This study examined predictors of student achievement success related to principal leadership. It analyzed dispositional characteristics like a principal's experience, education level, and self-efficacy. It also considered environmental predictors like gender, school location, and student population. The results showed that a principal's self-efficacy has a moderate influence on student achievement. Gender and student population also demonstrated some predictive influence. The study aimed to determine which principal characteristics most influence student achievement success and to what degree a principal's self-efficacy impacts achievement.

1. Elementary School Principal: Dispositional, Gender, and Environmental
Predictors of Student Achievement Success for the 21st
Century
Paul Watkins
Southeast Missouri State University
Janet Moak
North County Parkside Elementary
ABSTRACT
Predictors of student success as they relate to principal leadership provide the purpose
behind this study. Three dispositional characteristics are tested: the principal’s experience,
level of education, and self-efficacy. Three other predictors that the principal does not
control are also considered: gender, school location, and student population. Results show
that self-efficacy among the three dispositional variables has a moderate predictive
influence on student achievement. Gender and student population also demonstrate
predictive influence on student achievement.
Key words: self-efficacy; average yearly progress (AYP); Missouri Assessment
Program (MAP); grade level expectations (GLES)
The complex work of schools with shrinking resources, greater accountability and
governance, along with widening achievement gaps, requires principals who possess creative and
effective leadership skills and a strong sense of self. Principals must practice skills critical to
leading the learning for teachers and students alike, while confidently making decisions based on
a vision of student success today, tomorrow, and into the next generations (Lloyd-Zannini, 2001;
Leithwood & Duke, 1999; Reeves, 2006 & Lucas, 2003). Competing for limited resources,
supporting good teachers while eliminating poor ones, competing with social distractions for
student attention, meeting ever higher testing mandates and quality learning standards place the
principal squarely in the middle of this question: How can the school sustain improvement and
expect continuous student achievement? Not surprisingly, the answer is also found within the
role of the principal since it is the principal who makes a significant difference in many high
achieving schools (Jackson & Davis, 2000; Marzano, 2003, & Reeves, 2006).
Review of Literature
The phenomena under study for this research are predictors that help determine a
principal’s capacity for successfully negotiating the many challenges facing schools today.
37

2. Considerable research has been devoted to understanding dispositions within the principal’s
control and predictors that exist beyond the control of the principal. Four predictors of primary
importance surfaced within this survey of literature. The first three predictors are those that a
principal can assert control over, including the educational preparation supporting the principal’s
leadership (Ruebling, Stow, Kayona, & Clarke, 2004); the years of leadership experience guiding
the principal’s vision for student success (Sodoma & Else, 2009; Ruebling, Stow, Kayona, &
Clarke, 2004), and the self-efficacy developed by the principal producing desired outcomes
(Lucas, 2003; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The final criteria demonstrate predictors
beyond individual control, yet, with an influence on school effectiveness. These predictors can
impact student success and include school location, student population, and the principal’s
gender (Sodoma & Else, 2009; Clark, Matorell, & Rockoff, 2009).
The educational preparation of school administrators in Missouri requires principals to
hold at least a master’s degree in school administration. Although many principals may hold
advanced degrees beyond a master’s degree, the relationship between the level of a principal’s
degree and the level of school effectiveness, as defined by student achievement, is unclear. A
1988 study conducted by Eberts and Stone found that principals with advanced degrees had a
negative effect in their school. However, the researchers explained that highly educated
principals were assigned to low-performing schools, possibly contributing to a negative impact
by the principal. More recent research, reported by Education Week (December, 2009), makes
the counter claim that, today, inexperienced and minimally trained principals staff schools
struggling to meet mandated standards, and they have a negative effect on student performance.
The conclusion from both studies indicates that a principal’s level of education has little, if any,
impact on a school’s success.
Unlike level of education, the principal’s experience does play a critical role in improving
school effectiveness, and this assertion is supported by the research. In an Iowa study, Sodoma &
Else (2009) compared job satisfaction among school principals in 1999 and, using the same
instrument, surveyed principals in 2005 to determine their job satisfaction. The results indicated
that principals with more than five years on the job experienced higher satisfaction (Sodoma &
Else). The Iowa study left open the question: Do principals who are satisfied lead schools that
are successful? The study concluded the experienced principals maintained a significantly
positive relationship with their faculty and community (Sodoma & Else). Research supported
collaboratively by the University of Florida, Santa Monica; California based RAND Corporation,
and Columbia University looked at student performance and principal experience, as well.
Supporting the research of Sodoma and Else, these results offer clear evidence that experience
does make a difference. Stated succinctly, “Our clearest finding is that schools perform better
when they are led by experienced principals” (Ruebling, Stow, Kayona, & Clarke, 2004, p. 11).
The third predictor over which the principal has control is self-efficacy. Multiple research
findings support the assertion that the self-efficacy displayed by the principal has some impact
on teacher motivation and student achievement (Imants & DeBrabander, 1996; Hallinger &
Heck, 1998; and Lucas, 2003). Self-efficacy coalesces cognition, socialization, emotion, and
behavior by the articulation of knowledge and skills set into action (Bandura, 1997).
Additionally, Bandura asserts that a principal’s sense of efficacy is a judgment of his or her
capabilities to organize a course of action that will result in a desired outcome in the school.
Because leaders are often portrayed as heroic figures lionized with unrealistic standards,
those high expectations can undermine the conscientious administrator (Hugh, 1992). The heroic
image is only one side of leadership that deals with problems of budget, declining respect for
38

