the effects of transformational leadership of … · 2017-02-04 · transformational leadership...
TRANSCRIPT
THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP OF
PRINCIPALS ON STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty
of
California State University, Stanislaus
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership
By
Sharon S. Chen
August 2014
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP OF
PRINCIPALS ON STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
by
Sharon S. Chen
Signed Certification of Approval page
is on file with the University Library
Dr. John Borba
Professor of School Administration
Dr. Oddmund Myhre
Professor/Interim Dean, College of Education
Dr. Steve E. Gomes
Superintendent of Schools
Merced County Office of Education
Date
Date
Date
© 2014
Sharon S. Chen
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
DEDICATION
I wish to dedicate this research study to Paul, my devoted husband, and Dr.
Joseph Chen and Dr. Victor Chen, my sons. They have enthusiastically supported me.
I doubt that this life journey would have been completed without their constant,
unconditional, and unfailing love; their unwavering support, and their never ending
words of encouragement have always been my hope and my guiding light all along to
the end of my educational endeavor.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Writing a doctoral dissertation is seldom successfully finished without the
contribution of numerous talented individuals. My deepest gratitude goes out to Dr.
John Borba, my Dissertation Chair, for his support, encouragement, guidance,
feedback, sacrifice, and patience. This study has expanded my horizons and made me
a better principal. Also, I owe my sincere appreciation to Dr. Dawn Poole, my former
Dissertation Chair. I have much respect and am grateful for Dr. Poole who helped me
in the early statistics design. Also wish to thank Dr. Oddmund Myhre and Dr. Steve
E. Gomes, my two other committee members, for their time, ideas, and expertise
throughout this project. Finally, I wish to express thanks to Dr. Jim Riggs for
encouraging me to enter the program, giving me support, strength, and inspiring me
to complete this journey to the finish line.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Dedication .................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements................................................................................................. v
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... x
Abstract ...................................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER
I. Introduction........................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem.......................................................... 3
Significance of the Study .......................................................... 7
Research Questions .................................................................. 8
Theoretical Foundation ............................................................ 14
Limitations ............................................................................... 16
Delimitations ............................................................................ 16
Definition of Key Terms .......................................................... 16
Summary .................................................................................. 18
II. Review of Literature ............................................................................. 20
Introduction .............................................................................. 20
The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership ........................... 23
Instructional Leadership ........................................................... 32
Transformational Leadership ................................................... 39
Factors of Transformational Leadership .................................. 41
High Performing Schools ......................................................... 47
Academic Achievement ........................................................... 53
Influence of Principal’s Leadership ......................................... 65
Influence of Technology Availability ...................................... 70
Influence of Instructional Coaching ......................................... 71
Influence of Socioeconomic Status .......................................... 72
Influence of Professional Learning Communities ................... 76
Summary .................................................................................. 78
III. Methodology ........................................................................................ 80
Introduction .............................................................................. 80
Sample ...................................................................................... 80
vi
Methods .................................................................................... 82
Instrumentation ........................................................................ 82 Academic Performance Index (API) ........................................ 91
Data Analysis ........................................................................... 94
Summary .................................................................................. 96
IV. Findings................................................................................................. 97
Introduction............................................................................... 97
Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................ 97
Research Question One .................................................. 97
Hypothesis 1A ...................................................... 97
Hypothesis 1B ...................................................... 97
Hypothesis 1C ...................................................... 98
Hypothesis 1D ...................................................... 98
Hypothesis 1E ...................................................... 98
Hypothesis 1F ...................................................... 98
Hypothesis 1G ...................................................... 98
Hypothesis 1H ...................................................... 98
Hypothesis 1I ....................................................... 98
Hypothesis 1J ....................................................... 99
Hypothesis 1K ...................................................... 99
Hypothesis 1L ...................................................... 99
Research Question Two ................................................. 99
Hypothesis 2A ...................................................... 99
Hypothesis 2B ...................................................... 99
Hypothesis 2C ...................................................... 99
Hypothesis 2D ...................................................... 100
Hypothesis 2E ...................................................... 100
Hypothesis 2F ...................................................... 100
Hypothesis 2G ...................................................... 100
Hypothesis 2H ...................................................... 100
Hypothesis 2I ....................................................... 100
Hypothesis 2J ....................................................... 101
Hypothesis 2K ...................................................... 101
Hypothesis 2L ...................................................... 101
Research Question Three ............................................... 101
Hypothesis 3A ...................................................... 101
Hypothesis 3B ...................................................... 102
Hypothesis 3C ...................................................... 102
Hypothesis 3D ...................................................... 102
Description of Study Variables ................................................ 102
Research Question One .................................................. 106
Hypothesis 1A ...................................................... 106
vii
Hypothesis 1B ...................................................... 108
Hypothesis 1C ...................................................... 111 Hypothesis 1D ...................................................... 113
Hypothesis 1E ...................................................... 116
Hypothesis 1F ...................................................... 118
Hypothesis 1G ...................................................... 121
Hypothesis 1H ...................................................... 123
Hypothesis 1I ....................................................... 125
Hypothesis 1J ....................................................... 128
Hypothesis 1K ...................................................... 130
Research Question Two ................................................. 133
Hypothesis 2A....................................................... 133
Hypothesis 2B ...................................................... 134
Hypothesis 2C ...................................................... 135
Hypothesis 2D ...................................................... 136
Hypothesis 2E ...................................................... 137
Hypothesis 2F ...................................................... 138
Hypothesis 2G ...................................................... 139
Hypothesis 2H ...................................................... 141
Hypothesis 2I ....................................................... 142
Hypothesis 2J ....................................................... 143
Hypothesis 2K ...................................................... 144
Hypothesis 2L ...................................................... 145
Research Question Three ............................................... 146
Hypothesis 3A ...................................................... 146
Hypothesis 3B ...................................................... 149
Hypothesis 3C ...................................................... 152
Hypothesis 3D ...................................................... 155
Summary .................................................................................. 157
V. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations................................... 158
Introduction............................................................................... 158
Summary ................................................................................... 158
Conclusions .............................................................................. 161
Implications .............................................................................. 166
Recommendations for Further Research .................................. 166
References .................................................................................................................. 169
viii
Appendices
A. Permission Letter ........................................................................................ 191
B. IRB Approval ............................................................................................. 192
C. Email Invitation .......................................................................................... 193
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Likert Scale Used in the LPI-Self Instrument .............................................................. 85
2. The Five Practices and 10 Commitments of Leadership .............................................. 86
3. Leadership Practices Inventory Category Questions .................................................... 86
4. Leadership Practices Inventory – Self-Form ................................................................ 87
5. Reliability Coefficients of the Leadership Practices Inventory .................................... 88
6. Internal Reliability Coefficient of LPI-Self, LPI Means and Standard
Deviations .................................................................................................................... 89
7. Validation of the LPI .................................................................................................... 91
8. Number of Students Tested by Ethnic Group in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013
API Scores .................................................................................................................... 93
9. California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Results for Mathematics and
English Language Arts (ELA) by Student Classification, 2012-2013 ......................... 94
10. Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership .................................................................... 103
11. School Scores ............................................................................................................. 104
12. School Type ............................................................................................................... 104
13. API Scores (2011-2012) ............................................................................................. 104
14. API Scores (2012-2013) ............................................................................................. 105
15. Utilization of Instructional Coaches ........................................................................... 105
16. Presence of Professional Learning Communities ....................................................... 106
17. Percentage of Students Eligible for Free Meals ......................................................... 106
x
18. Students per Computer ............................................................................................... 106
19. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included
in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................ 107
20. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 Similar
School Rankings) ....................................................................................................... 108
21. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included
in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................ 110
22. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 Similar
School Rankings of Middle Schools) ......................................................................... 111
23. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included
in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................ 112
24. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 Similar
School Rankings of High Schools) ............................................................................ 113
25. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included
in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................ 115
26. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2011-2012 API Scores) 116
27. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included
in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................ 117
28. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 API Scores) 118
29. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included
in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................ 119
30. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2011-2012 API of
Middle Schools .......................................................................................................... 120
31. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices
Included in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................. 122
32. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 API of
High Schools) ............................................................................................................. 123
33. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included
in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................ 124
xi
34. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2011-2012 API Scores
of High Schools) ........................................................................................................ 125
35. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included
in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................ 127
36. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 API Scores
of High Schools) ........................................................................................................ 128
37. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included
in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................ 129
38. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 CAHSEE
Pass Rates in Mathematics ......................................................................................... 130
39. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included
in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................ 132
40. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 CAHSEE
Pass Rates in ELA) .................................................................................................... 133
41. Independent Samples t-test, Transformational Leadership and 2011-2012
API Scores .................................................................................................................. 134
42. Independent Samples t-test, Transformational Leadership and 2012-2013
API Scores .................................................................................................................. 135
43. Independent Samples t-test, Model the Way and 2011-2012 API Scores .................. 136
44. Independent Samples t-test, Model the Way and 2012-2013 API Scores .................. 137
45. Independent Samples t-test, Inspire a Shared Vision and 2011-2012 API
Scores ......................................................................................................................... 138
46. Independent Samples t-test, Inspire a Shared Vision and 2012-2013 API
Scores ......................................................................................................................... 139
47. Independent Samples t-test, Challenge the Process and 2011-2012 API
Scores ......................................................................................................................... 140
48. Independent Samples t-test, Challenge the Process and 2012-2013 API
Scores ......................................................................................................................... 142
xii
49. Independent Samples t-test, Enable Others to Act and 2011-2012 API
Scores ................................................................................................................... 143
50. Independent Samples t-test, Enable Others to Act and 2012-2013 API
Scores ................................................................................................................... 144
51. Independent Samples t-test, Encourage the Heart and 2011-2012 API
Scores ................................................................................................................... 145
52. Independent Samples t-test, Encourage the Heart and 2012-2013 API
Scores ................................................................................................................... 146
53. Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and other
factors Included in Multiple Regression Analysis ............................................... 148
54. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors with 2011-2012 API
Scores ................................................................................................................... 149
55. Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and Other
Factors Included in Multiple Regression Analysis ............................................... 151
56. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors with 2012-2013 API
Scores ................................................................................................................... 152
57. Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and other
factors Included in Multiple Regression Analysis ............................................... 153
58. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 CAHSEE
Pass Rates in Mathematics) .................................................................................. 154
59. Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and Other
Factors Included in Multiple Regression Analysis ............................................... 156
60. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 CAHSEE
Pass Rates in ELA Scores) ................................................................................... 157
xiii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of Transformational Leadership
on student achievement. The main research question focused on the relationship
between Transformational Leadership practices of principals and student academic
achievement. This study also attempted to determine if the Transformational practices
of principals differ between low performing schools and high performing schools as
well as identify other factors that may affect the performance of students. The study
relied upon Transformational Leadership as its theoretical framework. This researcher
used the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) to measure the leadership practices of
154 middle and high school principals in California. The results of multiple
regressions suggest that Transformational Leadership has no significant impact on
student academic achievement. The results of the independent samples t-tests suggest
there are no significant differences regarding the perceived application of effective
Transformational Leadership practices between principals of high performing schools
and principals of low performing schools in terms of the Academic Performance
Index (API). The results suggest that Transformational Leadership has no significant
impact on student academic achievement as measured by the Similar Schools Decile
Ranking, API, and the percentage of students who pass the CAHSEE exams in
mathematics and ELA.
xiv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A Los Angeles Times article by Steve Lopez, dated November 6, 2011, carried
the headline, “Shaking up the status quo in Los Angeles schools.” The article
described a letter that a "Don't Hold Us Back" group sent to John Deasy,
Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, demanding reforms for
the sake of the district's 700,000 students. Parents and education advocates planned to
sue L.A. Unified in an effort to enforce an overlooked state law that required teacher
and principal evaluations to be linked to student achievement. The group argued, “We
won’t have a strong economic future if our kids do not get a good education” (Lopez,
2011).
Student achievement, principal and teacher evaluations, and school reforms
have long been on U.S. policy makers’ minds. The launch of Sputnik in 1957, the
enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by President
Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, and the publication of Nation at Risk in 1983, all
emphasized or established high standards and accountability within the nation’s
education system.
In 2002, Congress reauthorized ESEA by passing the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act. This act would affect education from kindergarten through high school
in the next decade. NCLB called for increased accountability, standardized testing,
and closing the achievement gap (NCLB, 2002).
1
2
In 2010, approximately 470,000 15-year-olds across the world sat for
a numeracy, literacy, and science test. After nearly 10 years of NCLB, the United
States ranked 17th in reading, 32nd in mathematics, and 23rd in Science. Shanghai-
China ranked number one in all three areas (OECD, 2010). This determination was
based on the results of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
On November 7, 2011, the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) published a report card describing the national performance of students
(Grades 4, 8, and 12) nationally in reading and mathematics; it also provided
information showing how these students compared to their counterparts in other
states. This report card was utilized as a tool to inform boards of education, parents,
teachers, administrators, and community members on the academic progress of
students in the United States. The results were less than satisfactory. Eighty-two
percent of students had at least a basic knowledge of fourth grade mathematics in
2011 compared to 50% of students in 1990. Seventy-three percent of students had at
least a basic knowledge of eighth grade mathematics in 2011, unchanged from 2009,
but this was four points higher than in 1992. The eighth grade average reading score
in 2011 was one point higher than in 2009, and five points higher than in 1992. The
fourth grade average reading score in 2011 was unchanged from 2009 but four points
higher than in 1992 (Nord et al., 2011).
Since 1983, American public schools have undergone an unprecedented
amount of reform that has placed an enormous burden on the public school system.
3
Today’s principals are living in a world of rapid changes and expectations to improve
student achievement. Therefore, principals must stay informed of innovative
approaches to make a difference in student achievement by focusing on cooperation
and collaboration with teachers, students, parents, and the community (Kline &
Saunders, 1993). It is important to determine what successful school leaders are doing
to meet standards and improve teaching and learning in schools.
Leithwood (1994) suggested that principal leadership has an effect on student
achievement. Cotton and Savard (1980) also stated that specific leadership behaviors
appear to have a positive impact on student achievement. Educational researchers
have begun studying the specific leadership styles of principals who have made a
genuine difference in school effectiveness and student achievement (Gordon, 2011).
Due to pressures from internal and external forces, principals have to manage school
functions daily, as well as work as instructional coaches to ensure success.
Statement of the Problem
Ever since NCLB became law, teachers, administrators, policy makers, and
school board members have started paying attention to the nation’s underperforming
schools. The mandates have brought the leadership style of principals to the forefront
for its potential impact on student achievement. Student academic success in
California and the rest of the nation is typically measured by how well students
perform on standardized tests. Low test scores suggest that students are not learning
enough, the schools are failing, or are not closing the achievement gap among
different ethnic groups. President Obama signed an executive order that allowed
4
states to seek waivers, which provided some relief from the rigorous sanctions
associated with the NCLB federal law (McNeil, 2012). However, many states did not
apply for the waiver. States that receive waivers must agree to set new academic
targets and establish new strategies for evaluating teachers and turning around
struggling schools (McNeil, 2012). Under the waiver, the federal government and
states work together to implement a very strict plan to raise student achievement and
increase teacher effectiveness. Because the California Teachers Association disagreed
with the evaluation system that ties teacher performance to test scores, California did
not receive approval for the waiver. As a result, California still is required to follow
the old NCLB law, including the 2014 deadline for all students to be proficient in
mathematics and English language arts.
Districts and schools that receive Title I funding and fail to meet Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) growth targets for 2 years in a row are placed in Program
Improvement. For example, during 2004-2005, the California Department of
Education reported 1,600 schools and 142 districts were in Program Improvement
(PI). The number of schools in Program Improvement soared to 3,197 out of 6,142 in
2010 (Freedberg, 2010). Five hundred and sixty-seven schools were assigned
program improvement status for the first time (Freedberg, 2010).
The Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) was passed in California in
1999. The Act provides a comprehensive system to hold students, schools, and
districts accountable for academic performance. The Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) system and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) are
5
used for measuring academic achievement in English language arts and mathematics.
The Academic Performance Index (API) is a numeric index (or scale) that ranges
from a low of 200 to a high of 1,000 and is used to measure the overall progress of
districts, schools, and their significant subgroups. The statewide API performance
target for all schools is 800. Annual API targets for districts, schools and their
significant subgroups are based on 5% of the difference between current API and the
statewide performance target of 800. A school that has reached the state’s goal must
maintain its API of 800 or higher (California Department of Education, 2013).
In California, fewer than 287,000 teachers worked in public school classrooms
in 2010-11, compared to more than 310,000 in 2007-08, the year before the recent
national economic crisis. Recruiting qualified teachers, evaluating and providing
ongoing training for existing teachers, and encouraging them to stay in the profession
are some of the biggest challenges in public education today (Ed-Data, 2011-2012).
The rate of teacher turnover in the United States is alarming. Ingersoll and Rossi
asserted that approximately one third of all new teachers leave the teaching profession
during their first 3 years and that almost half leave during their first 5 years (Ingersoll,
2004). Teacher turnover contributes to shortages and causes discontinuity that
interferes with school improvement efforts. Teacher turnover is also wasteful, costing
California an estimated $700 million a year in replacement costs for teachers who
leave before retirement (Ed-Data, 2011-2012).
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) reported that effective school
leadership has the potential to increase student achievement substantially. In fact,
6
educational researchers have continually identified the principal as an essential force
in school reform efforts (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2000). According to Leithwood and
Jantzi (1999a), the school principal can account for about 20% of student
achievement when multiple variables are considered. According to Maxwell (2002),
“Leadership is influence—nothing more, nothing less” (p. 17) and “Meaningful
school improvement begins with cultural change, and cultural change begins with the
school leadership.”Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, and Orr (2007) stated:
Tremendous expectations have been placed on school leaders to cure the ills
facing the nation’s schools. The critical part principals’ play in developing
successful schools has been well established by researchers over the last two
decades: committed leaders who understand instruction and can develop the
capacities of teachers and of schools are key to improving educational
outcomes for all students. (p. 1)
The behaviors of school principals vary in numerous ways based on their
responsibilities. Time spent working on personnel, budget, and public relations has
limited school administrators on the time they can work as instructional leaders. But
this may be changing. “Many principal training programs focus on the new role they
assume in instructional leadership amid accountability pressures to raise student
achievement” (Butler, 2008, p. 66). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
explore the impact of various leadership styles and characteristics of schools and
administrators in influencing student achievement.
7
Significance of the Study
This study is important because since the NCLB Act was enacted in 2001,
federal and state governments have mandated superintendents, principals, and
teachers to improve student achievement. Increased accountability of school
principals encouraged them to find ways to raise student test scores, to bridge the
achievement gap, to boost teacher morale, and to improve the graduation rate.
Effective school leadership style has been an important research topic in recent years.
Marzano et al. (2005) reported that effective school leadership has the potential to
increase student achievement substantially. The authors identified 21 key leadership
responsibilities and Cotton’s 25 leadership practices that are extensively connected
with higher student achievement (p. 178). According to Waters, Marzano, and
McNulty (2003), effective leaders not only know what to do, but when, how, and why
to do it in the educational organization based on various attributes. This study
examined the degree to which the leadership styles of school principals and other
factors impact student achievement.
Every year, the California Department of Education announces the award-
winning blue ribbon schools, as well as reports the number of program improvement
(PI) failing schools. How does the principal contribute to schools falling into either of
these categories? This study sought to determine how different leadership styles may
impact student achievement in relationship to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals.
