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

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

Copyright by

LES C. ODEGAARD

2008

All Rights Reserved

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

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.

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

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

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

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 I mprovement 13

Leadership Theory 18

Leadership and Student Achievement 27

Summary 37

3. Methodology 39

vii

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

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

N. Transformed 2006 STEP Data 145

O. Survey Responses to Principal Length of Service 147

x

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

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

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

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

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 &

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?

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

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

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

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).

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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,

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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:

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

Tab

le 1

Tra

nsfo

rmat

iona

l Lea

ders

hip

Inve

ntor

y an

d Le

ader

ship

Com

pone

nts

Item

Le

ader

ship

Com

pone

nt

12

Has

a c

lear

und

erst

andi

ng o

f whe

re w

e ar

e go

ing.

4 P

aint

s an

inte

rest

ing

pict

ure

of th

e fu

ture

for

our

grou

p.

24

Is a

lway

s se

ekin

g ne

w o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

the

orga

niza

tion.

18

Insp

ires

othe

rs w

ith h

is/h

er p

lans

for

the

futu

re.

20

Is a

ble

to g

et o

ther

s co

mm

itted

to

his/

her

drea

m.

5 Le

ads

by "

doin

g,"

rath

er t

han

sim

ply

by "

telli

ng."

8 P

rovi

des

a go

od m

odel

for

me

to f

ollo

w.

26

Lead

s by

exa

mpl

e.

16

Fos

ters

col

labo

ratio

n am

ong

wor

k gr

oups

.

22

Enc

oura

ges

empl

oyee

s to

be

"tea

m p

laye

rs."

Iden

tifyi

ng a

nd A

rtic

ulat

ing

a V

isio

n

Iden

tifyi

ng a

nd A

rtic

ulat

ing

a V

isio

n

Iden

tifyi

ng a

nd A

rtic

ulat

ing

a V

isio

n

Iden

tifyi

ng a

nd A

rtic

ulat

ing

a V

isio

n

Iden

tifyi

ng a

nd A

rtic

ulat

ing

a V

isio

n

Pro

vidi

ng a

n A

ppro

pria

te M

odel

Pro

vidi

ng a

n A

ppro

pria

te M

odel

Pro

vidi

ng a

n A

ppro

pria

te M

odel

Fos

terin

g A

ccep

tanc

e of

Gro

up G

oals

Fos

terin

g A

ccep

tanc

e of

Gro

up G

oals

Tab

le 1

(co

ntin

ued)

Tra

nsfo

rmat

iona

l Lea

ders

hip

Inve

ntor

y an

d Le

ader

ship

Com

pone

nts

Item

Le

ader

ship

Com

pone

nt

25

Get

s th

e gr

oup

to w

ork

toge

ther

for

the

sam

e go

al.

28

Dev

elop

s a

team

atti

tude

and

spi

rit a

mon

g em

ploy

ees.

1 S

how

s us

that

he/

she

expe

cts

a lo

t fro

m u

s.

10

Insi

sts

on o

nly

the

best

per

form

ance

.

14

Will

not

set

tle fo

r se

cond

bes

t.

3 A

cts

with

out

cons

ider

ing

my

fee

ling

s.r*

7 S

how

s re

spec

t fo

r m

y pe

rson

al f

eelin

gs.

9 B

ehav

es in

a m

anne

r th

ough

tful o

f m

y pe

rson

al n

eeds

.

11

Tre

ats

me

with

out

cons

ider

ing

my

pers

onal

fe

elin

gs.

r*

19

Cha

lleng

es m

e to

thin

k ab

out

old

prob

lem

s in

new

way

s.

Fos

terin

g A

ccep

tanc

e of

Gro

up G

oals

Fos

terin

g A

ccep

tanc

e of

Gro

up G

oals

Hig

h P

erfo

rman

ce E

xpec

tatio

ns

Hig

h P

erfo

rman

ce E

xpec

tatio

ns

Hig

h P

erfo

rman

ce E

xpec

tatio

ns

Pro

vidi

ng I

ndiv

idua

lized

Sup

port

Pro

vidi

ng I

ndiv

idua

lized

Sup

port

Pro

vidi

ng I

ndiv

idua

lized

Sup

port

Pro

vidi

ng I

ndiv

idua

lized

Sup

port

Pro

vidi

ng I

ndiv

idua

lized

Sup

port

*r = r

ever

se o

rder

Tab

le 1

(co

ntin

ued)

Tra

nsfo

rmat

iona

l Lea

ders

hip

Inve

ntor

y an

d Le

ader

ship

Com

pone

nts

Item

Le

ader

ship

Com

pone

nt

21

Ask

s qu

estio

ns t

hat

prom

pt m

e to

thi

nk.

23

Has

stim

ulat

ed m

e to

ret

hink

the

way

I d

o th

ings

.

27

Has

idea

s th

at h

ave

chal

leng

ed m

e to

ree

xam

ine

som

e of

my

basi

c as

sum

ptio

ns a

bout

my

wor

k.

2 A

lway

s gi

ves

me

posi

tive

feed

back

whe

n I d

o w

ell.

6 C

omm

ends

me

whe

n I a

m d

oing

a b

ette

r th

an a

vera

ge jo

b.

13

Giv

es m

e sp

ecia

l rec

ogni

tion

whe

n m

y w

ork

is v

ery

good

.

15

Per

sona

lly c

ompl

imen

ts m

e w

hen

I do

outs

tand

ing

wor

k.

17

Fre

quen

tly d

oes

not

ackn

owle

dge

my

good

per

form

ance

.r*

Inte

llect

ual

Stim

ulat

ion

Inte

llect

ual

Stim

ulat

ion

Inte

llect

ual

Stim

ulat

ion

Con

tinge

ncy

Rew

ard

Con

tinge

ncy

Rew

ard

Con

tinge

ncy

Rew

ard

Con

tinge

ncy

Rew

ard

Con

tinge

ncy

Rew

ard

*r = r

ever

se o

rder

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

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

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.

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

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

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

56 secondary schools. Survey responses were compared to student achievement

as measured by the 2003 Dakota STEP and the 2006 Dakota STEP.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

was no significant correlation between LCM and STEPIMP. The inverse

correlation between LCM and STEPIMP (r = -.21) met the criterion for a small

effect size (.10) (G Power, 2002).

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Behavior and Improvement in

Student Achievement

The fourth research question examined the relationship between the

principal transformational and transactional leadership components and

improvement in student achievement from 2003 to 2006 in South Dakota

secondary schools. The analysis was limited to 102 teacher responses in 31

schools in which the principal had served continuously as principal from 2003 to

2006. The transformational and transactional leadership component data are

presented in Appendix K. The student achievement data are presented in

Appendix L.

The data analyzed consisted of 31 schools and 7 independent variables.

The researcher acknowledges that the ratio of cases per independent variable

(4.43:1) fell below the recommended lower limit (5:1) for regression analysis

(Abrams, 2007).

The descriptive statistics for the principal leadership components and

STEPIMP are presented in Table 8. Since the analysis was limited to 31 schools,

the data in Table 8 are not equal to the data presented in Table 3. The

descriptive statistics revealed a small range of means at the upper end of the

range and a large range of means at the lower end. The descriptive statistics

revealed a small range of means at the maximum end of the range and a large

64 range of means at the minimum end. The mean for EXPECT (5.08) was the

highest mean among the leadership components and the mean for MODEL

(4.57) was the lowest mean. The value for SUPPORT (6.80) was the highest

Table 8

Descriptive Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP

Variable

VISION

MODEL

GOALS

EXPECT

SUPPORT

STIMULATE

REWARD

STEPIMP

Minimum

2.40

1.33

2.75

3.00

1.80

2.67

2.20

-11.50

Maximum

6.20

6.56

6.75

6.67

6.80

6.67

6.50

21.50

Mean

4.73

4.57

4.93

5.08

4.79

4.74

4.73

9.89

Std. Deviation

1.04

1.53

1.11

0.88

1.18

1.01

1.14

7.96

Varianc

1.09

2.33

1.24

0.77

1.39

1.01

1.30

63.30

score for the leadership components and the value for MODEL (1.33) was the

lowest score. 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. The values for STEPIMP ranged from -11.50

to 21.50. A review of the means, the minimum and maximum values, and the

standard deviations for each variable indicated that the minimum and maximum

65 values fell within the limit of 3.00 standard deviations from the means (Abrams,

2007).

The skewness statistics for the principal leadership components and

STEPIMP are presented in Table 9. Skewness refers to the degree to which the

distribution of a variable is asymmetric (Howell, 2002). The acceptable range of

skewness for statistical analysis is ±1.00 (Cutting, 2008). The values for

skewness for the leadership component means and STEPIMP ranged from a low

value of -.39 for SUPPORT to a high value of -.83 for REWARD. These values

for skewness fell within the acceptable range of ±1.00 (Cutting, 2008).

Table 9

Skewness Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP

Variable Skewness Statistic

VISION -0.50

MODEL -0.77

GOALS -0.50

EXPECT -0.51

SUPPORT -0.83

STIMULATE -0.55

REWARD -0.39

STEPIMP -0.63

66 The residual statistics for the leadership components and STEPIMP are

presented in Table 10. The minimum and maximum values for the standardized

residuals fell within the accepted range of ±2.50 (Simonoff, 2003).

Table 10

Residual Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Predicted Value 0.99 17.40

Residual -15.60 12.58

Std. Predicted Value -2.21 1.86

Std. Residual -1.99 1.61

9.89

0.00

0.00

0.00

4.03

6.86

1.00

0.88

The researcher reviewed the regression standardized residuals and the

standardized predicted values for the principal leadership components and

STEPIMP. The STEP06 standardized residuals were symmetrically distributed as

the predicted value increased, indicating no violation homoscedasticity (Osborne

& Waters, 2003).

A two-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was used to

determine the correlations between predictors. The analysis, calculated in SPSS,

is presented in Table 11. The highest correlations between predictors were

r = .87 for MODEL and VISION, and r = .85 for VISION and STIMULATE.

Tab

le 1

1

Cor

rela

tions

bet

wee

n th

e P

rinci

pal L

eade

rshi

p C

ompo

nent

s an

d S

TE

PIM

P

Var

iabl

e

VIS

ION

MO

DE

L

GO

ALS

EX

PE

CT

P =

r =

P =

r- P =

r =

P =

r =

P =

VIS

ION

.03

1.00

.87

.00

.71

.00

.77

.00

MO

DE

L

.04

.87

.00

1.00

.67

.00

.69

.00

GO

ALS

.19

.71

.00

.67

.00

1.00

.67

.00

EX

PE

CT

.40

.77

.00

.69

.00

.67

.00

1.00

SU

PP

OR

T

.02

.71

.00

.84

.00

.73

.00

.59

.00

ST

IMU

LAT

E

.02

.85

.00

.77

.00

.67

.00

.63

.00

RE

WA

RD

.07

.54

.00

.70

.00

.51

.00

.45

.00

Tab

le 1

1

Cor

rela

tions

bet

wee

n th

e P

rinci

pal L

eade

rshi

p C

ompo

nent

s an

d S

TE

PIM

P (

cont

inue

d)

Var

iabl

e

SU

PP

OR

T

ST

IMU

LAT

E

RE

WA

RD

r =

P =

r =

P =

r =

P =

VIS

ION

.71

.00

.85

.00

.54

.00

MO

DE

L

.84

.00

.77

.00

.70

.00

GO

ALS

.73

.00

.67

.00

.51

.00

EX

PE

CT

.59

.00

.63

.00

.45

.00

SU

PP

OR

T

1.00

.70

.00

.77

.00

ST

IMU

LAT

E

.70

.00

1.00

.60

.00

RE

WA

RD

.77

.00

.60

.00

1.00

In a multiple linear regression analysis, correlations between predictors in

excess of r - .80 must be examined to determine whether the predictors meet

the non-collinearity assumption (Gatsonis & Sampson, 1989). Since the

correlations between predictors were greater than .80, they were further

analyzed.

