Leadership behavior and effectiveness

2,650 views
2,446 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,650
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Leadership behavior and effectiveness

  1. 1. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER-IDENTIFIED PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AND EFFECTIVENESS AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUTH DAKOTA SECONDARY SCHOOLS by Les C. Odegaard B.S., South Dakota State University, 1977 M.S., South Dakota State University, 1978 Sixth-Year Certificate, St. Cloud State University, 1993 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Division of Educational Administration Adult and Higher Education Program in the Graduate School The University of South Dakota May 2008
  2. 2. UMI Number: 3318826 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3318826 Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
  3. 3. Copyright by LES C. ODEGAARD 2008 All Rights Reserved
  4. 4. Abstract Les C. Odegaard, Ed.D, Educational Administration The University of South Dakota, 2008 The Relationship between Teacher-Identified Principal Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness, and Student Achievement in South Dakota Secondary Schools Dissertation directed by Dr. Marlene Jacobson The study examined the relationship between principal leadership and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The study also examined the relationship between principal leadership, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student achievement. Principal leadership was measured by administering the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory online to 121 teachers in 41 schools. Student achievement was measured by the Dakota Standardized Test of Educational Progress (STEP). STEP, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance data were provided by the South Dakota Department of Education. A Pearson product-moment correlation of the relationship between principal leadership behavior and student achievement produced r = .11, which was not significant at the .05 level. A Pearson product-moment correlation of the relationship between principal leadership and improvement in student achievement from 2003 to 2006 produced r = -.21, which was not significant at the .05 level. A multiple regression analysis of the relationship between the leadership components and improvement in student achievement from 2003 to 2006 found that predictors accounted for 25.7% of the variance within improvement in student achievement. An ANOVA found that the model was not a II
  5. 5. significant predictor of improvement in student achievement at the .05 level. The standardized coefficients revealed that the strongest predictors of improvement in student achievement were Identifying and Articulating Vision (.43), Fostering Acceptance of Group Goals (.35), and High Performance Expectations (.34). A multiple regression analysis of the relationship between principal leadership, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student achievement found that predictors accounted for 36.8% of the variance within student achievement. An ANOVA found that the model was a significant predictor of student achievement at the .05 level. School enrollment and student attendance were significant predictors of student achievement at the .05 level. The researcher concluded that there is little or no relationship between principal leadership behavior and student achievement, and little or no relationship between principal leadership behavior and improvement in student achievement. The leadership components are not a significant predictor of improvement in student achievement. However, Vision, Goals, and Expectations are the strongest predictors of improvement in student achievement. A model consisting of principal leadership, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance is a significant predictor of student achievement. School enrollment and student attendance are strong and significant predictors of student achievement. This abstract of approximately 350 words is approved as to form and content. I recommend its publication.
  6. 6. Doctoral Committee The members of the committee appointed to examine the dissertation of Les C. Odegaard find it satisfactory and recommend that it be approved. •s*-X— Dr. Marlene Jacoqson, Chair Dr. Mejai Avoseh Dr. Mark Baron vZITffirf Dr. Patricia Peel IV
  7. 7. Acknowledgements I wish to thank Dr. Marlene Jacobson, committee chair, for her guidance, direction, patience, and encouragement throughout the completion of this study. I would like to thank Dr. Mejai Avoseh, Dr. Mark Baron, and Dr. Pat Peel for their considerable commitment and support in the completion of this study. I wish to thank Dr. Amy Schweinle for her guidance regarding the statistical analysis. I wish to thank the instructors in The University of South Dakota Division of Educational Administration for their ongoing guidance and support throughout the program. I wish to thank the staff at the South Dakota Department of Education for their assistance in providing school information. v
  8. 8. Dedication This study is dedicated to my parents and my family. My parents, Carmi and Shirley Odegaard have always inspired me to work hard, to do my best, and to keep on plugging. I thank my sons Daniel and Thomas for their love, patience, and support. A special thank you goes to my dear wife Feme for her faithful love and support, and her technical assistance throughout the study. VI
  9. 9. Table of Contents Page Abstract ii Doctoral Committee iv Acknowledgements v Dedication vi List of Tables x Chapter 1. Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem 4 Research Questions 4 Significance of the Study 5 Definition of Terms 6 Limitations and Delimitations 10 Assumptions 11 Organization of the Study 11 2. Review of Related Literature and Research 13 School Improvement 13 Leadership Theory 18 Leadership and Student Achievement 27 Summary 37 3. Methodology 39 vii
  10. 10. Research Questions 39 Review of Related Research 40 Population and Sample 42 Instrumentation 44 Data Collection 51 Data Analysis 52 Summary 55 4. Findings of the Study 57 Response Summary 57 Findings 59 Leadership Practices of Secondary Principals 59 Principal Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness, and Student Achievement 61 Principal Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness, and Improvement in Student Achievement 63 Transformational and Transactional Leadership Behavior, and Improvement in Student Achievement 65 Principal Leadership Behavior and School Factors, and Student Achievement 76 Summary 85 5. Summary, Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 87 Summary 87 Purpose of the Study 87 Review of Related Literature 88 Methodology 90 VIII
  11. 11. Findings of the Study 91 Conclusions 94 Discussion 95 Principal Leadership and Student Achievement 95 Principal Leadership and School Factors, and Student Achievement 100 Recommendations 103 References 107 Appendixes 125 A. IRB Approval Letter 125 B. Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory 126 C. Instrument Permission Letter 127 D. Superintendent Consent Letter 128 E. Superintendent Follow-Up Letter 129 F. Teacher Cover Letter 130 G. Pilot Study Participation Request 131 H. Transformational and Transactional Leadership Component Data 132 I. Leadership Composite Mean, School Enrollment, Socioeconomic Status, and Student Attendance Data 136 J. 2003 STEP, 2006 STEP, and STEP Improvement Data 138 K. Transformational and Transactional Leadership Component Data for the STEPIMP Analysis 140 L LCM, STEP 2003, STEP2006, and STEPIMP Data 142 M. Transformed Leadership Composite Mean, School Enrollment, Socioeconomic Status, and Student Attendance Data 143 IX
  12. 12. N. Transformed 2006 STEP Data 145 O. Survey Responses to Principal Length of Service 147 x
  13. 13. List of Tables Table 1. Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory and Behavioral Components 47 2. Variable Codes 60 3. Descriptive Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components 61 4. Descriptive Statistics for the LCM and STEP06 62 5. Correlation between LCM and STEP06 62 6. Descriptive Statistics for LCM and STEPIMP 64 7. Correlation between LCM and STEPIMP 64 8. Descriptive Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP 66 9. Skewness Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP 67 10. Residual Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP 68 11. Correlation between the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP 69 12. Collinearity Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components 71 13. Regression Model Summary for the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP 73 14. Analysis of Variance of the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP 74 15. Coefficients of the Principal Leadership Components 75 16. Descriptive Statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, andSTEP06 76 17. Skewness Statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, andSTEP06 77 XI
  14. 14. 18. Residual Statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA andSTEP06 78 19. Descriptive Statistics for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, andSTEP06 79 20. Skewness Statistics for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, andSTEP06 80 21. Residual Statistics for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, andSTEP06 81 22. Correlations between the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, andSTEP06 82 23. Regression Model Summary for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06 83 24. Analysis of Variance of the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06 84 25. Coefficients for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, andSTEP06 85 XII
  15. 15. 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction The United States Constitution provides for a federal system in which powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. Throughout United States history, the states have assumed the responsibility of providing public education. In the early 1900's, the federal government initiated the process of standardized and IQ testing (Cobb, 2004). Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) were developed in the 1920's followed by the American College Test (ACT) to assess student potential to succeed in higher education. Five educational reform movements from 1950 through 1990 implemented standardized testing for the purpose of assessing tracking and selection, program accountability, minimum competency, school and district accountability, and standards-based performance (Linn, 2000). In 1990, the United States Department of Education implemented annual assessment of academic progress by administering the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Department of Education reported the assessment results. However, the primary responsibility for educational reform and academic achievement remained at the state and local levels of governance. In the late 1980's, a number of states implemented annual standardized testing procedures for the purpose of establishing uniform standards and requiring schools to be accountable for academic progress (Goals 2000, 1996). In 1994, President Clinton signed into law Goals 2000. Goals 2000 continued the transition toward centralization by establishing federal educational standards. In
  16. 16. 2 January, 2002, President George W. Bush signed Public Law 107-110, commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (ED.gov, 2006). The purpose of the law was "To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice so that no child is left behind" (ED.gov, 2006, p. 1). No Child Left Behind constituted a profound expansion of the role of the federal government in public education (Wenning, 2003). NCLB placed the nation's schools under an unprecedented level of federal scrutiny that required states to implement standards-based assessment and federal accountability procedures (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2007). Federal standards-based accountability has compelled school districts to review and revise their educational processes and procedures. Students are no longer expected to meet the achievement standards required by local boards or the state. Instead, schools are obligated to demonstrate annual yearly progress as prescribed by federal law. This new process has encumbered educators with the responsibility of ensuring a progressively higher level of student achievement beginning in 2003 through 2014. Numerous studies (Bell, Bolam, & Cubillo, 2003; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; O'Donnell & White, 2005; Verona, 2001; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003) have identified the importance of effective educational leadership. With the advent of standards-based accountability, the importance of educational leadership has dramatically increased. The principal's philosophy, leadership style, praxis, and effectiveness have become critical factors in reorganizing schools to meet the new
  17. 17. 3 accountability standards. Therefore, it was vital that researchers scrutinize principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and its relationship with student achievement. Research and related literature (Heck, Larsen, & Marcoulides, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1990; Sizemore, Brossard, & Harrigan, 1983; Verona, 2001) have provided a preponderance of evidence that principal leadership is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of a school. To meet the rigors of modern accountability, principals need to possess a combination of leadership skills that heretofore were not essential. The challenge of this inquiry is to determine the relationship between principal leadership behavior and student achievement. Educators have long acknowledged the importance of strong educational leadership. However, researchers have struggled to identify clear evidence of the influence of principal leadership. Researchers (Barnett, McCormick, & Conners, 2000; Barr, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a; Marks & Printy, 2003; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006) have established the influence of leadership on school climate, teacher confidence, teacher commitment, and teacher retention. Several researchers (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999b; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003) reported that identifying a relationship between leadership behavior and student achievement has been elusive. Researchers (Archer, 2006; Byrd, Slater, & Brooks, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; O'Donnell & White, 2005; Verona, 2001; Wooderson-Perzan & Lunenburg, 2001) found that principal leadership behavior was directly related to student achievement. Yet others (Bosker &
  18. 18. 4 Witziers, 1996; Fischer, 2005; Murphy, 1988) found that the relationship between leadership effectiveness and student achievement was weak, insignificant, or that there was no relationship. Statement of the Problem The main purpose of the study was to collect and analyze data for the purpose of examining the relationship between principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The study was designed to examine the relationship between principal leadership behavior and student achievement. The study also examined the relationship between principal leadership and improvement in student achievement from 2003 to 2006. The study examined seven individual components of principal leadership and their relationship with improvement in student achievement from 2003 to 2006. The study also analyzed the relationship between principal leadership, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student achievement. Research Questions The study was designed to collect and analyze data relative to principal leadership behavior and student achievement. To achieve this goal the following research questions were proposed: 1. What are the leadership practices of principals in South Dakota secondary schools?