This study may benefit school board members and superintendents as they
consider qualities when hiring or retaining principals. It may also show how different
8
leadership styles of the principals may help retention of teachers, and ultimately
improve student learning and increase student achievement. Other possible
contributions of this study include the potential to influence administrative practices,
principal training, and leadership development programs. The findings also may be
useful to universities that are redesigning curricula for their leadership degree
programs that will prepare the next generation of administrators. Also, this study may
be used to identify professional development needs of principals in the future, help
school leaders learn best practices from the recent research, and ultimately increase
student achievement.
Research Questions
This study examined the relationship between Transformational Leadership
practices of principals and student academic achievement. This study also examined
how leadership practices of principals differ between high performing schools and
low performing schools. Finally, the study looked into other factors that may affect
the performance of students such as reduced meal costs, the integration of
technological instruction, the presence of professional learning communities, and the
use and availability of instructional coaches.
Research Question One
What impact does the school principals’ level of Transformational Leadership
practices have on student academic achievement?
9
Hypothesis 1A. There is a strong positive relationship between the principals’
level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ Similar Schools Decile
Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1B. At the middle school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and
the schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1C. At the high school level, there is a strong positive relationship
between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’
Similar Schools Decile Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1D. There is a strong positive relationship between principals’
level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking for 2011-
2012 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1E. There is a strong positive relationship between principals’
level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking for 2012-
2013 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1F. At the middle school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and
the schools’ API ranking for 2011-2012 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1G. At the middle school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and
the schools’ API ranking for 2012-2013 academic school year.
10
Hypothesis 1H. At the high school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style
and the schools’ API ranking for 2011-2012 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1I. At the high school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style
and the schools’ API ranking for 2012-2013 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1J. At the high school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style
and the schools’ percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in mathematics for
2012-2013 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1K. At the high school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style
and the schools’ percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in English language
arts (ELA) for 2012-2013 academic school year.
Research Question Two
How do the principals’ leadership practices differ between high performing
schools and low performing schools based on 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 API scores?
Hypothesis 2A. There is a difference in the principals’ overall
Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they lead at high
performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-2012 API scores.
Hypothesis 2B. There is a difference in the principals’ overall
Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they lead high performing
11
schools or low performing schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Hypothesis 2C. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Modeling the Way category of Transformational Leadership practices based
on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-
2012 API scores.
Hypothesis 2D. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Modeling the Way category of practices based on whether they lead high
performing schools or low performing schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Hypothesis 2E. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Inspiring a Shared Vision category of Transformational Leadership practices
based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using
2011-2012 API scores.
Hypothesis 2F. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Inspiring a Shared vision category of Transformational Leadership
practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing
schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Hypothesis 2G. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Challenging the Process category of Transformational Leadership practices
based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools
using 2011-2012 API scores.
Hypothesis 2H. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Challenging the Process category of Transformational Leadership
12
practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing
schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Hypothesis 2I. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Enabling Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership practices
based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools
using 2011-2012 API scores.
Hypothesis 2J. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Enabling Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership
practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing
schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Hypothesis 2K. There is a difference in principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Encouraging the Heart category of Transformational Leadership
practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing
schools using 2011-2012 API scores.
Hypothesis 2L. There is a difference in principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Encouraging the Heart category of Transformational Leadership
practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing
schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Research Question Three
How do other factors beyond the Transformational Leadership style
of principals impact academic achievement?
Hypothesis 3A. The percent of students receiving free and reduced price
13
meals, the utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of professional learning
communities, and the number of students per computer each contributed to schools’
2011-2012 API scores, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational
Leadership practices.
Hypothesis 3B. The percent of students receiving free and reduced price
meals, the utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of professional learning
communities, and the number of students per computer each contributed to schools’
2012-2013 API scores, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational
Leadership practices.
Hypothesis 3C. At the high school level, the percent of students receiving
free and reduced price meals, the utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of
professional learning communities, and the number of students per computer each
contributed to the percent of students who passed the 2012-2013 CAHSEE in
mathematics, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational Leadership
practices.
Hypothesis 3D. At the high school level, the percent of students receiving
free and reduced price meals, the utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of
a professional learning communities, and the number of students per computer each
contributed to the percent of students who passed the 2012-2013 CAHSEE in
English language arts (ELA), above and beyond the principals’ Transformational
Leadership style practices.
14
Theoretical Foundation
Federal and state mandates to hold school principals, superintendents, teachers
accountable for student academic achievement increase daily. More specifically, it is
the responsibility of the principal to create an environment conducive to student
learning (Waters et al., 2003). Principals need to know “when, how and why to create
learning environments that support people, connect them with one another, and
provide the knowledge, skills and resources they need to succeed” (Waters et al.,
2003, p. 2). Effective leadership styles can make a difference in how well students
perform (Waters et al., 2003).
Leadership is the office or position of a leader, the capacity to lead, and the
act or instance of leading (Merriam-Webster Inc., 2011). “Leadership is a process, not
a property of a person” (Vroom & Jago, 2007, p. 17). Leadership, itself, is defined as
“the process of communication (verbal and nonverbal) that involves coaching,
motivating/inspiring, directing/guiding, and supporting/counseling others” (Zinn,
2010, p. 384). According to Gallos (2008), leadership is the result of relationships
between those people within an organization who want to lead and those who are
willing to follow. “Leadership is the ability to influence followers toward the
achievement of a common goal” (Cook, 2011, p. 27). Bass (1990) suggested “There
are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted
to define the concept” (p. 11). Kouzes and Posner (2006) also stated in their book, A
Leader’s Legacy, “Leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and
those who choose to follow” (p. 52, para. 2). Kouzes and Posner (2006) expressed
15
their view on the leadership-follower relationship, “We will work harder and more
effectively for people we like. And we will like them in direct proportion to how they
make us feel” (p. 57, para 3). “If you can’t influence people, then they will not follow
you. And if people won’t follow, you are not a leader…remember that leadership is
influence—nothing more, nothing less” (Maxwell, 2007, p. 11). Maxwell also stated,
“If you don’t have influence, you will never be able to lead others” (2007, p.12).
Transformational Leadership can be defined as a type of leadership that
motivates subordinates to go above and beyond their normal duties by educating them
on the importance of the direction of the overall organization (Avolio, Bass, & Jung,
1999b).
Bass explained that a Transformational Leader can be described as having
three characteristics: charisma, consideration, and creativity where the leader uses his
or her power and charisma to empower employees and encourages the development
of employee leadership capacities by collaboration, caring, and support (Leithwood,
1993). Transformational Leaders are always visible and will stand up to be counted
rather than hide behind their troops.
Kouzes and Posner (2002) developed five exemplary leadership behaviors,
and two commitments to each of the leadership behaviors. The Leadership Practices
Inventory (LPI) was created by forming 30 practices that equate to Transformational
Leadership and by expanding the 5-point Likert scale to a 10-point Likert scale. A
higher value represents more frequent use of a leadership behavior.
16
Limitations
This study was limited to public middle school and high school principals as
determined by the California Department of Education. The sample for this study was
derived from schools and individuals who volunteered to participate. There was no
control over the subjects’ willingness to participate. The fact that the sampling
procedure was voluntary rather than random impacts the generalizability of the
findings.
Delimitations
This study did not take into consideration principal experience, or parent
education level. Also, this researcher did not address the importance of teacher
leadership and teacher evaluation and how these could improve student academic
achievement.
Definition of Key Terms
Academic Performance Index (API). An index that measures the academic
performance and growth of schools using a variety of measures. California gives each
school a target score ranging from 200-1000. A minimum score of 800 is the goal for
all schools.
The Similar Schools Decile Rankings. A ranking that compares a school
against 100 other schools in California with similar demographic profiles (including
parent education level, poverty level, student mobility and ethnicity). Each rank
ranges from 1 to 10, with a score of 10 meaning that the school's API is in the top
10%.
17
California Standards Test (CST). Annual assessment that determines student
proficiency on the California Academic Content Standards. The assessments are
administered in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social science.
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). A test that is required of all
students to pass in order to graduate from high school in California. The CAHSEE
consists of reading, writing, and mathematics. Students have multiple opportunities to
retake one or both portions of the exam to demonstrate grade level competency
through Grade 8 in mathematics and Grade 10 in English language arts
(California Department of Education, 2013).
Change agent. A leader who challenges the status quo, which fits the
characteristics of a transformational leader (Marzano et al., 2005).
High performing school. A school that scored at or above 800 on the API for
2011-2012 & 2012-2013 and considered as high performing in this study.
Instructional Leadership. Knowledge and skills a principal should possess to
focus attention on powerful and equitable learning for all students (Smith & Andrews,
1989).
Leadership. "Inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the
values and the motivations—the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations—
of both leaders and followers" (Burns, 1978, p. 19).
Low performing school. A school that scored below 800 on the API for 2011-
2012 & 2012-2013 was considered as low performing in this study.
18
Principal’s leadership style. "The ways in which the principal expresses
leadership, uses power and authority, arrives at decisions, and, in general, interacts
with teachers and others" (Sergiovanni & Elliott, 1975, p. 45).
Standards-based reform. Academic content standards that delineate what
children should know and do at each grade level, align curricula and teacher training,
guide statewide tests to measure student achievement, and serve as a basis for
rewards, sanctions, or assistance (Lake, Hill, O'Toole, & Celio, 1999).
Student achievement. Academic growth determined by using state prepared
standardized tests.
Summary
Chapter I provided an introduction of this study on the school principal’s level
of Transformational Leadership practices impacting student academic achievement.
Leithwood (1994) suggested that leadership of school principals impacts student
academic achievement. Chapter I also examined federal and state mandates that hold
school principals, superintendents, and teachers accountable.
Chapter II includes the historical background of principals’ level of
Transformational Leadership practices as well as an in-depth review of studies that
link leadership to academic achievement. Chapter III describes the participants, the
research methods, the instrumentation, and the data analysis. Chapter IV presents the
research findings, data analysis, and the statistical procedures of the research
questions and hypotheses. Chapter V discusses the summary of results of this study as
19
they pertain to relevant literature. It also presents conclusions, implications, and
recommendations for further studies based on the findings in Chapter IV.
.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
“When the perfect order
prevails, the world is like a home
shared by all. Virtuous and worthy men are
elected to public office, and capable
men hold posts of gainful employment in
society; peace and trust among all men are
the maxims of living. All men love and
respect their own parents and children, as
well as the parents and children of others.
There is caring for the old; there are jobs for the adults; there are nourishment and
education for the children. There is a
means of support for the widows, and the
widowers; for all who find themselves alone
in the world; and for the disabled. Every
man and woman has an appropriate role to
play in the family and society. A sense of
sharing displaces the effects of selfishness
and materialism. A devotion to public duty
leaves no room for idleness. Intrigues and
conniving for ill gain areunknown. Villains
such as thieves and robbers do not exist.The
door to every home need never be locked
and bolted by day or night. These are the
characteristics of an ideal world, the
commonwealth state.” ~ The Record of Rites, Bo IX ‘The
Commonwealth State’ by Confucius,
551-479 B.C.
Confucius taught this famous lesson 2,500 years ago, and since his death, his
ideas were exported to Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and later Hong Kong and Singapore.
20
21
In these countries, all students from middle school to high school have to recite these
107 words plus other wisdoms in this book. In his time, Confucius’ teachings
affirmed an existing social order that reached from the Emperor "Son of Heaven"
down to the lowest levels of society. Confucius was a great master teacher, a
philosopher, a warrior, and a true transformational leader. The ideas of Confucius
have been preserved, challenged, and revisited over the years. In China, soldiers
followed the generals in times of war and peace; many generals used to recite word
for word Sun Tzu’s classic The Art of War: “Leadership is a matter of intelligence,
trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and sternness” (Tzu, 2007, p. 44). Bass also
noted in his book, The Bass Handbook of Leadership, “Confucius and Lao-tzu of the
sixth century B.C.E. discussed the responsibilities of leaders and how leaders should
conduct themselves” (as cited by Blase & Blase, 1999, p. 119). According to
Anderson (2004), “Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood
phenomena on Earth” (p. 1). Cranton (2006) noted, “There are almost as many
definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the
concept” (p. 259). Just out of curiosity, this author typed in the keyword “leadership”
in Google Scholar, and it came back with 2,330,000 results. When the keyword
“school leadership” was searched, 2,110,000 results were generated, and
“Transformational Leadership” returned 94,500 hits. “School improvement” returned
about 3,300,000.
The work that principals perform today is based on the education process they
go through and their experiences. Their behaviors, decisions, and skills are currently
22
under scrutiny because of the passage of the crucial No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act, which sought to raise the academic standards of education, as well as the
academic performance of all schools in the United States. Schools that underperform
for several years are placed in government mandated programs for educational
improvement. As a result, principals are under increased strain and scrutiny to ensure
that the educational performance of their schools is comparable to state standards
(Butler, 2008).
The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between the
self-perceived Transformational Leadership practices of principals and student
academic achievement. First, this study attempted to identify if any correlations exist
between the school principals’ perceived level of Transformational Leadership
practices and the academic achievement of their students. Second, this study
attempted to identify if differences exist in the self-perceived Transformational
Leadership practices between principals of high performing schools and principals of
low performing schools. Finally, this study examined other factors that may affect the
performance of students, including (1) student participation in the free and reduced
price meal program, (2) utilization of instructional coaches, (3) presence of
professional learning communities, and (4) the number of students per computer.
Chapter II will provide a background for this study, discussing relevant information
from the academic literature regarding Transformational Leadership and problems
this study seeks to resolve. This chapter will also review the literature regarding
principal leadership styles, school performance, and the relationship with academic
23
achievement as influenced by technology availability, instructional coaching, and
socioeconomic status. By doing so, the background of the problem will be provided
and gaps that exist in the literature with respect to the proposed study may be
explained.
Anderson (2004) noted “The transforming leader looks for potential motives
in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the
follower” (p. 4). Kouzes and Posner (2007) extracted a profile of Transformational
Leadership from interviews asking leaders to describe their personal best leadership
experience. Later, they used the interview information to develop the Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). This chapter begins by reviewing
the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership initiated by Kouzes and Posner, the
connection with their studies, and the implications for educational leadership
behaviors.
The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership
Kouzes and Posner (2007) examined “personal best experiences” of more
than 1,200 executives and managers throughout the United States. The authors
believe that leadership is everyone’s business, and the leaders and leadership
opportunities are everywhere. Transformational leaders inspire ordinary people to
make extraordinary things happen in organizations. “It is about the practices leaders
use to transform values into actions, visions into realities, obstacles into innovations,
separateness into solidarity, and risks into rewards” (Kouzes & Posner, 2012, p. 2).
From thousands of “personal best” stories, they concluded that when leaders do their
24
best, they model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others
to act, and encourage the heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2012, p. 3). These five concepts
form the basis of effective leadership practices.
Modeling the way calls for leaders to exhibit behaviors that others will want
to emulate. “Leading by example is more effective than leading by command. If
people see that you work hard while preaching hard work, they are more likely to
follow you” (Kouzes & Posner, 2012, p. 17). Transformational leaders need to
demonstrate standards, be clear about their own values and philosophy, and set and
achieve shared values and goals. Values are “guiding principles in our lives with
respect to the personal and social ends we desire” (Kouzes & Posner, 1995, p. 60).
According to Kouzes and Posner (2003a), leaders communicate personal values to
their organizations. Further, leaders set examples and align their actions with shared
values of the group. Strong leaders follow through on their promises, build trust and
commitments, and affirm the common values they share with others. “If the words
you speak are not your words but someone else’s, you will not, in the long term, be
able to be consistent in word and deed” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 49). “Leadership
can never stop at words. Leaders must act, and they can do so only in the context of
their beliefs. Without action or principles, no one can become a leader” (De Pree,
1997, p. 6). Kouzes and Posner (2007) noted this in their First Law of Leadership: “If
you don’t believe in the messenger, you won’t believe the message” (p. 38). So, how
should leaders model the way? DWYSYWD: Do What You Say You Will Do. People
trust leaders when their deeds and words match.
25
“Titles are granted, but it’s your behavior that wins you respect” (Kouzes &
Posner, 2007, p. 15). As a matter of fact, Maxwell (2011) in his Five Levels of
Leadership noted that “Position is the lowest level of leadership—the entry level” (p.
7). Building relationships takes leaders to the second level of leadership. On this
second level of leadership, people follow because they like the person. “Modeling the
way is essentially about earning the right and the respect to lead through direct
involvement and action. People first follow the person, then the plan” (Kouzes &
Posner, 2002, p. 15) . This trusting relationship is important: “When people don’t
trust each other, they ignore and twist facts, ideas, conclusions, and feelings that they
believe will increase their vulnerability. Not surprisingly, the likelihood of
misunderstanding and misinterpretation increases under these conditions (Kouzes &
Posner, 1995, p. 165).
To inspire a shared vision, effective transformational leaders create
compelling visions, imagine future possibilities, and build relationships between
those who aspire to lead with a new vision and those who share that vision and
choose to follow (Kouzes & Posner, 1995). They are able to visualize positive
outcomes in the future and communicate them to others. Kouzes and Posner (2007)
also mentioned, “The kind of leadership that gets people to infuse their energy into
strategies is called Transformational Leadership” (p. 122). Leaders also listen to the
dreams of others and show them how their dreams can be realized. “Every
organization, every social movement, begins with a dream. The dream or vision is the
force that invents the future” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 17). “You can’t command
26
commitment; you have to inspire it. You have to enlist others in a common vision by
appealing to shared aspirations (Kouzes & Posner, 2012, p. 18).
Nanus (1992) gave the formula for visionary leadership: Vision +
Communication = Shared Purpose; Shared Purpose + Empowered People +
Appropriate Organizational Changes + Strategic Thinking = Successful Visionary
Leadership (p. 156). This leadership practice consists of understanding each other’s
needs and wants; thus, leaders must have an intimate knowledge of their followers’
dreams, hopes, aspirations, values, and vision (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). So, what is
vision? It is “a realistic, credible, attractive future for your organization” (Nanus,
1992, p. 79). According to Goethals, Sorenson, and Burns (2004), visionary
leadership is defined by the Oxford English dictionary as “the ability to plan or form
policy in a far-sighted way” (p. 1568). The leadership field generally defines vision in
terms of future-oriented goals that are highly meaningful to followers. For example,
the scholars Noel Tichy and Mary Anne Devanna described vision as “a conceptual
roadmap or set of blueprints for what the organization will look like in the future”
(Tichy & Devanna, 1986, p. 128). A new vision is only successful when it is openly
shared with stakeholders (Yukl, 2006). “The vision should be communicated at every
opportunity and in a variety of ways” (Yukl, 2006, p. 274). “To enlist people in a
vision, leaders must know their constituents and speak their language. People must
believe that leaders understand their needs and have their interests at heart” (Kouzes
& Posner, 2003b, p. 6; 2007, p. 17). “Leaders forge a unity of purpose by showing
constituents how the dream is for the common good. Leaders ignite the flame of
27
passion in others by expressing enthusiasm for the compelling vision of their group,
communicating their passion through vivid language, and an expressive style (Kouzes
& Posner, 2003b, p. 6).
Challenging the process means being willing to change the status quo and step
into the unknown. It includes being willing to innovate, grow, and improve.
Sergiovanni (1996) noted “Inquiry classrooms are not likely to flourish in schools
where inquiry among teachers is discouraged. A commitment to problem solving is
difficult to instill in students who are taught by teachers for whom problem solving is
not allowed” (p. 139). “Leaders venture out” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 18).