The collinearity statistics for the correlations between the principal

leadership components is presented in Table 12. The values for tolerance met

Table 12

Collinearity Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components

Collinearity Statistics

Variable

VISION

MODEL

GOALS

EXPECT

SUPPORT

STIMULATE

REWARD

Tolerance

0.10

0.15

0.23

0.30

0.13

0.18

0.31

VIF

9.89

6.56

4.33

3.32

7.85

5.62

3.26

the minimum criterion for the acceptable value (0.10) (Braunstein, 2007). The

values for variance inflation factor (VIF) met the maximum criterion for the

acceptable value (10.00) (Braunstein, 2007).

The mean of the leadership components for VIF was 5.83. This value

exceeded the maximum criterion for the acceptable mean for VIF (6.00) (Ender,

2003). Ender (2003) stated that correlations in excess of .90 constitute high

intercorrelations. The correlations between predictors ranged from a low value of

.16 for EXPECT and SUPPORT, and for EXPECT and REWARD, to a high value

of .88 for VISION and STIMULATE. These correlations between predictors fell

below the maximum criterion for the acceptable value for intercorrelation (.90).

The correlations between the principal leadership components met the

acceptable criteria for tolerance, variance inflation factor, mean VIF, and

intercorrelation. Therefore, the researcher determined that the correlations

between the leadership components did not violate the assumption of non-

collinearity.

A multiple linear regression analysis, calculated in SPSS, was applied to

determine the relationship between the leadership component means and

STEPIMP in South Dakota secondary schools. The model for the analysis is as

follows:

STEPIMP = B0+ BiVISIONi + B2MODEL2 + B3GOALS3 + B4EXPECT4

+ B5SUPPORT5 + B6STIMULATE6 + B7REWARD7

71 STEPIMP is the composite mean score for improvement in student

achievement in math and reading from 2003 to 2006 on the Dakota STEP. Bi

through B7 represent the slope weights for the predictor variables. VISION,

MODEL, GOALS, EXPECT, SUPPORT, and STIMULATE are the

transformational leadership components. REWARD is the transactional

component. The last variable is a constant term, coefficient B0, which represents

the mathematical intercept.

A regression model summary for the principal leadership components and

STEPIMP variables is presented in Table 13. The analysis produced

R2 = .257. Therefore, predictors accounted for 25.7% of the variance within the

STEPIMP variable.

Table 13

Regression Model Summary for the Principal Leadership Components and

STEPIMP

Model

1

R

0.51

R Square

0.257

Adjusted R Square

0.03

Std. Error of

the Estimate

7.83

An analysis of variance test of statistical significance of the principal

leadership components and STEPIMP is presented in Table 14. The analysis

produced R2 = .257, F (7,23) = 1.13, MSE = 69.61, a = .05. The p-value was

72 p = .38. Since the p-value was greater than .05, the overall model was not a

significant predictor of STEPIMP.

Table 14

Analysis of Variance of the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP

Sum of Mean

Squares df Square F Sig.

Regression 487.23 7 69.61 1.13 .38

Residual 1411.62 23 61.38

Total 1898.86 30

a =.05

The coefficients for the leadership component means and STEPIMP are

shown in Table 15. The equation for the multiple linear regression analysis is as

follows:

Y = -8.53 + 3.24(4.73) + -2.86(4.57) + 2.51(4.93) + 3.09(5.08)

+ -1.14(4.79) + -.51(4.74) + -.85(4.73)

= 9.92

The p-values for VISION (.42), MODEL (.25), GOALS (.32), EXPECT

(.28), SUPPORT (.75), STIMULATE (.88), and REWARD (.74) were greater than

73 .05. Therefore, there were no significant bivariate relationships between the

principal leadership components and STEPIMP.

The standardized coefficients for the principal leadership components

and STEPIMP variables are also presented in Table 15. The strongest predictors

of STEPIMP were MODEL (-.55), VISION (.43), GOALS (.35), and EXPECT

(.34).

Table 15

Coefficients for the Principal Leadership Components

Unstandardized Standardized

Coefficients Coefficients

Variable B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

(Constant)

VISION

MODEL

GOALS

EXPECT

SUPPORT

STIMULATE

REWARD

-8.530

3.240

-2.858

2.511

3.088

-1.140

-.510

-.847

10.37

3.98

2.40

2.48

2.81

3.49

3.24

2.47

.43

-.55

.35

.34

-.17

-.06

-.12

-.82 .42

.82 .42

-1.19 .25

1.01 .32

1.11 .28

-.33 .75

-.16 .88

-.34 .74

a =.05

74 Principal Leadership Behavior and School Factors, and Student Achievement

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. A

total of 121 responses from 41 schools were included in the analysis. The LCM,

ENROLL, SES, and ADA data are presented in Appendix I. The Dakota STEP

data are presented in Appendix J.

The descriptive statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, and ADA are presented

in Table 16. A review of the mean, minimum score, and standard deviation for

SES and ADA revealed that the minimum score for each variable was greater

than 3.00 standard deviations below the mean. Therefore, these values

exceeded the acceptable range for analysis (Abrams, 2007).

Table 16

Descriptive Statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

LCM

ENROLL

SES

ADA

STEP06

2.46

130.00

18.10

86.90

48.50

6.14

2160.00

93.00

99.58

90.50

4.84

688.05

76.10

94.68

73.04

0.94

541.54

14.54

2.40

9.95

0.89

293261.00

211.31

5.74

98.97

75 The skewness statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06

are shown in Table 17. The values for LCM and STEP06 fell within the

acceptable range of ±1.00 (Cutting, 2008). However, the values for skewness for

ENROLL (1.41), SES (-2.05), and ADA (-1.08) exceeded the acceptable range

for analysis.

Table 17

Skewness Statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06

Variable Skewness Statistic

LCM -0.81

ENROLL 1.41

SES -2.05

ADA -1.08

STEP06 -0.41

The residual statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06 are

presented in Table 18. The minimum value for standardized residuals was -2.51.

The minimum value revealed the presence of standardized residuals in excess of

±2.50 (Simonoff, 2003) among the LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06

datasets.

76 The writer reviewed a scatterplot of the regression standardized

residuals and the standardized predicted values for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,

and STEP06. As the predicted values increased, the range of standardized

residuals

Table 18

Residual Statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06

Minimum Maximum Mean St. Deviation

Predicted Value 51.19 83.93 73.04 6.11

Residual -20.77 14.73 0.00 7.85

Std. Predicted Value -3.58 1.78 0.00 1.00

Std. Residual -2.51 1.78 0.00 0.95

appeared to increase, indicating a violation of homoscedasticity (Osborne &

Waters, 2003). Homoscedasticity is an assumption that the variance around the

regression line is uniformly distributed for all values of a predictor. A violation of

homoscedasticity, or homoscedastic error, occurs when the variance around the

regression line is not uniformly distributed for all values of a predictor (Osborne &

Waters, 2003).

The violations of normality, outliers beyond 3.00 standard deviations at the

upper and lower ends of the distributions (Abrams, 2007), standardized residuals

beyond ±2.50 (Simonoff, 2003), and the potential for homoscedastic error

77 represented unacceptable violations of assumptions. Therefore, the

researcher elected to transform the data by applying a 10% symmetrical

Winsorization. A symmetrical Winsorization is a process of transforming the

variables in which the trimmed values are replaced by the most extreme value

that remains in each tail of the distribution (Howell, 2002). Based on the sample

of 41 schools, the four highest and lowest scores for each variable were replaced

by the 5th highest score and the 5th lowest score respectively. The transformed

LCM, ENROLL, SES, and ADA data are presented in Appendix M. The

transformed STEP06 data are presented in Appendix N.

The descriptive statistics for the transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,

and STEP06 variables are presented in Table 19. A review of the means,

Table 19

Descriptive Statistics for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and

STEP06 Variables

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

LCM

ENROLL

SES

ADA

STEP06

3.18

176.00

63.40

91.60

60.50

6.08

1518.00

90.00

96.80

84.50

4.82

643.73

77.10

94.77

73.28

0.84

430.18

8.96

1.69

8.35

0.71

185056.00

80.35

2.86

69.70

78 minimum and maximum values, and standard deviations for the variables

revealed that the values fell within the accepted criterion of 3.00 standard

deviations (Abrams, 2007).

The skewness statistics for the transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,

and STEP06 variables are presented in Table 20. The skewness values for LCM,

ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06 ranged from a minimum value of-0.73 for

ADA to a maximum value of 0.90 for ENROLL. The values for the transformed

LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06 variables fell within the acceptable

range for skewness of ±1.00 (Cutting, 2008).

Table 20

Skewness Statistics for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and

STEP06

Variable Skewness Statistic

LCM -0.18

ENROLL 0.90 *

SES -0.25

ADA -0.73

STEP06 -0.19

The residual statistics for the transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and

STEP06 variables are presented in Table 21. The standardized residuals ranged

from a minimum of -2.21 to a maximum of 1.72. These values fell within the

acceptable criterion for standardized residuals of ±2.50 (Simonoff, 2003).

The writer reviewed the regression standardized residuals and the

standardized predicted values for the transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,

and STEP06 variables. The standardized residuals were constant as the

Table 21

Residual Statistics for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Predicted Value 58.00 85.83 73.28 5.07

Residual -15.43 12.04 0.00 6.64

Std. Predicted Value -3.02 2.48 0.00 1.00

Std. Residual -2.21 1.72 0.00 0.95

predicted values increased, which indicated that there was no violation of

homoscedasticity.

A review of the transformed data confirmed that the data were accurate

and there were no missing data. The process of transforming the data corrected

the problem of skewness beyond ±1.00. The extreme scores beyond 3.00

standard deviations and the standardized residuals in excess of ±2.50 were

eliminated, and the problem of homoscedastic error was corrected. Since the

80 transformed data presented no violations of the assumptions of regression, the

researcher determined that the data were suitable for analysis.

A two-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was applied to

determine the intercorrelations between predictors. The analysis, calculated in

SPSS, of LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06 is presented in Table 22. The

highest correlation between predictors was r= -.60 for ENROLL and ADA. Since

the correlations between predictors were less than .80, the researcher

determined that there were no violations of the assumption of non-collinearity.