  19. 19. 5 2. What is the relationship between principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools? 3. What is the relationship between principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and improvement in student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools? 4. What is the relationship between transformational leadership behavior and transactional leadership behavior, and improvement in student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools? 5. What is the relationship between principal leadership behavior, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools? Significance of the Study Educators have long acknowledged the need for effective educational leadership. However, the process of establishing conclusive evidence of a relationship between principal leadership and student achievement has proven to be problematic. Three studies (Bosker & Witziers, 1996; Fischer, 2005; Murphy, 1988) found no significant relationship between measures of educational leadership and student achievement. Other studies (Archer, 2006; Byrd, Slater, & Brooks, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; O'Donnell & White, 2005; Verona, 2001; Wooderson-Perzan & Lunenburg, 2001) have found that there was a significant relationship between leadership behavior and student achievement. Mid- continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) reviewed 30 years of research in educational administration and found significant relationships
  20. 20. 6 between leadership behavior and student achievement (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). The federal standards mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act require schools to incrementally increase student achievement each year from 2003 through 2014. The act stipulates that failure to meet these standards can result in corrective action such as probationary status (school improvement), non-renewal of staff, loss of administrative authority, restructuring, and dissolution (Department of Education, 2006). Therefore, it was imperative that educators and researchers identify every possible means to effectuate substantial, continuous, and unremitting improvement in student achievement. Several writers (Cotton, 2003; Fullan, 2001; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Schnur, 2003) have emphasized the importance of strong leadership in education. The contemporary focus on student achievement and accountability standards compels researchers to examine the relationship between principal leadership and student achievement, and identify the most compelling praxes. Definition of Terms The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and clarity of these terms throughout the study. The definitions that are not cited were developed by the researcher. Achievement Standards: The No Child Left Behind Act defined student achievement standards as below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced based on the performance of students on annual standardized tests. These standards are
  21. 21. 7 used to determine the effectiveness of a school's educational program relative to student achievement. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The No Child Left Behind Act requires states to develop their own definitions (Goertz, 2001) within the following parameters: 1. Apply the same high standards of academic achievement for all 2. Develop processes that are statistically valid and reliable 3. Include separate and measurable annual objectives for continuous and substantial academic improvement for all students 4. Include graduation rates for high school and one other indicator for other schools (ED.gov, 2003). Average Daily Attendance: Refers to the aggregate number of days of student attendance for the regular school year divided by the aggregate number of days of student enrollment. Average Daily Membership: Refers to the aggregate number of days of student enrollment for the regular school year. Collaboration: Being both cooperative and assertive, trying to satisfy everyone's concerns as fully as possible by working through differences, finding and solving problems so that everyone gains. Collaboration involves working through conflict differences and solving problems so that everyone wins (Manning, 2003). Dakota Standardized Test of Educational Progress (STEP): The Dakota STEP is a standards-based test developed in South Dakota in cooperation with
  22. 22. 8 Harcourt Assessment. It is aligned with the state's academic standards and normed to a reference group (South Dakota, 2004). Leadership: Leadership is an interpersonal influence directed toward the achievement of a goal or goals (Allen, 1998). Leadership Effectiveness: Mastery of a wide range of skills and how to make the most of opportunities to learn, lead, and achieve goals. Management: Management is the process of setting and achieving the goals of the organization through the functions of management: planning, organizing, directing and controlling (Allen, 1998). No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a federal law that requires annual testing, specifies a method forjudging school effectiveness, sets a timeline for progress, and establishes specific consequences for failure (Wenning, 2003). Socioeconomic Status (SES): Characteristics of economic, social and physical environments in which individuals live and work, as well as demographic characteristics. Measures of SES include Income and Education quartiles/quartiles and Socioeconomic Risk Index (SERI) or Socioeconomic Factor Index (SEFI) scores. It is often ranked from 1 (poor) to 5 (wealthy), based on income quintiles that measure mean household income, and grouped into five income quintiles, each quintile assigned to 20% of the population (Manitoba Center for Health Policy, 2003).
  23. 23. 9 For this study, socioeconomic status is defined by the percentage of students in each school that qualify for and participate in the free and reduced lunch program. Standardized Test: A test administered in accordance with explicit directions for uniform administration (Indiana Department of Education, 2005). Transactional Leadership: Transactional leadership is based on a transaction or exchange of something of value the leader possesses or controls that the follower wants in return for his/her services (Homrig, 2006). Transformational Leadership: "Transformational leadership refers to the leader moving the follower beyond immediate self-interest through idealized influence (charisma), inspiration, intellectual stimulation, or individualized consideration. It elevates the follower's level of maturity and ideals as well as concerns for achievement, self-actualization, and the well-being of others, the organization, and society" (Bass, 1999, p. 11). Transformational Leadership occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Homrig, 2006). Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory (TLI): The Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory was developed in 1996 by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer to assess six components of transformational leadership behavior and one component of transactional leadership behavior (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996).
  24. 24. 10 Limitations and Delimitations The researcher acknowledges the following limitations and delimitations of the study: 1. The longitudinal analysis was delimited to schools in which the principal was continuously employed as principal from 2003 through 2006. 2. The longitudinal analysis did not involve repeated measures of the same students. 3. The length of time that students attended each school was not considered. 4. The middle-level and high school-level schools included in the study were not comprised of identical grade levels. 5. For the purpose of manageability and objectivity, the survey instrument did not include open-ended response items. 6. Due to the desire to survey 10 teachers per school and to minimize analyzing schools where the principal served as both middle-level and high school principal, the study was delimited to middle-level schools and high schools where the reported enrollment exceeded 120 students. 7. The researcher attempted to survey 10 teachers in each school. Therefore, the ratio of the teacher sample to the teacher population and to the student population was unequal.
  25. 25. 11 Assumptions The researcher made the following assumptions: 1. The participants in this study served as a representative sample of the total population of South Dakota teachers, principals, and students. 2. Teachers responded with accuracy and integrity in completing the Inventory. 3. The responsibilities of school principals are relatively similar. 4. The results of the Dakota STEP were an accurate assessment of student achievement. 5. The free and reduced lunch data produced an accurate sample of students from low socioeconomic families. 6. Data for average daily attendance (ADA) and average daily membership (ADM) specific to middle-level schools were not available. Therefore, the researcher used the 2005-06 K-8 ADA and ADM for each district to approximate the ADA and ADM for each middle-level school. Since South Dakota Codified Law requires students to attend school through age 16, the researcher assumed that the data for ADA and ADM for grades K-8 for each district did not vary significantly from the middle-level values for each school. Organization of the Study Chapter 1 has presented the introduction, a statement of the problem, research questions, the significance of the study, a definition of terms, limitations and delimitations, assumptions, and the organization of the study. Chapter 2 contains a review of related literature and research relative to school
  26. 26. 12 improvement, leadership theory, and leadership and student achievement. The methodology and procedures used to gather data for the study are presented in Chapter 3. The response summary and the findings of the study are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 contains a summary, the purpose of the study, the findings of the study, the conclusions drawn from the findings, a discussion, and recommendations for practice and further investigation.