3. educators, and expanding achievement gaps. Bandura’s (1997) model of self-efficacy manifests
itself in a person’s ability to set higher goals and maintain the commitment to achieve those
goals, even in such challenging times. Self-efficacy provides the willingness to take risks and
stay with uncertain tasks for extended periods of time. The principal’s ability to deeply
understand the issues, effectively communicate this understanding, encourage feedback, cope
with instability and develop a reasonable course of action are qualities of leaders with high levels
of self-efficacy.
When considering the predictors of student success that are beyond the control of the
principal, the research findings are mixed. Malone and Nelson (2004) looked at principals and
their leadership behavior in Indiana high schools. Their research found little variance between
gender, school size, the principal’s level of experience, and leadership effectiveness. Results
here are at odds with other studies regarding the principal’s experience and its relation to school
success (Sodoma & Else, 2009; & Ruebling, Stow, Kayona, & Clarke, 2004). Malone and
Nelson’s results do align, however, with what others have found related to both principal’s
gender and school size. School success is not significantly impacted by either the principal’s
gender or school size (Sodoma & Else; & Ruebling, Stow, Kayona, & Clarke).
The final variable considered for this article is school location as it relates to high poverty
inner city and rural, as well as large suburban schools. Research on school location is limited;
however, two 1991 studies looked closely at the impact on location and the impact on class size.
Nye, Zaharis, Fulton, Achilles, and Hooper conducted a sweeping study of Tennessee schools
examining, among other variables, school location, class size, and their impact on student
achievement. The researchers found that, indeed, smaller classes more than location had a
significant impact on student achievement growth. A more comprehensive study by Plecki
(1991) found that both location and class size contributed to higher student achievement. Not
surprisingly, Pleki discovered that wealthier, more socially stable suburban schools had an
advantage over urban and rural settings in promoting student success measured by achievement
testing. While neither study looked closely at the principal’s role as part of school location, it
would seem reasonable to assume principals in higher performing suburban districts, particularly
those with smaller class sizes, would have a greater capacity for effectiveness than those
principals leading lower performing urban or rural schools.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to look at the variables of school size, principal experience,
self-efficacy, gender, and level of advanced degrees as predictors of school success as measured
by the Missouri Assessment Program competencies in math and communication arts. Two key
questions were investigated: (a) Among Missouri elementary principals, what dispositional
predictors influence student achievement success? (b) To what degree does the principal's self-
efficacy influence successful student achievement?
Measures
Participants were elementary public school principals in Missouri. They were asked to
complete the Principal Sense of Efficacy Scale (PSES) developed by Tschannen-Moran & Gareis
(2004); the levels of perceived self efficacy were measured in three categories of leadership:
39