Table 22

Correlations between the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, and ADA

Variable LCM ENROLL SES ADA STEP06

LCM r= 1.00

P =

ENROLL r = .06

p = .73

SES r= -.16

p = .32

ADA r = -.18

p = .26

.06

.73

1.00

.03

.84

-.60

.00

-.16

.32

.03

.84

1.00

.06

.69

-.18

.26

-.60

.00

.06

.69

1.00

.03

.87

.19

.25

.12

.46

.34

.03

81

A regression model summary of the transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES,

ADA, and STEP06 variables is presented in Table 23. The analysis produced

R2= .368. Therefore, predictors accounted for 36.8% of variance within the

STEP06 variable.

Table 23

Regression Model Summary for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,

and STEP06

Model

1

R

0.607

R Square

0.368

Adjusted R

Square

0.298

Std. Error of the

Estimate

6.995

An analysis of variance of statistical significance for the LCM, ENROLL,

SES, ADA, and STEP06 variables is presented in Table 24. The analysis

produced R2 = .368, F (4,36) = 5.24, MSE = 256.58, a = .05. The analysis

produced p = .00. Since the p-value was less than .05, the overall model was

a significant predictor of student achievement.

An analysis of variance of statistical significance for the LCM, ENROLL,

SES, ADA, and STEP06 variables is presented in Table 24 produced p = .00.

Since the p-value was less than .05, the overall model was a significant predictor

of STEP06.

Table 24

Analysis of Variance of the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and

STEP06

Sum of Mean

Squares df Square F _ Sig.

Regression 1026.34 4 256.58 5.24 0.00*

Residual 1761.69 36 48.94

Total 2788.02 40

*denotes significant predictor at a = .05

The coefficients for the transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, and ADA

variables are presented in Table 25. The unstandardized coefficients produced

the following equation for the multiple linear regression analysis:

Y= -283.62 + 1.34(4.82) + 0.01(643.73) + 0.07(77.10) + 3.56(94.77)

= 73.40

The significance test for a bivariate relationship between ENROLL and

STEP06 produced p = .00. The p-value for ENROLL and STEP06 was less than

.05. Therefore ENROLL was a significant predictor of STEP06. The significance

test for ADA and STEP06 also produced p = .00. Since the p-value for ADA and

STEP06 was less than .05, ADA was also a significant predictor of STEP06.

83 The standardized coefficients for the predictors are also presented in

Table 25. The analysis found that the strongest predictor of STEP06 was ADA

(.72) followed by ENROLL (.61), LCM (.14), and SES (.08).

Table 25

Coefficients for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, and ADA Variables

Variable

(Constant)

LCM

ENROLL

SES

ADA

Unstandardized

Coefficients

B

-283.62

1.33

0.01

0.07

3.56

Std. Error

81.65

1.35

0.00

0.13

0.83

Standardized

Coefficients

Beta

0.14

0.61

0.08

0.72

t

-3.47

0.99

3.65

0.56

4.27

Sig.

0.00

0.33

0.00*

0.58

0.00*

*denotes significant predictors at a = .05.

Summary

The descriptive statistics revealed a small range of means at the

maximum end of the range and a large range of means at the minimum end. The

leadership composite mean was 4.84. The minimum value for the leadership

composite mean was 2.46 and the maximum value for was 6.14.

84 A two-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation analysis of the

relationship between LCM and STEP06 found a small direct correlation (r = .11)

that was not significant at the .05 level. A two-tailed Pearson product-moment

correlation analysis of the relationship between LCM and STEPIMP produced a

small inverse correlation (r = -.26) that was not significant at the .05 level.

A multiple linear regression analysis of the relationship between the

principal leadership components and STEPIMP produced F? = .257. Therefore,

predictors accounted for 25.7% of the variance within the STEPIMP variable. The

model was not a significant predictor of STEPIMP at the .05 level. The

standardized coefficients revealed that the strongest predictors of STEPIMP

were MODEL (-.55), VISION (.43), GOALS (.35) and EXPECT (.34).

A multiple linear regression analysis of the relationship between LCM,

ENROLL, SES, and ADA, and STEP06 produced R2= .368. Therefore, predictors

accounted for 36.8% of the variance within the STEP06 variable. An analysis of

variance produced p = .00. Therefore, the model was a significant predictor of

STEP06 at the .05 level. A significance test of the bivariate relationships between

ENROLL and STEP06, and ADA and STEP06 produced a p = .00. Therefore,

ENROLL and ADA were significant predictors of STEP06 at the .05 level. The

standardized coefficients revealed that ADA (.72) was the strongest predictor of

STEP06, followed by ENROLL (.61), LCM (.14), and SES (.08).

Chapter 5

Summary, Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations

Summary

The first four chapters presented the statement of the problem, a review of

related literature and research, the methodology, and the findings. This chapter

presents a summary of the findings, the conclusions, a discussion, and

recommendations for practice and further research.

The study examined, through quantitative methods, the relationship

between principal leadership behavior and practices and student achievement in

South Dakota secondary schools. The study was also designed to examine the

relationship between principal leadership behavior, school enrollment,

socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student achievement.

Principal leadership behavior was assessed by administering the

Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory online to 121 secondary

teachers from 41 schools. School data in the study were provided by the South

Dakota Department of Education. Student achievement data in math and reading

was measured by the 2003 and 2006 Dakota STEP and was available online

through the South Dakota Department of Education.

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of the study was to collect and analyze the data for the

purpose of examining the relationship between principal leadership behavior and

practices, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The

study was also designed to examine the relationship between principal

leadership behavior, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student

attendance, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools.

The study was designed to collect and analyze data relative to principal

leadership behavior and effectiveness, 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?

4. What is the relationship between principal transformational leadership

practices and transactional leadership practices, 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

Since the turn of the 20th century, educators and researchers have worked

to reform the nation's educational systems. In January, 2002, President Bush

initiated the most recent reform effort by signing Public Law 107-110, commonly

known as the No Child Left Behind Act (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).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) constituted a profound expansion of the

federal role in public education (Wenning, 2003). NCLB imposed federal student

achievement and accountability standards on the nation's elementary and

secondary schools. (National, 2007). In summary, NCLB incrementally raises

academic standards, holds schools accountable for student achievement,

requires that every child demonstrate proficiency in reading and performance of

mathematical calculations, insures that all teachers are highly qualified, and

provides choices and flexibility for parents. NCLB stipulates that failure to meet

these standards results in corrective action such as probationary status (school

improvement), non-renewal of staff, loss of administrative authority, restructuring,

and dissolution (Department of Education, 2006). It was imperative that

educators and researchers identify every possible means to effectuate

substantial, continuous, and unremitting improvement in student achievement.

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 contemporary

accountability standards. It is vital that researchers scrutinize principal leadership

behavior and its relationship with student achievement.

Writers and researchers have documented the impact of effective

educational leadership (Bonaros, 2006; Cotton, 2003; Schnur, 2004). Writers

have noted that the recent emphasis on higher standards and increased

accountability has transformed the role of the principal (Campbell et al., 1990;

Fullan, 1998; Malone & Caddell, 2000; Portin, 1997; Usdan, et al., 2000). 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, 1992; Sagor, 1992;

Sergiovanni, 1990).

Research on principal leadership and student achievement has produced

mixed results. Researchers have reported that identifying the relationship

between principal leadership and student achievement has been problematic and

difficult to substantiate (Bosker, & Kruger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998;

Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999b; Witziers, 1996). Some researchers have concluded

that there is no relationship between principal leadership (Bosker & Witziers,

1996; Fischer, 2005; Murphy, 1988) while others have established direct and

indirect associations between leadership behavior and student achievement

(Barnett, et al., 2000; Bell, et al., 2003; Firestone & Wilson, 1989; Gurr, 1997;

Krug, 1992; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982). Several researchers have found a

significant relationship between transformational leadership and student

achievement (Leithwood et al., 1999; Marks & Printy, 2003; Silins, 1994; Verona,

2001).

Methodology

This study was a quantitative analysis involving a survey instrument,

student achievement data, school demographics, and statistical analysis. The

study examined the relationship between principal leadership and student

91 achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The study was limited to

South Dakota secondary schools that reported an enrollment greater than 120

students. Leadership practices were assessed by administering the

Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory to certified teachers in each

selected school. The TLI was administered online in May and June, 2007. All

teacher responses were confidential with no means available to the researcher to

identify respondents.

Survey results were compared to student achievement in math and

reading as measured by the Dakota STEP in 2003 and 2006. A review of the

collected data resulted in a sample of 121 teacher responses from 41 schools

that were suitable for analysis.

Findings of the Study

The study was based on the relationship between teacher perceptions of

principal leadership behavior and practices and student achievement in South

Dakota secondary schools. The study also examined the relationship between

principal leadership behavior, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and

student attendance, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary

schools. The analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, two Pearson product-

moment correlations, and two multiple linear regressions.

The first research question examined principal leadership practices in

South Dakota secondary schools. The analysis found a wide range of principal

leadership practices relative to the components of transformational and

transactional leadership in South Dakota secondary schools. The mean for the

principal leadership composite (LCM) was 4.84. The minimum LCM score was

2.46 and the maximum score was 6.14. The mean for High Performance

Expectations (5.07) was the highest mean among the leadership components.

The mean for Contingency Rewards (4.66) was the lowest mean among the

leadership components. There was a small range of leadership composite means

at the maximum end of the range (.66) and a large range at the minimum end

(1.67). The range of scores for Provides an Appropriate Model (5.23) was the

largest range among the leadership components.

The second research question examined the relationship between

principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and student achievement in

South Dakota secondary schools. A Pearson product-moment correlation was

applied to analyze the relationship between the principal leadership behavior and

student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. A total of 121 teacher

responses from 41 schools were included in the analysis. The analysis found a

direct correlation (r = .11) between the principal leadership behavior and student

achievement, and a small effect size. A significance test found no significant

relationship at a = .05.

The third research question examined the relationship between principal

leadership behavior and effectiveness, and improvement in student achievement

in South Dakota secondary schools. A Pearson product-moment correlation

analysis was applied to 102 teacher responses from 31 schools in which the

principal had served continuously as principal from 2003 to 2006. The analysis

calculated the relationship between principal leadership behavior and

improvement in student achievement from 2003 to 2006. The analysis found

an inverse relationship (r = -.21) between principal leadership behavior and

improvement in student achievement and a small effect size. A significance test

found no significant relationship at a = .05.

The fourth research question examined the relationship between the

principal transformational and transactional leadership components and

improvement in student achievement from 2003 to 2006 in South Dakota

secondary schools. A total of 102 teacher responses from 31 schools in which

the principal had served continuously as principal from 2003 to 2006 were

included in the analysis.

The analysis found that the predictors accounted for 25.7% of the variance

within improvement in student achievement. An analysis of variance found that

the model was not a significant predictor of improvement in student achievement

(p = .38) at a = .05. Furthermore, the analysis found no significant bivariate

relationships between the leadership components and improvement in student

achievement. The standardized coefficients for the principal leadership

components indicated that the strongest predictors of improvement in student

achievement were MODEL (-.55), VISION (.43), GOALS (.35), and EXPECT

(.34).

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. A

total of 121 teacher responses from 41 schools were included in the analysis.