Exemplary leaders want to experiment and try new things. Leaders learn and lead
through trial and error. They take risks by constantly generating small wins and
learning from mistakes and failures to change the status quo. They are willing to take
risks to make things better. “Leaders are pioneers—people who are willing to step out
into the unknown. They search for opportunities to innovate, grow, and improve”
(Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 17). “Risk taking is necessary for leaders to rise above
followers, thereby expanding the followers’ capacity to envision greater things.
Leaders excite followers about going where they have not yet gone, and they provide
a plan to get there” (Goethals et al., 2004, p. 1335).
Kouzes and Posner (2002) listed four essentials for leaders in seeking
opportunities to challenge the process. These essentials are (1) seize the initiative, (2)
make challenge meaningful, (3) innovate and create, and (4) look outward for fresh
ideas. Change is painful; the new initiative of the unknown “common core” standards
28
is daunting; yet in order to move ahead, the status quo must be changed. Dynamic
change can increase stress on the system and create conflict with people. An old
Chinese proverb says, “If you stay in the same spot, you are just as bad as moving
backward.” Teachers need to challenge students to use higher order thinking to
challenge the learning process creatively and proactively. “Leaders who risk making
changes and moving away from the conventional standards of business practices
often find themselves forcing the world to adapt to them, instead of having to adapt to
the world” (Bennis & Townsend, 1995, p. 89). “Principals need to support their staff
members in trying innovative ideas such as new curriculum, new instructional
strategies and new assessments as they strive to meet the needs of all children”
(Starcher, 2006, p. 31). When exemplary leaders take risks, they do it one step at a
time, learning from their mistakes as they go. “Leaders are learners. They learn from
their failures as well as their successes, and they make it possible for others to do the
same” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 20).
Enable others to act: Outstanding leaders are effective at working with people
to enable others to follow them willingly by “building team spirit, establishing trust,
and maintaining strong relationships” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 20). “Building
relationships is understandably essential for an environment that embraces
collaboration, communication, and professional learning communities in schools”
(Gray & Streshly, 2008, p. 10). Exemplary leaders build trust with others and
promote collaboration. “Collaboration is the master skill that enables teams,
partnerships, and other alliances to function effectivel (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p.
29
242). Teamwork and cooperation are highly valued by these leaders. “Successful
organization change requires effective teamwork. The goal of using teamwork is to
achieve more results than an individual could” (Goethals et al., 2004, p. 1536). “It
takes 10 hands to score a basket (Wooden & Jamison, 2005, p. 117). “The most
successful principals engage their staffs and constituents in participative decision
making” (Cotton, 2003, p. 69). Blase and Blase (1994) noted that “successful
principals were those whose staffs had attained high levels of empowerment and
participative decision making” (p. 12).
“Leaders enable others to act not by hoarding the power they have but by
giving it away” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 21). They also allow others to make
choices, and support the decisions that others make. In short, they create
environments where people can feel good about their work and how it contributes to
the greater community. “Trust is the base on which credibility is built. To earn and
sustain credibility, leaders have to get to know their constituents and get their
constituents to know them” (Kouzes & Posner, 2011, p. 41). “The more leaders and
constituents comprehend each other’s perceptions, concerns, and values, the greater
their ability to work together” (Kouzes & Posner, 2011, p. 83). In order to “enable
others to act,” credible leaders create workplaces where people become friends and
make deep personal connections (Kouzes & Posner, 2011, p. 173). “Authentic
leadership is founded on trust, and the more people trust their leader, and each other,
the more they take risks, make changes, and keep organizations and movements alive.
30
Through that relationship, leaders turn their constituents into leaders themselves”
(Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 21).
According to Kouzes and Posner (2002), for people to follow someone
willingly, the majority of constituents must believe the leader is
1) Honest – It is clear that if people anywhere are to willingly follow
someone – whether it be into battle or into the boardroom, the front office
or the front lines – they first want to assure themselves that the person is
worthy of their trust.
2) Forward-looking – People expect leaders to have a sense of direction and a
concern for the future of the organization.
3) Competent – To enable others to act, we must believe that the person is
competent to guide us where we are headed. We must see the leader as
capable and effective.
4) Inspiring – We also expect our leaders to be enthusiastic, energetic, and
positive about the future. (pp. 24-32)
Encourage the heart: Leaders encourage the heart by rewarding others for
their accomplishments. Goleman (2006) noted that “The essential task of a school
leader comes down to helping people get into and stay in an optimal state in which
they can work to their best ability” (p. 80). Effective leaders are attentive to this need
and are willing to give praise to workers for jobs well done. They use authentic
celebrations and rituals to show appreciation and encouragement to others.
Encouraging the heart also means providing timely feedback and personalizing
31
recognition, being thoughtful in general, and simply having fun together (Kouzes &
Posner, 2007). Celebrating the little things does not mean lowering standards; it is
imperative that the small victories are victories that lead to the achievement of the
organization’s goals and objectives. Exemplary leaders set high expectations, because
they know that they’re much more likely to get high performance if they expect high
performance than if they expect low performance (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). “People
act in ways that are consistent with others’ expectations of them” (Kouzes & Posner,
2007, p. 283); therefore, in school, we should set higher standards and give students
rigorous curriculum. Passionately believing in people and expecting the best of them
is another prerequisite to encouraging the heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2003a).
Skipper and Bell (2006) administered the LPI-Self and LPI-Observer to two
groups of 40 construction project managers from a U.S. based organization. The
population for this study consisted of 335 construction project managers. The sample
consisted of two groups; the first group included 40 top performers (TP) identified by
senior executives and the second group consisted of construction project managers
(C) selected from the remaining 295. One objective of the study was to determine if
top performers assigned significantly different values of importance to potential
sources of leadership development than the control group. The researchers used a two
sample t-test to analyze this data. The results indicated that there were no significant
differences between the two groups in enabling others to act and encourage the heart;
thus both groups were similar in these two leadership practices. However, there was a
significant difference in modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, and challenging
32
the process. Results of the t-test, t (66) = 2.31, p <.01 for challenging the process
revealed that the first group (M = 44.28) differed significantly from the second
(M = 42.00). These results indicated that top performers were better at taking risks by
generating small wins, learning from their mistakes, and constantly searching for new
and innovative ways to change, grow, and improve.
Instructional Leadership
The concept of “instructional leadership” evolved from the early attempts of
effective schools research during the 1970s and early 1980s. The National
Association of Elementary School Principals identified six standards for effective
instructional leaders:
Leading schools to make student and the adult learning at the center; setting
high expectations and standards for all students and the performance of
teachers; demanding content and instruction to standards to ensure student
achievement; creating a culture of continuous learning for students and adults;
using multiple sources of data to assess learning; and inviting the
community’s support to create shared responsibility for school success.
(National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2001, p. 2)
Researchers agree that the principal must be a strong instructional leader,
though they do not always agree on a definition or the characteristics of an effective
instructional leader. Within the area of instructional leadership, the work of Hallinger
(2003) was considered as notable in terms of his collaboration on development of the
most thoroughly tested model, which was comprised of three components of
33
leadership practice: (1) defining school mission, (2) managing the instructional
program, and (3) promoting school climate. Sergiovanni (1991) defined instructional
leadership as principals who were able to develop educational programs to help
enhance teaching and learning. Instructional leadership has become a frequent
research topic in the scholarly journals in the last three decades; however, a lingering
question has remained as to which leadership behaviors had a more direct effect on
student academic achievement. Leithwood and Jantzi (1999b) explained instructional
leaders were teachers and school administrators who concentrated on the behaviors of
teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement.
Johnson (2004) conducted a study to collect empirical data regarding the
frequency with which principals engage in seven specific instructional leadership
behaviors that directly impact student achievement. The population for this study
consisted of 24 Virginia elementary principals working in schools identified as
having the highest percentages of students participating in Virginia’s Free and
Reduced Price Lunch program. All of the research questions required statistical
testing. A statistical significance level of p < .05 was used to test the null hypothesis
of each of the research questions.
The principals’ responses to the seven instructional leadership behaviors were
compared and tested using a paired samples t test. The alpha level selected for
determination of statistical significance and rejection of null hypotheses for the
purposes of the study was p < .05. The results revealed no significant statistical
34
differences among principals’ seven instructional leadership behaviors regarding their
impact on achievement (t = -.415, p =.70; t = .000 p = 1.0; t = .674, p =.53;
t = 1.19, p =.29; t = .307, p = .77; t = 1.46, p = .20; t = .542, p =.61).
Bartlett (2008) conducted a study to examine the effects of instructional
leadership practices performed by high school principals and student academic
achievement on the Tennessee Gateway Tests. Data for this study were collected
using the Instructional Leadership Practices Survey (ILPS) developed by the
researcher. One hundred and seven surveys were sent to public high school principals
in Tennessee. Fifty-two were returned to the researcher for a response rate of 48.59%.
The researcher used the Pearson r correlation coefficient and multiple regression
coefficients (R) to determine the degree of relationships between the principals’
responses and student achievement. The findings revealed that no relationship existed
between student achievement on the Tennessee Gateway Tests and the time a
principal spent in the classroom monitoring instruction (r =.308, p = .357). The
results also determined that there was no statistically significant relationship in
student achievement on the Tennessee Gateway Tests and the principal‘s frequency
of providing instructional feedback to teachers (r =.374, p = .181). Overall it was
determined that there was not enough evidence to state that a relationship existed
between individual principal leadership practices and student achievement
(r =.210, p = .836).
Haggard (2008) attempted to determine whether student learning outcomes
were influenced by teacher perceptions of the principal's instructional leadership.
35
Student achievement was measured at the school level by the Academic Performance
Index (API) which has a range of 200-1000. The sample included elementary school
principals in central California who had served in their school for no less than 2 years.
The sample also consisted of teachers who worked for these site administrators. This
study analyzed data on the 50 behaviors of instructional leadership, which formed 10
subscales on the PIMRS (Hallinger & McCary, 1990). The 10 subscales on the
PIMRS are as follows: (1) Frame the school goals, (2) Communicate the school goals,
(3) Supervise and evaluate instruction, (4) Coordinate the curriculum, (5) Monitor
student progress, (6) Protect instructional time, (7) Maintain high visibility, (8)
Provide incentives for teachers, (9) Promote professional development, and (10)
Provide incentives for learning. When all 10 subscales of the PIMRS were used in a
regression model, the results were not significant (F (10, 15) = 1.386, p = .275).
However, when the same subscales were entered in a stepwise model, the results were
significant (F (2, 23) = 6.174, p = .007). Significant predictors included protecting
instructional time (t = -3.088, p = .005) and supervision and evaluation of instruction
(t = 2.495, p = .020). The adjusted R2 for this model was .293. A 2 x 3 multivariate
ANOVA was run to test whether there were differences in means for the 10 PIMRS
subscales between principals and teachers. The MANOVA results showed no
difference between principals' and teachers' positions [Pillai’s Trace = .168,
F (10, 80) = 1.616, p = .117, Wilks' Lambda = .832, p = .117,
36
Hotelling's Trace = .202, p = .117, Roy's largest root = .202, p = .117]. There was also
no statistical significance to the interaction between position and the three coded
levels of SES [Pillai's Trace = .183, F (20, 162) = .814, p = .694,
Wilks' Lambda = .824, p = .693, Hotelling's Trace = .206, p = .693,
Roy's Largest Root = .157, p = .258].
Minus (2010) conducted a study to investigate the relationship between
middle school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement.
This quantitative study explored the strength of association between the variable of
student reading and mathematics achievement on the Maryland School Assessment
(MSA), and the variable of principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of principals’
instructional leadership behaviors. A total of 121 principals and 484 teachers were
surveyed. Of those, 62 principals and 298 teachers yielded usable data. This study
used Hallinger and Murphy (1987) PIMRS, an instrument that consists of 50
questions related to 10 specific job functions. A review of teacher mathematics data
correlation coefficients indicated a significant but small linear relationship within the
constructs Promoting Professional Development (r = .173, p < .05) and Protecting
Instructional Time (r = -.210, p < .05). A review of teacher reading data correlation
coefficients indicated a significant but small linear relationship within the constructs
Monitoring Student Progress (r = -.159, p < .01) and Protecting Instructional Time
(r = -.197, p < .05). A review of principal mathematics data correlation coefficients
indicated a significant but small linear relationship within the constructs Promoting
Professional Development (r = .173, p < .05) and Protecting Instructional Time
37
(r = -.210, p < .05). A review of principal reading data correlation coefficients
showed a moderate relationship within the constructs Framing School Goals
(r = .342, p < .01), Supervising and Evaluating Curriculum (r = .389, p < .01),
Protecting Instructional Time (r = .461, p < .01), Coordinating Curriculum (r = .333,
p < .05), and Maintaining High Visibility (r = .314, p < .05). Within mathematics
constructs, there was a weak to moderately correlation between Protecting
Instructional Time and the independent variable (r = .380, p < .05).
Webb (2012) conducted a study to determine the perceptions of 26 high
school principals on instructional leadership. These Wisconsin principals served
schools with enrollments between 326 and 598 students. In the study, they ranked the
importance of 21 leadership responsibilities developed by Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty. Then the researcher conducted a one-tailed t-test for statistical significance
on each of the 21 leadership responsibilities to find out how student achievement in
the schools they led were associated with those rankings. To determine high-
achieving and non-high achieving high schools, the American College Test (ACT)
scores in mathematics and English were used.
Results indicated principals from high achieving schools ranked seven
leadership practices as 4.5 or higher (culture, visibility, communication, situational
awareness, monitors/evaluates, ideals/beliefs, and change agent), compared to three
for non-high achieving school principals (communication, culture, and ideal/beliefs).
High achieving school principals listed six responsibilities below 3.83, and non-high
achieving school principals listed three as below 3.89. According to (Webb, 2012),
38
although the findings were not statistically significant, the researcher argued that the
difference was educationally significant.
Quinn (2011) conducted a study to examine the self-perceived instructional
leadership behaviors demonstrated by principals of 22 Distinguished Title I and 44
non-Title I elementary schools in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Using Larsen (1984) a
36-item Instructional Activity Questionnaire (IAQ). Instructional leadership
behaviors were negatively related to the 2007-2008 reading/language arts CRCT
scores (β = -.02, t = -.11, p = .91, R2 = .30), indicating a small and nonsignificant
influence on the reading scores, and they were positively related in 2008-2009
(β = .17, t = 1.14, p = .26, R2 = .33), indicating a small and nonsignificant influence
on the reading/language arts CRCT scores. The instructional leadership behaviors
were again positively related to the 2009-2010 scores (β = .07, t =.49, p = .63, R2 =
.48), indicating a small and nonsignificant influence on the reading/language arts
CRCT scores.
Instructional leadership behaviors were positively related to the 2007-2008
mathematics CRCT scores (β = .05, t = .36, p = .72, R2 = .46), indicating a small yet
nonsignificant association with mathematics performance in schools. As with the
2007-2008 mathematics CRCT scores, instructional leadership behaviors were again
positively related to the 2008-2009 scores (β = .11, t = .73, p = .47, R2 = .366),
indicating a small but nonsignificant impact on the mathematics CRCT scores. As
with the 2007-2008 and the 2008-2009 mathematics scores, instructional leadership
behaviors were again positively associated with the 2009-2010 mathematics CRCT
39
scores (β = .07, t = .45, p = .66, R2 = .32), indicating a small and nonsignificant
influence on the mathematics scores.
Schindler (2012) conducted a study to determine if a correlation existed
between perceived instructional leadership behaviors of high school principals and
student academic achievement. A total of 124 principals and 410 teachers completed
the School Leadership Behaviors Survey (SLBS), an instrument created from 21
principal instructional leadership behaviors that were related to student achievement
(Waters et al., 2003). The results indicated no statistically significant relationship
between principals’ self-perceived instructional leadership behaviors and student
achievement, ES = .03 (p ≥ .10). The results indicated no significant relationship
between teachers’ perceptions of principals instructional leadership behaviors and
student achievement, ES = .07 (p ≥ .10). The results indicated no significant
relationship between the congruence of principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of
instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement, ES = -.14 (p ≥ .10).
Transformational Leadership
The term “Transformational Leadership” was used for the first time by
Downton (1973) when he discussed the commitment and charisma needed by a
leader. In the book, Leadership (1978), James MacGregor Burns introduced the
concept of Transformational Leadership as a process for leaders to raise followers to
high levels of motivation and morality. The Transformational Leadership style gained
popularity and significant interest in the educational field in the early 1980s. It
emerged against the top-down nature of instructional leadership and educational
40
policies in 1980s (Hallinger, 2003). Transformational Leadership was originally
operationalized by Bass (1985) with three distinct behaviors: charisma, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. Through theory refinements and
research, Bass and Avolio (1990) added inspirational motivation as a fourth behavior.
Transformational Leadership is a process that often incorporates charismatic and
visionary leadership (Northouse, 2004, p. 169).
It is not enough, however, that a transformational leader has an understanding
of the values and principles of an organization. The leader must also communicate
these effectively to his or her followers. As a result, a transformational leader must be
adept at communication, and articulate clearly the goals and visions set forth for the
organization (Thompson, 2012). According to (Thompson, 2012), the effectiveness of
a leader’s communication skills is often manifested in the leader’s ability to engage
followers, and to have them become invested in the goals that the leader sets forth for
the organization. Sagnak (2010) added that charisma is an important characteristic
that will help a transformational leader accomplish these goals.
Smith and Piele (2006) characterized transformational leaders as providing
(a) idealized influence, which allows the leader to serve as a role model that
followers want to emulate; (b) inspirational motivation, which builds enthusiasm,
optimism, and team spirit; (c) intellectual stimulation, which encourages innovation
and creativity by questioning assumptions and supporting problem solving; and (d)
individualized consideration, in which personalized attention is given to each
individual. According to Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999a), Transformational
41
Leadership is mainly improving the performance of every follower individually to
his or her fullest potential. Based on the full range of leadership models constructed
by Bass and Riggio (2005), Transformational Leadership is based on four factors,
which are well-known as the Four i’s: 1) Idealized Influence (Charisma), 2)
Inspirational Motivation (Inspiration), 3) Individualized Consideration (Coaches
and Advisors), and 4) Intellectual Stimulation (Creative and Innovative).
Factors of Transformational Leadership
According to Balyer (2012), Transformational Leadership can be divided into
four factors. The first factor refers to how transformational leaders energize and
motivate their followers. This factor, known as inspirational motivation, relates to the
transformational leader’s capacity to set an example that individuals within an
organization must follow. For transformational leaders to become effective, they must
be perceived as those who follow their own recommendations. The transformational
leader is not exempt from the rules imposed on followers.
This facet of Transformational Leadership also incorporates the leader’s
charisma. The leader must have enough charisma to inspire followers to join in
supporting the organization’s common goal. Without setting an example and without
charisma, the effects of a Transformational Leadership may be lost with the followers
of a given organization (Balyer, 2012).
The second characteristic of Transformational Leadership is individualized
consideration. This component of Transformational Leadership emphasizes the power
of relationships. It involves the need for transformational leaders to create close
42
bonds with their followers. It is these bonds and relationships that allow leaders to
acquire their followers’ trust. Furthermore, maintaining close ties with followers also
results in gaining a better understanding, allowing the followers to more clearly see
why a leader behaves in a particular way and how adopting these behaviors
themselves can help achieve the goals set for the organization (Balyer, 2012).
