful schools and therefore generated markedly different characteristics. Also notable is that there is still no agreed upon definition or list of characteristics which strong administrative leadership or instructional leadership encompasses.
  40. 40. 28 Although there were many unanswered questions and a multitude of prescribed practices, the second period of the effective schools movement clearly asserted that effective schools did exist and further that socioeconomic and family background were not sufficient reasons for students’ failure to be successful. Edmonds (1979) who was involved heavily with research, along with Frederiksen, of poor black children and urban schools in general writes “pupil family background neither causes nor precludes elementary school instructional effectiveness” (p. 21). Unanswered questions centered on four issues; what is educational effectiveness, what is instructional leadership, how to deal with a mismatch between general conclusions and specific studies’ results, and the extensive lists of definitions and characteristics are too great in number, thus impractical for developing a single recipe for implementation. However, even though these issues existed, the research during this period created a movement in which “effective schools and their characteristics became models for school improvement . . . in some cases, as a basis for far-reaching educational policy decisions and large-scale school improvement initiatives” (D’Amico, 1982, p. 4). Effective Schools Movement 1980-1983. The third effective schools movement period identified by Lezotte extended three years, from 1980 to 1983. Hallinger and Heck (1998) identify this era as the beginning of a 15 year period from which empirical literature specifically related to principal contributions to school effectiveness moved to the forefront of research endeavors. Previous research clearly identified that “in the search for factors that influence school effectiveness, the role of the elementary school principal has emerged as critical” (Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982, p. 309). Bossert et al. (1982) agree, “recent work on ‘successful schools’ underscores the importance of instructional leadership, especially the role of the principal in coordinating and controlling the
  41. 41. 29 instructional program” (p. 34), but also that “little is known about how instructional management at the school level affects children’s schooling experiences” (p. 34). The daunting effort to identify these factors initiated this short three year time period. Entering this time period, there appeared to be four common characteristics of successful schools within research: a school climate conducive to learning and generally free of disciplinary issues, a school-wide emphasis on mastery of basic skills in reading and math; a common belief that all children can learn; and instructional objectives which are based on minimal expectations of basic skills mastery and student achievement monitoring assessments in place to insure students received further instruction (Austin, 1978; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Edmonds, 1979; Edmonds & Frederiksen, 1979; Frederiksen, 1980; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979). The missing element in this list is leadership. Edmonds (1982) states that a fifth characteristic has been both identified and widely disseminated, “the leadership of the principal [is] notable for substantial attention to the quality of instruction” (p. 6). Furthermore, Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, and Lee (1982) suggest that studies to this point also indicate that the conditions created above are in large part due to school principals who are perceived to be “strong pragmatic leaders” (p. 35). However, Bossert, et al. (1982) also points out that research has not focused causal ordering of variables and therefore “current work on successful schools does not link instructional management practices with instructional outcomes that exist in successful schools” (p. 36). In large part this is due to findings that no style of leadership was found that worked consistently in successful schools. Principal behaviors had different affects in different school settings. Such findings reaffirmed Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership and Fiedler’s contingency theories found in what was current literature at that time.