The analysis found that the predictors accounted for 36.8% of the

variance in student achievement. An analysis of variance found that the model

was a significant predictor of student achievement (p = .00) at a = .05. A

significance test of the coefficients found that ENROLL (p = .00) and ADA

(p = .00) were significant predictors of student achievement at a - .05. The

standardized coefficients indicated that the strongest predictor of STEP06 was

ADA (.72) followed by ENROLL (.61), LCM (.14), and SES (.08).

Conclusions

1. There is a wide range of principal leadership practices and behaviors

relative to the components of transformational and transactional leadership.

2. There is little or no direct relationship between principal leadership

behavior and student achievement.

3. There is no relationship between principal leadership behavior and

improvement in student achievement.

4. Principal transformational and transactional leadership components are

not a significant predictor of improvement in student achievement. However,

Identifying and Articulating Vision, Fostering Acceptance of Group Goals, and

High Performance Expectations are the strongest predictors of improvement in

student achievement.

5. Principal leadership behavior, student enrollment, socioeconomic

status, and student attendance are a significant predictor of student

achievement.

6. Student enrollment and student attendance are significant predictors

of student achievement.

The conclusions of this study were supported by consistent evidence that

there is little or no direct relationship between principal leadership behavior and

student achievement, and a model consisting of principal leadership,

socioeconomic status, student enrollment, and student attendance is a significant

predictor of student achievement (Archibald, 2006; Konstantopoulos, 2006;

Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Sutton & Soderstrom, 1999; Verona, 2001;

Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003).

Discussion

Principal Leadership and Student Achievement

The researcher concluded that there is little or no direct relationship

between principal leadership and student achievement. This conclusion was

supported by similar studies conducted by Bosker and Witziers (1996), Murphy

(1988), and Wooderson-Perzan and Lunenburg (2001) who concluded that the

direct relationship between leadership behavior and student achievement is low.

Witziers, Bosker, and Kruger (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 37

studies on school leadership and student achievement conducted between 1986

and 1996. The researchers concluded that there is a small direct relationship

between principal leadership and student achievement.

Bell, Bolam, and Cubillo (2003) reviewed eight studies on 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. concluded that there is evidence that school

leadership affects student outcomes. Bell et al. reviewed a study that concluded

that school leadership had a significant direct affect on student achievement, and

another study that concluded that school leadership had a significant indirect

affect on student achievement. O'Donnell and White (2005) studied instructional

leadership and concluded that there is a significant direct relationship between

principal instructional leadership and student achievement.

Verona (2001) studied the affects of principal transformational leadership

behavior on student achievement. Verona reported that transformational

leadership is more complex than the original model proposed by Bass and Avolio

(1995). The transformational leadership model used in this study to assess

principal leadership behavior and effectiveness included six transformational

components and one transactional component. Verona administered Bass and

Avolio's Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and adjusted the method of scoring

to reflect the combined influence of transformational and transactional

leadership. The process of adjusting the model was supported by Leithwood,

Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999). Verona concluded that there is a significant

relationship between the adjusted model for principal transformational leadership

and student achievement. These conclusions regarding transformational and

transactional leadership were supported by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty

(2005).

A meta-analysis conducted by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005),

who reviewed 69 studies, determined that the correlation between principal

leadership and student achievement fell within the small effect size. Marzano

et al. reported that many of the studies they reviewed were based on principal

self-studies. Marzano et al.'s findings may have been influenced by the bias

inherent in self-studies.

Marzano et al. proposed a balanced leadership model consisting of 21

dimensions of leadership responsibility. Several of Marzano's dimensions of

leadership responsibility are similar or identical to the components of

transformational and transactional leadership. Marzano et al.'s Focus

responsibility is similar to High Performance Expectations and Fostering

Acceptance of Group Goals. Ideals/beliefs are similar to Identifying and

Articulating Vision and Providing an Appropriate Model. Relationship is similar to

Providing Individualized Support. Intellectual Stimulation and Contingency

Rewards are equivalent to the leadership components found in Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, and Bommer's model. Marzano et al. concluded that there are

positive direct relationships between these leadership responsibilities and

student achievement with small effect sizes.

The researcher found several studies that examined the relationship

between transformational leadership and student achievement (Leithwood,

Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Marks & Printy, 2003; Silins, 1994; Verona, 2001).

These studies consistently found that there is a positive direct or indirect

98 significant relationship between transformational leadership and the

components of transformational leadership, and student achievement.

It should be noted that there are discrepancies in the literature regarding

the nature and effectiveness of transactional leadership. Bass (1985) developed

a model in which transactional leadership consisted of contingent rewards and

management by exception designed to motivate subordinates to a higher level of

productivity. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) described contingency

rewards as recognizing individuals who excel, using performance as a criterion

for advancement, and using hard work and results as the basis for reward and

recognition. Marzano et al. (2005) reported that contingency rewards was directly

related to student achievement. In addition, Marzano et al. (2005) concluded that

the transformational and transactional components are similar in their

relationship with student achievement.

Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) also supported a model of

principal leadership that included both transformational and transactional

components. Leithwood et al. (1999) reported that numerous studies of

transactional leadership have concluded that management by exception has a

negative affect on performance and therefore recommended that it is not relevant

to education. Leithwood reported that contingency rewards have been well-

studied and the research has produced conflicting results. Leithwood suggested

that transactional leadership practices are "managerial," in nature and

underrepresented in current models, and proposed a model that replaced

transactional leadership with the administrative tasks of staffing, instructional

support, monitoring school activities, and community focus. In consideration of

the absence of consensus regarding the nature and effectiveness of

transactional leadership, when reviewing the literature researchers are

well-advised to examine each individual writer's perception of transactional

leadership.

The researcher reviewed three studies that measured transactional

leadership behavior and contingency rewards (Bosker & Witziers, 1996; Fischer,

2005; Murphy, 1988) and found no significant relationship between principal

leadership and student achievement. The researcher suggests that the findings

in these studies may have been influenced by the utilization of instruments that

were developed prior to the emergence of the Transformational generation of

theories. It is generally accepted that the Transformational theories are more

effective than the Contingency theories. Therefore, it is less probable that studies

that utilize instruments designed to measure contingency leadership behavior

would find a significant relationship between principal leadership and student

achievement.

The researcher concluded that the components of transformational

leadership and transactional leadership are not predictors of improvement in

student achievement. Since the researcher found no studies that specifically

examined the longitudinal affects of transformational and transactional leadership

behavior on student achievement, this conclusion was unsupported in the

literature.

f100 Principal Leadership and School Factors, and Student Achievement

The researcher concluded that a model consisting of principal leadership,

socioeconomic status, student enrollment, and student attendance is a significant

predictor of student achievement. Furthermore, the researcher concluded that

student enrollment and student attendance are significant predictors of student

achievement. These conclusions were supported by Verona (2001) who

concluded that principal leadership behavior, student attendance, and socio

economic status are significant predictors of student achievement. However,

Verona concluded that school enrollment had no significant relationship with

student achievement.

The conclusions of this study regarding the significant relationship

between school enrollment and student achievement, and student attendance

and student achievement were supported by Konstantopoulos (2006) who

reviewed three national surveys conducted over a 30 year period.

Konstantopoulos concluded that school factors are significant predictors of

student achievement over time. However, Konstantopoulos concluded that

students in high socioeconomic schools demonstrate higher student achievement

than students in low socioeconomic schools. In addition, Konstantopoulos

concluded that schools with high student attendance demonstrate higher student

achievement compared to schools with low student attendance.

Archibald (2006) reported that school factors are significant predictors of

student achievement. Archibald further concluded that poverty has a significant

101 negative affect on student achievement in math and reading. Archibald's

findings contradicted the conclusions of this study.

Sutton and Soderstrom (1999) reported a strong and significant

relationship between socioeconomic status and student achievement and a

moderate relationship between student attendance and student achievement.

O'Donnell and White (2005) concluded that higher socioeconomic status is

related to higher achievement in reading among eighth grade students. These

findings contradicted the conclusion of this study, which found that

socioeconomic status was not a significant predictor of student achievement.

The researcher concluded that student enrollment is a significant predictor

of student achievement. Wainer and Zwerling (2006) reported that student

enrollment had no affect on primary school student achievement, but was

positively related to higher student achievement in high schools. Verona (2001)

found that enrollment size had no significant affect on student achievement.

Archibald (2006) concluded that school enrollment has a significant negative

affect on student achievement in math and reading. The conclusions of these

studies both support and contradict a growing body of evidence that supports the

notion that smaller schools produce more positive outcomes and higher student

achievement than larger schools (Galletti, 1998; Raywid, 1997).

Cotton (1996) and Williams (1990) suggested that secondary school

enrollment should not exceed a range of 400 to 500 students. Williams (1990)

concluded the effect size for secondary student enrollment is within the range of

400 to 800 students. Cotton (1996) reviewed 103 documents regarding school

102 size and school variables. Although there is no clear agreement on what

constitutes a small school versus a large school, the ideal size for secondary

school appears to be within the range of 400 to 800 students (Cotton, 1996).

The conclusions of this study may have been influenced by the range of

enrollments found in South Dakota schools where a majority of the schools had

enrollments under 400 and are found in small rural communities, and there are

few large schools with enrollments over 800. Many of South Dakota's larger

schools fall within the recommended range of ideal size. The writer also suggests

that the large schools in the study may benefit from large district infrastructure,

programs, and resources designed to improve student achievement that are not

as readily accessible to many small rural schools.

The conclusion of this study that student attendance is a significant

predictor of student achievement concurred with Daugherty (2008),

Konstantopoulos (2006), and Verona (2003) and who concluded that student

attendance is a strong predictor of student achievement.

These conclusions do not suggest a causal effect between student

attendance and student achievement. The researcher recommends that

additional research be conducted to identify the causal factors related to student

attendance and student achievement.

103 Recommendations

The study examined, through quantitative methods, the relationship

between principal leadership behavior and student achievement in South Dakota

secondary schools. The study was also designed to examine the relationship

between principal leadership behavior, school enrollment, socioeconomic status,

and student attendance, and student achievement.

This study has added to the current but limited body of knowledge

regarding the relationship between principal leadership behavior and

effectiveness and student achievement. This and other studies have provided

evidence of the relationship between transformational leadership and

transactional leadership and student achievement. The relationship between

transformational and transactional leadership and student achievement in this

study was lower than the results found in previous studies. The results in this

study may have been influenced by a general unfamiliarity among South Dakota

practitioners regarding the Transformational theories. It is recommended that

South Dakota practitioners develop the knowledge and skills necessary to meet

the ever-increasing demands of the educational leadership.

The conclusions of this and other studies suggest that student

achievement is the result of a complex set of factors that are both within and

beyond the purview of school leadership. It is self-evident that principals have

little or no influence over school factors such as student enrollment and

socioeconomic status. School attendance may be influenced by a number of

factors including student behavior, parent/guardian behavior, teacher and

104 principal behaviors, law enforcement, the court system, and societal

expectations. For the benefit of maximizing their influence on student

achievement, it is recommended that practitioners place a high priority on regular

school attendance.

The conclusions of this and other studies suggest that the complexity of

school leadership requires a broad range of leadership skills and abilities. There

is evidence that transformational and transactional principal leadership behaviors

are directly related to student achievement. Modern leadership theory suggests

that effective leadership behavior and practices can be learned and developed.