4. management, instructional leadership and moral leadership efficacy. The survey was formatted
as a nine-point likert scale with established anchors set at: 1=none at all, 3=very little, 5-some
degree, 7=quite a bit, and 9=a great deal (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Table 1 provides
the descriptive results from the survey.
Table 1
Principal Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale
_______________________________________________________________________
_
Efficacy Scale Level M SD
Management 6.5 1.57
Instructional Leadership 7.5 1.18
Moral Leadership 7.7 1.24
________________________________________________________________________
The Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) is the annual achievement assessment
administered to grades three through six. The MAP test consists of a state-developed, criterion
referenced test designed to measure student mastery of academic knowledge for Missouri’s
Grade Level Expectations in mathematics, communication art, science and social studies.
Communication arts and mathematics composite scores were chosen in grades three through six
as the dependent variable. Both communication arts and mathematics results are used in
determining Missouri’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
Measures
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the predictor and criterion variables
in the study. After examining correlational relations, communication arts scores are significantly
related to principals’ level of education (r=.204; p<.05), principals’ years of experience (r=.187;
p<.05), and the school location (r=.228; p<.05). Student population has a significant relationship
to level of education (r=.187; p<.05) and years of experience (r=.230; <p.05). Math MAP results
revealed similar results to those of communication arts, principals’ education (r=.163; p<.05) and
years of experience (r=.231; p<.05). School location had a highly significant relationship with
math scores (r=.225; p<.01).
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Predictor and Criterion Variables (n=121)
________________________________________________________________________
Variables M SD
________________________________________________________________________
Communication Arts 45.43 13.21
Mathematics 46.13 15.82
Level of Education 1.98 .69
Years of Experience 3.18 1.29
Efficacy 7.23 .88
Student Population 2.70 1.01
Gender 1.58 .49
40

5. School Location 2.27 .82
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________
A forward stepwise regression (Table 3 and Table 4) was performed to determine those
principal dispositions that were useful predictors of student academic success for communication
arts and mathematics. To control for the principal’s dispositions of self-efficacy, level of
education and administrative experience were entered in the first block. School location, gender,
and student population were added to the second block since these indicators have proven to
have an impact on student academic success, but they are not under the direct control of the
principal. Principal dispositions accounted for 3% of the variance in communication arts
(F=.075; p>.05), yet, only the principal’s level of education was significant. After controlling for
other non dispositional variables, there was an additional 3% variance in communication arts
(F=2.42; p<.05).
Table 3
Summary Regression Analysis for Prediction MAP Communication Arts (N=121)
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Variable B SEB ß
________________________________________________________________________
Block 1 R2
=.057; ∆R2
=.033 (p<.05)
Efficacy .45 1.36 .03
Education 3.68 1.75 .19
Years of Experience 1.23 .93 .12
Block 2 R2
=.114; ∆R2
=0.67 (p<.05)
Efficacy .51 1.35 .03*
Education 4.01 1.75 .21
Years of Experience .88 .95 .09
Gender .05 2.39 .00*
School Location 3.95 1.48 .24
Student Population .50 1.24 .04*
________________________________________________________________________
*p<.05
Student academic success in mathematics followed the same model as communication
arts. Principal’s dispositions were loaded in Block I and accounted for 5% of the variance
(F=3.043; p<.05). After loading those variables over which the principal has no control but
variables that have shown to have an influence over academic success were loaded in Block II.
The loading of these additional variables accounted for an additional 5% of the variance (F=3.34;
p<.05). In the first block only, the principal’s self-efficacy was significant. When other
predictors were added, self-efficacy remained significant joined by gender and student
population.
41