These relationships operate reciprocally. For example, if transformational
leaders wish to gain the trust and understanding of their followers, they must also be
able to provide their followers with a sense of trust and understanding (Balyer, 2012).
If transformational leaders are able to understand their individual contexts and
struggles as members of the organization, the relationship between them will deepen.
This will make transformational leaders even more influential in their behaviors and
attitudes. Furthermore, if the transformational leaders understand each individual
follower, then they will be in a better position to judge where to best utilize the skills
and capacities of a particular individual for the sake of the organization’s success
(Balyer, 2012).
The third factor of Transformational Leadership is idealized influence. This
factor is similar to the first in that it pertains to the leader’s capacity to serve as an
example for followers. This factor involves the moral ascendancy of the leaders, as
well as how idealized they become in the minds and perceptions of the followers
within the organization. The leaders must ensure that their behaviors are ideal for
followers of the organization, giving them something to aspire to, and thus
43
influencing their behaviors and attitudes for the benefit of the organization and the
organization’s success (Balyer, 2012).
The fourth element of Transformational Leadership is intellectual stimulation
(Balyer, 2012). The transformational leader should understand the needs of followers
to grow and develop within the organization. Hence, transformational leaders should
be able to stimulate and challenge their followers intellectually, allowing them to take
part in discussions and tasks that force them to think of creative solutions or apply
themselves in innovative ways. As a result, an understanding of the individual
capacities of the followers is essential for a transformational leader. This relates to the
second factor of Transformational Leadership, wherein the value of the leader’s
relationship with followers is emphasized. It is only through these relationships that
the leaders can understand the individual skills and capacities of their followers.
Therefore, with such an understanding, the leader can better delegate tasks to
followers who will enhance their skills further and encourage growth and
development.
Transformational Leadership can be defined as a type of leadership that
motivates subordinates to go above and beyond their normal duties by educating them
on the importance of the direction of the overall organization (Avolio et al., 1999a).
The transformational approach defines leaders as change agents who provide visions
for the future. This concept covers society’s understanding of what leadership means
(Northouse, 2009, p. 187). Transformational models outline leadership as a mutual
process between followers and leaders. In contrast to other leadership approaches,
44
Transformational Leadership emphasizes the needs of the followers as a central focus.
Transactional Leadership focuses on extrinsic motivation of subordinates. In contrast,
the transformational approach goes a step farther and focuses attention on the demand
and growth of followers (Avolio et al., 1999a). Based on the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ), Transformational Leadership has a positive effect on
followers’ satisfaction, motivation, and performance, and can be used in a variety of
situations. Avolio and Bass (2004) stated that the MLQ has also been proven to help
leaders reflect on their own leadership style and identify areas of strength or
improvement.
Thus, “Building on the work of Burns (1978), Bass (1985), and Bass and
Avolio (1994), Leithwood (1994) developed the transformation model of school
leadership” (Marzano et al., 2005, p. 15). With this in mind, it is important to note
that “transformational leaders not only manage structure but they also purposely
impact the culture in order to change it” (Harris, 2003, pp. 16-17). Transformational
Leadership involves an engagement between leaders and followers bound by common
purpose (Burns, 1978). Transformational leaders are concerned with improving the
performance of followers and developing followers to their fullest potential (Avolio
et al., 1999a). Transformational leaders are able to inspire followers to transcend their
own self-interests and are capable of having a profound and extraordinary effect on
followers (Robbins & Judge, 2005). Feinberg, Ostroff, and Burke (2005) stated that
Transformational Leadership essentially motivates followers to transcend their self-
interest for the collective purpose, vision, and mission (p. 471).
45
Transformational Leadership behaviors include (a) developing a shared vision
by stakeholders, (b) developing subordinates into leaders, (c) sharing leadership
responsibilities, (d) motivating subordinates to meet the organizational goals, and (e)
promoting expectations of continuous improvement among teachers and staff (Evans,
1996). Evans’s study merged nicely with Kouzes and Posner’s five exemplary
leadership practices: (a) modeling the way; (b) inspiring the shared vision; (c)
challenging the process; (d) enabling others to act; and (e) encouraging the heart.
In 1991, Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass developed the Full-range Leadership
Theory (FRLT) and one of the leadership styles is Transformational Leadership.
Transformational Leadership is necessary to motivate employees to a high level of
effort and performance (Lee, 2005). The four components of Transformational
Leadership, (a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual
stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration, work together to produce employee
performance beyond specified expectations (Hall, Johnson, Wysocki, & Kepner,
2002). Many researchers have supported Transformational Leadership in the field of
education, acknowledging it to be one of the most effective leadership styles (Adams
& Hambright, 2005; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bass & Yammarino, 1989; Burns, 1978;
Tichy & Devanna, 1986).
Thus, leaders help their followers grow through individual changes. One
example of this could be a leader who needs a project to be managed. Instead of
managing it himself, he designates one of the subordinates to become the project
46
manager. This motivates the subordinate to take on more responsibility and become
better in the end.
Numerous scholarly articles have been written and further research studies
have been conducted specifically with regards to the theories of Transformational
Leadership and how they relate to the educational setting, as well as the role of the
principal. The work of present day principals is based on their education and
experiences. Their behaviors, decisions, and skills are under scrutiny due to the
passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, which sought to raise the
standard of education and the academic performance of schools in the United States.
Student achievement is measured on a yearly basis using standardized test scores that
ultimately determine whether schools are exhibiting expected performance. Schools
that consistently underperform are placed within government mandated programs for
educational improvement. As a result, principals are under significant pressure to
ensure that their schools’ educational performance is comparable to state expectations
(Butler, 2008).
Breaker (2009) attempted to measure Transformational Leadership based on
the concept of self-perception. The researcher administered the MLQ 5X to 118
secondary school principals to ascertain their levels of Transformational Leadership.
Next, the researcher administered the Educational Leadership Improvement Tool,
which measured the effectiveness of leadership as a whole, and on each of the 10
individual facets of leadership. The researcher’s multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) indicated that there was a significant difference between the level of
47
Transformational Leadership that the principals exhibited, and the effectiveness of
their leadership. Results from the MANOVA found that the average ratings across all
10 leadership performance areas differed significantly by principals' level of
Transformational Leadership, Wilks' Lambda .73, F (18, 264) = 2.497, p < .01.
In a study by Hamzah, Yakop, Nordin, and Raahman (2011), 285 teachers
were given surveys regarding their perceptions on the leadership of the principals
who supervised them and the development of the schools to which they belonged.
The researchers computed the perceived levels of Transformational Leadership by
using descriptive statistics, and by comparing the means of the different dimensions
of Transformational Leadership. According to the researchers, principals in their
schools overall exhibited high levels of Transformational Leadership, posting a mean
score of 3.72 on a scale of 0 to 5. With respect to the relationship between the factors
of Transformational Leadership and the use of practices that fostered a strong
learning environment, the researchers used inferential statistics such as Pearson’s r for
analysis. According to the researchers, each aspect of Transformational Leadership
had a moderately strong positive correlation with the use of these practices at a
significance level of p < .05: idealized influence (r = .525), inspirational motivation
(r = .560), intellectual stimulation (r = 0.545), individualized consideration (r = .552).
High Performing Schools
Benkovitz (2008b) acknowledged the reality that not all schools are equal in
their performance, especially with respect to minimizing gaps in the achievement of
students from different socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. The researcher also
48
emphasized that achievement gaps are increasing in schools, and that there is an
ongoing debate as to how best to fulfill the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act and
improve the academic performance of all students. The researcher pointed out that
there are schools that are able to achieve this goal, and subsequently explored the
processes and attitudes that made them “high performing,” as per national standards.
The researcher conducted a review of the existing literature, identifying certain
factors as crucial to the performance and success of schools. In general, according to
Benkovitz (2008b), high performing schools emphasize academics and academic
goals. They give their students lofty academic standards, while also espousing the
belief that the standards are achievable. According to Benkovitz (2008b), past
researchers have proven that schools with a heavier emphasis on academics generally
have better-performing students, regardless of their socioeconomic or racial
backgrounds.
Benkovitz (2008b) also drew themes from research that could be used as
frameworks to review the factors that affect a particular school’s performance. Based
on the researcher’s study of academic literature, it was determined that three
important facets of a school as an organization influence the performance of students,
including school policies, school practices, and school attitudes. According to the
researcher, schools with smaller achievement gaps tend to have similar policies,
practices, and attitudes, while schools with larger achievement gaps also tend to have
similar policies, practices, and attitudes. The researcher recommended that schools
49
review these three factors to assess how they can improve their overall functioning in
order to become high performing educational institutions.
Kurland, Peretz, and Hertz-Lazarowitz (2010) averred that successful schools
were most likely the product of the kind of leadership that governed them. Moreover,
the researchers stated that successful schools usually had teachers who were inspired
and motivated by their principals into committing to the specific goals of the school.
Once teachers were committed to the school’s vision, they functioned as a
community, working together in order to achieve and to improve themselves, fully
aware that their actions directly affected whether or not the school would succeed or
fail.
Kurland et al. (2010) stated that based on the existing literature, it seemed that
three factors led to the success of academic institutions: leadership, vision, and
organizational learning. In order to substantiate this claim, Kurland et al. (2010)
conducted a quantitative study which delved into the relationship among these three
variables. The researchers wanted to quantify the effects that the schools’ leadership
had on the ability of the school to engage in organizational learning, with the use of a
single unified vision as a mediating factor.
Kurland et al. (2010) gathered data among 1,474 teachers from 104
elementary schools in Israel. The teachers evaluated their schools and their principals
using a 77-item questionnaire on principals’ leadership style, school vision, and
school organizational learning. Analyses showed a significant relationship between
teachers’ perceptions (F = 2.37, 1.86, 2.40, 2.28, 2.46 and p < .001) of their
50
principals’ leadership style, vision, and organizational learning. The correlation
coefficient of all four scales was high (r = .76 to .89, p < .001). As a mediating
variable, however, the researcher found that vision only partially influenced the effect
of Transformational Leadership on organizational learning.
Barnes (2011) illustrated the impact of the principal’s leadership style on the
academic achievement of students. The researcher compared the scores of principals
from high performing schools in the leadership practice inventory (LPI) to academic
standards. The researcher also correlated the scores of principals on the LPI with the
academic achievement of students in mathematics and the sciences. Barnes (2011)
selected 69 participants–principals from different schools in Tennessee. These
principals were chosen because they led schools that achieved Adequate Yearly
Progress for 2 consecutive years prior to the study. These principals were leaders of
these schools for 3 years prior to the study to ensure that they played a role in the
success of these schools. The researcher administered the LPI to these principals and
correlated their scores to the standardized tests in mathematics and science.
The results showed a significant moderate correlation between the principals’
model the way leadership practice and mathematics achievement: r (N = 38) = .373,
p =.021, r2 = .138), a significant moderate correlation between principals’ model the
way leadership practice and science achievement: r (N = 38) = .420, p =.009,
r2 = .176), a significant moderate correlation between the principals’ enable others to
act leadership practice and mathematics achievement: r (N = 38) = .342, p =.036,
51
r2 = .116) and significant moderate correlation between principals’ enable others to
act leadership practice and science achievement: r (N = 38) = .392, p =.015,
r2 = .153). The results also identified a significant moderate correlation between
principals’ encourage the heart leadership practice and science achievement:
r (N = 38) = .332, p =.042, r2 = .11). The Pearson’s correlation showed no
relationship between the principals’ inspire a shared vision leadership practice and
mathematics achievement: r (N = 38) = .314, p =.055, r2 = .098). The Pearson’s
correlation showed no significant relationship existed between the principals’
encourage the heart leadership practice and mathematics achievement:
r (N = 38) = .299, p =.068, r2 = .089). There was no relationship between principals’
inspire a shared vision leadership practice and science achievement:
r (N = 38) = .207, p =.212, r2 = .042). There was no relationship between the
principals’ challenge the process leadership practice and mathematics achievement:
r (N = 38) = .143, p =.393, r2 = .02). There was no relationship between principals’
challenge the process leadership practice and science achievement: r (N = 38) = .114,
p =.494, r2 = .013).
The results of the test and the analyses carried out by (Barnes, 2011) showed
that principals from high performing schools generally scored higher on the LPI. This
comparison indicates that principals from high performing schools made use of the
exemplary leadership practices measured by the LPI more than their counterparts.
The study also revealed significantly positive correlations between the scores of the
principals on the LPI and the scores of their students on mathematics and science
52
standardized tests. This correlation means that the more principals make use of the
exemplary leadership practices outlined by the LPI, the more their students tend to
score higher on mathematics and science achievement tests.
Hill (2011) compared the different leadership practices of principals from two
high performing schools (met AYP), as well as the practices of principals from two
underperforming schools (did not meet AYP). Hill (2011) randomly chose 100
elementary school teachers from the state of Georgia to participate; 84 teachers
responded to the survey. The schools selected for the study had similar characteristics
in size, demographics, and staff members’ years of service; moreover, the principals
who supervised them had similar lengths of tenure. The leadership practices of
principals presented in Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
were modified by the researcher. A 12-item survey was used to investigate leadership
practices in these distinct areas: 1) modeling the way, 2) inspiring a shared vision, 3)
challenging the process, 4) enabling others to act, and 5) encouraging the heart.
Findings from Pearson Chi-Square test indicated there was no significant difference
between satisfactory schools (met AYP) vs. unsatisfactory schools (did not meet
AYP), [r = 1.03 and p = .598]. The independent t test also indicated there was no
significant difference in leadership practices in unsatisfactory and satisfactory schools
[t (81) = .617, p =.539]. The results on the simple t test showed that there was no
significant difference in leadership practices between elementary schools that did not
meet AYP and elementary schools that met AYP [t (34) = -.225, p = .82]. The results
of the t test [t (45) = 3.43, p = .001] indicated there was a significant difference in
53
leadership practices between successful schools and unsuccessful schools, yet the
Pearson Chi-square showed no relationship [r =2.7, p = .446]. Despite the heavy
emphasis that literature has placed on the importance of principals’ leadership
practices on the academic performance, the chi-square showed that the leadership
practices of principals did not significantly affect the performance of schools or of
their students, neither for high performing nor underperforming schools.
Academic Achievement
In the wake of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, there has been a
heightened awareness of the achievement gaps that exist in schools. These
achievement gaps are characterized by significant differences in the academic
performance of students, varying along socioeconomic and racial factors (Benkovitz,
2008a). For the most part, students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds
perform at lower levels in their academics as compared to students from more
privileged families. Likewise, students belonging to racial minorities perform at lower
achievement levels compared to their White peers. Hence there is a need to explore
through scientific research the various mechanisms which can contribute positively to
the academic performance and achievement of all students regardless of their
socioeconomic background or racial identity.
Dorward (2009) studied the relationship between the Transformational
Leadership behavior of principals and change in student performance on the New
York State Comprehensive English Regents Exam (CERE). In order to control for
variability, only those schools in the Similar Schools Group, as defined by the New
54
York State Education Department (NYSED), were used as part of the data pool. This
study used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) as the survey
instrument. The MLQ was developed by one of the well-known leadership experts,
Bernard Bass, with the help of Bruce Avolio. The MLQ 5X measures three areas of
leadership behavior: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. This study
examined the relationship between the Transformational Leadership behavior of
principals and change in student performance between the 2003 and 2005 New York
State Comprehensive English Regents Exam (CERE) which is given at the end of
eleventh grade.
This study also examined the role of Transformational Leadership regarding
levels of teacher satisfaction, teacher perception of leader effectiveness, and teacher
willingness to give extra effort. The first set of data was gathered from the NYSED
website which contains links to CERE results from the 2003-2005 school years. The
NYSED website contains 169 schools, of which only 43 met the requirements of the
study. The second set of data collected was information on the leadership styles of the
school administrators, using the online version of the MLQ 5X. The third set of data
was demographic data that was used along with data from the MLQ 5X. Findings did
not indicate any clear relationship between these two data sets. These findings
appeared to have no correlation at all between the Transformational Leadership
scores attributed to participating principals and changes in the percentage of students
in their schools that achieved mastery on the CERE.
55
Crain (2010) conducted a study to determine whether or not a statistically
significant relationship exists between leadership styles, flexibility and effectiveness
of principals, and student academic achievement as perceived by principals. For the
purpose of the study, the Leader Behavior Analysis II (LB All) Research, Validity,
And Reliability Of The Self And Other Forms was used to measure the independent
variables of leadership style, effectiveness, and flexibility. This study incorporated a
causal comparative research design which included 117 principal surveys and
demographic questionnaires and 585 teacher surveys. Sixty-one principals and 301
teachers returned the surveys. A Multiple Linear Regression was used to determine if
there was a statistical relationship between perceived leadership flexibility and
effectiveness of principals, and student academic achievement. The Alpha level for
all statistical tests was set at .05. ANOVA results found no significant relationship
between principal perceived effectiveness and flexibility and the dependent variable,
student achievement [F = 1.066, p = .351, R2 = .035]. ANOVA results also found no
significant relationship between teacher perceived effectiveness and flexibility and
the dependent variable, student achievement [F = .584, p = .561, R2 = .020]. Also the
study revealed that neither the coefficient for flexibility nor effectiveness was a
significant predictor of student achievement [flexibility: t = -.1.066, p = .318 and
effectiveness: t = .767, p = .446].
Gamble (2009) conducted a quantitative explanatory correlational study to
determine if there was an association between the principals’ leadership style as
measured by the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and the schools’
56
ability to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) standards as measured by the
Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) achievement tests. A sample
population of 60 elementary principals and 480 teachers was administered a survey.
Within the sample were 60 principals from elementary schools that included the
following: (a) 20 high performance schools exceeding AYP benchmarks, (b) 20 target
schools showing improvement, and (c) 20 high priority schools not meeting AYP
standards. Each of the 60 principals randomly selected eight teachers from his or her
faculty, who were asked to rate their own principal’s leadership style. The variables
examined (a) Transformational, (b) Transactional, and (c) Laissez-Faire Leadership
styles. A stepwise regression procedure indicated there was a moderate correlation
between the leadership style of principals as measured by the MLQ and the students’
TCAP achievement test scores in mathematics [R2 = .301, F (1, 45) = 19.376,
p < .001]. There was also a moderate correlation between the leadership style of
principals as measured by the MLQ and the students’ TCAP achievement test scores
in reading [R2 = .304, F (1, 45) = 19.376, p < .001]. The results showed a significant
difference between the three leadership styles and the three levels of schools, with p =
.0421, using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Gulbin (2008) conducted a study to examine the relationship between the
Leithwood model of Transformational Leadership of Pennsylvania secondary school
principals and Adequate Yearly Progress based on the Pennsylvania System of State
Assessments (PSSA) in mathematics and reading. The population for this study
consisted of all Pennsylvania secondary school principals located in a district that
57
qualifies for Title I funding that has more than 30% low-income students.
Transformational Leadership was measured by the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire, Form 5x-Short (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Of the 265 questionnaires
mailed, 132 returned, a rate of almost 50%. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated
no relationship between the Leithwood model of Transformational Leadership and
achievement in mathematics (r = .01, p = .96), reading (r = .01, p = .96), attendance
(r = -.46, p = .13), or 4-year graduation rates (r = .07, p = .48).
Greb (2011) surveyed principals in Milwaukee to determine if a relationship
existed between Transformational Leadership and student academic achievement.