Therefore, it is recommended that graduate programs in education administration

incorporate studies of leadership theory and development into their coursework

with special emphasis on the Transformational theories.

The following research would be appropriate to further expand the

knowledge base:

1. The study was limited to a survey of teacher perceptions of principal

leadership behavior. For the benefit of developing a more complete assessment

of principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, it is recommended that

researchers include the perspectives of the principal, peers and the

superintendent in the assessment.

2. The study was limited to traditional public secondary schools. It is

recommended that further studies examine private schools, Bureau of Indian

Affairs schools, and non-traditional public schools.

3. The study was limited to secondary schools. It is recommended that

105 further studies determine the influence of principal leadership behavior and

effectiveness in elementary schools.

4. The analysis in this study consisted of combined middle-level and high

school level data. It is recommended that further studies analyze middle-level

leadership and achievement separate from high school leadership and

achievement.

5. The data for student achievement consisted of composite scores in

math and reading. For the purpose of further identifying the affects of principal

leadership, it is recommended that further studies perform an analysis of student

achievement in math and a separate analysis of student achievement in reading.

6. The conclusions of the study concurred with a preponderance of

research that indicates that student attendance is strongly related to student

achievement. This study, like others, did not examine the causal affects of

attendance and student achievement. With due consideration of the intense

contemporary focus on student achievement and accountability, it is

recommended that further study determine the dimensions of student attendance

and the nature of their relationship with student achievement.

7. The study concluded that school enrollment is related to student

achievement. It is recommended that further research is conducted to determine

the factors of school size that are related to student achievement.

8. For the purpose of collecting a subjective perspective regarding

principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and teacher satisfaction, the

writer recommends further research regarding teacher-perceived principal

106 leadership behavior and effectiveness and teacher satisfaction relative to

principal leadership behavior.

9. The Transformational generation of theories is generally accepted to

be the most effective theories of leadership. Therefore, the researcher

recommends that further studies examine the relationship between

transformational leadership behavior and student achievement. Such research

may further establish the relationship between the most effective principal

leadership practices and student achievement.

10. This study concluded that the components of transformational

leadership and transactional leadership were not significant predictors of

improvement in student achievement. Since this conclusion was unique and the

researcher was unable to find literature that supported this conclusion, it is

recommended that further research examine the longitudinal and cumulative

effects of transformational and transactional leadership behavior on student

achievement.

107

References

Abrams, D. (2007). Introduction to regression. Retrieved January 2, 2008 from

http://dss.princeton.edu/onlineJnelp/analysis/regressionJntro.htm

Allen, G. (1998). Supervision. Retrieved January 23, 2007 from

http://telecollege.dcccd.edu/mgmt1374/book_contents/4directing/leading/

ead.htm

Archer, J. (2006). Synthesis finds district leadership-learning link. Education

Week, 26, 8.

Archibald, S. (2006). Narrowing in on educational resources that do affect

student achievement. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(4), 23-42.

Barnett, K., McCormick, J., & Conners, R. (2000J. Leadership behaviour of

secondary school principals, teacher outcomes, and school culture.

Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association

for Research in Education. Sydney, AUS.

Barr, B. (2006). A study of the impact of leadership on secondary school climate

(Doctoral Dissertation, Cappella University, 2006). Digital Abstracts

International, 67(04).

Bass, B. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organization behavior. New York:

Harper and Brothers.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:

Free Press.

108

Bass, B. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational

leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

8(1), 9-32.

Bass, B., &Avolio, B. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood

City, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B., &Avolio, B. (1997). Full range leadership development. Manual for the

multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bell, L, Bolam, R., & Cubillo, L. (2003). A systematic review of the impact of

school headteachers and principals on student outcomes. School

Leadership Review Group. Retrieved February 3, 2007 from

http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWebContent/reel%5Creview_groups%5Cleaders

hip%5Clea_rv1/lea_rv1 .doc

Bennis, W. (1990). Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century.

Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development, 27, 44-46.

Bird, C. (1940). Social psychology. New York: Appleton-Century.

Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publications.

Boje, D. (2000). The isles of leadership: The voyage of the behaviorists. The

Leadership Box. Retrieved February 16, 2007 from

http://business.nmsu.edU/~dboje/teaching/338/behaviors.htm#problems

109

Bonaros, D. (2006). A study of transformational leadership and student

achievement in inner-city elementary schools (Doctoral Dissertation,

Florida Atlantic University, 2006). Digital Abstracts International. 67(2).

Bosker, R., & Witziers, B. (1996). The true size of school effects. Paper

presented at a meeting of the American Education Research Association,

New York.

Braunstein, J. (2007). ResearchConsultation.com. Retrieved January 3, 2008

from http://www.researchconsultation.com/Default.asp

Brewster, C. (2005). Leadership practices of successful principals. Northwest

Regional Educational Laboratory. Portland, OR.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership, New York: HarperCollins.

Byrd, J., Slater, R., & Brooks, J. (2006). Educational administration program

quality and the impact on student achievement. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration.

San Antonio, TX.

Campbell, R., Cunningham, L, Nystrand, R., & Usdan, M. (1990). The

organization and control of American schools. New York: Macmillan.

Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (2004). The emotionally intelligent manager: How to

develop and use the four key emotional skills of leadership. Hoboken,

NJ: Jossey-Bass.

110

Castro, S. (1998). Development and validation of a new measure of

transformational leadership (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Miami,

1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(06), 2120.

Cobb, S. (2004). History of assessment practices in the United States. Retrieved

March 4, 2008 from

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:l86b-

vShlz4J:learn.midsouthcc.edu/LearningObjects/facDev/history_of_assess

ment.pdf+history+of+educational+assessment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=u

s

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cotton, K. (1996). School size, school climate, and student performance.

Retrieved August 7, 2007 from

http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.html

Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Cutting, J. (2008). SPSS: Descriptive statistics. Retrieved April 23, 2008 from

http://www.psychology.ilstu.edu/jccutti/138web/spss/spss3.html

Department of Education. (2006). LEA and school improvement. Retrieved

January 26, 2007 from

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolimprovementguid.doc

111

Daugherty, M. (2008). Attendance and other factors that influence student

achievement in a Delaware public school district (Doctoral Dissertation,

Wilmington College, 2008). Digital Abstracts International, 68(12).

Doyle, M., & Smith, M. (2001). Classical leadership. The encyclopedia of

informal education. Retrieved February 16, 2007 from

http://www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htm

ED.gov. (1999). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. National

Commission on Excellence in Education. Retrieved April 3, 2007 from

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

ED.gov. (2003). No child left behind, accountability and adequate yearly

progress. Retrieved January 22, 2007 from

http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/ayp203/edlite-slide005.html

ED.gov. (2006). No child left behind. Retrieved January 15, 2007 from

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml

Ender, P. (2003). Applied categorical & nonnormal data analysis. Retrieved

January 3, 2008 from

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed231c/231c.html

Fiedler, F. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149-190.

Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

112

Filley, A., House, R., & Kerr, S. (1976). Managerial process and organisational

effectiveness. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company.

Fischer, T. (2005). A comparison of the perceived leadership characteristics of

central Florida middle and high school principals and school achievement

scores (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Central Florida, 2005).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(06), 2038.

Firestone, W., & Wilson, B. (1989). Administrative behavior, school SDS, and

student achievement: A preliminary investigation. Philadelphia: Research

for Better Schools. Retrieve May 30, 2007 from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detai

lmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED374563&ERI

CExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED374563

Fleishman, E. (1957). A leader behavior description for industry. In R. M. Stogdill

and C. L. Shartle (Eds.) Patterns of administrative performance.

Columbus: Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research.

Fullan, M. (1998). Leadership for the 21s t century: Breaking the bonds of

dependency. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 6-10.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Galletti, S. (1998). School size matters: Small schools create communities with

results. Schools in the Middle, 8(1), 24-27.

Gatsonis, C, & Sampson, A. (1989). Multiple correlation: Exact power and

sample size calculations. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 516-524.

113

Geissler, F., & Stickney, D. (2006). A flow chart for success: Connecting

assessment to instruction. Retrieved April 4, 2007 from

http://www. wm.edu/ttac/articles/assessment/flow_chart_for_success.htm

Goals 2000: Increasing student achievement through state and local initiatives.

(1996). Retrieved April 4, 2008 from

http://www.ed.gov/G2K/GoalsRpt/intro.html

Goertz , M. (2001). The federal role in defining "adequate yearly progress:"

The flexibility/accountability trade-off. Consortium for Policy

Research in Education. Retrieved January 22, 2007 from

http://www.cpre.org/Publications/cep01.pdf

Gordon, D. (2006). A short history of school reform. Retrieved February 10, 2007

from http://www.fcd-us.org/pdfs/AShortHistoryGordon.pdf

Gordon, Z. (2005). The effect of distributed leadership on student achievement.

Retrieved April 4, 2007 from

http://fred.ccsu.edu:8000/archive/00000207/02/zgordonFINAL3.htm

Gurr, D. (1997). Principal Leadership: What does it do, what does it look like.

Paper presented at a meeting of the Australian Principals Centre

Research Forum, Melbourne, AUS.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). The principal's role in school effectiveness: An

assessment of methodological progress: 1980-1995. Paper presented

at a meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York.

114

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principals' contribution to school

effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,

9, 157-191.

Heck, R., Larsen, T., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Instructional leadership and

school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 26, 94-125.

Heinitz, K. (2006). Assessing the validity of the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire: Discussing new approaches to leadership (Doctoral

Dissertation, University of Berlin, 2006). Retrieved March 14, 2007 from

http://www.diss.fu-berlin.de/2006/93/Heinitz.pdf

Hencley, S. (1973). Situational behavioral approach to the study of educational

leadership. In L. C. Cunningham &W.J. Gephart (Eds.), Leadership: The

science and art today. Itaska, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1977). The management of organizational

behaviour (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Homrig, M. (2006). Transformational leadership. Retrieved January 23, 2007

from http://leadership.au.af.mil/documents/homrig.htm

House, R., & Mitchell, T. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary

Business, 3, 81-98.

Howell, D. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific

Grove, CA: Duxbury/Thomson Learning.

115

Indiana Department of Education. (2005). Definitions. Retrieved February 26,

2008 from www.doe.state.in.us/asap/definitions.html

Karnes, F., & Chauvin, J. (2000). Leadership skills inventory. Scottsdale, AZ:

Gifted Psychology Press.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1952). Readings in social psychology, New York: Holt,

Rinehard and Winston.

Konstantopoulos, S. (2006). Trends of school effects on student achievement:

Evidence from NLS 72, HSB 82, and NELS 92. Teacher College Record,

108(12).

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003). The leadership practices inventory (3rd ed.).

Retrieved February 3, 2007 from

http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/WileyCDA/LCTitle/productCd-

PCOL52.html

Krug, S. (1992). Instructional leadership, school instructional climate, and student

learning outcomes. Project report. Urbana, IL. Retrieved June 12, 2007

from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detai

lmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED359668&ERI

CExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED359668

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1991). Transformational leadership: How principals

can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, 1(3), 249-281.