6. Table 4
Summary Regression Analysis for Predicting MAP Mathematics (N=121)
_____________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Variable B SEB ß
________________________________________________________________________
Block 1 R2
=.073; ∆R2
=.049 (p<.05)
Efficacy .42 1.62 .02*
Education 3.22 2.08 .14
Years of Experience 2.62 1.11 .21
Block 2 R2
=..15; ∆R2
=0.106 (p<.05)
Efficacy .45 1.58 .03*
Education 3.78 2.06 .16
Years of Experience 2.28 1.12 .19
Gender .35 2.80 .01*
School Location 5.52 1.73 .29
Student Population .31 1.46 .02*
________________________________________________________________________
*p<.05
Discussion
What are the dispositions of school leaders most likely to make a difference in the
academic lives of the children they serve? The building principal has, unquestionably, an impact
on all aspects of building management, as well as instructional and curricular oversight. In
today’s currency, the impact that a leader has is measured by increasing achievement scores.
The current study examined three principal dispositions (level of experience, highest degree
earned, and self-efficacy) that, through previous research, has shown to have an impact on
student academic success (Clark, Martorell & Rockoff, 2009; Sodoma & Else, 2009 and Plecki,
1991).
Only 3% of the variance was explained in communication arts MAP scores, and only 5%
of the variance was explained by Math MAP scores and principal dispositions. A principal’s
self-efficacy when controlling for dispositions and non dispositional variables had significant
impact on student achievement. The principal’s ability to understand intellectually and act
comprehensively on issues critical to instruction and student learning can be key predictors of
success (Lucas 2003).
Student population and the principal’s gender were also found to have predictive
influence on student success. The size of a school’s population and its degree of minority
enrollment are not variables that principal, superintendent or state legislators can control.
However, it is evident that student population must be considered as the principal considers
reform efforts. It is unclear from the literature how gender impacts school improvement (Clark,
Martorell, & Rockoff and Sodoma & Else). Sodoma and Else point out in their research that
42

7. more females need to occupy the principal’s office but give little reasoning for this, other than
equity. Female administrators have shown, on average, to demonstrate more direct attention to
instructional practice than do males (Wagner, 1993). However, the connection between gender
and student achievement success remains inconclusive.
Implications
Before discussing the value of this study, it is important to consider the limitations. First,
the study was limited to Missouri elementary principals and the ability to generalize to other
levels, middle schools or high schools, is limited. Further, principal dispositions explain a
disappointingly small percentage of variance between the content areas and dispositional
predictors of student success. A larger sample may help mitigate this variance issue.
As this study bears out, drilling into the principalship and finding those predictors that
have an effect on student achievement can be illusory. However, there was evidence that a
principal’s self-efficacy can have an effect on student success. With this in mind, supporting
self-efficacy among building leaders is critical.
One important support system is continuing education. Education policy and theory
routinely restructure common beliefs or sharpen proven classroom practice. An effective
building principal must be engaged with new ideas and practice. The literature is abundant
around the importance of teacher professional development and its direct connection with student
improvement. Principals need these same professional development advantages that support
their practice as leaders.
The principalship can be isolating and, at times, a source of conflict. As a result,
principals may come to question their personal efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and their relevance to
the organization. Strong mentoring programs, such as those in Connecticut, Mississippi, and
Missouri, provide new principals feedback and professional support through a practicing or
recently retired administrator (Cohen, C., Darling-Hammond, L. & La Pointe, M., 2007 &
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2009) These administrators can
provide wisdom, emotional support, and feedback to a novice who is working through difficult
or complex decisions.
Beyond a mentoring foundation, self-efficacy in principals can be strengthened further
through widening professional community membership. Professional membership in leadership
organizations, study groups, and seminars can inform and nurture growth that is both pragmatic
and, at the same time, emotionally sustaining.
While it is difficult to make a direct link between the principal’s dispositions and
successful student achievement, there is a tacit understanding of effective leadership whether
resulting from experience, level of education, or self-efficacy. Further research is important for
developing insight into those characteristics that promote principal effectiveness.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Carr, S. C. (1995). Female principal: Communicators of quality for the 90’s and beyond. In B. J.
Irby & G. Brown (Eds.), Women as School executives: Voices and visions. (pp. 62-69).
Huntsville, TX: The Texas Council of Women School Executives.
43