  27. 27. 13 CHAPTER 2 Review of Related Literature This section of the study provides the background information regarding school improvement, leadership theory, and leadership and student achievement. This section also presents literature and research that directly examine the relationship between principal leadership and student achievement. School Improvement Throughout the history of American education, the responsibility of educating the nation's youth has traditionally been delegated to the states which, in turn, have delegated the responsibility to locally elected boards. School governance and reform has traditionally been administered at the state and local levels. Under this system, educators enjoyed a long history of academic freedom and the responsiveness of state and local control in selecting and incorporating educational reform strategies. Twentieth century federal interventions in education began by developing programs designed to meet the needs of society and improve national security. Early 20th century educational reform movements were based on developing workforce competencies, citizenship, and civic responsibility. The success of the Allied Forces in World War II revealed the importance of technological superiority. In 1945, Prosser found that 20% of the nation's students were prepared for college. Based on his finding, Prosser proposed that 20% of the nation's public school students develop specific occupational skills, and the remaining
  28. 28. 60% would benefit from developing the skills necessary for homemaking, vocations, and immediate employment (PBS.org, 2001). Prosser's leadership founded the Life Adjustment Movement, a curriculum sponsored by the U. S. Department of Education which promoted vocational education and technical training. As a result of the Life Adjustment Movement, school curricula by the 1950s were highly tracked and a majority of students received an education that lacked academic rigor (Education Encyclopedia, 2007). In 1957 the Soviet space program shocked the world by successfully launching a satellite into space. This caused fear of Russian technological superiority and its inherent threat to United States national security. The American response resulted in a race between the Soviet and the American space programs to be the first to successfully put the first manned space craft in space. The crisis placed American education in the national spotlight, marked the end of the Life Adjustment Movement, and prompted a dramatic increase in federal education funding (New York State Education Department, 2006). The nation responded to the crisis by calling for educational reform, particularly in the areas of math, science, and foreign language (Dickson, 2007; Howes, 2002). The National Defense Education Act of 1958 provided funds to states and local districts to improve instruction in math, science, and foreign language. Over the next 10 years, the annual budget for the National Science Foundation increased by more than a factor of 10 from $40,000,000 to $500,000,000 (National Science Foundation, 2008). The Foundation placed a
  29. 29. 15 high priority on university research and improving graduate programs in science education (National Science Foundation, 1994). The next major reform movement began in 1983 when the National Commission on Excellence in Education released A Nation at Risk in which the Commission the reported pervasive mediocrity throughout the nation's educational system. The Commission concluded, "We have been, in effect, committing an act of unthinking unilateral disarmament" (North Central Regional Education Laboratory, 2008, p. 5). The report resulted in a demand for higher graduation requirements, standardized curricula, increased assessments for teachers and students, and increased certification requirements (Gordon, 2006). The urgent rhetoric of the report created an impetus for school improvement that prompted a wave of reforms predicated on the belief that educational institutions were large, inefficient, unresponsive bureaucracies incapable of self-reform. Educational observers recommended school reorganization (Gordon, 2005). Policy-makers were urged to decentralize large districts and implement a bottom-up approach. State governments agreed to less regulation in exchange for more accountability. As a result, many large districts implemented site-based decision making. School districts were restructured so that principals, teachers, parents, and community members were empowered to make decisions and new technology was incorporated. The decentralization movement failed to produce school improvement (Vander Ark, 2002). As a result, state governments promoted charter schools.
  30. 30. Charter schools were designed to operate beyond the purview of district policy and in some cases, beyond state regulation. By the late 1980s, California, Kentucky, and Maryland had developed state initiatives to establish standards, a common curriculum, and annual assessments. In 1989 President George H. W. Bush met with the nation's governors in Charlottesville, Virginia. The conference initiated a nationwide shift from state and local control to federal intervention. The attendees at the conference agreed to establish national standards and assessments including the following set of goals to be achieved by 2000 (National, 1993): 1. Provide preschool programs to ensure that all students are prepared to learn. 2. Increase the high school graduation rate to a minimum of 90%. 3. Demonstrate grade-level competency of core academic subjects in fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades. 4. Achieve first in the world in math and science achievement. 5. Reach universal literacy among American adults. 6. Provide a drug and violence-free learning environment for all students. In 1994, President Clinton signed into law Goals 2000. Goals 2000 continued the transition toward centralization by establishing federal educational standards. Unfortunately, misconceptions, rhetorical diversity, and political infighting resulted in several states rejecting the movement. In January, 2002, President George W. Bush signed Public Law 107-110, commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act (ED.gov, 2006). The purpose
  31. 31. 17 of the law was, "To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice so that no child is left behind" (ED.gov, 2006, p. 1). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) constituted a profound expansion of the federal role in education (Wenning, 2003). For the first time in United States history, the federal government mandated compliance with a uniform set of professional standards and educational accountability procedures (National, 2007). Beginning in 2003, NCLB required all students in grades three through eight to be tested in math and reading. The law required that these assessments be aligned with state standards and that schools demonstrate adequate yearly progress. The law further required that all students demonstrate proficiency by 2014 (Pastore, 2005). In summary, NCLB incrementally raised academic standards, held schools accountable for student achievement, required that every child demonstrate proficiency in reading and performance of mathematical calculations, insured that all teachers are highly qualified, and provided choices and flexibility for parents. No Child Left Behind mandated that educators reform education. NCLB has placed schools in a position where their existence is contingent upon their ability to increase student achievement. In response, many schools have revised their staff development efforts. For the purpose of effecting reform, educators have focused on implementing research-based instructional strategies (Geissler & Stickney, 2006). Schools have organized collaborative teams that consist of teachers and administrators for the purpose of implementing reforms and peer review.
  32. 32. 18 The shift to standards-based accountability has increased the significance of principal leadership in facilitating educational reform. Principal leadership has become a critical factor in reorganizing schools to meet the new accountability standards. It is vital that researchers scrutinize the relationship between principal leadership behavior and student achievement. Leadership Theory The literature presents a variety of definitions of leadership. Bennis (1990, p. 46) defined leadership as, "...the capacity to translate vision into reality." Doyle and Smith (2001) organized modern leadership studies into four generations of theories: 1. Trait theories. 2. Behavioral theories. 3. Contingency theories. 4. Transformational theories. These generations of theories developed in a generally chronological order. However, there were periods when generations of theories coincided as support for one generation waned and another emerged (Van Maurik, 2001). Early 20th century leadership studies identified special traits or characteristics that differentiated between leaders and non-leaders. The origin of the Trait generation of theories is generally credited to the efforts of the United States military during World War I to identify and predict leadership capacity (Muldoon, 2004). Researchers and practitioners examined physical traits, social traits, personality traits, and task-related traits. Physical traits included age,
  33. 33. 19 height, and energy-level. Social traits consisted of such traits as charisma, tact, popularity, and diplomacy as well as genetic and educational background. Personality traits included self-confidence, adaptability, assertiveness, and emotional stability. Task-related traits included drive to excel, acceptance of responsibility, initiative, and results-orientation (Allen, 1998). Tead (1935) proposed a list of leadership qualities. Subsequent studies focused on intelligence, birth order, socioeconomic status, and child-rearing practice (Bass, 1960; Bird, 1940). Stogdill (1948) found that there was a moderate correlation between the following six factors that were related to leadership: 1. Capacity. 2. Achievement. 3. Responsibility. 4. Participation. 5. Status. 6. Situational. Stogdill (1948, p. 64) acknowledged that, "A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits." In 1959, both Stogdill and Mann found that many surveys differentiated between the characteristics of leaders and followers. Stogdill and Mann concurred that the differences between the characteristics of leaders and followers were small. Therefore, both researchers abandoned this line of study. Subsequent research failed to lend support to the Trait theories (Wright, 1996).
  34. 34. Support for the Trait generation of theories faded when it became apparent that special traits or characteristics were not reliable predictors of leadership ability and that the theories failed to consider interactions between leaders and followers (Johns & Moser, 2001). The Trait theories also failed to acknowledge that leaders can be developed through training and experience. Although it continues to be popular to offer lists of desirable leadership characteristics, this area of research has largely been abandoned. The Behavioral generation of theories emerged in the 1950s and 1960s as support for the Trait theories dwindled. The Behavioral theories examined what leaders do that distinguishes them from non-leaders. This generation of theories coincided with the development of the Behavioralist theory of learning. The Behavioral theories represented a marked divergence from the Trait generation of theories because it focused on the process of leadership rather than the traits of the leader. Behavioral theories assume that leadership is contingent upon actions and therefore leaders can be developed. The Behavioral generation of theories consists of the following four main categories of leadership behavior (Doyle & Smith, 2001): Concern for task: Leader emphasizes the completion of concrete tasks. Concern for people: Leader addresses followers as people. Directive leadership: Leader makes decisions for others. Participative leadership: Leader shares decision-making with followers.