116

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Dart, B. (1991). How the school improvement

strategies of transformational leaders foster teacher development. Paper

presented at a meeting of the Teacher Development Conference.

Vancouver, B.C.

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1991). Indicator of transformational leadership in

everyday problem solving of school administrators. Journal of Personnel

Evaluation in Education, 4(3), 221-244.

Leithwood, K., & Poplin, M. (1992). The move toward transformational

leadership. Educational Leadership, 49, 8-12.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999a). The relative effects of principal and teacher

sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 35, 679-706.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999b). Transformational school leadership effects:

A replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 451-479.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for

changing times. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership

research 1996-2005. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 4, 177-199.

117

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behaviour in

experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10,

271-301.

Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. ER Online, 29(2). Retrieved

March 4, 2008 from http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/arts/29-02/linn01.htm

Malone, B., & Caddell, T. (2000). A crisis in leadership: Where are tomorrow's

principals. The Clearing House, 73(3), 162-164.

Manitoba Center for Health Policy. (2003). Definitions beginning with S.

Retrieved August 1, 2007 from

http://www.umanitoba.ca/centres/mchp/concept/thesaurus/thesaurus_S.ht

ml#SES

Mann, R. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and

performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.

Manning, G., & Curtis, K. (2003). The art of leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An

integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 39, 370-397.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

118

McGuigan, L, & Hoy, W. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of

academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership &

Policy in Schools, 5, 203-229.

Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult

Education, 32(1), 3-24.

Muldoon, S. (2004). Is symbolic interactionism the fifth paradigm of leadership?

Victoria University School of Management. Retrieved February 16, 2007

from

http://www.business.vu.edu.au/Mgt/pdf/working_papers/2004/wp11_2004

_muldoon.pdf

Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in

the study of instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 4, 290-310.

MySkillsProfile. (2002). Transformational leadership questionnaire. Retrieved

February 3, 2007 from http://www.myskillsprofile.com/tests.php

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2007). Accountability, standards, and

assessments. Retrieved January 15, 2007 from

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/ahomepage.htm

National Educational Goals Report. (1993). Building a nation of learners.

Retrieved February 10, 2007 from

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/goals/report/goalsrpt.txt

119

National Science Foundation. (2008). NSF 88-16 A brief history. Retrieved

February 27, 2008 from

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1994/nsf8816/nsf8816.txt

New York State Education Department. (2006). Federal-state education policy

chronology 1944-2002. Retrieved March 12, 2008 from

http://www.archives.nysed.gov/edpolicy/altformats/ed_research_chronolog

y.pdf

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2008). A nation at risk.

Retrieved February 27, 2008 from

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/sc3risk.ht

m

O'Donnell, R., & White, G. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals'

instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP

Bulletin, 89,56-71.

Pastore, R. (2005). History of educational reform. Retrieved February 10, 2007

from http://teacherworld.com/potreform.html

PBS.org. (2001). SCHOOL: The story of American public education. Retrieved

April 4, 2007 from

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/innovators/index.html

120

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Bommer, W. (1996). Transformational leader

behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee

satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Journal of Management, 22, 259-298.

Portin, B. (1997). Complexity and capacity: A survey of principal role change in

Washington state. Retrieved June 13, 2007 from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detai

lmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED414624&ERI

CExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED414624

Purkey, W., & Siegal, B. (2003). Becoming an invitational leader: A new

approach to professional and personal success. Lake Worth, FL:

Humanics Publishing Company.

Raywid, A. (1997). Small schools: A reform that works. Educational Leadership,

55, 34-39.

Sadler, P. (1997). Leadership. London: Kogan, Page/Coopers, and Lybrand.

Sagor, R. (1992). Three principals who make a difference. Educational

Leadership, 49(5), 13-18.

Schnur, J. (2004). A recipe for school success. Retrieved June 13, 2007 from

http://www.fordham.edu/economics/vinod/docs/schnur-pap.doc

Sergiovanni, T. (1990). Adding value to leadership gets extraordinary results.

Educational Leadership, 47(5), 13-18.

121

Sergiovanni, T., & Moore, J. (1990). Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to

issues that count. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Shartle, C. (1979). Early years of the Ohio State University leadership studies.

Journal of Management, 5, 127-166.

Silins, H. (1994). Leadership characteristics that make a difference to schools.

Paper presented at the annual conference of American Education

Research Association, New Orleans, l_A. Retrieved June 17, 2007 from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detai

lmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED383086&ERI

CExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED383086

Sizemore, B., Brossard, C, & Harrigan, B. (1983). An abashing anomaly: The

high achieving predominantly black elementary school. Executive

summary. Pittsburgh, PA.

Smith, J., & Forbes, J. (2001). Creating a competency-based leadership and

managerial skills program: A model for smaller schools. Journal of

Management Education, 25, 209-230.

South Dakota Department of Education. (2004J. Interpretive guide: The South

Dakota standardized test of educational progress for educators and

parents. Retrieved January 22, 2007 from

http://doe.sd.gov/octa/assessment/docs/DakotaSTEPInterpretiveGuide.pdf

122

South Dakota Department of Education. (2007). Office of Finance and

Management. Retrieved July, 16, 2007 from

http://doe.sd.gov/ofm/fallenroll/2006/index.asp

Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational leadership: An evolving concept examined

through the works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian

Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 54, 1 -29.

Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership. The Journal

of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Stogdill, R. (1959). Individual behavior and group achievement. New York:

Oxford University Press.

SurveyMonkey.com. (2006). Because knowledge is everything. Retrieved April

17, 2007 from http://www.surveymonkey.com

Tead, O. (1935). The art of leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tichy, N., & Devanna, M. (1986). The transformational leader. Training and

Development Journal, 41(7), 27-32.

Usdan, M., McCloud, B., & Podmostko, M. (2000). Leadership for student

learning: Reinventing the principalship. Report of the Task Force on the

Principalship. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from

http://www.iel.org/programs/21st/reports/principal.pdf

Van Maurik, J. (2001). Writers on leadership. London: Penguin Books.

123

Vander Ark, T. (2002). Toward success at scale. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(4).

Retrieved March 14, 2008 from

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0212va1.htm

Verona, G. (2001). The influence of principal transformational leadership style

on high school proficiency test results in New Jersey comprehensive and

vocational-technical high schools (Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers

University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(03), 874.

Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburg:

University of Pittsburg Press.

Wainer, H., & Zwerling, H. (2006). Evidence that smaller schools do not improve

student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 300-303.

Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What

30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student

achievement. Working Paper, Aurora, CO.

Wenning, R., Herdman, P., Smith, N., McMahon, N., & Washington, K. (2003).

No child left behind: Testing, reporting, and accountability. ERIC Digest.

Retrieved January 22, 2007 from

http://www.ericdigests.org/2004/behind.html

Williams, D. (1990). The dimensions of education: Recent research on school

size. Working Paper Series. Clemson, SC.

124

Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M. (2003). Educational leadership and student

achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 39, 398-425.

Wooderson-Perzan, M., & Lunenburg, F. (2001). Transformational leadership,

student achievement, and school district financial and demographic

factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council

of Professors of Educational Administration. Houston, TX.

Wren, D. (1979). The evolution of management thought. New York: John

Wiley and Sons.

Wright, P. (1996). Managerial leadership. London: Routledge.

1

Appendixes

Appendix A

IRB Approval Letter

u. The University of South Dakota

May 8, 2007

Dr. Marlene Jacobson The University of South Dakota Educational Administration

Project Title: 100-07-064- An Analysis of Teacher Identified Principal Leadarship Practices and South Dakota Secondary Student Achievement

PI: Dr. Marlene Jacobson Student PI: Les Odegaard Level of Review: Exempt 2 Risk: No More than Minimal Date Approved: 5/4/2007

The proposal referenced above has received an Exempt review and approval via the procedures of the University of South Dakota Institutional Review Board 01.

Annual Continuing Review is not required for the above Exempt study. However, when this study is completed you must submit a Closure Form to the IRB. You may close your study when you no longer have contact with the subject.

Prior to initiation, promptly report to the IRB, any proposed changes or additions (e.g., protocol amendments/revised informed consents/ site changes, etc.) in previously approved human subject research activities.

The forms to assist you in filing your: project closure, continuation, adverse/unanticipated event, project updates /amendments, etc. can be accessed at http://www.usd.edu/oorsch/compliance/applicationforms.cfm.

If you have any questions, please contact me: lkorcusk@usd.edu or (605) 677-6184.

Sincerely,

Lisa K.orcuska Director-Office of Human Subjects Protection University of South Dakota Institutional Review Boards

The University of South Dakota IRBs operate in compliance with federal regulations and applicable laws and are registered with the Office for Human Subject Protections (CHRP) under FWA # 00002421.

Office of Human Subjects Protection (605) 677-6184 (605) 677-3134 Fax

i] 4 E o s l C l o r k S l r e e l > V e r m i l l i o n . S D 5 7 0 ( 5 9 - 2 . 1 9 0 • l - 8 7 7 - C O Y O T E S • F a x ' 6 0 5 - 6 7 7 - 6 3 2 3 • w w w . u s d . a t l u

126

Appendix B

Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory

Directions: For each of the following statements, use your mouse to place an "X" in the box that best describes your perception of your principal's leadership practices.

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

My Principal:

1 Shows us that he/she expects a lot from us.

2 Always gives me positive feedback when I perform well.

3 Acts without considering my feelings.

4 Paints an interesting picture of the future for our group.

5 Leads by "doing," rather than simply by "telling."

6 Gives me special recognition when my work is very good.

7 Shows respect for my personal feelings.

8 Provides a good model for me to follow.

9 Behaves in a manner thoughtful of my personal needs.

10 Insists on only the best performance.

11 Treats me without considering my personal feelings

12 Has a clear understanding of where we are going.

13 Commends me when I am doing a better than average job.

14 Will not settle for second best.

15 Personally compliments me when I do outstanding work.

16 Fosters collaboration among work groups.

17 Frequently does not acknowledge my good performance.

18 Inspires others with his/her plans for the future.

19 Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways.

20 Is able to get others committed to his/her dream.

21 Asks questions that prompt me to think.

22 Encourages employees to be "team players."

23 Has stimulated me to rethink the way I do things.

24 Is always seeking new opportunities for the organization.

25 Gets the group to work together for the same goal.

26 Leads by example.

„ 7 Has ideas that have challenged me to reexamine some of my basic assumptions about my work.

28 Develops a team attitude and spirit among employees.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

127

Appendix C

Instrument Permission Letter

Les:

I have attached several papers that have used the TLI. It was originally reported in the Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990) paper, which contains information about its psychometric properties. You are welcome to use it at no cost for your research (but, not for consulting purposes.). However, I would like a copy of your findings when you are done.

I am not familiar with the study from the University of Berlin. Can you send me the full citation?

Phil Podsakoff

Dr. Phil Podsakoff,

I am a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Administration at the University of South Dakota. I have completed my coursework and am developing my dissertation proposal. I plan to study educational leadership and student achievement. This spring I plan to survey 20 South Dakota middle-level and high school-level schools. I plan to survey the principals and teachers on their staffs for a total of 200-250 participants (ten teachers per school). I have reviewed a number of instruments and decided to use the MLQ Form 5x (Short Form).