  42. 42. 30 Bridges (1982), in his research of 322 research reports, identified a number of issues that presented conceptual and methodological obstacles necessary to overcome what he identified as major gaps in the research leading up to this time frame. The issues listed included stability of impact, neutrality of impact, generalized impact, uniformity of impact, and management impact. Researchers ignored the transitory nature of administrator behaviors over time, did not take into account the possibility that administrator effects were not independent of one another, assumed that findings in one school setting were valid across all educational settings, assumed that administrator behavior would hold identical effects with other administrators, and that no casual comparison has been identified between administrator behavior or practice and a specific desired outcome. The issues Bridges’ research divulged led him to conclude that defining a recipe for successful school leadership would “not be completed easily or quickly” (p. 29). Murphy, Hallinger, and Mitman (1983) echoed these results stating that the methodological areas identified included generalizability, lack of exploratory models, lack of behavioral indicators, and premature application of research findings. From an organizational perspective, they found misconceptions about management, misconceptions about leadership, and misallocation of time devoted primarily to internal organizational considerations. These authors also concluded that there was a lack of original research, lack of clarity in terminology with respect to leadership, and a lack of attention to indirect leadership. Effective Schools Movement 1983-1986. The last time frame identified by Lezotte, 1983-1986, is marked with a plethora of practitioner resources to understand and implement successful schools; Educational Administration Quarterly, Educational Leadership, Educational Management, Administration, & Leadership: EMAL, Phi Delta Kappan, Review of Educational Research, etc. are replete with
  43. 43. 31 articles extolling the research findings of the effective schools movement. How to books were available such as Reaching for Excellence: An Effective Schools Sourcebook (Kyle,1985), Implementing School Improvement Plans: A Directory of Research-Based Tools (Fleming & Buckles, 1987), Research-Based Strategies for Bringing About Successful School Improvement (Mace-Matluck, 1986a), and Research-Based Tools for Bringing About Successful School Improvement (Mace-Matluck, 1986b). In essence, the effective schools movement information became readily available for practitioners. The recipe for producing effective schools was available. With subtle variations between sources, administrators needed to promote the instructional climate, place emphasis on mastery level of basics, develop a school wide belief that all children can and will learn, monitor student progress, and provide direct assistance for development of teacher skills as the instructional leader. Beyond Lezotte’s four ‘critical’ periods that marked the epochs of the effective schools movement, the study of instructional leadership began to envision instructional leadership from different points of view. Researchers were fairly clear on what needed to happen in schools, but how it occurred was still somewhat illusive. Anderson (1990) addressed this issue from a functionalistic approach. “Most current empirical research in education administration – whether of a positivist or naturalistic paradigm – is incapable of studying such phenomena because it lacks a critical approach to research” (p. 43). Unfortunately, the study of instructional leadership from the critical functionalistic approach encounters several immediate tribulations. As Krug (1992a) addressed this issue, “the contexts in which instructional leaders operate vary tremendously as do the opportunities they encounter for expressing leadership in these difficult contexts” (p. 6). The manner with which an administrator addresses the various aspects of instructional leadership are as varied as the number of administrators and although many schools
  44. 44. 32 share some environmental aspects, there are an infinite number of factors that shape them such as the socioeconomic background of the staff and student body and the resources available to individual schools in terms of fiscal matters, staff knowledge, and staff training. In large part, the effective schools movement research reviews seemed to have come to rest on the shoulders of the school principal regarding the role the school principal plays as instructional leader. However, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) note that the lack of research on instructional management has effected school administrators in several ways. Instructional management (used synonymously in this paper with instructional leadership) has meant anything and everything; an administrator trying to be an instructional leader has had little direction in determining just what it means to do so. (p. 217) Instructional Leadership Research Hallinger and Murphy were enlisted by a school district in 1985 to develop a study to describe and measure instructional management behavior related to a principal’s behavior in terms of defining the school mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting the school learning climate. To perform this study the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS), developed by Hallinger (1982), was used. This instrument, consisting of 71 items, segmented defining school mission into framing school goals and communicating school goals. It segmented managing the instructional program into three parts: supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating curriculum, and monitoring student progress. And segmented promoting school climate into six parts: protecting instructional time, promoting professional development, maintaining high visibility, providing incentives for teachers, enforcing academic standards, and providing incentives for students. The items were designed to