  35. 35. 21 Many of the Behavioral theories described and contrasted conflicting leadership styles. The theories assumed that leaders could be separated into dichotomous categories based on leadership behavior. Researchers at the University of Iowa identified three styles of leadership: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939). In the 1950s, Stogdill (1959) and Fleishman (1957) conducted studies at Ohio State University that applied factor analysis to reduce the number of leadership factors to the smallest number. The researchers developed the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire which resulted in the first two-dimensional model. The dichotomous model identified considerate leadership style and initiating-structure leadership style (Shartle, 1979). During the same period, Katz and Kahn (1952) at the University of Michigan proposed a model that consisted of task-oriented leadership, relationship-oriented leadership, and participatory leadership. McGregor (1960) proposed Theory X and Theory Y leadership styles. McGregor's model identified the interactions of leaders and non-leaders by contrasting directive leadership style and participative leadership style. As Behavioral theories research progressed, it became evident that leadership behavior was more complex than the early models proposed. Blake and Mouton (1964) posited that the factors that comprised the dichotomous Behavioral models were mutually inter-related. Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid model contrasted the leader's concern for task and concern for people, and theorized that the leader's effectiveness was contingent upon both factors. Wren (1979) suggested that the two orientations were not mutually exclusive, and
  36. 36. proposed that a leader could possess both high task and high relationship orientations. Critics of the Behavioral generation of theories argued that effective leadership varied according to the situation to which it was applied and that the models were not adaptable to a variety of changing circumstances. Boje (2000) reported that the Behavioral theories simply describe the nature of the transactions between leaders and non-leaders. The Behavioral theories also failed to define whether a direct cause and effect Skinnerean relationship exists between leader and non-leader behavior. Therefore, the Behavioral theories failed to quantify the effectiveness of leadership behaviors. Beginning in the late 1940s, researchers studied the influence of situational factors on leadership behavior. The Contingency generation of theories proposed that leadership is a dynamic process involving leaders, followers, and circumstances. Researchers have generally agreed on the following set of contingency or situational variables (Filley, House, & Kerr, 1976): Supportive Leadership: Leader exhibits concern for the welfare of followers. Instrumental or directive Leadership: Leader emphasizes coordinating, planning, and directing. Participative Leadership: Leader shares power with followers. Achievement Leadership: Leader sets challenging goals and expect followers to assume the responsibility of achieving the goals.
  37. 37. With the addition of contingency as a variable, leadership models became increasingly complex. Fiedler (1964, 1967) studied leadership by developing a Least Preferred Co-worker Model. Participants ranked their co- workers in terms of their personal characteristics and the desire of participants to work with co-workers. Fiedler determined that leadership is contingent upon two factors: the personality of the leader and the leader's ability to control situational contingencies. Fiedler identified the following situational contingencies: Leader-member relations: The extent to which the followers accept the leader's leadership. Task structure: The extent to which the followers' tasks are described in detail. Position power: The amount of formal authority inherent in leadership positions. Vroom and Yetton (1973) studied leadership in terms of decision-making processes relative to two contingencies: decision quality and decision acceptance. Hencley (1973) concluded that leadership is influenced more by the demands of the situation than it is the characteristics of the individual. Mitchell and House (1974) developed the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership which proposed that leaders provide the encouragement and support necessary for subordinates to fulfill the goals of the organization. The writers recommended that leaders adjust their approach according to the demands of the situation. The writers described four styles of leadership: Supportive Leadership: Leader exhibits concern for followers and
  38. 38. maintains a friendly work environment. Directive Leadership: Leader directs followers and provides appropriate guidance. Participative Leadership: Leader consults followers when making decisions. Achievement-oriented Leadership: Leader sets goals and exhibits confidence in the ability of followers to meet the goals. Hersey and Blanchard (1977) proposed that the ideal type of interaction between the leader and the subordinate was contingent upon the ability and the experience of subordinates. The Situational Leadership Model consists of the following four phases of interaction: Telling: Leader utilizes a high task/low relationship approach to direct the activities of low-functioning followers. Selling: Leader utilizes a high task/high relationship approach to persuade and motivate competent but underachieving followers. Participating: Leader utilizes a low task/high relationship approach to persuade underachieving followers to adopt the leader's vision. Delegating: Leader utilizes a low task/low relationship approach to exhibit trust and confidence. Three general concerns have been expressed regarding the Contingency theories. The theories appear to be culture and gender specific. The theories are confined to an examination of the interactions between leaders and immediate
  39. 39. 25 subordinates. The theories fail to address the effectiveness or productivity of leadership in terms of organizational success. The fourth generation of leadership theories is the Transformational theories. Burns (1978) has been widely recognized as the first to introduce this concept of leadership. Burns (1978) argued that prior leadership theories focused on the traits of great leaders and the transactions between leaders and subordinates. Burns delineated between the role of the manager as a negotiator or transactor who provides rewards for efforts and the role of the leader who endeavors to change, improve, and transform the organization. Burns suggested that leaders collaborate with subordinates for their mutual benefit. Burns stated, "Transformational leadership occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a ways as to raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality" (1978, p. 20). Burns (1978, p. 4) suggested that political leaders can be grouped into two categories: transactional leaders that exchange contingency rewards for services rendered, and transformational leaders which he described as, "...more complex and more potent." Burns stated that transformational leaders seek to satisfy the higher needs of their constituents and, "...engage the full person of the follower" (Burns, 1978, p. 4). Burns posited that transformational leaders facilitate change and movement within an organization. Subsequent theorists generalized Burn's transformational leadership model to apply to leader-follower interactions. Bass (1985) generalized transformational leadership to apply to business, education, government, and the
  40. 40. armed services. Bass proposed a transformational model based on four dimensions: Individual consideration. Intellectual stimulation. Inspirational motivation. Idealized influence. Tichy and Devanna (1986, p. 9) proposed that managers maintain the status quo and leave the organization much as they found it. In contrast, transformational leaders focus on change, innovation, and entrepreneurship, and thus lead the organization to a, "...new and more compelling vision." Bass and Avolio (1997) suggested that transformational and transactional leadership behaviors do not fall at opposite ends of the leadership spectrum. Effective leadership consists of incorporating transformational behaviors to supplement transactional behavior, and applying the model to meet the requirements of the situation. Leithwood (1992) noted that transactional leadership is necessary to address daily routines while transformational leadership provides the incentive to improve. Bass and Avolio (1997) proposed that transformational leadership consists of a set of behavioral constructs. According to Bass and Avolio's model, transactional leadership is divided into two groups: contingency rewards and management by exception. Transformational leadership consists of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Bass and Avolio (1997) suggested that transformational
  41. 41. leadership behaviors result in higher productivity and that the behaviors can be acquired and developed. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) developed a leadership model that consisted of six transformational components and a transactional component. Podsakoff, et al.'s transformational components consisted of: Identifying and Articulating Vision: Leader identifies new opportunities and develops, articulates, and inspires other with his or her vision of the future. Providing an Appropriate Model: Leader sets an example for followers that is consistent with the values the leader espouses. Fostering Acceptance of Group Goals: Leader promotes cooperation among employees and inspires them to work together toward a common goal. Establishing High Performance Expectations: Leader demonstrates expectations of excellence, quality, and/or high performance. Providing Individual Support: Leader demonstrates respect for followers and concern about their personal feelings and needs. Providing Intellectual Stimulation: Leader challenges followers to re- examine some of their assumptions about their work and rethink how it can be performed. Podsakoff et al.'s model included Contingency Rewards as a transactional component. Leadership and Student Achievement Three writers and researchers have documented the need for effective educational leadership. According to Cotton (2003, p. 1), "It would be difficult to
  42. 42. find an educational researcher or practitioner who does not believe that school principals are critically important to school success." Cotton further stated that, "...decades of research have consistently found positive relationships between principal behavior and student academic achievement" (Cotton, 2003, p. 1). Schnur (2004, p. 1) noted, "The evidence is clear: the leadership of effective principals is fundamental to school improvement and student achievement." Fullan (2001, p. 65) stated that, "School capacity is seriously undermined if it does not have...quality leadership." Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005, p. 5) stated, "Leadership is considered to be vital to the successful functioning of many aspects of a school." Several writers have confirmed the recent transformation of the role of the principal (Campbell, Cunningham, Nystrand, & Usdan, 1990; Fullan, 1998; Malone & Caddell, 2000; Portin, 1997; Usdan, McCloud, & Podmostko, 2000). Campbell, Cunningham, Nystrand, & Usdan (1990) chronicled the evolution of the roles and responsibilities of the principalship as follows: one-room teacher, head teacher, teaching principal, school principal, and supervising principal. Portin (1997, p. 1) studied public school principals in the state of Washington and reported the following fundamental shift in the role of the principal. "Principals face increasingly complex interactions and tasks while simultaneously encountering limitations to their capacity to lead their schools." Fullan (1998) concurred by stating, The job of the principal or any educational leader has become increasingly complex and constrained. Principals find themselves locked in with less
  43. 43. and less room to maneuver. They have become more and more dependent on context. At the very time that proactive leadership is essential, principals are in the least favorable position to provide it (p. 1). According to Malone and Caddell (2000, p. 162), "The principalship has evolved into a sixth stage as principals assume the role of change agent...." Usdan, McCloud, and Podmostko (2000, p. 4) stated, "Schools are changing dramatically. Principals in the coming decades will lead schools that are far different than those today." Researchers (Barnett, McCormick, & Conners, 2000; Bell, Bolam, & Cubillo, 2003; Firestone & Wilson, 1989; Gurr, 1997; Krug, 1992; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982) have established direct and indirect relationships between principal leadership behavior and student achievement. Leithwood and Montgomery (1982) found that effective elementary principals were instructional leaders focused on program improvement while ineffective principals felt buried in paper. Firestone and Wilson (1989) found that principal leadership support of teachers managing instruction was positively related to student achievement. Krug (1992) reported a significant positive correlation between principal instructional leadership and student achievement. Gurr (1997) studied Australian schools and found that the influence of principal leadership on student outcomes is considerable but indirect. Barnett, McCormick, and Conners (2000) also studied Australian secondary schools and concluded that transformational leadership enhances positive teacher outcomes, task focus goals, and excellence in teaching.