While working on my literature review, I found a study from the University of Berlin that showed high correlations between the items in the transformational scales and the same concern regarding the transactional scales of the MLQ. The writer also expressed concern that some facets of transformational leadership were not measured by the MLQ. The researcher reported that the concerns raised in the study concurred with those found in previous studies.

One component of the Berlin study was a comparison of the MLQ to the TLI. This was my first exposure to the TLI. The researcher reported more favorable factorial validity and construct validity among the TLI transformational scales.

In light of this new information, I am writing to investigate the prospect of using the TLI in my study.

Please advise, and I would appreciate any information that you could provide. Thank you for your consideration and response.

Respectfully, Les Odegaard

128

Appendix D

Superintendent Consent Letter

Dear Superintendent I am a doctoral student in the Educational Administration graduate

program at The University of South Dakota. The purpose of this letter is to request your approval and assistance in a research study that is part of my program. The study will examine principal leadership practices and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools.

For the study, I have selected 136 South Dakota secondary schools. Upon your approval, I will email ten randomly selected certified teachers in each of the selected schools in your district. The email will provide survey information and a URL address to access the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory. Survey results will be analyzed to determine the relationship between principal leadership and student achievement in math and reading as measured by the Dakota STEP. I believe that this will be the most comprehensive study of school leadership conducted to date in South Dakota. The results will provide the information necessary to continue the process of school improvement.

The data will be analyzed and reported in a manner that will maintain the utmost of confidentiality. School identification numbers will be assigned for the purpose of data analysis. There will be no attempt to identify or report individual school, teacher, or principal information. This study has been approved by The University of South Dakota proposal committee and by the human subjects research committee.

I am requesting that you or your designee grant me permission to conduct this study in your district. Please send permission to the email address listed below and inform your building staff(s). I will send you a copy of the instrument and methodology, and begin surveying your teaching staff. Upon completion of the survey, I will send you an abstract which provides the findings.

Your prompt attention is greatly appreciated to allow sufficient time for data collection. Thank you for your consideration and response regarding this study. My advisor at USD is Dr. Marlene Jacobson. If you have any questions or concerns, contact me at les.odegaard@k12.sd.us or at work at 605-394-4092.

Respectfully yours,

Les C. Odegaard Rapid City

129

Appendix E

Superintendent Follow-up Letter

Superintendent

I am a doctoral student in the Educational Administration graduate program at The University of South Dakota. This is a follow-up to a letter I sent in May requesting your consent to include your school in a dissertation study that will examine principal leadership practices and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. Teacher responses to an online principal leadership survey will be compared to school results on the 2006 Dakota STEP.

Please indicate your consent by replying to this email at les.odegaard@k12.sd.us. At the completion of the study, I will send you an abstract which summarizes the findings.

Please find attached the original contact letter and institutional approval.

Respectfully, Les C. Odegaard

130

Appendix F

Teacher Cover Letter

Dear Sir/Madam(teacher): I am a doctoral student in the Educational Administration program at The

University of South Dakota. The purpose of this letter is to request your participation in a research study that is part of my program.

The purpose of the study is to examine the relationship between principal leadership practices and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. A total of 136 secondary schools have been selected to participate in the study. Leadership will be measured by surveying teachers regarding the practices and styles of their principals. The results of the survey will be compared to student achievement in math and reading as measured by the Dakota STEP. This study will be the most comprehensive study of educational leadership conducted to date in South Dakota. The results will provide educators the knowledge and insights they need to maximize student achievement.

Survey data will be collected, analyzed and reported in a manner that will maintain the utmost of confidentiality. The identities and responses of individual participants are unavailable to the researcher. Identification numbers will be assigned to schools for the purpose of data collection and analysis. There will be no attempt to identify or report individual district, school, teacher, or principal information. Your participation in this research study is completely voluntary. If you decide not to be in this study, or if you stop participating at any time, you will not be penalized or lose any benefits for which you are otherwise entitled.

This study has been approved by your superintendent (see attachment), by The University of South Dakota dissertation proposal committee and by Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions, now or later, you may contact the IRB at the number below. If you have any questions about your rights as a human subject, complaints, concerns or wish to talk to someone who is independent of the research, contact the Office for Human Subjects Protections at 605/677-6184.

You have been randomly selected to participate by completing the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory. The survey consists of 30 items and requires 10-15 minutes to complete. The following URL address will take you to the Inventory:

http://www.survevmonkev.com/s.asp?u=URL listed here

Thank you for your assistance and participation. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at les.odegaard(8>k12.sd.us or 605-394-4092 (work). Again, your participation in this study is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully, Les C. Odegaard

131

Appendix G

Pilot Study Participation Request

Dear Pilot Study Participant: I am a doctoral student in the Educational Administration graduate

program at The University of South Dakota. The purpose of this letter is to request your participation in a pilot study that is part of my dissertation. The study will examine principal leadership practices and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools.

For the study, I have selected 136 South Dakota secondary schools. I will survey ten certified teachers in each of the selected schools. Survey results will be analyzed to determine the relationship between principal leadership and student achievement in math and reading as measured by the Dakota STEP. I believe that this will be the most comprehensive study of school leadership conducted to date in South Dakota.

The purpose of the pilot study is to identify confusing or ambiguous format, content, or procedures. I am requesting that you review the attached documents that will be emailed to superintendents and teachers and complete the Transformational Leadership Inventory by clicking in the URL link listed below.

http://www.survevmonkev.com/s.asp?u=URL listed here

When you have completed the survey please reply to this email and provide any and all feedback that will assist me in conducting the study. Upon completion of the survey, I will send you an abstract which provides the findings.

Thank you for your consideration and participation regarding this study. My advisor at USD is Dr. Marlene Jacobson. If you have any questions or concerns, contact me at les.odegaard@k12.sd.us or at work at 605-394-4092.

Respectfully yours,

Les C. Odegaard

Appendix H

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Component Data

SCHOOL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

VISION

5.40

4.70

3.60

3.53

2.80

4.60

5.20

4.97

5.34

5.95

4.70

5.47

3.70

5.05

5.80

4.60

4.00

6.05

5.60

6.20

MODEL

4.89

4.00

3.17

2.56

3.67

4.50

5.89

4.06

5.28

5.50

4.83

5.44

4.17

5.00

6.00

4.00

5.33

6.42

6.00

6.00

GOALS

5.75

5.00

3.25

4.83

4.75

4.38

6.25

5.25

5.25

5.50

5.13

4.75

4.31

5.19

6.13

3.50

3.00

6.13

6.00

6.75

EXPEC

5.44

5.00

5.33

4.22

5.67

3.50

5.89

4.89

5.28

5.67

4.96

5.33

4.33

5.17

6.17

4.00

5.00

5.83

6.33

6.67

133

Appendix H (continued)

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Component Data

SCHOOL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

SUPPORT

5.4

5

3.1

5.13

3.4

4.6

6.07

4.6

4.9

5.5

5.4

5.6

5.05

4.9

5.9

6.2

4.6

6

4.8

6.8

STIMULATE

5.22

4.33

4.17

3.78

2.67

4.83

5.56

5

5.17

5.5

4.58

6

3.83

4.67

5.83

5

3.83

6.08

3.33

6.67

REWARD

5.73

5.7

3.8

4.85

2

4.2

6.27

4.5

4.4

5.87

4.25

5.2

5.5

4.1

6.3

3

4.7

5.75

5.8

6.2

134

Appendix H (continued)

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Component Data

SCHOOL

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

VISION

5.55

4.40

3.20

3.00

5.50

4.30

6.20

2.40

3.80

4.89

4.10

5.80

3.80

4.80

5.93

3.20

5.80

4.83

4.60

5.93

2.80

MODEL

6.13

5.33

3.33

2.00

6.33

2.33

6.50

2.67

4.22

4.52

3.50

6.00

1.33

5.67

6.50

3.33

4.83

5.61

5.00

6.56

1.33

GOALS

5.44

4.75

3.67

2.75

5.88

3.88

5.50

6.44

4.67

5.07

3.00

6.50

3.75

6.25

6.25

3.25

5.50

5.08

4.75

5.83

3.00

EXPECT

6.08

5.00

3.56

3.33

6.17

5.33

6.33

4.00

4.78

5.67

4.67

5.33

4.67

5.33

5.78

5.00

4.83

4.44

5.00

5.89

3.00

135

Appendix H (continued)

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Component Data

SCHOOL

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

SUPPORT

6.15

4.6

4.8

3.2

5.5

2.7

5.2

5.2

3.4

4.49

3.4

5.6

2.8

5.4

6

3

5

5.83

5.4

6

1.8

STIMULATE

5.08

4.67

3.44

4.33

5.33

4.67

6

2.67

4.44

5.52

2.83

5.67

2.67

5

6

4

5.17

4.67

4.33

5.44

3.17

REWARD

6.35

4.5

4.27

5.2

6.5

3

4.2

4.2

4.8

3.94

3.4

5.6

2.2

4.8

5.8

3

3.8

5.23

5.4

5.53

2.3

136

Appendix I

Leadership Composite Mean, School Enrollment, Socioeconomic Status,

and Student Attendance Data

SCHOOL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

LCM

5.44

2.77

6.14

3.70

4.23

5.63

4.79

5.88

4.76

5.05

5.67

4.84

5.38

4.48

4.84

5.00

4.64

3.25

6.02

5.36

ENROLL

652

130

845

690

295

2160

299

163

834

250

296

176

652

557

690

620

703

283

191

1871

SES

39.70

90.00

89.30

88.40

89.80

76.90

83.60

69.90

64.30

83.60

80.70

79.50

75.80

63.90

71.40

77.30

72.70

79.50

63.40

76.10

ADA

94.30

95.36

95.84

97.20

98.55

86.90

96.56

96.08

94.30

95.07

97.05

95.92

93.46

95.24

95.10

95.70

94.04

94.28

95.20

90.50

137

Appendix I (continued)

Leadership Composite Mean, School Enrollment, Socioeconomic Status,

and Student Attendance Data

SCHOOL

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

LCM

5.33

5.86

4.70

3.83

3.46

5.88

4.64

4.80

3.24

4.44

4.79

5.91

5.79

5.29

5.97

3.43

4.98

5.15

4.96

5.87

2.46

ENROLL

1041

375

233

163

811

560

485

1117

1897

652

445

1518

389

263

2057

1261

590

152

271

634

939

SES

84.10

84.00

80.30

71.80

79.50

66.10

18.10

85.80

82.00

71.80

93.00

91.80

90.20

87.10

73.20

84.90

75.80

65.10

91.10

78.50

50.30

ADA

96.50

95.09

96.80

99.58

95.14

96.60

91.60

96.10

92.20

94.10

95.40

89.50

90.80

94.61

92.40

92.31

96.50

95.05

95.47

94.50

95.10

Appendix J

2003 STEP, 2006 STEP, and STEP Improvement Data

SCHOOL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

STEP03

38.50

75.50

79.50

71.00

48.50

56.00

60.50

67.00

52.50

64.50

69.50

54.50

58.00

54.50

61.00

76.50

69.50

56.00

65.00

68.50

STEP06

60.00

62.00

82.00

83.50

60.50

56.00

63.00

74.00

65.00

79.00

76.50

74.00

54.00

70.50

82.00

81.50

75.00

71.00

73.50

82.00

STEPIMP

21.50

-13.50

2.50

12.50

12.00

0.00

2.50

7.00

12.50

14.50

7.00

19.50

-4.00

16.00

21.00

15.00

5.50

15.00

8.50

13.50

Appendix J (continued)