This model is somewhat unique as research has typically been conducted on each
leadership construct independently, with little research conducted with the two
constructs together. Thirty-one principals participated, 14 male and 17 female. The
student achievement data were obtained from the Wisconsin Information Network for
Successful Schools (WINSS). This study suggested that principals who exhibited
Transformational Leadership showed small positive relationships in three curricular
areas, as measured by the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam (r = .159,
p = .392 for reading, r = .102, p = .586 for language arts, and r = .117, p = .531 for
mathematics). A post-hoc analysis revealed statistically significant correlational
coefficients between management-by-exception passive and student achievement
(r = .515 for reading, r = .479 for language arts, and r = .567 for mathematics with
n = 31 and p < .05, two tailed).
58
Lea (2011) conducted a study to determine the relationship between the
Transformational Leadership behaviors of high school principals in the suburban
Chicago, Illinois area and student achievement on the Illinois Prairie State
Achievement Examination (PSAE). Thirty-three high schools comprised the study
sample, and 1,130 teachers voluntarily participated in the study. The study results and
findings showed a significant, positive relationship between principal
Transformational Leadership and the PSAE-driven student achievement measures.
Overall, the relationship between Transformational Leadership and Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) on all three of the variables, Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and
Satisfaction, was significant and accounted for 39% of the variance in AYP [R2 = .39,
F (3, 29) = 6.19, p < .01]. The relationship between Transformational Leadership and
AYP in Reading was significant and accounted for 30.1% of the variance in
predicting AYP reading percentages [R2 = .301, F (3, 29) = 4.17, p < .05], and the
relationship between Transformational Leadership and AYP in Mathematics was
significant and accounted for 37.6% of the variance in predicting AYP mathematics
percentages [R2 = .376, F (3, 29) = 5.84, p < .01].
Beaver (2011) conducted quantitative research to examine the relationship
between student achievement and leadership styles demonstrated by school
principals. Beaver used the Bolman and Deal Leadership Orientations Instrument
(Self). Principals from 401 elementary schools in Mississippi participated in the
study. The researcher mailed questionnaires. The total number of elementary school
principals who participated in the analysis was 126 (N = 126). A one-way MANOVA
59
was used to determine the relationship between frames of leadership and student
achievement. The political frame result was [F (4, 121) = 1.052, p = .384]. The
structural frame result was [F (4, 121) = .458, p = .766]. The symbolic frame result
was [F (4, 121) = .201, p = .937]. The human resource frame result was
[F (4, 121) = 1.275, p = .284]. There was no significant relationship between any of
the leadership frames and student achievement. Another one-way MANOVA was
used to determine if a difference existed between a combination of the leadership
frames and student achievement. No significant effect was found [F (16,484) = .627,
p = .863]. There was no significant difference between the leadership frames
collectively and student achievement.
Starcher (2006) conducted a study to determine if a significant relationship
existed between each of Kouzes and Posner’s five leadership practices and student
achievement in mathematics and reading. The leadership practices of principals were
identified using Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI-self) and
student scores on the reading and mathematics portions of the West Virginia
Educational Standards Test (WESTEST). One hundred and eighty-seven surveys
were returned for a rate of 52.8%. The ANOVA results yielded no significance
between five exemplary leadership practices and student achievement in both
mathematics and reading.
Stobaugh (2003) conducted a study to investigate teacher perceived leadership
of principals in Kentucky by examining relationships between different forms of
leadership and student outcomes. There were a total of 60 schools that participated in
60
the study. Principal leadership was measured through the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) that had been revised by Bass and Avolio (1995). The
independent variables were principals’ Transformational Leadership, transactional
leadership, and laissez-faire leadership styles. The dependent variables were the level
of student achievement as measured by the Commonwealth Accountability Testing
System (CATS) and teachers' perceptions of their satisfaction, effectiveness, and
extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
Transformational Leadership did not significantly relate to CATS scores [change in
R2= .03, F (1, 35) = 2.09, p = .16]. However, Transformational Leadership was found
to positively relate to perceived teacher extra effort (r = .97, p < .01), teacher
perceived effectiveness (r = .94, p < .01), and teacher perceived satisfaction (r = .95,
p < .01). When transformational principals positively impact teachers, they perceive
themselves to be more effective, satisfied, and devote extra effort. Teachers then
become more empowered and collaborate with colleagues to improve their
instructional capacities. All of these intervening variables may then relate to student
achievement.
Griffith (2004) examined the direct effect of Transformational Leadership of
principals on school outcomes, such as school staff turnover and school performance,
and the indirect effect on these outcomes through school staff job satisfaction. One
hundred and seventeen urban elementary schools in one large school district
participated in the study. Questionnaires were administered to 3,291 staff members,
assessing their principals’ Transformational Leadership and job satisfaction. Data
61
obtained from surveys of school staff provided data for the Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) and Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analyses. To determine
performance progress, initial (Grade 3) test scores were regressed on current (Grade
5) test scores. The three components of Transformational Leadership served as
predictor variables of staff job satisfaction and organizational performance:
(1) Charisma or inspiration. The ability of leaders to provide a clear sense of
mission, which they in turn convey to followers and develop a sense of
loyalty and commitment.
(2) Individualized consideration. The leader's willing delegation of projects
to followers to stimulate and create learning experiences and the leader's
treatment of each follower as unique individuals.
(3) Intellectual stimulation. The leader's provision of opportunities for
followers to rethink traditional procedures and to examine situations in
new and novel ways. (Griffith, 2004, p. 6)
Results indicated that principal behaviors could be described in terms of three
leadership domains of Transformational Leadership: charisma/inspiration (F = 5.16,
p < .001), individualized consideration (F = 5.15, p < .001), intellectual stimulation
(F = 5.09, p < .001), and staff job satisfaction (F = 4.97, p < .001). As such, schools
in which principals were perceived as transformational leaders had school staff that
were more satisfied with their jobs and had greater achievement progress.
Leithwood and Jantzi (1999b) replicated an earlier study that examined the
effects of Transformational Leadership practices on school organizational conditions
62
and student engagement. Data were collected from 2,424 teachers and 7,251 students
in one school district (94 elementary schools) in Canada. One survey asked teachers
about the status of seven organizational conditions in their schools, as well as the
relative influence of principal and teacher sources of leadership. Another survey
asked students about their engagement with school as well as the status of their family
culture. Leithwood and Jantzi (1999b) reported Transformational Leadership had
strong direct effects on school conditions (.80) which, in turn, had strong direct
effects on classroom conditions (.62). Transformational Leadership had a weak (.17)
but statistically significant effect on student identification; its effects on student
participation are not significant (.11).
Di Vincenzo (2008) conducted a study to determine if there was a relationship
between the leadership styles of high school leaders and the achievement scores of
their students. The sample of participants consisted of 125 public high school
principals and assistant principals and 87 private or independent high school
headmasters and assistant headmasters from the state of New Jersey. The Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI) was used to gather data from the participants regarding their
leadership styles. In general, the participants in the study exhibited either
transformational or transactional leadership styles at their respective schools. The
researcher found no significant correlation between Transformational Leadership
style and the achievement scores of students. A 95% confidence level (p ≤ .05) was
used to determine significance. The researcher, however, did not rule out the
possibility that Transformational Leadership may in some instances have a positive
63
relationship with student achievement, stating that perhaps the current use of the
leadership style is merely misdirected or misplaced. The sum of the leader scores
(r = -.02, p = .87) indicated there was no significant correlation between school
performance and Transformational Leadership. None of the individual leader
practices were statistically significant: Model the Way (r = -.003, p = .98); Inspire a
Shared Vision (r = -1.0, p = .36); Challenge the Process (r = -.08, p = .42); Enable
Others to Act (r = .17, p = .10); and Encourage the Heart (r = -.003, p = .98).
Estapa (2009) conducted a study to analyze if there was a relationship
between principals’ Transformational Leadership behaviors and student achievement
as measured by Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test in the
English/language arts (ELA GCRCT) and the eleventh grade students’ Georgia High
School Graduation Test in English/language arts (ELA GHSGT). The study measured
each of the eight principals’ Transformational Leadership behaviors based on
teachers’ responses to The Nature of School Leadership survey. Two hundred
teachers went online to answer the survey, and 176 completed the survey. The survey
questions were grouped according to the eight characteristics of the transformational
leader as defined by Leithwood and Jantzi (1995). The eight leadership dimensions
are as follows:
1. Develops a widely shared vision for the school
2. Builds consensus about school goals and priorities
3. Holds high performance expectations
4. Models behavior
64
5. Provides individualized support
6. Provides intellectual stimulation
7. Strengthens school culture
8. Builds collaborative structures (Estapa, 2009, pp. 50-51)
This study found no statistically significant correlation between
Transformational Leadership behaviors of principals and student achievement on
standardized tests. The results from the regression analysis indicated that the teachers’
overall leadership ratings of their principals did not significantly predict student
proficiency (R = .19, p = .09). In fact, the overall leadership scores explained only
4.0% of the variance in student proficiency levels. The multiple linear regression
model also indicated a lack of significant predictive ability with the inclusion of all
eight leadership dimension scores [R = .26, p = .74].
Leithwood and Sun (2012) used meta-analytic review techniques to synthesize
the results of 79 unpublished studies about the nature of transformational school
leadership (TSL) on student achievement. Six different models of Transformational
Leadership were included and 11 specific leadership practices were examined. A total
of 93 analyses reported in 33 studies examined TSL effects on six types of student
outcomes: 1) achievement, 2) attendance, 3) college-going rate, 4) drop-out rate, 5)
graduation rate, and 6) percentage of time removed from regular classes.
The results of TSL effects on student achievement suggested that effect sizes
were grouped according to direct or indirect effects. Studies using direct effects
examined the relationship between TSL and student achievement only, whereas
65
indirect effects also included either mediating or moderating variables. The effects of
individual TSL on student achievement were small but significant (r = .09) with a
95% confidence interval around the mean effect size ranging from .04 to .14. The
TSL’s impacts on achievement in reading (r = .15) and mathematics (r = .18) yielded
slightly larger positive effects. The two dimensions of Transformational Leadership
had significant direct effects on student achievement: building collaborative
structures (weighted mean r = .17) and providing individualized support (weighted
mean r = .15). These results were consistent with earlier findings from published TSL
research by Leithwood and Jantzi (2005), which showed a low effect of TL on
student achievement.
Influence of Principals’ Leadership
The study conducted by Marks and Printy (2003) emphasized exactly how
delicately principals must balance their leadership behaviors in order to create
positive change and development in their schools. In their study, the researchers
gathered survey data from 910 teachers from 24 elementary and middle schools in the
United States which were undergoing reform. The teachers were surveyed on their
perceptions of the principals who led them. The data gathered from the participants
were used to identify any significant correlations between the leadership of the
principals and the quality of schools. Based on Pearson’s correlation, the researchers
were able to show that poor leadership among principals correlated strongly and
negatively with pedagogical quality (r = -.67) and actual achievement of students
66
(r = -.83). On the other hand, when principals exhibited Transformational Leadership
integrated with certain aspects of instructional leadership, strong correlations were
shown with pedagogical quality (r = .86) and actual achievement (r = .85).
Because development and improvement in schools is a process that takes
place over a period of time, one of the ways to identify and measure the real effects of
a principal’s leadership on the quality of schools is through a longitudinal study.
Longitudinal studies track the differences in subjects over time. Sammons, Gu, Day,
and Ko (2011) conducted a longitudinal study regarding the influence of principals’
leadership on the quality and improvement of different primary and secondary
schools over a period of 3 years. The researchers used survey responses from a wide
sampling of schools which included 378 primary schools and 362 secondary schools.
The researchers used confirmatory factor analysis as well as structural
equation models in order to quantify the relationships between principals’ leadership
and the quality and improvement of schools over time. According to the analyses of
the researchers, the leadership of school principals and the processes and policies
which they adopt have a significant impact on the performance of students and of
schools in general.
Chin (2007) used a meta-analysis technique to synthesize the results of 28
independent studies and to investigate the overall relationship between
Transformational Leadership and three measures of school outcomes: teacher job
satisfaction, school effectiveness as perceived by teachers, and student achievement.
This study used a quantitative meta-analysis to estimate the effect size of
67
Transformational Leadership. First, the study focused on the general effectiveness of
schools in delivering the necessary services and education to faculty and students.
This factor was generally measured in the studies using the perceptions of teachers.
Second, the study explored student achievement, as measured by standardized test
score results among students in different schools. Third, the study included the factor
of job satisfaction among teachers. The results of Chin’s analysis revealed significant
effects caused by Transformational Leadership on each of the three criteria. That is,
when a school leader has high levels of Transformational Leadership, different facets
of school performance improve. Specifically, the aforementioned facets of overall
effectiveness as perceived by teachers, job satisfaction, and student achievement were
positively affected. The results from the three meta-analyses in terms of effective size
(r) indicated that transformational school leadership had a positive and significant
effect on teacher job satisfaction (r = .707 with the range -.060 to .950), school
effectiveness as perceived by teachers (r = .695 with the range .219 to .940), and
student achievement (r = .487 and the range was .010 to .893). It can be concluded
that the overall relationship between TSL and measures of school outcomes seemed
fairly robust.
Valentine and Prater (2011) conducted a study that compared the different
forms of leadership exhibited by school principals and the effects of each on the
academic achievement and performance of their students. The researchers conducted
a survey regarding the leadership styles of principals and correlated these with the
academic performance and achievement of their students. In order to identify and
68
compare the effects of different forms of leadership, data were organized and
analyzed based on the leadership style exhibited by a particular public school
principal in the disposition of his tasks.
According to Valentine and Prater (2011), Transformational Leadership was
strongly and positively correlated with academic performance. Three
Transformational Leadership factors, “providing a model” (R2 = .382), “identifying a
vision” (R2 = .361), and “fostering group goals” (R2 = .413), most frequently
explained student achievement scores in this study. The more leaders exhibited
behaviors adhering to the Transformational Leadership model, the more likely their
students would exhibit higher academic achievement scores. This was relative to the
correlations found between two other forms of leadership, namely, instructional
leadership and managerial leadership. These two forms of leadership were not
significantly or positively correlated with the academic performance of students.
Valentine and Prater (2011) also identified specific aspects of
Transformational Leadership that strongly and positively correlated with student
academic achievement. According to the researchers, one of the strongest correlates
of student academic achievement was the principal’s ability to identify a vision for
the school as well as for the teachers who followed. This finding emphasized the
importance of having a unified school goal or vision, as this strongly correlates with
the students’ future performance in academics. The researchers also found that the
principals’ ability to properly model behaviors and to compel the members of faculty
and staff to emulate such behaviors were strongly correlated with student academic
69
performance. Furthermore, the researchers were able to show that a principal’s
educational level correlated strongly with different leadership factors. This means that
the more academic preparation the principals have prior to leading their schools, the
more they are likely to exhibit ideal leadership behaviors that positively influence the
institution and its students.
Marks and Nance (2007) extended the discussion of the influence of
principals’ leadership on academic achievement by looking at various forms of
accountability which they must meet, and the different institutions and organizations
imposing them. Specifically, the study looked into how states, local school boards,
school districts, school councils, and parents’ associations have affected the amount
of influence that principals have and how this influence in turn affects the academic
achievement of students. The researchers made use of survey responses collected
from principals regarding how much influence they had on their schools, and how
much influence other bodies and organizations exerted within their schools.
The researchers made use of survey data from 8,524 school principals. In
order to ensure proper representation of the population, these survey responses were
taken from elementary school, middle school, and high school principals.
Furthermore, in order to properly represent the population of principals, the
participants hailed from schools of various levels of income and socioeconomic
background. Based on the analysis of the researchers, different principals are affected
differently by the modes of accountability imposed upon them. For the most part, the
researchers were able to indicate that the amount of influence principals had on
70
student achievement varied significantly along the different kinds of accountability
measures imposed upon them by their states, local boards, councils, and parents’
associations.
Influence of Technology Availability
According to Gulek and Demirtas (2005), the effects of technology on student
achievement are relatively well established. According to the researchers, it has been
shown in past research that technology increases student performance and
achievement. In fact, when students are provided with their own access to technology
such as laptops, they are able to immerse themselves in academic work, and
collaborate more with their peers in different academic endeavors.
Mosbacker (2005) explored the relationship between leadership styles and
technology availability in schools. The researcher attempted to identify the predictors
for the presence and availability of technology within schools. In order to conduct the
study on school technology availability, Mosbaker administered the Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI) to 514 school officials, in addition to surveys on the
technological status of the schools that they supervised and administrated. According
to the researcher’s correlational analysis, there were significantly positive correlations
between the scores of principals on the LPI and the availability of technology within
schools. While correlations do not prove causation, this study indicated that the
higher a principal scores on leadership scales, and the more effective his or her
leadership behaviors and practices are, the more likely it is that technology will be
made available within schools.
71
Mosbacker also pointed out that, apart from the principal’s leadership, one
other factor is a strong predictor of the presence of technology within school
environments. This factor was the amount of money spent on and devoted to each
student in the school. In schools with more funds to devote to each individual
student, technology will be more readily available. Conversely, in schools with fewer
funds, technology may not be as available to students.
Influence of Instructional Coaching
Instructional coaching occurs when a school employs individuals for the sole
task of improving the teaching capacity of its educators (Arrington, 2010).
Instructional coaching attempts to develop the necessary skills and capacities that
effective educators should have in order to improve the learning and the performance
of the students under their tutelage.
Arrington investigated instructional coaching in terms of its relation to the
Transformational Leadership style of school principals. The study was quantitative,
using correlational analysis to decipher whether or not any relationship existed
between the two variables, and if so, the nature of the relationship. The researcher
conducted a study using two questionnaires administered to teachers in a west central
school district in Georgia. The first questionnaire allowed teachers to rate the level of
Transformational Leadership practiced by their principals. The second questionnaire
asked the participating teachers to provide feedback on the perceived effects of
instructional coaching.
72
The participants in the study rated principals in their district as being
transformational leaders, with scores ranging from the neutral to the positive end of
the Transformational Leadership scale provided in the survey. However, the
participants rated the effects of instructional coaching as neutral. This meant that they
perceived instructional coaching as having neither positive nor negative effects on
their teaching capacities and on the performance of their students. However, the
relationship between the data of the two surveys revealed a small and significant
positive correlation between the Transformational Leadership of principals and the
positive effects of instructional coaching. This means that the more principals practice
Transformational Leadership, the more likely instructional coaching will yield
positive results for their teachers and students. Specifically, Arrington was also able
to identify a similar positive relationship between Transformational Leadership and
several domains of instructional coaching: Offering Individualized Support,
Demonstrating High Performance Expectations, Building School Vision and Goals,
and Providing Instructional Support. While these results are encouraging, it should be
emphasized that the data on the positive effects of instructional coaching were
primarily derived from the perceptions of teachers, and not from a careful measure of
the performance of their students on standardized tests.
Influence of Socioeconomic Status
Living in poverty can be expressed as an economic state characterized as a life
without basic needs, such as adequate food, clothing, and housing (Faitar, 2011).
However, the argument regarding the negative and unpredictable impact of poverty
73
on the physical growth, emotional development, and the overall health of children is
as much related to the unique environment or culture of poverty as it is with the
finances of poverty (McConney & Perry, 2010). Scholars claimed that environmental
deprivations and the lack of basic needs create the culture of poverty, which
consequently spur social issues such as students’ academic failure, struggling
families, gangs, drugs, and violence (Caldas & Bankston, 1997; Faitar, 2011).
Family income remains a consistent influence and indicator of a student’s
academic success in school. Since the early 1980s, studies have shown relationships
between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Findings of robust
research would indicate weak to moderate correlations. To refute the argument that
poverty hinders student success in school, White (1982) conducted a meta-analytical
review of 200 studies that examined the relationship of the variables of
socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Results of the findings disproved
that socioeconomic status has a strong relationship with academic achievement.