  44. 44. 30 Bell, Bolam, and Cubillo (2003) reviewed eight studies of school leadership and student achievement in primary and secondary schools conducted in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Canada, the Netherlands, and the United States. Bell et al. found that all of the studies confirmed "some," evidence that school leadership affects student outcomes. One study confirmed significant direct effects on student achievement and another study found significant indirect effects on student achievement. Witziers, Bosker, and Kruger (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 37 studies of school leadership and student achievement conducted between 1986 and 1996. The researchers reported a small direct relationship between principal leadership and student achievement. O'Donnell and White (2005) reported that principal leadership behaviors which focused on instructional leadership and the school learning climate were identified as predictors of student achievement. In an attempt to best quantify leadership behavior, the researcher examined a number of contemporary leadership models. Smith and Forbes (2001) suggested a competency-based model which consisted of evaluation, personality and self-assessment, experiential learning, development of career plans, career coaching, and selection of coursework to enhance skills to achieve career and life goals. Caruso and Salovey (2004) proposed an emotionally- intelligent model based on identifying emotions, using emotions, understanding emotions, and managing emotions.
  45. 45. 31 Purkey and Siegal (2003) recommended an invitational model based on the assumptions that education should be a collaborative, cooperative activity, involving all participants, that people possess untapped potential, that human potential can best be realized by places, policies, and processes that are specifically designed to invite development, and that people must be intentionally inviting with themselves and others. Bell, Bolam, and Cubillo (2003) proposed a distributed model which empowers stakeholders to take responsibility for student achievement and to assume leadership roles in their areas of competency. Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach (1999) identified six contemporary leadership models in education: instructional, transformational, moral, participative, managerial/transactional, and contingent. Waters, Marzano, & McNulty (2003) proposed a balanced model that consisted of 21 leadership roles. Brewster (2005) described three leadership models as predominant among successful principals: the transformational model, the instructional model, and the balanced model. For this study, the researcher was unable to find an instrument that assessed balanced leadership that was suitable for research. The researcher rejected the instructional model because the model focused on a single leadership construct and failed to address multiple dimensions of educational leadership. The researcher found support for application of the transformational
  46. 46. leadership model in education. Castro (1998) reported a consensus among writers regarding the components of transformational leadership. Sergiovanni (1990, p. 23) suggested that student achievement can be "remarkably improved" by transformational leadership. Sagor (1992, p. 1) worked with 50 school staffs to incorporate collaborative action research and observed that,"... transformative leaders in action share one thing: ...exemplary schools." Stewart (2006, p.1) reviewed studies of effects of transformational leadership on organizational learning and school improvement and concluded, "The evidence suggested that transformational leadership stimulates improvement." Writers and researchers have recommended that principals respond to the demands of higher standards and greater accountability by developing and incorporating transformational leadership strategies (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1991; Leithwood & Poplin, 1992; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1991; Sagor, 1992; Sergiovanni, 1990). Sagor (1992, p. 14) found that transformational leadership was practiced in schools where teachers and students reported a culture, "...conducive to school success." Leithwood & Poplin (1992) proposed that school leaders approach school reform by focusing their attention on first-order and second-order changes. First- order changes involve improving the technical and instructional activities of the school by guiding and monitoring the classroom work of teachers and students. Second-order changes involve building a shared vision, improving communication, and developing collaborative decision-making processes.
  47. 47. Leithwood recommended that transformational leadership be utilized to implement second-order changes. Leithwood and Jantzi (1991) studied transformational school leaders and found that they help staff members to develop a professional school culture and foster teacher development. Leithwood and Steinbach (1991) found that transformational leaders help staff to collaborate to effectively solve problems. Leithwood (1994) suggested that the transformational leadership components proposed by Bass and Avolio are necessary characteristics for educational leaders to apply if they are to respond effectively to the modern demands of educational institutions and accountability standards. Leithwood (1994, p. 498) stated that there is strong evidence, "...for the claim that transformational leadership will be of considerable value in the context of a school-restructuring agenda." Studies have also identified relationships between transformational leadership and its components, and student achievement (Bonaros, 2006; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Marks & Printy, 2003; Silins, 1994; Verona, 2001). Bonaros (2006) studied inner-city elementary teachers and concluded that elementary teachers consider transformational principals to be superior to non-transformational principals. Bonaros also found that transformational leadership resulted in increased levels of satisfaction, willingness to give extra effort, and a high perception of principal effectiveness among teachers. Silins (1994) surveyed the perceptions of Australian elementary teachers and reported that leadership behavior characterized by goal
  48. 48. achievement and building shared values had positive effects on student achievement. Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) reviewed 21 studies that supported the application of the transformational leadership components to educational settings. Leithwood et al. found that there is strong empirical support for idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. High performance expectations, goal consensus, and modeling had less support. Regarding contingency rewards, a component of transactional leadership, Leithwood et al. (1999) stated: The possibility of providing informative feedback about performance in order to enhance teachers' sense of professional self-efficacy, as well as contributing to their day-to-day sense of job satisfaction makes this set of leadership practices potentially transforming, as well (p. 144). Structuring and culture building were leadership dimensions identified as unique to the educational context. Although Leithwood et al. found little empirical evidence of their value, he suggested that there was evidence beyond transformational leadership theory to include them as a viable component of educational leadership. Leithwood et al. identified 20 separate leadership concepts that were widely referenced in the literature as important as essential dimensions of educational leadership. Leithwood et al. organized the concepts into the following components:
  49. 49. 1. Instructional Leadership. 2. Transformational Leadership. 3. Moral Leadership. 4. Participative Leadership. 5. Managerial Leadership. 6. Contingent Leadership. Verona (2001) studied New Jersey secondary principals and found that principal transformational leadership has a significant affect on student achievement in math and reading. Marks and Printy (2003) studied 24 nationally-selected restructured schools and reported that the integration of transformational leadership and instructional leadership resulted in high levels of student achievement. Cotton (2003) reviewed the findings of 81 studies on educational leadership studies that had been conducted since 1985. Cotton found that principals in high-achieving schools practiced the individual components of transformational leadership. Cotton reported that these principals cultivate a strong and focused vision on the importance of student learning (Cotton, 2003). Cotton also found strong evidence that high expectations of student learning and individual consideration results in high student achievement. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of educational leadership studies conducted from 1978 to 2001. Marzano et al. developed a survey based on the results of the meta-analysis and administered it to 650 building principals. As a result of the analysis, Marzano et al. incorporated
  50. 50. the dimensions of transformational leadership into a balanced educational leadership model base on 21 leadership responsibilities. Marzano et al.'s model consisted of Culture, Focus, Ideals/Beliefs, Optimizer, Relationships, Intellectual Stimulation and Change Agent as transformational leadership components. Marzano et al. included Affirmation, Contingent Rewards, and Flexibility as transactional components. Marzano et al. included Communication, Discipline, Input, Involvement in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, Monitoring/Evaluating, Order, Outreach, Resources, Situational Awareness, and Visibility as important leadership responsibilities. The meta-analysis conducted by Marzano et al. (2005) determined that the direct correlation between principal leadership behavior and student achievement was r= .25. Marzano et al. also found direct correlations between the components of transformational and transactional leadership behavior and student achievement. Marzano et al. concluded, "...school leadership has a substantial effect on student achievement and provides guidance for experience and aspiring administrators alike" (p. 12). Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) reviewed 32 studies conducted from 1996 to 2005 and found significant indirect effects of transformational leadership on student achievement and student engagement in school. The writer reviewed five instruments designed to assess transformational leadership. The Leadership Practices Inventory, 3rd edition, was developed by Kouzes and Posner (2003), to assess five practices of exemplary leaders. The
  51. 51. 37 Transformational Leadership Questionnaire was designed to assess eight leadership skills and styles (MySkillsProfile, 2002). The Leadership Skills Inventory -Others, developed by Karnes and Chauvin (2000), assesses nine dimensions of leadership. Bass and Avolio (1995) developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire to assess nine components of transformational leadership. The Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory, developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996), assesses six components of transformational leadership behavior and one component of transactional leadership. Summary The responsibility for school governance and reform has traditionally been administered at the state and local levels. Early twentieth century federal interventions in education focused on developing programs designed to meet the societal needs and improve national security. Educational reform movements from 1950 through 1990 incorporated standardized testing for the purpose of tracking and selection, developing program accountability, establishing minimum competency, promoting school and district accountability, and introducing standards-based accountability. Goals 2000 continued the transition toward centralization by establishing federal educational standards. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) constituted a profound expansion of the federal role in elementary and secondary education. For the first time in history, the federal government mandated compliance with a uniform set of professional standards and accountability procedures.