  45. 45. 33 be answered by principals, teachers and district administrators. Each item is answered on a five point Likert scale, one representing almost never to 5 representing almost always. The original version of the PIMRS also had a “?” option as a response. Unfortunately, Hallinger and Murphy reported that several principals’ self ratings were inconsistent with those of their respective teachers and supervisors. The notable outcome from Hallinger and Murphy’s research was three-fold. These researchers acknowledged that instructional management and instructional leadership occurred synonymously, a pattern emerged that showed that a principal who ranked highly in one area ranked highly on other job subscales, and the development of the PIMRS advanced the necessary movement from description to measurement of instructional leadership. Noting that instructional management and instructional leadership are used synonymously suggests that these researchers do not differentiate management and leadership. This begs the question, does the method and tool(s) used in the study help foster an understanding of leadership within the K-12 arena to any extent at all? The fact that principals who scored well in one area were found to score well in most or all areas may tell us something about the individuals, but does not aid our understanding about how individual aspects of instructional leadership work independently. The PIMRS did advance the movement from description to measurement of instructional leadership. However, Krug (1990a) identified several issues with the construction of the PIMRS: Many of the items are long and complex. Evidence for its reliability or validity is relatively limited and /or difficult to obtain as there were only ten principals/schools involved. No norms have been developed to facilitate comparative applications. Little is known about the sensitivity of the instrument to differences arising from demographic factors such as school type
  46. 46. 34 (elementary, middle, secondary), school size, gender, or age. And, the PIMRS makes no attempt to assess contextual factors that might moderate or influence the interpretation on individual scores. Although Hallinger and Murphy (1985) presented findings across ten subscales that identified the instrument as both reliable and valid they give credence to Krug’s criticism stating: “the absence of outcome data limited our ability to test the external validity the instructional leadership construct or to comment on the relative importance of the various principal functions, policies, practices, or behavior” (p. 232). Having acknowledged that school leaders have both a direct and indirect affect on student achievement, Krug conducted several studies. Krug (1990a) attempted to answer questions about how school leadership influenced learning and achievement. In this study Krug used the 1988 final version of the Instructional Leadership Inventory (ILI) self-report instrument for administrators, developed by Maehr and Ames, and the Instructional Climate Inventory (ICI) that mirrors the ILI instrument for cross-checking administrator’s responses, developed by Maehr, Braskamp, and Ames. The result of this study produced a set of “psychometrically refined instruments” (p. 21), found to be reliable and valid, the beginnings of researchers’ ability “to understand the structure of school leadership behavior better” (p. 21), and “identified important dimensions of school climate through which school leaders influence the motivation of both teachers and students” (p. 21). Krug (1990b) published work establishing two important findings: “(a) What leaders believe about their work is paramount in explaining differences between leaders, and (b) what we learn about instructional leadership is highly dependent upon whom we ask” (p. 2). In order to develop an understanding of what were principals’ beliefs, an experience sampling methodology (ESM) signaled 81 principals at random times between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
  47. 47. 35 five times per day over a five consecutive day period. Principals would then “record what they were doing, their interpretation of that activity, and their feelings at the time” (pp. 15-16). In addition to this, the ILI was used to determine leadership effectiveness. The data revealed that principals engaged in the same types of activity exercising their instructional leadership, but their beliefs about what they were doing differed significantly. The conclusion drawn from this Krug states: “more effective instructional leaders conceptualize and utilize these activities as opportunities for exercising instructional leadership. In other words, instructional leadership can be better conceptualized as an approach to school administration rather than as a specific set of practices” (p. 20). This study employed the ICI-T instrument to alleviate self-report bias. Two findings were derived from this aspect of the study. First the teacher ratings of instructional leadership behavior correlated significantly well with principal self-reports using these instruments and second that “teachers may not fully understand the motives that underlie a principal’s actions, yet they may still provide valid information about whether the school’s leadership is working or not” (p. 35). Unfortunately, MetriTech no longer supports the ILI or ICI-T instruments for use. A study performed by Lunenburg (1990) did not specifically address principals in terms of instructional leadership, but used the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1986) to examine principal performance from a broad set of personality factors. Lunenburg’s data describes a “superior principal as more educated, assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient, and warm-hearted” (p. 11). The importance of this study demonstrated that high performing principals fare equally with high performing managers in non-education sectors in terms of personality factors and although it may be possible to predict performance of possible principal prospects, it does not provide insight to what these principals