8. Clark D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J. (2009). School principals and school performance. (A
Working Paper 38). Retrieved from Calder Urban Institute: http://www.caldercenter.org
Cohen, C. Darling-Hammond, L., & La Pointe, M. (2007). School leadership study developing
successful principals: Policy and resource supports for exemplary principal preparation
and development programs: Findings from the school leadership study. Standard, CA:
Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Eberts, R. W., & Stone, J. (1988). Student achievement in public schools: Do principals make a
difference? Economics of Education Review, 7(3), 291-299.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1999). Can leadership enhance school effectiveness? In Bush et al.
(Eds.) Educational Management: Redefining theory, policy and practice (pp. 178-190).
London, England: Paul Chapman.
Hugh, J. (1992 August). School principals—entrepreneurial professionals. Paper presented at
Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration, University of Hong Kong.
Imants, J. G. M., & DeBrabander, C. J. (1996). Teachers’ and principals’ sense of efficacy in
elementary schools. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12(2), 179-195.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G . A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st
century. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of
leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly 35,
679-706.
Lloyd-Zannini, L.P. (2001). A correlation study of school principals’ perceptions of self-
efficacy and the availability & quality of gifted programming in their schools (Doctoral
dissertation, The College of William and Mary in Virginia, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 63(02), 448.
Lucas, S. E. (2003). The development and impact of principal leadership self-efficacy in middle
level schools: Beginning an inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Malone, B. G., & Nelson, J. S. (2004). Indiana study explores link between patterns of
leadership behavior and administrator stress. ERS Spectrum, 22(2) 4-18.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2009). Administrator Mentoring
Program (AMP): Retrieved from Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
website: http://www.dese.mo.gov/divteachqual/leadership/mentor_prog/
Marzano, J. R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Nye, B. A., Zaharias, J. B. Fulton, B. D. Achilles, C. M., & Hooper, R. (1991). The lasting
benefits study: A continuing analysis of the effect of small class size in Kindergarten
through third grade on student achievement test scores in subsequent grade levels: Fourth
grade. (Report No. PS020058). Nashville, TN: Center of Excellence for Research in Basic
Skills. (ERIC Document reproduction Service No. ED346082)
Plecki, M. (1991, April). The relationship between elementary school size and student
achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.
44

9. Reeves, D. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ruebling, C. E., Stow, S. B., Kayona, F. A., & Clarke, N. A. (2004). Instructional leadership: An
essential ingredient for improving student learning. The Educational Forum, 68, 243-253.
Sodoma, B., & Else, D. (2009). Job satisfaction of Iowa public school principals. The Rural
Educator, 31(1), 10-18.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy: Assessing a
promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 573-585.
Wagner, R. K. (1993). Practical problem solving. In P.Hallinger, K. Liethwood, & J. Murphy
(Eds.) Cognitive perspective on educational leadership. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Authors
Paul Watkins currently teaches in the Department of Education Administration at Southeast
Missouri State University. He is also on the faculty at the University of Missouri, Columbia and
teaches in a Statewide Cooperative EdD program through the Department of Education
Leadership and Policy Analysis. Dr. Watson has worked in public education as both teacher and
administrator for twenty-eight years.
Janet Moak is the building principal at Parkside Elementary in Desloge, Missouri. She has
worked in education as a teacher and building administrator for approximately twenty-six years.
She recently earned her EdD from the University of Missouri, Columbia in Leadership.
45