  52. 52. 38 The shift to standards-based accountability has increased the significance of principal leadership in facilitating educational reform. Principal leadership has become a critical factor in reorganizing schools to meet the new accountability standards. It is vital that researchers scrutinize principal leadership behavior and its relationship with student achievement. Several writers have confirmed the recent transformation of the role of the principal. Researchers have established direct and indirect relationships between principal leadership behavior and student achievement. Writers have recommended that principals respond to the demands of higher standards and greater accountability by developing and incorporating transformational leadership strategies. Studies have identified relationships between transformational leadership and its components, and student achievement. It is imperative that researchers examine the relationship between educational leadership behavior and student achievement, and identify the most compelling praxes.
  53. 53. CHAPTER 3 Methodology The main purpose of the study was to collect and analyze data for the purpose of examining principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The study was designed to examine the relationship between principal leadership behavior and student achievement. The study was also designed to examine the relationship between principal leadership, student enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student achievement. This section of the study is organized into the methodology, research questions, review of related research, population and sample, instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, and summary. Research Questions The study was designed to collect and analyze data relative to principal leadership behavior and student achievement. To achieve this goal the following research questions were proposed: 1. What are the leadership practices of principals in South Dakota secondary schools? 2. What is the relationship between principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools? 3. What is the relationship between principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and improvement in student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools?
  54. 54. 4. What is the relationship between transformational leadership behavior and transactional leadership behavior, and improvement in student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools? 5. What is the relationship between principal leadership behavior, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools? Review of Related Literature In an attempt to best quantify leadership behavior, the researcher examined a number of contemporary leadership models. Smith and Forbes (2001) suggested a competency-based model. Caruso and Salovey (2004) proposed an emotionally-intelligent model. Purkey and Siegal (2003) recommended an invitational model. Bell, Bolam, and Cubillo (2003) proposed a distributed model. Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach (1999) identified six contemporary models of educational leadership: instructional, transformational, moral, participative, managerial/transactional, and contingent. Waters, Marzano, & McNulty (2003) proposed a balanced model that consisted of 21 leadership roles. Brewster (2005) described three leadership models as predominant among successful principals: the transformational model, the instructional model, and the balanced model. The researcher was unable to find an instrument that assessed balanced leadership that was suitable for research. The researcher rejected the
  55. 55. 41 instructional model because the model focused on a single leadership construct and failed to address multiple dimensions of educational leadership. The writer found support for application of the transformational leadership model in education. Castro (1998) reported a consensus among writers regarding the components of transformational leadership. Sergiovanni (1990, p. 23) suggested that student achievement can be "remarkably improved" by transformational leadership. Sagor (1992, p. 1) worked with 50 school staffs to incorporate collaborative action research and observed that,"... transformative leaders in action share one thing: ...exemplary schools." Stewart (2006, p.1) reviewed studies of effects of transformational leadership on organizational learning and school improvement and concluded, "The evidence suggested that transformational leadership stimulates improvement." Writers and researchers have recommended that principals respond to the demands of higher standards and greater accountability by developing and incorporating transformational leadership strategies (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1991; Leithwood & Poplin, 1992; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1991; Sagor, 1992; Sergiovanni, 1990). Sagor (1992, p. 14) found that transformational leadership was practiced in schools where teachers and students reported a culture, "...conducive to school success." The writer reviewed five instruments designed to assess transformational leadership. The Leadership Practices Inventory, 3rd edition, was developed by Kouzes and Posner (2003), to measure five practices of exemplary leaders. The
  56. 56. Transformational Leadership Questionnaire was designed to assess eight leadership skills and styles (MySkillsProfile, 2002). The Leadership Skills Inventory -Others, developed by Karnes and Chauvin (2000), assesses nine dimensions of leadership. Bass and Avolio (1995) developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire to assess nine components of transformational leadership. The Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory, developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996), assesses six components of transformational leadership behavior and one component of transactional leadership. Population and Sample The population examined in this study consisted of teachers working in 327 South Dakota secondary schools. The sample consisted of 136 middle-level schools and high schools. A list of South Dakota schools is available online through the South Dakota Department of Education website. The schools included in the study employed a minimum of 10 certified teachers and had an enrollment greater than 120 students. The schools included in the study were reported as middle schools, intermediate schools, junior high schools, and high schools. Schools that report that the principal supervised both the middle-level and the high school were included in the high school sample and omitted from the middle-level school sample. The analysis of improvement in student achievement was limited to schools where the principal has been employed continuously as principal from 2003 to 2006.
  57. 57. The teacher sample consisted of 10 certified teachers from each school. Staff rosters are available online via school websites. Teachers were selected by matching a set of random numbers generated by the data analysis function of Microsoft Excel to each school's certified staff roster listed in alphabetical order by last name. A new set of random numbers was generated and applied to each school's roster. The teachers from each school that corresponded with the 10 smallest random numbers were selected for participation in the study. Each year beginning in 2003, South Dakota schools have administered a standard form of the Dakota STEP to secondary students in grades 6-8 and 11 to assess student achievement in math and reading with the exception of approximately 1% of students that have significant special needs. Students that require significant special needs modifications are administered a state-approved alternative assessment. The student population consisted of 55,852 middle-level and high school students enrolled in public South Dakota schools in 2006. The Dakota STEP has been administered annually beginning in 2003 to assess yearly progress in math and reading. Schools are required to report the results of 95% of their students. Therefore, the student sample consisted of 95% or more of the middle-level and grade 11 high school students enrolled in South Dakota secondary schools in 2003 and 2006. Prior to administration of the study, the researcher successfully completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Human Subject Training.
  58. 58. The researcher received approval from the dissertation committee, the Division of Education, and The University of South Dakota Institutional Review Board (IRB). A copy of the IRB approval letter is presented in Appendix A. Instrumentation For the purpose of assessing principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, the researcher selected the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory (TLI) developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996). The researcher selected the TLI for the following reasons: 1. The TLI is the most widely used instrument in assessing transformational leadership behavior. 2. The TLI was designed specifically for the purpose of measuring transformational leadership and transactional leadership behaviors. 3. The TLI discerns transformational leadership behaviors from transactional leadership behaviors. 4. The TLI was supported by the documentation necessary for research purposes. 5. Researchers have determined that the psychometric properties of the TLI are acceptable for research purposes. Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) supported Podsakoff, etal.'s model by stating, "...they offer arguably the most comprehensive set of transformational leadership dimensions available at this point, dimensions based on a synthesis of seven prior perspectives on transformational leadership" (p. 29).
  59. 59. Leithwood et al. reviewed 21 educational studies that utilized Podsakoff s transformational leadership model. Leithwood found strong support for significant relationships between the transformational composites that measure identifying and articulating vision, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration, and the criterion variable. Leithwood et al. found empirical support for the component that measured fostering consensus of group goals in schools, but the support was sparse. There were sufficient studies to review the effects of contingency rewards and high performance expectations. However, the findings conflicted and therefore were considered inconclusive. Podsakoff et al. (1996) reported the following: Bentler's (1990) comparative fit index (CFI) was .94, Bollen's (1989) incremental fit index (IFI) was .94, Joreskog and Sorbom's (1993) goodness of fit index (GFi) was .91, and Tucker and Lewis's (1973) fit index (TLI) was .93. In addition, each of the hypothesized factor loadings was statistically significant at the .01 level, all of the items had completely standardized loadings of .60 or above, and Fornell and Larcker's (1981) measure of the average amount of variance each latent factor accounted for in its indicators ([[Rho].sub.vc]) was quite large, ranging from 58% to 68% with an average of approximately 61%. Thus, there appeared to be good support for the hypothesized factor structure of the transformational leadership scale. However, this was evaluated further by testing whether any of the hypothesized factors could be combined - two, three, four, five or even six at a time - without significantly affecting the fit of the model.