However, White noticed that results and variance of analysis could be associated with
the erroneous conceptual definitions of socioeconomic status. White stated that
income of the head of the family, mother’s educational achievement, and home
environment are typically used and associated with the individual’s interest in
learning. The study showed that the relationship of socioeconomic status and
academic achievement remains to be proven.
White’s study was refuted by the meta-analysis study of Sirin (2005). Of the
74 independent studies published in the 1990s, Sirin found a correlation between
74
socioeconomic status and academic achievement that showed a medium to strong
relationship. Relevant factors that are also attributed to socioeconomic status include
the level of school, ethnicity, and location of the institution.
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2010), in all
academic subject areas, students of all ages and grades from wealthy homes
outperform those living in poverty. In more current research, the same trend is true:
children of more affluent households outperform children of low socioeconomic
status on standardized tests (NCES, 2010). Many other factors influence achievement,
including parents’ education level, reading material in the home, life experiences,
quality of food, and a two-parent household (Vellymalay, 2012).
In 2010, nearly 25% of American children lived in poverty, which represents
one of the highest rates of poverty in the developed world. According to Moller,
Mickelson, Stearns, Banerjee, and Bottia (2013), of all the types of educational
disadvantage, children who live in extreme poverty often are homeless or transient
and are among the most difficult for the American educational system to serve
adequately. One of the greatest challenges in America is the ability to provide an
educational experience characterized by adequate resources in a quality facility for
every child, irrespective of their racial or socioeconomic background (National
Center for Children in Poverty, 2011).
Palumbo and Sanacore (2009) conducted a study involving intermediate and
middle school grade teachers to investigate how to combine literacy instruction and
content information for students living in poverty. They found that most students
75
living in poverty have a limited vocabulary, and their shift from word recognition
abilities to comprehension and applied learning is slow. Their findings suggested that
teachers can help minority children and those living in poverty to close the
achievement gap in writing by fusing literacy instruction and content-area material.
Their research showed that this connection improves reading and writing
achievement, as well as increases comprehension of information (National Center for
Children in Poverty, 2011).
Because children of poverty also represent one of the fastest-growing
segments in the public school population, educators must make every effort to meet
the needs and develop the abilities and talent of these underachieving learners.
Research shows that students of low-income families score below the proficiency
level on statewide standardized tests (Moller et al., 2013).
Educational institutions are faced with changing populations of students, and
many schools are challenged to educate a majority of students who come from
poverty (Aud et al., 2011). Traditionally, schools were designed to serve middle class
residents who have the tools or wherewithal to provide experiences that increase the
likelihood of success in school. Families who find themselves in economically
deprived situations normally cannot access the necessary resources or experiences to
prepare their children for the school experience. Understanding the world of poverty
from which some children come is essential for educators who wish to address
difficulties in helping children achieve in schools that are traditionally based on and
directed to support middle class values (Aud, Hussar, & Kena, 2012).
76
Influence of Professional Learning Communities
Schools nationwide are facing serious problems ranging from random
outbreaks of violence and crumbling facilities to staff shortfalls and chronically low
academic expectations. School principals and teachers are held accountable for
academic achievement. In the last two decades, the business world transitioned from
Taylor’s factory model to the 21st century work place. Education has also had to deal
with the changing society that involves the shift of emerging globalization,
immigration, technology, and the shortage of a skilled workforce. Professional
Learning Communities (PLC) have been established in schools to encourage
collaboration among teachers to improve the quality of instruction and other services
for all students. In the PLC, the principal facilitates the process to make sure all
teachers work collaboratively and all students learn. Principals guide professional
learning communities by establishing a common set of beliefs and values, serving as a
resource person and sharing decision making with all professionals in the school.
The big ideas of PLC, according to DuFour (2004) are ensuring that students
learn, a culture of collaboration, and a focus on results. Three important questions
drive all of the stakeholders in PLC: 1) What do we want each student to learn? 2)
How will we know when each student has learned it? 3) How will we respond when a
student experiences difficulty in learning? Schools should quickly identify students
who need additional time and support; teachers should provide students with help as
soon as they experience difficulty rather than relying on summer school, retention,
and remedial courses. In PLC schools, teachers work collaboratively and share best
77
practices in teaching and learning. Teachers get together to create and share lesson
plans, develop common formative assessments, study curriculum guides as well as
state and national standards, and give feedback and monitor each student’s mastery of
the essential outcomes. Lastly, PLC schools use data frequently to support teaching,
turning data into useful and relevant information.
Tignor (2008) conducted a study to determine if a relationship exists between
the student achievement in elementary schools that have been awarded the Illinois
State Board of Education’s Spotlight award and the elements of professional learning
communities. Student achievement was measured by utilizing the Illinois Standards
Achievement Test (ISAT) reading and mathematics scores in Illinois Elementary
Spotlight Schools. All 269 Illinois Elementary Spotlight Schools from 2005 were
recruited and invited to participate in the study. Seventy-six principals responded to
the survey. The researcher used School Professional Staff as Learning Community
developed by Hord in 1996 as the survey instrument.
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if a relationship
existed between schools functioning as professional learning communities and 2005
ISAT reading and mathematics scores. The findings showed no significant
relationships between ISAT third and fifth grade reading and mathematics scores in
elementary schools with functioning professional learning communities.
Long (2008) conducted a study to exam the relationship between student
scores on the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) achievement test and the type of
Missouri high school attended, PLC or NPLC. The population for this study consisted
78
of all students enrolled in the public high schools of Missouri with a typical ninth
through twelfth grade configuration. Students in the tenth grade were assessed in the
mathematics portion of the MAP test. Students in the eleventh grade were assessed in
the communication arts portion of the MAP test.
The Regression Coefficients showed no substantially significant relationship
between TYPE of Missouri high school, PLC or NPLC, and 2006 MAP
Communication Arts scale scores [β = -.355, t = -1.172, p= .241]. The Regression
Coefficients showed no substantially significant relationship between TYPE of
Missouri high school, PLC or NPLC, and 2007 MAP Communication Arts scale
scores [β = -8.679E-02, t = - .314, p= .754]. The Regression Coefficients also showed
no substantially significant relationship between TYPE of Missouri high school, PLC
or NPLC, and 2006 MAP scale score in 2006 mathematics [β = -.637,
t = -1.493, p= .135]. However, the Regression Coefficients showed a significant
relationship between TYPE of Missouri high school, PLC or NPLC, and 2007 MAP
mathematics scale scores [β = .958, t = 2.392, p= .017].
Summary
Principals of schools across the U.S. are subjected to various accountability
measures and national educational standards that must be upheld (Benkovitz, 2008).
Given the increased scrutiny of the performance of schools and principals due to No
Child Left Behind Act, this study aims to identify the elements that influence
students’ academic performance. It also seeks to identify the effects that a principal’s
79
leadership has on that performance. This chapter has provided a background of the
existing literature necessary for this study.
First, because this study will aim to identify the existence of relationships
between the school principals’ level of Transformational Leadership and the
academic achievement of the students, Chapter II examined the concept of
Transformational Leadership as well as the different factors that comprise it. Second,
relationships exist between the school principals’ level of transformational leadership
and the performance of students. Various studies were presented on the relationship
between Transformational Leadership and student achievement. Finally, because the
study will look into other factors that may affect the performance of students, the
chapter included studies regarding the effects of technology on student performance,
the effects of individualized coaching on student performance, and the influence of
socioeconomic status and professional learning communities on student achievement.
Chapter III describes the participants, the research methods, the
instrumentation, and the data analysis. Chapter IV presents the research findings, data
analysis, and the statistical procedures of the research questions and hypotheses.
Chapter V discusses the summary of results of this study as they pertain to relevant
literature. It also presents conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further
studies based on the findings in chapter IV.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between the
self-perceived Transformational Leadership practices of principals and student
academic achievement. First, this study attempted to identify if any correlations exist
between the school principals’ perceived level of Transformational Leadership
practices and the academic achievement of their students. Second, this study
attempted to identify if differences exist in the self-perceived Transformational
Leadership practices between principals of high performing schools and principals of
low performing schools. Finally, this study examined other factors that may affect the
performance of students, including (1) student participation in the free and reduced
price meal program, (2) utilization of instructional coaches, (3) presence of
professional learning communities, and (4) the number of students per computer.
Chapter III describes the sample, the methods used to carry out the study, information
about the instruments, and data analysis techniques.
Sample
This study sampled principals from among 3,622 middle and high school
principals in California (California Department of Education, 2013). California is a
very diverse state ethnically; of the 6,220,933 students enrolled in 2011-2012, 26.6%
were White, 51.4% Hispanic or Latino, 8.5% Asian, 6.7% Black, and 0.7% American
80
81
Indian. English learners were 21% of the student population and students on free and
reduced price meals accounted for 58% of all who were enrolled (Ed-Data, 2011-
2012). During 2012-2013 school year, 6,226,989 students were enrolled; 53% were
White, 12% Hispanic or Latino, 20% Asian, 9% Black, and 1% American Indian.
English learners were 19% of the student population and students on free and reduced
price meals accounted for 46% of all who were enrolled. California English learners
speak more than 50 different languages. About 85% of the English learners speak
Spanish (ED-Data, 2012-2013).
As stated in the fourth edition of the Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology,
(Vogt & Johnson, 2011, p. 348), the minimum sample size to run a multiple
regression analysis is 50 cases plus 8 times the number of independent variables.
Vogt (2007) also stated, “The price of using a sample that is too small is reduced
statistical power; that is, increased risk of Type II error, which means you could fail
to detect an actual relations in population” (p. 84). Therefore, the minimum sample
size for this survey would include at least 138 high school and middle school
principals. Once principals agreed to participate, they provided information regarding
their school’s percent of students receiving free and reduced price meals, the
utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of professional learning
communities, and the number of students per computer. 2011-2012 and 2012-2013
API scores, 2012-2013 Similar Schools Decile Rankings, and 2012-2013 CAHSEE
(mathematics and ELA) scores were retrieved from the CDE website in order to
address all of the research questions.
82
Methods
After approval from the California State University, Stanislaus Institutional
Review Board, an invitation was emailed to 3,622 principals in California high
schools and middle schools explaining the study and asking for their commitment to
complete the survey. Once a principal responded, he or she was sent a link to the
instructions for establishing an account and completing the survey. Principals were
given one week to respond to the invitation.
Once the principal agreed to participate, he or she was added to Kouzes and
Posner’s website as a leader. The principals set up their own passwords with their e-
mail addresses as user names and then completed the survey. Once the principals
submitted the survey, the responses were not changed.
The e-mail invitations sent to principals asked them to indicate if the school
used professional learning communities and if coaches were employed to enhance
student learning. In addition, information about the participation of students in the
free and reduced price meal program and the school’s number of students per
computer were requested.
Instrumentation
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
A number of instruments that measure leadership practices based on the
theory of Transformational Leadership were examined for possible use in this study.
Selection of the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) for measurement of leadership
practices was based on several factors. Reports of high reliability coefficients and
83
evidence of construct validity suggest the trustworthiness of the LPI in measuring
Transformational Leadership practices. Kouzes and Posner (2007) developed the LPI,
which has been used in thousands of studies over two decades. The LPI has been
compared to other leadership behavior instruments, and has consistently received
high ratings from reviewers for its sound psychometric properties (Huber, Maas,
McCloskey, Goode, & Watson, 2000). The LPI was selected because “a large number
of researchers have used it in their investigations of various leadership issues”
(Leong, 1995, p. 16).
The Leadership Practices Inventory is a 30-question quantitative instrument
designed by Kouzes and Posner through a triangulation of qualitative and quantitative
research methods and through interviews and case studies (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
The general framework is based on those in-depth interviews and case studies written
from personal-best leadership experiences and consists of five categories of
leadership practices: 1) challenging the process, 2) inspiring a shared vision, 3)
enabling others to act, 4) modeling the way, and 5) encouraging the heart. Each of the
five leadership categories or sets of behaviors consists of two strategies (See Figure
1). The five categories in the LPI are actions that were translated into behavioral
statements. Following several repetitious psychometric processes, the LPI was
created, and to this day, has been administered “to over 350,000 managers and
nonmanagers across a variety of organizations, disciplines, and demographic
backgrounds” and has been demonstrated to be reliable in highlighting the behaviors
that contribute to leaders’ effectiveness (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 2).
84
Figure 1. Characteristics of the Leadership Practices Inventory.
Source: Kouzes and Posner (2007)
The LPI is a self-administered instrument. The practices in each leadership
category are scored on a 10-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 “Almost Never”’
to 10 “Almost Always.” It consists of 30 practices focused on the five leadership
categories. Each demographic question was answered in a checkbox format. Table 1
presents the Likert Scale used in the LPI-Self Instrument.
85
Table 1
Likert Scale Used in the LPI-Self Instrument
Instrument Ordinal Value Qualitative Attribute
1 Almost Never 2 Rarely
3 Seldom
4 Once in a While
5 Occasionally
6 Sometimes
7 Fairly Often
8 Usually
9 Very Frequently
10 Almost Always Source: Kouzes and Posner (2007)
Kouzes and Posner (2007) defined effective leadership as a “a relationship
between those who aspire to lead and those who chose to follow” (p. 24). They found
a “fundamental pattern of leadership behavior that emerged when people were
accomplishing extraordinary things in organizations” (pp. 310-311). The Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI) was designed by Kouzes and Posner to assess approaches to
leadership as measurable, teachable, and learnable.
In addition to indicating the self-perceived application of 30 Transformational
Leadership practices, participants were asked to answer three demographic questions
related to gender, age, and management experience. The instrument was designed in
such a way that six practices correlated to each of the five categories on the survey.
Each of the five categories of leadership consists of two commitments. Table 2
displays the two commitments for each leadership category; Table 3 classifies the
instrument items related to each leadership category. Table 4 illustrates the leadership
practices inventory self-form.
86
Table 2
The Five Practices and 10 Commitments of Leadership
Categories Commitment
Model the Way Find your voice by clarifying your personal values.
Set the example by aligning actions with shared
values.
Inspire a Shared Vision Envision the future by imagining exciting and
enabling possibilities.
Enlist others in a common vision by appealing to
shared aspirations.
Challenge the Process Search for opportunities by seeking innovative
ways to change, grow, and improve.
Experiment and take risks by constantly generating
small wins and learning from mistakes.
Enable Others to Act Foster collaboration by promoting cooperative
goals and building trust.
Strengthen others by sharing power and discretion.
Encourage the Heart Recognize contributions by showing appreciation for individual excellence.
Celebrate the values and victories by creating a spirit
of community.
Source: (Kouzes & Posner, 2010)
Table 3
Leadership Practices Inventory Category Questions
Leadership Category Leadership Practices
Model the Way 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26 Inspire a Shared Vision 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, 27
Challenge the Process 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28
Enable Others to Act 4, 9, 14, 19, 24, 29
Encourage the Heart 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 Source: Kouzes & Posner (2007)
87
Table 4
Leadership Practices Inventory – Self-Form
Leadership Category Item # Leadership Practice
Model the Way
1
Sets a personal example of what is expected.
6 Makes certain that people adhere to agreed-on
standards
11 Follows through on promises and commitments.
16 Asks for feedback on how his/her actions affect people’s performance.
21 Builds consensus around organization’s values.
26 Is clear about his/her philosophy of leadership.
Inspire a Shared
Vision
2
Talks about future trends influencing our work.
7 Describes a compelling image of the future.
12 Appeals to others to share dream of the future.
17 Shows others how their interests can be realized.
22 Paints “big picture” of group aspirations.
27 Speaks with conviction about meaning of work.
Challenge the process 3 Seeks challenging opportunities to test skills.
8 Challenges people to try new approaches.
13 Searches outside organization for innovative ways to improve.
18 Asks “What can we learn?
23 Makes certain that goals, plans, and milestones are
set.
28 Experiments and takes risks.
Enable Others to Act 4 Develops cooperative relationships.
9 Actively listens to diverse points of view.
14 Treats people with dignity and respect.
19 Supports decisions other people make.
24 Gives people choice about how to do their work.
29 Ensures that people grow in their jobs.
Encourage the Heart 5 Praises people for a job well done.
10 Expresses confidence in people’s abilities.
15 Creatively rewards people for their contributions.
20 Recognizes people for commitment to shared
values.
25 Finds ways to celebrate accomplishments.
30 Gives team members’ appreciation and support.
Source: Kouzes and Posner (2007)
88
Means and standard deviations for each LPI scale for leaders (Self) are
presented in Table 5 below. Based upon mean scores, Enabling Others to Act is the
leadership practice most frequently reported being used. This is closely followed by
Modeling the Way, with the average scores for Challenging the Process and
Encouraging the Heart being fairly similar. Inspiring is perceived as the leadership
practice least frequently engaged in (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 4).
Table 5
Reliability Coefficients of the Leadership Practices Inventory
Leadership Practices
Dimension
LPI N = 36,226
LPI Self
N = 5,298
Test-Retest
N = 157
Challenge the Process .80 .70 .93
Inspiring a Shared Vision .87 .80 .93
Modeling the Way .81 .71 .95
Enabling Others to Act .85 .75 .94
Encouraging the Heart .91 .85 .93
Source: (Posner & Kouzes, 1993)
In order for a research study to be accurate, its findings must be reliable and
valid. Reliability of the instrument was determined through sound psychometric
procedures. Each scale was found to be internally reliable with each item highly
correlated within the scale. Test-retest reliability for the five practices in the studies
conducted by Kouzes and Posner has been at the .93 level and above. They also found
that LPI scores are not related to various demographic factors (for example, age,
years of experience, educational level) or with such organizational characteristics as
size (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
The LPI has been demonstrated to be a reliable instrument in assessing
89
leadership effectiveness. Using Cronbach’s coefficient to measure internal reliability,
all of the scales are above the .75 level as shown in Table 6. According to Kouzes and
Posner (2002), reliability refers to the extent to which an instrument contains
“measurement errors” that cause scores to differ for reasons unrelated to the
individual respondent (p. 5). Fewer errors indicate a higher degree of validity of an
instrument, and instrument reliabilities above .60 are considered acceptable. The
reliabilities for the LPI are consistently above these criteria (see Table 6).
Table 6
Internal Reliability Coefficient of LPI-Self, LPI Means and Standard Deviations
Practices of Leadership
Mean Standard
Deviation
Internal Reliability
(Cronbach Alpha)
Coefficient
Model the Way 47.0 6.0 .77
Inspire a Shared Vision 40.6 8.8 .87
Challenge the Process 43.9 6.8 .80
Enable Others to Act 48.7 5.4 .75
Encourage the Heart 43.8 8.0 .87
Source: Kouzes & Posner (2002)
Posner conducted a psychometric update in August 2008 and 2009, which
confirmed the instrument was still reliable several years after initial implementation.
Content validity was established for the LPI based on participants’ comments on their
personal best experiences. Kouzes and Posner (2002) stated that the LPI has both
content validity and predictive validity and as such is suitable for making predictions
about leadership effectiveness. Empirical validity for the LPI was determined using
principal component analysis with varimax rotation resulting in a five-factor structure
that supported the five categories in the LPI. Each factor yielded eigenvalues greater
90
than 1.0 and they accounted for 60.5% of the variance. “Concurrent validity of the
leadership scores from the LPI is consistently associated with work group
performance, team cohesiveness, commitment, satisfaction, and credibility” (Kouzes
& Posner, 2002, p. 15). Kouzes and Posner cited dozens of such studies in a wide
variety of leadership settings. Notably, Knab (1998)conducted a study of principals
in Blue Ribbon Award winning schools. The LPI scores of these principals were
significantly higher than the scores of principals in schools that had not won the
award. To establish discriminant validity, the LPI scores were used to examine how
managers could be grouped into performance-based categories and the lowest and
highest scores on the LPI were the same as the low and high performing categories in
92.6% of the known cases at p < .001.