  48. 48. 36 do differently in terms of instructional leadership as the study failed to “predict the way in which principal’s spend their time” (p. 11). Krug (1992b) published a study which involved 72 principals, 1,523 teachers, and 9,415 students from Chicago area schools. It should be noted that this publication provided only zero- order correlations. These initial zero-order correlations provided uniform positive evidence that principal self-ratings of the five broad dimensions of instructional leadership hold a statistically significant relationship with student achievement. However, the zero-order correlations did not provide a statistically significant relationship between teacher ratings of the five dimensions of instructional leadership and student achievement, but the correlations were generally positive. In summary, Krug stated “it seems reasonable to conclude that the empirical evidence for link between instructional leadership and student learning outcomes is strong, particularly in the early school years” (p. 4). Hallinger and Heck (1998) examined studies produced over a 15 year period to look at principals’ contribution to school effectiveness from 1980 to 1995. In their study, they identified three models through which they classified the studies: … direct effects (i.e., where principal’s actions influence school outcomes); mediated effects (i.e., where principal actions affect outcomes indirectly through other variables); reciprocal effects (e.g., where the principal affects teachers and teachers affect the principal, and through these processes outcomes are affected). (pp. 162-163) Prior to 1985, most studies follow the direct effects study model. As Hallinger and Heck found, direct effects studies as conducted had “limited utility for investigating the effects of principal leadership” (p. 166). Research determined a smorgasbord of what principals did with some
  49. 49. 37 congruence in the area of instructional leadership in effective schools and clearly demonstrated that all children can learn given certain conditions within their schools, but it did not identify a ‘recipe’ for success for principals to follow. Studies thereafter, such as the work of Maehr , Braskamp, and Ames (1986), Hallinger and Murphy (1985), and Krug (1990b, 1992a), recognized instructional leadership on the part of principals from the perspective of the mediated effects model. These later studies viewed instructional leadership as actions or behaviors performed by the principal to accomplish the effects on school outcomes indirectly through staff members by providing direct assistance to teachers on instructional practices, promoting school culture, and monitoring student progress. This is particularly true in terms of student achievement. In relation to classroom teachers, the principal does not have near as much direct contact with individual students. Although the principal promotes the instructional climate, it is the classroom teacher and other staff members who have the most significant direct student contact. Assuming principals closely monitor student progress, generally interventions are performed by other staff members. Principals may manage change in curriculum and instruction, but again it is the classroom teachers who deliver instruction. Although principals may define school mission, the mission is mediated to students daily more through the general staff than the principal. One area that may have a closer direct effect on achievement is achieved through principals who directly supervise and support teaching. There was little evidence of longitudinal research found to both clearly identify and measure success involving what Hallinger and Heck refer to as the reciprocal-effects model. This model involves an interactive relationship between the principal and the school’s staff and school climate. Hallinger and Heck (1998) suggest this “framework implies that administrators
  50. 50. 38 adapt to the organization in which they work, changing their thinking and behavior over time” (p. 168). This does not suggest a form of laissez-faire leadership. It takes a form where leadership may be shared and take multiple forms over time. Work involving studies of principals exercising transformational leadership may be moving in this direction and may be the answer to why no single recipe for instructional leadership has been revealed through research. However, studies utilizing this model will most likely require a combination of both quantitative and qualitative longitudinal data. Conclusions drawn from 43 participants in a two day educational forum held in Washington DC (Riley, McGuire, Lieb, & Dorfman, 1999), made up of prominent educational leadership researchers and a host of others including superintendents, principals, teachers, education consultants, and state policy makers agreed that there is a distinction between management and instructional leadership. To arrive at this conclusion, they first addressed the question: “What is the definition of an effective leader for today’s schools?” (p. 2). In order to answer this question, this group first identified instructional leadership. Instructional leaders devote significant time evaluating instruction and then assisting teachers with methods to improve instruction. Leaders in effective schools have sound understandings of pedagogy and developmentally appropriate learning and use this knowledge to assist teachers improve instruction. Effective leaders set the vision (mainly it was agreed that district vision came down from the superintendent) and assist in cooperatively developing school goals and provide “teachers with informed feedback, guidance, support, and professional development that will help them do their jobs better” (p. 5). However, forum attendees could not arrive at consensus regarding to what degree effective leaders needed to perform instructional leadership relative to management skills. It was clear that management encompassed significant time for principals on
  51. 51. 39 a daily basis. They did not suggest that school management is a facet of instructional leadership, but rather a host of duties that all principals must attend. However, the group determined that school leaders as a whole need to shift their focus and energy “from the B’s (budgets, books, buses, bonds, and buildings), to the C’s (communication, collaboration, and community building)” (p. 5). Leithwood and Jantzi (1999c) instituted a large scale quantitative study involving 129 principals, 2,465 teachers, and 44,920 students to measure relative effects of both principal and teacher leadership effects on student engagement. Although the overall results were disappointing for a variety of reasons, it was mainly because results contradicted a number of qualitative case studies that were designed to examine effects of teacher leadership on student outcomes. Principal leadership effects were positive, “although not strong, do reach statistical significance” (pp. 696-697). Although this study did not specifically