2003 STEP, 2006 STEP, and STEP Improvement Data

SCHOOL

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

STEP03

67.00

66.50

69.00

69.00

71.00

66.50

36.00

73.50

66.00

58.50

77.50

76.50

40.00

58.00

53.00

69.50

67.50

84.50

63.50

71.50

54.00

STEP06

87.00

73.00

84.50

67.50

76.00

82.00

48.50

89.00

76.50

71.00

90.50

82.00

61.50

66.00

71.50

64.50

85.00

73.00

66.00

80.00

74.50

STEPIMP

20.00

6.50

15.50

-1.50

5.00

15.50

12.50

15.50

10.50

12.50

13.00

5.50

21.50

8.00

18.50

-5.00

17.50

-11.50

2.50

8.50

20.50

«W

MM

IO

MN

3M

MI

OM

M-

iJ

-i

-'

-'

-'

-»

-i

-i

Ot

oo

ov

ic

so

i^

wM

-i

Oc

Do

o^

im

cn

^w

io

(D

OO

-s

lOlO

lJiU

lO

CO

O

X O

O

oc

ow

oo

oo

co

oo

oo

oo

oc

no

oo

oi

o co

-

jo

cn

j^

-v

io

ow

oo

O

^0

)a

i^

^C

nw

^^

MO

>M

O)

N3

0l

C3

)0

)a

iC

5)

Ol

*w

Oi

J^

Ol

Ol

-t

i.

Cn

^.

|,

OW

w

wr

oo

ou

oo

ic

nr

oo

io

iu

wo

w-

'O

uo

o-

'^

oo

oi

Mo

aa

io

i W

O)

^0

3W

OO

ND

N3

^0

CA

iW

OW

WO

WO

O^

^C

OO

OO

O>

CD

OC

3)

^J

CD

(y

|

*>

O

oo

o

uw

wo

iw

oi

ww

^p

pi

uw

io

^w

pw

pw

^^

ui

oi

ww

ro

bb

ob

oi

^t

nb

bb

)*

wb

ob

^^

^s

pj

^Q

^^

ww

MM

uo

io

>i

>

oc

oo

oo

oi

oo

~v

j~

>i

4^

oo

30

oa

ic

nj

i.

cn

oo

3<

D

ww

oo

io

io

io

ow

oi

oi

r CO

co

en

b bo

o

co

•^

a b

w

bi

b v

i o

^W

NI

US

SO

OO

u

M^

ub

bb

b^

^w

wb

ff

li

o'

oo

bo

ii

ou

^ W

U-

vl

UO

t»

^O

>J

>J

U«

(J

)v

l0

0(

0(

DO

MU

^

m

X m

o

H

CD

CO

CO"

0}

Co 3"

1 O

'

0)

CO

o o"

CD

3-

O

o 3 •o

o CD

D

CD sr

CD

X'

o

WWMIOIOM(ON)MMMM-'-i-»-'-'-i-i-»

-*0(0(»>IO)01^UM-»0(DO»>I(DOI^())IO

(O00-slO)Ol^WM-i

-i p Oi Oi M Oi W

bo b bo o bo b

^

O O CO O O O

O

ji. it*. KJ ro -vi en K> b>

CD

OO

OO

OO

O

CD CD 4*. en -t*

'-»• bo

o co co

en o o o o en en en en .&> -&.

a>

6 b) '* bi b b) o

en o o o o o -vi

CD -»•

o eo

«Ol^CtMOlWUl^M0)^O1^-tiWCDUUlJi030)

-s| -»• CD en oo en

-vi -si -vi eo to

o

-J

o o

CD eo eo

CD

-si eo eo -si o

CD oo oo

CD oo o

oo -j eo eo -vi eo o

J*, en en en en ^ eo

enen^oenbo-vi-^

00

O-

VI

O0

)W

00

N|

CO

o o

O

ji.

en

eo

en

o

-fc».

en

IO

^ co

bo

ho

to

o

en

N3

u

i eo

ro

o

-t

^o

oo

oo

oo

cn

o

eo

en t

o oo

to

CD

o eo

eo

o o

o

-ts.

CD

-s

j e

o

o

o

ji.

o

en

en

o

en

to

o

-C*

to

en

en

00

J>.

o

js.

CD

^

^ eo

en

en

to

to

oo

oo

o

-j

o

en

o

-si

eo

CO

C

•u

"0

O

73

H

CO

H

C H m

73

m I 73

O

3 CO

cT 3 o"

3"

CD

CO

a T)

0)

Co'

05

=5

CO

0)

o o"

i—

:s- •5'

O

o 3 o

CD

0)

0)

3>

CD

Q.

X" o c CD

sQ-

UW

N5

K)

M(

OW

rO

IO

IO

N5

M-

i-

'-

i-

'-

'-

»-

'-

' -

»0

(D

OO

SO

)W

^W

N)

-'

0(

DO

O^

O)

01

^«

IO

(

D0

0^

IO

)O

l^

UK

)-

i

CO

o o o

r—

O

to

en

en

-U

'4^

bo

^ C

D

O)

M

Ol

00

<D

Oi

01

^.

J2».

CO

4i»

. 42

k

B^

Ji

04

i(

»0

)U

O)

UO

)J

i^

OO

OO

^v

|O

lO

)0

0(

DU

O^

.|

iS

en

4S>.

00

O)

42k

--J

o en

en

en

0

00

0

o b o

a)

-vi

(fl

O)

>l

O)

O)

vl

oo

o)

co

a)

en

-»•

en

en

en

oe

no

en

o 0

00

00

00

0

-j

00

*•

P

en

b o

o

•vj

00

O)

CD

(D

-N

I

eo

en

b b

en

b 0

00

0

ro

0 en

o o o

v|

CO

|i

CO

-N|

O)

CD

CO

(0

CD

en

b en

b

b 0

00

00

o en

o

00

en

o

A

-^

10

_k

->l

-*•

en

en

en

o o

o

en

en

o co

jo

p

en

10

en

b en

en

en

en

en

0

00

00

0

en

b 0

)0

)0

)0

)0

)0

)0

10

10

10

)0

)0

1(

3)

0)

01

^ (D

O

) ^

1 CO

ff

l b

en

b en

en

b

en

00

00

00

0

^C

O*

.(

OA

M>

JO

O)

o en

en

en

01

0

00

00

o en

o

o o o

o o

CO

-vi

eo

—I

P

9° m

en

01

-a

0

00 eo

O)

en

o

eo

b o

00

co

>i

co

NI

M

Ol

N)

bo

b'

OO

O

O o

-J

0 en

o

en

~vi

4*>

-tk

b b

o o

Vl

Nl

O)

O)

CD

en

0

1 o

o

o o o

NI

O)

(Ji

00

CO

O

) 4^

. eo

C

D

eo

K>

o o

o o

en

o o

00

00

00

A

CD

en

01

o o

IO

O

O

O

k

eo

en

0

01 en

0

K)

O

O

O)

O

O

-k

O)

•&•

CD

O

O

Ol

45>.

K>

en

en

o

o

-j

ro

o b

en

b 0

00

N) en

o

jo

01 o

ro

en

o

CO

H rn

TI o O)

CO

H m

CO 3 ro

o o $*>

C

o s o o p>

0) a CO s "0

D

0)

ST

1*

CD

Q.

X"

42k

ro

Appendix M

Transformed Leadership Composite Mean, School Enrollment,

Socioeconomic Status, and Student Attendance Data

SCHOOL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

LCM

5.40

4.82

3.77

4.13

3.84

4.44

5.86

4.75

5.09

5.64

4.84

5.40

4.41

4.87

6.00

4.30

4.39

6.00

5.39

6.08

ENROLL

652

176

845

690

295

1518

299

176

834

250

296

176

652

557

690

620

703

283

191

1518

SES

63.90

90.00

89.30

88.40

89.80

76.90

83.60

69.90

64.30

83.60

80.70

79.50

75.80

63.90

71.40

77.30

72.70

79.50

63.40

76.10

ADA

94.3

95.36

95.84

96.8

96.8

91.6

96.56

96.08

94.3

95.07

96.8

95.92

93.46

95.24

95.1

95.7

94.04

94.28

95.2

91.6

144

Appendix M (continued)

Transformed Leadership Composite Mean, Student Enrollment,

Socioeconomic Status, and Student Attendance Data

SCHOOL

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

LCM

5.78

4.75

3.82

3.68

5.84

3.83

5.62

4.10

4.30

4.87

3.64

5.75

3.44

5.32

6.01

3.55

4.99

5.10

4.93

5.85

3.18

ENROLL

1041

375

233

176

811

560

485

1117

1518

652

445

1518

389

263

1518

1261

590

176

271

634

939

SES

84.10

84.00

80.30

71.80

79.50

66.10

63.90

85.80

82.00

71.80

90.00

90.00

90.00

87.10

73.20

84.90

75.80

65.10

90.00

78.50

63.90

ADA

96.5

95.09

96.8

96.8

95.14

96.6

91.6

96.1

92.2

94.1

95.4

91.6

91.6

94.61

92.4

92.31

96.5

95.05

95.47

94.5

95.1

145

Appendix N

Transformed 2006 STEP Data

SCHOOL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

STEP06

60.5

62

82

83.5

60.5

60.5

63

74

65

79

76.5

74

60.5

70.5

82

81.5

75

71

73.5

82

to

<o

^ CD

3 .C

c; o

^ 5 .* T

3 C

CD

Q

. Q

. <C

CO

Q

CL

Ul

K

CO

<o

o

o

C\J

•o

CD

s c .8 CO

c JO

LO

CO

o

Q_

LU "*

I- °°

CO

CO

1^

LO

LO

00 <o CO

CM

00

LO

LO

LO

o

CO

"3-00

CO

LO

00

CM

co

LO

co CO

CO

LO

LO

LO

CO co co

co co ° s

co ^r

o

o

X

o

CO

CM

CM

C

M

CO

C

M

•^J" C

M

LO

CM

C

O

CM

!"«-C

M

00

CM

O

) C

M

O

CO

CO

CM

C

O

CO

C

O

^ co

LO

CO

co

CO

h

-co

C

O

CO

C

D

CO

o

M-

147

Appendix 0

Survey Responses to Principal Length of Service

SCHOOL YES NO

1 1

2 2

3 1

4 1

5 2

6 1

7 1

8 1

9 1

10 1

11 1

12 1

13 1

14 1

15 1

16 2

17 1

18 2

19 2

20 1

148

Appendix O (continued)

Survey Responses to Principal Length of Service

SCHOOL YES NO

21 1

22 1

23 2

24 1

25 1

26 1

27 1

28 1

29 1

30 1

31 1

32 1

33 1

34 2

35 2

36 2

37 1

38 1

39 2

40 1

41 1