The examples on the studies of concurrent validity, construct validity, and
discriminant validity as well as their outcomes are explained in Table 7.
91
Table 7
Validation of the LPI
Validity Study Outcomes
Concurrent Validity
A comparative study of
Public Health Leaders
examining the
relationship between
leaders’ effectiveness and
leadership practices
(p.17)
The regression equation was
highly significant (F = 318.88,
p < .0001) and LP explained
over 55 percent (adjusted R2
= .756) of the variance around
constituents’ assessments of
their managers’ effectiveness.
(p.15)
Construct Validity Studies among LPI and
effectiveness and
credibility of school
principals, high and low
performing schools,
principals in effective and
ineffective schools etc.
(p. 17)
Strong positive correlations
with other sociological and
psychological instruments
Discriminant Validity How well LPI
differentiate between
high and low performing
managers.
(pp.15-16)
It correctly classified 92.6
percent of the known cases and
77.8 percent of the cases in the
holdout sample.
Source: Kouzes & Posner (2002)
Academic Performance Index (API)
The Academic Performance Index (API) is a numeric index (or scale) that
ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1,000 and is used to measure the overall
academic progress of districts, schools and their significant subgroups. The statewide
API performance target for all schools is 800. Annual API targets for districts,
schools, and their significant subgroups are based on 5% of the difference between
current API and the statewide performance target of 800. A school that has reached
92
the state’s goal must maintain its API of 800 or higher (California Department of
Education, 2013).
In addition to use of the LPI, this study examined the Academic Performance
Index (API) scores available through the California Department of Education website.
A school's API is based primarily on CST scores at the elementary level and the
CAHSEE at the secondary level, and is an indicator of a school's performance level.
California’s EC Section 52056 (a) requires API ranking of schools.
The Similar Schools Decile Rankings compare a school against 100 other
schools in California with similar demographic profiles (including parent education
level, poverty level, student mobility, and student ethnicity). Each rank ranges from 1
to 10, with a score of 10 meaning that the school's API is in the top 10%.
According to 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 API data files, California statewide
had a API score of 781 in 2012 and 771 in 2013. The base scores of Asian students
were 905 and 906 respectively; White, 852 both academic years, with no change; and
Hispanic-Latino, 740 and 743 respectively. English Learner students’ base scores
were 716 and 717 respectively, and students with disabilities, 605 and 616
respectively. Table 8 below gives detailed information. Much improvement has been
made since NCLB became law in 2001; more effort is still needed to narrow the
achievement gap.
93
Table 8
Number of Students Tested by Ethnic Group in 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 API
Scores
Ethnicity Students Tested 2011-2012API
Students Tested 2012-2013 API
2011-2012
API
2012-2013
API
African American 307,779 298,394 706 707 American Indian 31,391 30,423 741 742 Asian 405,041 407,138 905 906 Filipino 125,013 121,231 869 867 Hispanic 2,425,555 2,446,247 740 743 Pacific Islander 26,571 25,431 774 773 White 1,227,389 1,203,251 852 852 Two or More 88,418 112,819 849 845 SES Disadvantaged 2,797,194 2,842,908 737 742 English Learners 1,536,445 1,463,551 716 717 Disabilities 529,144 557,092 605 616
Source: DataQuest: 2010 API data file.
California Education Code (EC) Section 60850 (a), enacted in 1999,
authorized the development of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). By
law, each part is aligned with California’s Academic Content Standards adopted by
the State Board of Education (SBE). The passing score for the mathematics part of the
CAHSEE is approximately 55% of items correct or a scaled score of 350. The passing
score for the ELA part of the CAHSEE is approximately 60% of items correct or a
scaled score of 350. In California all general education high school students, English
language learners (ELs), and students with disabilities must pass the exam in orde
r to receive a high school diploma. Table 9 shows the 2012-2013 test results on the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). This report displays the percent of
students passing either the mathematics or English language arts (ELA) portion of the
exam.
94
Table 9
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Results for Mathematics and English
Language Arts (ELA) by Student Classification, 2012-2013
Subject All
Students
Special
Education
English
Learner
Reclassified
Fluent
English
Economically
Disadvantaged
Not
Economically
Disadvantaged
Mathematics Tested
459,159 37,623 58,021 109,801 254,165 174,772
Mathematics
Passing
386,071 15,918 31,456 101,777 199,022 161,520
ELA
Tested 461,150 39,644 58,837 109,891 255,345 175,446
ELA
Passing
383,723 15,692 24,449 102,796 195,584 62,579
Source: (Data Quest 2012)
Data Analysis
The Likert type scale values of the responses to each completed Kouzes and
Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) were calculated to determine (1) an
overall score of each category of Transformational Leadership and (2) an overall
combined score of all categories. These scores were used to test the hypotheses in
Chapter IV. Data were analyzed using the statistical packages for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) 22.0. An alpha level of .05 was used for all analyses.
Research Question One
What impact does a school principal’s level of Transformational Leadership
style have on student academic achievement?
Multiple regression analyses were conducted using one set of predictors. The
independent variable was the school principals’ perceived level of Transformational
Leadership practices, and the dependent variable was student academic achievement
95
(measured by schools’ Similar School Decile Ranking for H1A-H1C, schools’ API
ranking for H1D-H1I, and the high school pass rates on the CAHSEE for H1J-H1K).
For research question one and the related hypotheses, multiple linear regressions
tested H1A-H1K. Specifically, bivariate relationships were investigated on all
hypotheses.
Research Question Two
How do principals’ leadership practices differ between high performing
schools and low performing schools based on 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 API scores?
Independent sample t-tests were used to determine if there are differences in
Transformational Leadership between principals of high performing schools and
principals of low performing schools (H2A-H2B). The combined Transformational
Leadership scores from Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
were compared between principals who lead high performing schools with those who
lead low performing schools. Also, LPI scores by category of Transformational
Leadership practices were compared between principals who lead high performing
schools with those who lead low performing schools (H2C-H2L).
Research Question Three
How do other factors beyond the Transformational Leadership style of
principals impact academic achievement?
Multiple regression analyses using two ordered sets of predictors were used to
test H3A-H3D. The first set consisted of one predictor, Transformational Leadership
(as a single independent variable), practiced by the principals who responded to the
96
survey. The second set of predictors included four independent variables that included
(1) student participation in the free and reduced price meal program, (2) utilization of
instructional coaches, (3) presence of professional learning communities, and (4) the
number of students per computer. The data for the dependent variables (schools’ API
score H3A-H3B, the percent of CAHSEE pass rate H3C-H3D) were retrieved from
the California Department of Education.
Summary
Chapter III described the participants, the research methods, the
instrumentation, and the data analysis. Chapter IV presents the research findings, data
analysis, and the statistical procedures of the research questions and hypotheses.
Chapter V discusses the summary of results of this study as they pertain to relevant
literature. It also presents conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further
studies based on the findings in Chapter IV.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between
the self-perceived Transformational Leadership practices of principals and student
academic achievement. Multiple regressions were used to test 11 hypotheses for
Research Question One. Independent samples t-tests were used to test 12
hypotheses for Research Question Two. Multiple regressions were used to test four
hypotheses for Research Question Three. This chapter presents the results of the
statistical analyses.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The following research questions and their respective hypotheses were
investigated:
Research Question One
What impact does the school principals’ level of Transformational Leadership
practices have on student academic achievement?
Hypothesis 1A. There is a strong positive relationship between the
principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’
Similar Schools Decile Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1B. At the middle school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and
97
98
the schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1C. At the high school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style
and the schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic
school year.
Hypothesis 1D. There is a strong positive relationship between principals’
level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking for 2011-
2012 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1E. There is a strong positive relationship between principals’
level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking for 2012-
2013 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1F. At the middle school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style
and the schools’ API ranking for 2011-2012 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1G. At the middle school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style
and the schools’ API ranking for 2012-2013 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1H. At the high school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style
and the schools’ API ranking for 2011-2012 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1I. At the high school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style
99
and the schools’ API ranking for 2012-2013 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1J. At the high school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style
and the schools’ percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in mathematics for
2012-2013 academic school year.
Hypothesis 1K. At the high school level, there is a strong positive
relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style
and the schools’ percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in English language
arts (ELA) for 2012-2013 academic school year.
Research Question Two
How do the principals’ leadership practices differ between high performing
schools and low performing schools based on 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 API scores?
Hypothesis 2A. There is a difference in the principals’ overall
Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they lead high
performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-2012 API scores.
Hypothesis 2B. There is a difference in the principals’ overall
Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they lead high performing
schools or low performing schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Hypothesis 2C. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Modeling the Way category of Transformational Leadership practices based
on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-
2012 API scores.
100
Hypothesis 2D. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Modeling the Way category of Transformational Leadership practices based
on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2012-
2013 API scores.
Hypothesis 2E. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Inspiring a Shared Vision category of Transformational Leadership practices
based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using
2011-2012 API scores.
Hypothesis 2F. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Inspiring a Shared Vision category of Transformational Leadership
practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing
schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Hypothesis 2G. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Challenging the Process category of Transformational Leadership practices
based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools
using 2011-2012 API scores.
Hypothesis 2H. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Challenging the Process category of Transformational Leadership
practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing
schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Hypothesis 2I. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Enabling Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership practices
101
based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools
using 2011-2012 API scores.
Hypothesis 2J. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Enabling Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership
practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing
schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Hypothesis 2K. There is a difference in principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Encouraging the Heart” category of Transformational Leadership
practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing
schools using 2011-2012 API scores.
Hypothesis 2L. There is a difference in principals’ use of Kouzes and
Posner’s Encouraging the Heart category of Transformational Leadership
practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing
schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Research Question Three
How do other factors beyond the Transformational Leadership style
of principals impact academic achievement?
Hypothesis 3A. The percent of students receiving free and reduced
price meals, the utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of
professional learning communities, and the number of students per computer
each contributed to schools’ 2011-2012 API scores, above and beyond the
principals’ Transformational Leadership practices.
102
Hypothesis 3B. The percent of students receiving free and reduced price
meals, the utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of professional learning
communities, and the number of students per computer each contributed to schools’
2012-2013 API scores, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational
Leadership practices.
Hypothesis 3C. At the high school level, the percent of students receiving
free and reduced price meals, the utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of
professional learning communities, and the number of students per computer each
contributed to the percent of students who passed the 2012-2013 CAHSEE in
mathematics, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational Leadership
practices.
Hypothesis 3D. At the high school level, the percent of students receiving
free and reduced price meals, the utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of
professional learning communities, and the number of students per computer each
contribute to the percent of students who passed the 2012-2013 CAHSEE in English
language arts (ELA), above and beyond the principals’ Transformational Leadership
style practices.
Description of Study Variables
This section provides a descriptive analysis of the variables consisting of the
cumulative scores for each of the five categories of Transformational Leadership
practices, schools’ Similar Schools Decile Rankings and API scores, frequency of
instructional coaches and professional learning communities, percentage of
103
students eligible for free and reduced price meals, and the number of students per
computer.
Table 10 shows the number of principals who responded to the survey, the
range of cumulative response scores, the mean cumulative response score, and
standard deviation for each category of Transformational Leadership. Table 11
shows the range, mean, and standard deviation of Similar Schools Decile Rankings
and 2011-2012 API scores and 2012-2013 API scores of the schools led by the
principals who responded to the survey. Table 12 shows the frequency and
percentage of middle schools led by principals who responded to the survey and the
frequency and percentage of high schools led by principals who responded to the
survey.
Table 10
Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Model the Way 154 34.0 60.0 51.39 4.90
Inspire a Shared Vision 154 31.0 60.0 48.56 6.74
Challenge the Process 154 20.0 59.0 47.88 6.32
Enable Others to Act 154 43.0 60.0 53.05 3.87
Encourage the Heart 154 30.0 60.0 49.35 6.77
Transformational
Leadership Practices 154 37.4 58.2 50.05 4.61
104
Table 11
School Scores
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
School Decile Ranking 136 1.0 10.0 6.05 2.86
2011-2012 API scores 154 460.0 993.0 785.13 103.55
2012-2013 API scores 154 449.0 995.0 783.92 113.28
Table 12
School Type
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
High School 93 60.4 60.4 60.4
Middle School 61 39.6 39.6 100.0
Total 154 100.0 100.0
Tables 13 shows the frequency and percentage of schools that performed
at or above 800 on the API and those that performed below 800 on the API for
the 2011-12 academic year. Table 14 shows the frequency and percentage of
schools that performed at or above 800 on the API and those that performed
below 800 on the API for the 2012-2013 academic year.
Table 13
API Scores (2011-2012)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Low Performing 84 54.5 54.5 54.5
High Performing 70 45.5 45.5 100.0
Total 154 100.0 100.0
105
Table 14
API Scores (2012-2013)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Low Performing 77 50.0 50.0 50.0
High Performing 77 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 154 100.0 100.0
Tables 15 and 16, respectively, show the frequencies and percentages
tables of instructional coaches and professional learning communities for the
schools that are led by the principals who responded to the survey; Tables 17 and
18, respectively, show the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced
price meals and the number of students per computer.
Table 15
Utilization of Instructional Coaches
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 77 50.0 50.0 50.0
No 77 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 154 100.0 100.0
Table 16
Presence of Professional Learning Communities
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 133 86.4 86.4 86.4
No 21 13.6 13.6 100.0
Total 154 100.0 100.0
106
Table 17
Percentage of Students Eligible for Free Meals
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Eligible Free Meals
(K-12) Oct. 2012
154 .80 100.0 44.16 24.39
Table 18
Students per Computer
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Students per Computer 151 .40 621.0 16.51 55.08
Research Question One
What impact does the school principals’ level of Transformational Leadership
practices have on student academic achievement?
Hypothesis 1A
There is a strong positive relationship between the principals’ level of
Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking
for the 2012-2013 academic school year.
The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are 1)
Model the Way, 2) Inspire a Shared Vision, 3) Challenge the Process, 4) Enable
Others to Act, and 5) Encourage the Heart. Middle school and high school principals
were asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding
leadership practices associated with each category of effective Transformational
107
Leadership. Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for this
analysis.
A multiple regression analysis using one set of predictors was conducted to
determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices associated
with effective Transformational Leadership and the Similar Schools Decile
Rankings. The five categories of practices were the independent variables for this
analysis. The Decile Ranking of the principals’ respective schools was the dependent
variable.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type I
Error (.05/15 =.003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so there
was no need to omit any variables. Table 19 summarizes the pair-wise correlations.
Table 19
Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included in
Multiple Regression Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Similar Schools Ranking - 2. Model the Way .06 -
3. Inspire a Shared Vision .04 .68** -
4. Challenge the Process -.07 .58** .67** -
5. Enable Others to Act .13 .50** .42** .53** -
6. Encourage the Heart .02 .63** .46** .54** .50**
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
The regression equation with all five categories of effective Transformational
Leadership showed no significant relationship to the Similar Schools Decile Ranking,
108
[R = .23, R2
= .05, R2adj = .02, F(5, 130) = 1.48, p = .20], which accounts for only 5%
of the variance in school scores as measured by the similar schools ranking. The
results of this analysis suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist
between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’
Similar Schools Decile Ranking.
It does not appear that principals’ self-perceived implementation level of
Transformational Leadership practices offers much predictive information about
their schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking. Zero-order and partial correlations
were considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the effects of possible
mediator or moderator variables. Examination of a zero-order and partial
correlations revealed that none of them was an individually significant predictor of
the Similar School Ranking (see Table 20).
Table 20
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 Similar School
Rankings)
Predictors
Zero-Order
Controls All Other
Predictors
Model the Way .06 .05
Inspire a Shared Vision .04 .06
Challenge the Process -.07 -.19*
Enable Others to Act .13 .17
Encourage the Heart .02 -.02
Dependent variable: Similar School Ranking; *p < .05
Hypothesis 1B
At the middle school level, there is a strong positive relationship between
109
the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’
Similar Schools Decile Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic school year.
The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are
(1) Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process, (4)
Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. Middle school principals were
asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding
leadership practices associated with each category of effective Transformational
Leadership. Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for
this analysis.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted using one set of predictors to
determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices associated
with effective Transformational Leadership and the Similar Schools Decile
Rankings at the middle school level. The five categories of practices were the
independent variables for this analysis. The middle school Decile Ranking of the
principals’ respective schools was the dependent variable.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for
Type I Error (.05/15 =.003). The pair-wise correlation for Challenge the Process
and Inspire a Shared Vision was greater than .70. These two variables are strongly
related and may overinflate the relationship in the model. Table 21 summarizes the
pair-wise correlations.
110
Table 21
Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included in
Multiple Regression Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Similar Schools Ranking 2. Model the Way .20 -
3. Inspire a Shared Vision .06 .66** -
4. Challenge the Process -.05 .63** .72** -
5. Enable Others to Act .29* .43** .41** .48** -
6. Encourage the Heart .04 .57** .45** .56** .51** * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
The regression equation with all five categories of effective
Transformational Leadership showed a significant relationship to the Similar
Schools Decile Ranking, [R2
= .20, R2
adj = .13, F(5, 52) = 2.66, p = .03], which
accounts for 20% of the variance in school scores as measured by the Similar
Schools Ranking. The results of this analysis suggest that while the five categories
of Transformational Leadership have significant predictive power as a set,
examination of the zero-order and partial correlations revealed that only the
category of Enable Others to Act was an individually significant predictor of
Similar School Ranking (see Table 22).
111
Table 22
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 Similar School
Rankings of Middle Schools)
Predictors
Zero-order
Controls All Other
Predictors
Model the Way .20 .06
Inspire a Shared Vision .06 -.00
Challenge the Process -.05 -.26
Enable Others to Act .29 .35
Encourage the Heart .04 -.13
Dependent variable: Similar School Ranking; *p < .05
Hypothesis 1C
At the high school level, there is a strong positive relationship between the
principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ Similar
Schools Decile Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic school year.
The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are
(1) Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process, (4)
Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. High school principals were
asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding
leadership practices associated with each category of effective Transformational
Leadership. Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for
this analysis.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted using one set of predictors
112
to determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices
associated with effective Transformational Leadership and the Similar Schools
Decile Rankings at the high school level. The five categories of practices were
the independent variables for this analysis. The high school Decile Ranking of
the principals’ respective schools was the dependent variable.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for
Type I Error (.05/15 =.003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found,
so there was no need to omit any variables. Table 23 summarizes the pair-wise
correlations.
Table 23
Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included in
Multiple Regression Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Similar Schools Ranking - 2. Model the Way -.02 -
3. Inspire a Shared Vision .04 .69** -
4. Challenge the Process -.08 .54** .64** -
5. Enable Others to Act -.01 .56** .43** .58** -
6. Encourage the Heart .03 .66** .46** .53** .50** ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
The regression equation with all five categories of effective Transformational
Leadership showed no significant relationship to the Similar Schools Decile
Ranking, [R2
= .04, R2
adj = -.03, F(5, 72) = .53, p = .75], which accounts for only
4% of the variance in school scores as measured by the similar schools ranking. The
113
results of this analysis suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist
between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the high
schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking.