  60. 60. The results suggested that the hypothesized six factor model fit the data significantly better than any of these rival models (p. 7). Heinitz (2006) examined the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, and the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory (TLI) and found that a German translation of the TLI had, "appealing," psychometric properties and was readily useable. Bass and Riggio (2006) reported that the TLI is the most widely used instrument in assessing transformational leadership. The TLI assesses six components of transformational leadership relative to interrelated characteristics. A seventh component assesses the contingency reward behaviors associated with transactional leadership. For this study, the following TLI leadership components were independent variables represented by the corresponding symbols: 1. Identifying and articulating vision VISION 2. Providing an appropriate model MODEL 3. Fostering acceptance of group goals GOALS 4. High performance expectations EXPECT 5. Providing individualized support SUPPORT 6. Intellectual Stimulation STIMULATE 7. Contingency rewards REWARD A copy of the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory is presented in Appendix B. Inventory items grouped by leadership component are presented in Table 1. The TLI consists of 28 items designed to assess six
  61. 61. Table1 TransformationalLeadershipInventoryandLeadershipComponents ItemLeadershipComponent 12Hasaclearunderstandingofwherewearegoing. 4Paintsaninterestingpictureofthefutureforourgroup. 24Isalwaysseekingnewopportunitiesfortheorganization. 18Inspiresotherswithhis/herplansforthefuture. 20Isabletogetotherscommittedtohis/herdream. 5Leadsby"doing,"ratherthansimplyby"telling." 8Providesagoodmodelformetofollow. 26Leadsbyexample. 16Fosterscollaborationamongworkgroups. 22Encouragesemployeestobe"teamplayers." IdentifyingandArticulatingaVision IdentifyingandArticulatingaVision IdentifyingandArticulatingaVision IdentifyingandArticulatingaVision IdentifyingandArticulatingaVision ProvidinganAppropriateModel ProvidinganAppropriateModel ProvidinganAppropriateModel FosteringAcceptanceofGroupGoals FosteringAcceptanceofGroupGoals
  62. 62. Table1(continued) TransformationalLeadershipInventoryandLeadershipComponents ItemLeadershipComponent 25Getsthegrouptoworktogetherforthesamegoal. 28Developsateamattitudeandspiritamongemployees. 1Showsusthathe/sheexpectsalotfromus. 10Insistsononlythebestperformance. 14Willnotsettleforsecondbest. 3Actswithoutconsideringmyfeelings.r * 7Showsrespectformypersonalfeelings. 9Behavesinamannerthoughtfulofmypersonalneeds. 11Treatsmewithoutconsideringmypersonalfeelings.r * 19Challengesmetothinkaboutoldproblemsinnewways. FosteringAcceptanceofGroupGoals FosteringAcceptanceofGroupGoals HighPerformanceExpectations HighPerformanceExpectations HighPerformanceExpectations ProvidingIndividualizedSupport ProvidingIndividualizedSupport ProvidingIndividualizedSupport ProvidingIndividualizedSupport ProvidingIndividualizedSupport *r =reverseorder
  63. 63. Table1(continued) TransformationalLeadershipInventoryandLeadershipComponents ItemLeadershipComponent 21Asksquestionsthatpromptmetothink. 23HasstimulatedmetorethinkthewayIdothings. 27Hasideasthathavechallengedmetoreexaminesomeofmybasicassumptionsabout mywork. 2AlwaysgivesmepositivefeedbackwhenIdowell. 6CommendsmewhenIamdoingabetterthanaveragejob. 13Givesmespecialrecognitionwhenmyworkisverygood. 15PersonallycomplimentsmewhenIdooutstandingwork. 17Frequentlydoesnotacknowledgemygoodperformance.r * IntellectualStimulation IntellectualStimulation IntellectualStimulation ContingencyReward ContingencyReward ContingencyReward ContingencyReward ContingencyReward *r =reverseorder
  64. 64. transformational leadership components and one transactional component. There are four items per component. The TLI requires 10-15 minutes for completion. Permission to administer the TLI is presented in Appendix C. The TLI directs respondents to identify how frequently or to what degree the leader has exhibited 28 specific behaviors or attributes. The TLI utilizes a seven-point Likert scale with "1" representing Strongly Disagree and "7" representing Strongly Agree. Participants respond to the survey items by indicating the degree to which they agree or disagree with the item. Survey items 3, 11, and 17 were denoted by "r " to indicate that, for the purpose of minimizing response bias, the items were presented in reverse order. For the purpose of data analysis, the researcher included an item which directed respondents to verify whether or not the principal had served continuously as principal from 2003 to 2006. The researcher also included an item that directed the respondent to identify the school where the respondent was employed. The item provided the information necessary for the researcher to group teacher responses by school and compare the data to other schools. The researcher maintained the utmost of confidentiality. The survey tool provided responses to survey items. The survey tool did not provide the researcher the identity of respondents. Therefore, the individual identity of respondents was confidential and unavailable to the researcher. The researcher maintained the confidentiality of school data. The Dakota Standardized Test of Educational Progress has been administered to grades 6-8 and 11 in South Dakota secondary schools beginning
  65. 65. in 2003. The researcher collected school assessment results in math and reading for 2003 and 2006 from the South Dakota Department of Education website (South Dakota Department of Education, 2007). Data Collection The study was limited to 136 South Dakota secondary schools that reported a 2006 enrollment greater than 120 students. The longitudinal analysis was limited to secondary schools in which the principal had continuously served as principal from 2003 through 2006. The researcher sent an introductory letter to selected superintendents to request consent to administer the survey. A copy of the superintendent letter is presented in Appendix D. The researcher sent a follow-up letter requesting consent to the superintendents that failed to respond to the first letter. A copy of the superintendent follow-up letter is presented in Appendix E. The schools represented by superintendents that did not respond within 10 days to the follow- up letter were eliminated from the study. Upon receiving consent, the researcher electronically sent a cover letter to 10 randomly selected certified teachers in each school. The teacher cover letter included survey instructions and a URL hyperlink to SurveyMonkey.com (SurveyMonkey, 2006) which provided access to the TLI. SurveyMonkey assigned respondents identification numbers so that the identity of each respondent was confidential, and so that respondents were unable to submit more than one survey. A copy of the teacher cover letter is presented in Appendix F. The superintendents were informed that upon conclusion of the
  66. 66. study and committee approval, participating superintendents would receive a copy of the findings. The Dakota STEP has been administered annually to grades 6-8 and 11 in South Dakota secondary schools beginning in 2003. The student sample consisted of students that attended the 136 selected secondary schools in 2006. The dataset consisted of the selected secondary schools for which consent to administer the survey was granted and surveys returned. The analysis of improvement in student achievement was limited to schools where the principal had continuously served as principal from 2003 to 2006. For the purpose of providing effective administration, the researcher conducted a critique. The critique was specifically designed to identify confusing or ambiguous format, content, or procedures. The researcher administered the survey to 12 professionals who were familiar with research or technology and reviewed their recommendations. The researcher began surveying teachers after five critiques had been received and reviewed. A copy of the critique cover letter is presented in Appendix G. Data Analysis The researcher retrieved the survey responses collected by SurveyMonkey and downloaded the responses to a Microsoft Excel for Windows Office 2000 spreadsheet and to SPSS™ Graduate Pack 14.0 computer software for Windows. The researcher utilized a Dell Dimension 8400 personal computer to calculate the statistical analysis.
  67. 67. The independent variables in the study were the TLI survey responses, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance. The dependent variables were student achievement in math and reading as measured by the Dakota STEP, and improvement in student achievement in math and reading from 2003 to 2006. 1. The first research question described the leadership practices of secondary South Dakota principals. The response to the question was presented in the form of descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics were provided for the purpose of presenting the mean, the range of scores, and the distribution for each leadership variable. 2. The second research question examined the relationship between principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The response to the question was determined by calculating the correlation between the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory composite mean for each school and the composite percentage of students in each school that demonstrated advanced or proficient achievement in math and reading on the Dakota STEP in 2006. A Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was applied to determine the relationship between the two variables. 3. The third research question examined the relationship between principal leadership behavior and effectiveness and improvement in student achievement in South Dakota Secondary Schools. The response to the question was determined by calculating the correlation between the Transformational
  68. 68. Leadership Behavior Inventory composite mean for each school and the improvement from 2003 to 2006 in the composite mean percentage of students in each school that demonstrated advanced or proficient achievement in math and reading on the Dakota STEP. A Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was applied to determine the relationship between the two variables. 4. The fourth research question examined the relationship between principal transformational leadership behavior and transactional leadership behavior and improvement in student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The response was determined by applying a multiple linear regression analysis to determine the relationship between six transformational leadership component means and one transactional component mean, as measured by the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory, and improvement from 2003 to 2006 in the composite percentage of students in each school that demonstrated advanced or proficient achievement in math and reading on the Dakota STEP. The researcher selected a multiple linear regression analysis to determine the degree to which the set of predictor variables was related to the criterion variable. 5. The fifth research question examined the relationship between principal leadership behavior, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The response to the question was determined by applying a multiple linear regression analysis to determine the relationship between the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory composite mean score for each school, the student enrollment in each school, the percentage of students that
  69. 69. participated in the free and reduced lunch program in each school, and the daily student attendance, and the composite percentage of students in each school that demonstrated proficient and advanced achievement in math and reading on the Dakota STEP in 2006. The researcher selected a multiple linear regression analysis to determine the degree to which the predictor variables were related to the criterion variable. Summary This study was a quantitative study involving a survey instrument, student achievement data, school demographics, and statistical analysis. The study examined the relationship between principal leadership behavior and student achievement in math and reading. The study was limited to schools that reported an enrollment greater than 120 students. Principal leadership behavior was measured by administering the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory to 10 teachers in each selected school. Superintendents were contacted via email. The researcher utilized the South Dakota K-12 school directory provided by the South Dakota Department of Education to contact superintendents, collect teacher email addresses, and access school web sites. A majority of the schools included certified staff contact information and email addresses in their school web sites. The TLI was administered online in May, 2007. All teacher responses were confidential with no means available to the researcher to identify respondents. Surveys were administered to certified teachers in 49 South Dakota
  70. 70. 56 secondary schools. Survey responses were compared to student achievement as measured by the 2003 Dakota STEP and the 2006 Dakota STEP.