address instructional leadership, it did further exemplify the importance of the role school principals play in terms of indirect effects on student learning and added to the growing evidence that principals make a significant contribution to school effectiveness. After the turn of the twenty first century, principal leadership researchers’ attention turned toward transformational leadership, but the idea of instructional leadership continued to maintain a presence. Marks and Printy (2003) published a study entitled Principal Leadership and School Performance: An Integration of Transformational and Instructional Leadership. These researchers specifically examined shared instructional leadership. Shared instructional leadership implies that the principal is not the sole agent responsible for school change. This plays well into the idea of the integration of instructional and transformational leadership as a model since the transformational model recognizes the idea that leaders and followers can and at
  52. 52. 40 times should exchange roles. However, it did not add to the body of knowledge regarding instructional leadership as a leadership construct. Full Range Leadership: Transformational and Transactional Leadership The origins of the full range leadership model trace back to Burns’ (1978) description of transforming leadership. Burns formalized transforming leadership as a construct in 1978. Bass’ (1985) theory of transformational leadership expanded Burns’ model to include the psychological mechanisms underpinning transformational and transactional leadership (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). “Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership included seven leadership factors, which he labeled charisma, inspirational, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership” (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999, p. 441). This seven factor model was later reduced to a six factor model because charisma and inspirational were often not empirically distinguishable (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Hater and Bass (1988) soon after separated the transactional factor, management-by-exception, into management-by-exception active and management-by-exception passive. Bass and Avolio developed the concept of full range leadership to be an inclusive range of leadership involving four behaviors of transformational leadership, three behaviors of transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership. Transformational leadership in the full range leadership model is composed of what are now referred as the four I’s; idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991). Transactional leadership is composed of three leadership behaviors; contingent reward, management-by-exception active, and management-by exception
  53. 53. 41 passive. Laissez-faire leadership is the final behavior and on the opposite end of the full range leadership model continuum from the four I’s. Transformational leadership. Although many authors credit Burns as having first introduced the concept of transformational leadership in 1978, Downton was first to distinguish transformational leadership from transactional leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Downton (1973) contrasted transformational from transactional leadership in Rebel Leadership, differentiating revolutionary, rebel, reform, and ordinary leaders (Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006). Burns formalized transforming leadership as a concept in 1978. “A transformational leader differs from a transactional one by not merely recognizing associates’ needs, but by attempting to develop those needs from lower to higher levels of maturity” (Avolio & Bass, 1995, p.16). Although Bass and Avolio extended the concept of transformational leadership into full range leadership, Burns and Bass are generally known for the origins of the transformational leadership construct. It should be noted that “neither Burns nor Bass studied schools, but rather based their work on political leaders, Army officers, or business executives” (Liontos, 1992, p.2). As the name implies, the heart of transformational leadership involves the ability of the leader to transform peoples’ behavior or actions that in essence makes them better for the organization they serve. “Bass depicted transformational leadership as a higher order construct comprising of three conceptually distinct factors: charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration” (Howell & Avolio, 1993, p. 891). By 1991, the three conceptual factors became four; these conceptual areas were then labeled charismatic leadership/idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004, p. 83). Leaders maintain high ethical and moral conduct
  54. 54. 42 and focus on followers’ values, motives, and satisfying their needs (Burns, 2003). Ethical and moral conduct requirements are what set transformational leadership apart. This is the answer to the all too often debated question; was Adolf Hitler a leader? “Transforming values lie at the heart of transforming leadership” (Burns, 2003, p.29), but the values need to be morally and ethically grounded to be considered leadership. Transformational leadership currently is defined by four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Bass and Riggio (2006) identify idealized influence as a combination of two aspects: “the leader’s behaviors and the elements that are attributed to the leader by followers and other associates” (p. 6). Transformational leaders model the behaviors they expect in their followers. Behaviors emphasize others needs and maintain high ethical and moral conduct. As a result followers recognize that transformational leaders are generally well respected, admired, and trusted by others. An emphasis for the leader is to consider followers’ needs over their own (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). “Followers identify with the leaders and want to emulate them; leaders are endowed by their followers as having extraordinary capabilities, persistence, and determination” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 6). Transformational leaders characterize inspirational motivation by motivating and inspiring followers, displaying enthusiasm, demonstrating optimism, communicating expectations, and creating a shared vision for the organization. Leaders provide meaning and challenge to their followers’ work to inspire them to perform and create a sense of purpose (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Barbuto & Brown, 2000; Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004). In practice, transformational leaders focus followers’ efforts through inspirational motivation to achieve more for the organization than they would for their own self-interest. Bass