  71. 71. CHAPTER 4 Findings The findings of the study are organized into response summary, data analysis, findings, and summary. The main purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and student achievement. The study was also designed to compare the relationship between principal leadership behavior, student enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student achievement. Response Summary In the first week of May, 2007, the researcher sent contact letters online to 136 South Dakota superintendents requesting consent to administer the surveys. A copy of the consent request is presented in Appendix D. A follow-up letter was sent to the superintendents that did not respond. A copy of the follow-up consent request is presented in Appendix E. A total of 22 superintendents responded and provided consent. Three superintendents declined. The superintendents that responded provided consent to survey the staffs of 49 secondary schools. Upon receiving consent, the researcher sent a cover letter and survey instructions online to 10 randomly selected certified teachers in each school. A copy of the teacher cover letter with survey instructions is presented in Appendix F. The researcher sent a second random mailing to a different set of teachers in schools whose teachers did not complete three responses within 10 days. A copy of the survey is presented in Appendix B.
  72. 72. The researcher was unable to obtain consent, contact information, or collect school data from private and Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. Therefore, the study was limited to South Dakota secondary public schools. The researcher sent and collected surveys from May 10, 2007 through June 7, 2007. A total of 690 surveys were sent to certified teachers in schools where superintendents had provided consent. A total of 156 teachers responded to the survey. The response rate was 22.61%. A total of 121 teachers identified the schools in which they were employed. Therefore, 121 responses were suitable for analysis (17.5%). The school population consisted of 328 traditional secondary public schools in 2006. A total of 121 teachers in 41 schools responded to the survey. The school sample represented 30.15% of the secondary schools that were invited to participate. The results of the survey are presented in Appendix H. The population of secondary public school students for 2005-2006 was 55,852 (South Dakota Department of Education, 2007). The student enrollment in the participating schools was 28,210, which represented 50.51% of the secondary student population. The student enrollment in schools included in the analysis of improvement in student achievement consisted of 22,606 secondary public students, which represented 39.50% of the student population. The 2003 STEP, 2006 STEP, and STEP improvement data from 2003 to 2006 are presented in Appendix J.
  73. 73. In order to provide a valid sample, the analysis of improvement in student achievement was limited to schools in which the principal had served continuously as principal from 2003 to 2006. A total of 102 teachers in 31 schools indicated that their principal had been continuously employed as principal from 2003 to 2006. The survey data for the longitudinal analysis are presented in Appendix K. The survey data regarding length of service is presented in Appendix O. The school sample in the longitudinal analyses represented 9.56% of the school population. Findings The purpose for conducting the exploratory analysis was to examine the descriptive statistics for each variable and identify patterns, linear trends, and anomalies. The abbreviations used to represent the variables in the study are presented in Table 2. The transformational and the transactional leadership component data are presented in Appendix H. The leadership composite mean, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance data are presented in Appendix I. The Dakota STEP student achievement data are presented in Appendix J. Leadership Practices of Secondary Principals The first research question described the leadership practices of South Dakota secondary principals. The responses of 121 teachers in 41 schools were included in the analysis. The transformational and the transactional leadership component data are presented in Appendix H.
  74. 74. Table 2 58 Variable Codes Variables Codes Leadership Composite Mean Identifying and Articulating Vision Providing an Appropriate Model Fostering Acceptance of Group Goals High Performance Expectations Providing Individual Support Intellectual Stimulation Contingency Rewards 2006 Student Enrollment 2006 Socioeconomic Status (%) 2006 Average Daily Attendance (%) 2006 Dakota STEP 2003-2006 Dakota STEP Improvement LCM VISION MODEL GOALS EXPECT SUPPORT STIMULATE REWARD ENROLL SES ADA STEP06 STEPIMP The descriptive statistics for the principal leadership components are presented in Table 3. The descriptive statistics revealed a small range of means at the maximum end of the range (.66) and a large range of means at the minimum end (1.67). The mean for EXPECT (5.07) was the highest mean score among the leadership components and the mean for REWARD (4.66) was the
  75. 75. 59 lowest mean. The range for MODEL (5.23) was the largest range among the leadership components. The range for EXPECT (3.67) was the smallest range among the leadership components. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance LCM VISION MODEL GOALS EXPECT SUPPORT STIMULATE REWARD 2.46 2.40 1.33 2.75 3.00 1.80 2.67 2.20 6.14 6.20 6.56 6.75 6.67 6.80 6.67 6.50 4.84 4.73 4.72 4.92 5.07 4.85 4.71 4.66 0.94 1.04 1.53 1.16 0.89 1.25 1.01 1.20 0.89 1.09 2.35 1.34 0.79 1.55 1.01 1.44 Principal Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness, and Student Achievement The second research question examined the relationship between principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. A total of 121 responses from 41 schools were included in the analysis. The leadership composite mean data are presented in Appendix I. The student achievement data are presented in Appendix J.
  76. 76. 60 The descriptive statistics for LCM and STEP06 are presented in Table 4. The values for LCM ranged from 2.46 to 6.14. The values for STEP06 ranged from 48.50 to 90.50. Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for the LCM and STEP06 Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance LCM 2.46 6.14 4.84 0.94 0.89 STEP06 48.50 90.50 73.04 9.95 98.97 A two-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation was applied to determine the relationship between LCM and STEP06. The analysis, calculated in SPSS, is presented in Table 5. The correlation between LCM and STEP06 was r =.11. Table 5 Correlation between LCM and STEP06 Variable STEP06 LCM Pearson Correlation .11 Sig. (2-tailed) .51 cr = .05, two-tailed.
  77. 77. 61 A test for significance is also presented in Table 5. The p-value for LCM and STEP06 was p = .51 at a = .05. Since the p-value was greater than .05, there was no significant correlation between LCM and STEP06. A statistical power analysis was applied to determine whether the analysis produced a small (.10), medium (.30), or large (.50) effect size (G Power, 2002). The correlation between the LCM and STEP06 (r=.11) met the criterion for a small effect size (.10). Principal Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness, and Improvement in Student Achievement The third research question examined the relationship between principal leadership behavior and effectiveness and improvement in student achievement from 2003 to 2006 in South Dakota secondary schools. The analysis was limited 102 teacher responses in 31 schools in which the principal had served continuously as principal from 2003 to 2006. The LCM and STEP06 data are presented in Appendix L. The descriptive statistics for the LCM and STEPIMP are presented in Table 6. Since the analysis for the third research question was limited to 102 teacher responses in 31 schools, the values were not equal to the data presented in Table 4. The mean for LCM was 4.94. The values for LCM ranged from 2.46 to 6.14. The mean for STEPIMP was 9.89. The values for STEPIMP ranged from -11.50 to 21.50, which indicated a wide range of improvement in student achievement.
  78. 78. 62 Table 6 Descriptive Statistics for the LCM and STEPIMP Variable LCM STEPIMP Minimum 2.46 -11.50 Maximum 6.14 21.50 Mean 4.94 9.89 Std. Deviation 0.88 7.96 Variance 0.77 63.30 A two-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was applied to determine the relationship between the LCM and STEPIMP. The analysis, calculated in SPSS, is presented in Table 7. Table 7 Correlation between LCM and STEPIMP Variable STEPIMP LCM Pearson Correlation -.21 Sig. (2-tailed) .26 a= .05, two-tailed. The correlation between LCM and STEPIMP was r = -.21. The analysis indicated that there was an inverse correlation between LCM and STEPIMP. A test for significance is also presented in Table 7. The p-value for LCM and STEPIMP was p = .26 at a - .05. Since the p-value was greater than .05, there

×