  55. 55. 43 and Riggio (2006) affirm this; “transformational leaders behave in ways that motivate and inspire those around them by providing meaning and challenge to their followers’ work” (p. 6). Intellectual stimulation is characterized by leaders who encourage innovation and creativity, they are willing to abandon practices or systems demonstrated to be not useful, question assumptions, they approach old situations in new ways, and are willing to take risks for long term success (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004). These behaviors stimulate followers’ creativity and encourage followers to challenge their own beliefs. Bass and Riggio (2006) relate intellectual stimulation in terms of leaders who “stimulate their followers’ efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways” (p. 6). Followers are involved in the process of addressing problems and finding solutions (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). Individualized consideration is characterized by leaders who attend to followers’ needs for growth and achievement, create learning opportunities, and empower followers to make decisions. This accomplished in part by the leader taking the role of coach or mentor (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004); all in an effort that enhances the organization. Leaders create an environment that is supportive where followers are heard and individual needs are met. This facet of transformational leadership is sometimes associated with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs relating to self-actualization. Bass and Riggio (2006) maintain that “followers and colleagues are developed to successively higher levels of potential” (p. 7). Transactional Leadership. Burns (1978) states that transactional leaders “approach associates with an eye to exchanging one thing for another [in the area of political transactional leaders it may be]: jobs for
  56. 56. 44 votes, or subsidies for campaign contributions. Such transactions comprise the bulk of the relationships among leaders and associates, especially in groups, legislatures and parties” (p. 4). There are three dimensions that underlie transactional leadership: management-by- exception passive, management-by-exception active, and contingent reward. “Transactional forms of leadership are premised on exchange theory. Various kinds of rewards from the organization are exchanged for the services of the teacher who is seen to be acting at least partly out of self-interest” (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Fernandez, 1993, p.11). Management-by-exception is an intervention in which corrective action is made by the leader. Timing of the intervention distinguishes the difference between active and passive management-by-exception. In cases of active management-by-exception the leader monitors followers continuously in an effort to prevent mistakes from happening or becoming serious. In some situations this is considered necessary for the purpose of safety. Standards are set and clarified for followers in advance to avoid problems. Passive management-by-exception involves interventions in the form of criticism and reprimand by the leader only after mistakes have been made or standards are not met. Leaders exhibiting passive management-by-exception wait until tasks are completed before clarifying standards and only then to point out errors (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Management-by-exception passive is “the extent to which leaders may not be aware of problems until informed by others and generally fail to intervene until serious problems occur” (Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006, p. 149). Howell and Avolio (1993) describe contingent reward leadership an active positive exchange which occurs between leaders and followers. The exchange involves rewards such as recognition from the leader, bonuses, or merit increases for agreed-upon objectives. Contingent reward is “the extent to which leaders set goals, make rewards on performance, obtain necessary
  57. 57. 45 resources, and provide rewards when performance goals are met” (Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006, p. 149). Contingent reward is transactional when the reward is material in nature, contingent reward “can be transformational, however, when the reward is psychological” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 8). Laissez-faire. Laissez-faire is essentially non-leadership or the lack of leadership. Nguni, Sleegers, and Denessen (2006) define laissez-faire as “the extent to which leaders avoid responsibility, fail to make decisions, are absent when needed, or fail to follow up on requests” (p. 149). Barbuto and Brown (2000) describe laissez-faire as a hands-off form of leadership often referred to as the absence of leadership. Laissez-faire “leaders avoid specifying agreements, clarifying expectations, and providing goals and standards to be achieved by followers” (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). Transformational Leadership Studied in Educational Context Although transformational leadership as a construct had been in place since 1978 and studied in practice through the 1980’s it had not been researched in relation with education until the 1990’s and since then research has taken place involving two different constructs of transformational leadership. Leithwood, Jantzi, and Fernandez (1993) developed a six factor model believed to be more appropriate in design and nature for the K-12 arena. Within the realm of PK-12 education, transformational leadership has been researched through in-depth case study (Liontos, 1993), in conjunction with “expert thinking” in comparison with total quality leadership (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1993), as a moderator of teacher commitment (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Fernandez, 1993), its’ effectiveness on student engagement and organizational conditions (Leithwood &