It does not appear that principals’ self-perceived implementation level of
Transformational Leadership practices offer much predictive information about the
high schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking. Zero-order and partial correlations
were considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the effects of possible
mediator or moderator variables. Examination of a zero-order and partial
correlations revealed that none of them was an individually significant predictor of
the similar school ranking (see Table 24).
Table 24
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 Similar School
Rankings of High Schools)
Predictors
Zero-Order
Controls All Other
Predictors
Model the Way -.02 -.10
Inspire a Shared Vision .04 .14
Challenge the Process -.08 -.16
Enable Others to Act -.01 .05
Encourage the Heart .03 .09
Dependent variable: Similar School Ranking; *p < .05
Hypothesis 1D
There is a strong positive relationship between principals’ level of
Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking for the 2011-2012
academic year.
114
The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are (1)
Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process, (4) Enable
Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. Middle school and high school principals
were asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding
leadership practices associated with each category of effective Transformational
Leadership. Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for this
analysis.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted using one set of predictors to
determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices associated
with effective Transformational Leadership and the schools’ API scores. The five
categories of practices were the independent variables for this analysis. The 2011-
2012 API scores of the principals’ respective schools were the dependent variable.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type I
Error (.05/15 =.003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so there
was no need to omit any variables. Table 25 summarizes the pair-wise correlations.
115
Table 25
Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included in
Multiple Regression Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. 2011-2012 API Score
2. Model the Way
-
-.05
-
3. Inspire a Shared Vision -.05 .68** -
4. Challenge the Process -.08 .58** .67** -
5. Enable Others to Act -.04 .50** .42** .53** -
6. Encourage the Heart -.04 .63** .46** .54** .50**
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
The regression equation with all five categories of effective Transformational
Leadership showed no significant relationship to the 2011-2012 API scores,
[R2
= .007, R2
adj = -.03, F (5, 148) = .20, p = .96], which accounts for only .7% of the
variance in school scores as measured by the API scores. The results of this analysis
suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist between the principals’ level
of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ 2011-2012 API scores.
It does not appear that principals’ self-perceived implementation level of
Transformational Leadership practices offer much predictive information about
the schools’ 2011-2012 API scores. Zero-order and partial correlations were
considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the effects of possible
mediator or moderator variables. Examination of a zero-order and partial
correlations revealed that none of them was an individually significant predictor of
API scores (see Table 26).
116
Table 26
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2011-2012 API Scores)
Predictors
Zero-Order
Controls All Other
Predictors
Model the Way -.05 -.01
Inspire a Shared Vision -.05 .12
Challenge the Process -.08 -.06
Enable Others to Act -.04 .00
Encourage the Heart -.04 .01
Hypothesis 1E
There is a strong positive relationship between principals’ level of
Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking for the 2012-2013
academic year.
The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are
(1) Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process, (4)
Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. High school and middle school
principals were asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application
regarding leadership practices associated with each category of effective
Transformational Leadership. Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category
was used for this analysis.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted using one set of predictors to
determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices associated
with effective Transformational Leadership and the 2012-2013 API scores. The five
117
categories of practices were the independent variables for this analysis. The 2012-
2013 API scores of the principals’ respective schools were the dependent variable.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for
Type I Error (.05/15 =.003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found,
so there was no need to omit any variables. Table 27 summarizes the pair-wise
correlations.
Table 27
Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included in
Multiple Regression Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. 2012-2013 API scores -
2. Model the Way -.05 -
3. Inspire a Shared Vision -.04 .68** -
4. Challenge the Process -.07 .58** .67** -
5. Enable Others to Act -.05 .50** .42** .53** -
6. Encourage the Heart -.04 .63** .46** .54** .50** **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
The regression equation with all five categories of effective
Transformational Leadership showed no significant relationship to the 2012-2013
API scores, [R2
= .005, R2
adj = -.03, F(5, 148) = .16, p = .98], which accounts
for .5% of the variance in school scores as measured by the 2012-2013 API scores.
The results of this analysis suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist
between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’
2012-2013 API scores.
118
It does not appear that principals’ self-perceived implementation level of
Transformational Leadership practices offer much predictive information about their
schools’ 2012-2013 API scores. Zero-order and partial correlations were considered and
an Rp value was reported to examine the effect of possible mediator or moderator
variables. Examination of a zero-order and partial correlations revealed that none of them
were an individually significant predictor of the API scores (see Table 28).
Table 28
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 API Scores)
Predictors
Zero-Order
Controls All Other
Predictors
Model the Way -.05 -.02
Inspire a Shared Vision -.04 .02
Challenge the Process -.07 -.04
Enable Others to Act -.05 -.01
Encourage the Heart -.04 .01
Dependent Variable: 2012-2013 API Score; *p < .05
Hypothesis 1F
At the middle school level, there is a strong positive relationship between the
principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking
for the 2011-2012 academic year.
The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are (1)
Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process, (4) Enable
Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. Middle school principals were asked
119
on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding leadership
practices associated with each category of effective Transformational Leadership.
Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for this analysis.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted using one set of predictors to
determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices associated
with effective Transformational Leadership and the middle school 2011-2012 API
scores. The five categories of practices were the independent variables for this
analysis. The 2011-2012 API scores of the principals’ respective schools were the
dependent variable.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for
Type I Error (.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were
found, so there was no need to omit any variables. Table 29 summarizes the pair-
wise correlations.
Table 29
Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included in
Multiple Regression Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. 2011-2012 API scores - 2. Model the Way -.03 -
3. Inspire a Shared Vision -.03 .66** -
4. Challenge the Process -.04 .63** .72** -
5. Enable Others to Act .09 .43** .41** .48** -
6. Encourage the Heart .02 .57** .45** .56** .51** ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
120
The regression equation with all five categories of effective Transformational
Leadership showed no significant relationship to the 2011-2012 API scores, [R2
= .02,
R2
adj = -.07, F (5, 55) = .22, p = .95], which accounts for only 2% of the variance in
school scores as measured by the 2011-2012 API scores. The results of this analysis
suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist between the middle school
principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ 2011-2012
API scores.
It does not appear that principals’ self-perceived implementation level of
Transformational Leadership practices offer much predictive information about the
middle schools’ 2011-2012 API scores. Zero-order and partial correlations were
considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the effects of possible mediator
or moderator variables. Examination of a zero-order and partial correlations revealed
that none of them was an individually significant predictor of the API scores (see
Table 30).
Table 30
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2011-2012 API Scores of
Middle Schools)
Predictors
Zero-Order
Controls
All Other
Predictors
Model the Way -.03 -.04
Inspire a Shared Vision -.03 .00
Challenge the Process -.04 -.06
Enable Others to Act .10 .12
Encourage the Heart .02 .02
Dependent Variable: 2012-2013 API Score; *p < .05
121
Hypothesis 1G
At the middle school level, there is a strong positive relationship between
the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API
ranking for the 2012-2013 academic year.
The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are
(1) Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process, (4)
Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. Middle school principals were
asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding
leadership practices associated with each category of effective Transformational
Leadership. Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for this
analysis.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted using one set of predictors to
determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices associated
with effective Transformational Leadership and the 2012-2013 API scores. The five
categories of practices were the independent variables for this analysis. The 2012-
2013 API ranking of the middle school principals’ respective schools was the
dependent variable.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type I
Error (.05/15 =.003). The pair-wise correlation for Challenge the Proces Inspire a
Shared Vision was greater than .70. These two variables are strongly related and
may overinflate the relationship in the model. Table 31 summarizes the
122
pair-wise correlations.
Table 31
Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included in
Multiple Regression Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. 2012-2013 API scores - 2. Model the Way -.02 -
3. Inspire a Shared Vision -.02 .66** -
4. Challenge the Process -.05 .63** .72** -
5. Enable Others to Act .10 .43** .41** .48** -
6. Encourage the Heart .02 .57** .45** .56** .51** ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
The regression equation with all five categories of effective Transformational
Leadership showed no significant relationship to the 2012-2013 API scores,
[R2
= .025, R2
adj = -.06, F (5, 55) = 1.482, p = .92], which accounts for only 2.5% of
the variance in school scores as measured by the similar schools ranking. The results
of this analysis suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist between the
principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the middle schools’ 2012-
2013 API scores.
It does not appear that principals’ self-perceived implementation level of
Transformational Leadership practices offer much predictive information about
the middle schools’ 2012-2013 API scores. Zero-order and partial correlations
were considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the effects of possible
mediator or moderator variables. Examination of a zero-order and partial
correlations revealed that none of them was an individually significant predictor
of the API scores (see Table 32).
123
Table 32
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 API Scores of
Middle Schools)
Predictors
Zero-Order
Controls All Other
Predictors
Model the Way -.02 -.02
Inspire a Shared Vision -.02 .02
Challenge the Process -.05 -.09
Enable Others to Act .10 .13
Encourage the Heart .02 .02
Dependent Variable: 2012-2013 API Score; *p < .05
Hypothesis 1H
At the high school level, there is a strong positive relationship between the
principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking
for the 2011-2012 academic year.
The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices
are (1) Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process,
(4) Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. High school principals
were asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding
leadership practices associated with each category of effective Transformational
Leadership. Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for
this analysis.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted using one set of predictors
to determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices
associated with effective Transformational Leadership and the 2011-2012 API
124
scores. The five categories of practices were the independent variables for this
analysis. The 2011-2012 API scores of the high school principals’ respective
schools were the dependent variable.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for
Type I Error (05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were
found, so there was no need to omit any variables. Table 33 summarizes the pair-
wise correlations.
Table 33
Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included in
Multiple Regression Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. 2011-2012 API scores - 2. Model the Way -.09 -
3. Inspire a Shared Vision -.08 .69** -
4. Challenge the Process -.12 .54** .64** -
5. Enable Others to Act -.10 .56** .43** .58** -
6. Encourage the Heart -.09 .66** .46** .53** .50** ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
The regression equation with all five categories of effective Transformational
Leadership showed no significant relationship to the 2011-2012 API scores, [R2
= .02,
R2
adj = -.04, F (5, 87) = .30, p = .91], which accounts for only 2% of the variance in
school scores as measured by the similar schools ranking. The results of this analysis
suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist between the principals’ level
of Transformational Leadership style and the high schools’ 2011-2012 API scores
125
.It does not appear that principals’ self-perceived implementation level of
Transformational Leadership practices offer much predictive information about the
high schools’ 2011-2012 API scores. Zero-order and partial correlations were
considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the effects of possible mediator
or moderator variables. Examination of a zero-order and partial correlations revealed
that none of them was an individually significant predictor of the API scores (see
Table 34).
Table 34
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2011-2012 API Scores of
High Schools)
Predictors
Zero-Order
Controls All Other
Predictors
Model the Way -.09 -.02
Inspire a Shared Vision -.08 .02
Challenge the Process -.12 -.07
Enable Others to Act -.10 -.02
Encourage the Heart -.09 -.02
Dependent Variable: 2011-2012 API Score (High Schools); *p < .05
Hypothesis 1I
At the high school level, there is a strong positive relationship between the
principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API
ranking for the 2012-2013 academic year.
The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are
(1) Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process, (4)
126
Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. High school principals were
asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding
leadership practices associated with each category of effective Transformational
Leadership. Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for
this analysis.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted using one set of predictors
to determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices
associated with effective Transformational Leadership and the 2012-2013 API
scores. The five categories of practices were the independent variables for this
analysis. The 2012-2013 API scores of the principals’ respective schools was the
dependent variable.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type I
Error (.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so
there was no need to omit any variables. Table 35 summarizes the pair-wise
correlations.
127
Table 35
Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included in
Multiple Regression Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. 2012-2013 API scores - 2. Model the Way -.10 -
3. Inspire a Shared Vision -.07 .69** -
4. Challenge the Process -.10 .54** .64** -
5. Enable Others to Act -.10 .56** .43** .58** -
6. Encourage the Heart -.09 .66** .46** .53** .50**
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
The regression equation with all five categories of effective
Transformational Leadership showed no significant relationship to the 2012-2013
API scores, [R2
= .02, R2 adj = -.04, F(5, 87) = .27, p = .93] which accounts for only
2% of the variance in school scores as measured by the similar schools ranking.
The results of this analysis suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist
between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the high
schools’ 2012-2013 API scores.
It does not appear that principals’ self-perceived implementation level of
Transformational Leadership practices offer much predictive information about
their schools’ 2012-2013 API scores. Zero-order and partial correlations were
considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the effects of possible
mediator or moderator variables. Examination of a zero-order and partial
correlations revealed that none of them was an individually significant predictor
of the API scores (see Table 36).
128
Table 36
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 API Scores
of High Schools)
Predictors
Zero-Order
Controls All Other
Predictors
Model the Way -.10 -.04
Inspire a Shared Vision -.07 .02
Challenge the Process -.10 -.03
Enable Others to Act -.10 -.03
Encourage the Heart -.09 -.01
Dependent variable: 2012-2013 API Scores; *p < .05
Hypothesis 1J
At the high school level, there is a strong positive relationship between the
principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ percent of
students who passed the CAHSEE in mathematics for 2012-2013 academic school
year.
The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are
(1) Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process, (4)
Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. High school principals were
asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding leadership
practices associated with each category of effective Transformational Leadership.
Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for this analysis.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted using one set of predictors to
determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices associated
129
with effective Transformational Leadership and the CAHSEE pass rate in
mathematics. The five categories of practices were the independent variables for
this analysis. The CAHSEE pass rate in mathematics of the principals’ respective
schools was the dependent variable.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that no
two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the relationships in
the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type I Error
(.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so there was
no need to omit any variables. Table 37 summarizes the pair-wise correlation.
Table 37
Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included in
Multiple Regression Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. High School CAHSEE - 2. Model the Way -.04 -
3. Inspire a Shared Vision -.06 .69** -
4. Challenge the Process -.05 .54** .64** -
5. Enable Others to Act -.05 .56** .43** .58** -
6. Encourage the Heart .04 .66** .46** .53** .50** ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
The regression equation with all five categories of effective Transformational
Leadership showed no significant relationship to the CAHSEE pass rates in
mathematics, [R2 = .02, R2adj = -.05, F (5, 79) = .24, p = .94], which accounts for only
2% of the variance in school scores as measured by the CAHSEE. The results of this
analysis suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist between the
principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the high schools’ CAHSEE
130
pass rates in mathematics (see Table 38).
It does not appear that high school principals’ self-perceived
implementation level of Transformational Leadership practices offer much
predictive information about their schools’ CAHSEE pass rates in mathematics.
Zero-order and partial correlations were considered and an Rp value was reported to
examine the effects of possible mediator or moderator variables. Examination of a
zero-order and partial correlations revealed that none of them was an individually
significant predictor of the CAHSEE pass rates in mathematics.
Table 38
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 CAHSEE Pass
Rates in Mathematics)
Predictors
Zero-Order
Controls All Other
Predictors
Model the Way -.04 -.04
Inspire a Shared Vision -.06 -.02
Challenge the Process -.05 -.03
Enable Others to Act -.05 -.03
Encourage the Heart .04 .11
Dependent variable *p < .05
Hypothesis 1K
At the high school level, there is a strong positive relationship between the
principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ percent of
students who passed the CAHSEE in English language arts (ELA) for 2012-2013
academic school year.
131
The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are
(1) Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process, (4)
Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. High school principals were
asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding
leadership practices associated with each category of effective Transformational
Leadership. Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for this
analysis.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted using one set of predictors to
determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices associated
with effective Transformational Leadership and the CAHSEE pass rate in English
language arts (ELA). The five categories of practices were the independent variables
for this analysis. The CAHSEE English language arts pass rate of the principals’
respective schools was the dependent variable.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type I
Error (.05/15 =.003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so
there was no need to omit any variables. Table 39 summarizes the pair-wise
correlations.
132
Table 39
Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included in
Multiple Regression Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. High School CAHSEE - 2. Model the Way -.05 -
3. Inspire a Shared Vision -.05 .69** -
4. Challenge the Process -.09 .54** .64** -
5. Enable Others to Act -.09 .56** .43** .58** -
6. Encourage the Heart .04 .66** .46** .53** .50** ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
The regression equation with all five categories of effective
Transformational Leadership showed no significant relationship to the CAHSEE
pass rate in English language arts, [R2
= .01, R2
adj = -.05, F(5, 79) = .18, p = .97],
which accounts for only 1% of the variance in school scores as measured by the
CAHSEE pass rate in ELA. The results of this analysis suggest that a strong
positive relationship does not exist between the principals’ level of
Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ CAHSEE pass rate in ELA.
It does not appear that principals’ self-perceived implementation level of
Transformational Leadership practices offer much predictive information about
their high schools’ CAHSEE pass rates in English-language Arts. Zero-order and
partial correlations were considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the
effect of possible mediator or moderator variables. Examination of a zero-order
and partial correlations revealed that none of them was an individually significant
Predictor of CAHSEE pass rates in ELA (see Table 40).
133
Table 40
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 CAHSEE Pass
Rates in ELA)
Predictors
Zero-Order
Controls
All Other
Predictors
Model the Way -.05 -.00
Inspire a Shared Vision -.05 .01
Challenge the Process -.09 -.05
Enable Others to Act -.09 -.05
Encourage the Heart -.04 .02
Dependent variable *p < .05
Research Question Two
How do principals’ leadership practices differ between high performing
schools and low performing schools?
Hypothesis 2A
There is a difference in principals’ overall Transformational Leadership
practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing
schools using 2011-2012 API scores.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.
Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2011-2012) were
placed in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API
134
(2011-2012) were placed in the other group. The mean cumulative survey
scores of two groups of principals based on their overall perceived level of
application of Transformation Leadership practices were compared using a t-test
for independent samples. The level of significance was set at .05. The results
showed no significant difference between the means. The results showed no
significant difference in principals’ overall Transformational Leadership practices
between high and low performing schools (see Table 41).
Table 41
Independent Samples t-test, Transformational Leadership and 2011-2012 API Scores
N Mean Standard
Deviation
t P
Low Performing 84 50.13 4.75 .255 .799
High Performing 70 49.94 4.46
Hypothesis 2B
There is a difference in principals’ overall Transformational Leadership
practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing
schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.
Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2012-2013) were
135
placed in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API
(2012-2013) were placed in the other group. The mean cumulative survey scores of
the two groups based on the principals’ overall perceived level of application of
Transformation Leadership practices were compared using a t-test for independent
samples. The level of significance was set at .05. The results showed no significant
difference between the means. The results showed no significant difference in
principals’ overall Transformational Leadership practices between high and low
performing schools (see Table 42).
Table 42
Independent Samples t-test, Transformational Leadership and 2012-2013
API Scores
N Mean Standard t P
Deviation
Low Performing 77 49.95 4.75 -.265 .791
High Performing 77 50.15 4.64
Hypothesis 2C
There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Modeling
the Way category of Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they
lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-2012 API scores.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
136
Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.
Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2011-2012) were
placed in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API
(2011-2012) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the two
groups based on the principals’ overall perceived level of application of
Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of Modeling the
Way were compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of
significance was set at .05. The results showed no significant difference between the
means. The results showed no significant difference in principals’ Transformational
Leadership practices between high and low performing schools (see Table 43).
Table 43
Independent Samples t-test, Model the Way and 2011-2012 API Scores
N Mean Standard
Deviation
t P
Low Performing 84 51.36 4.78 -.090 .929
High Performing 70 49.94 4.46
Hypothesis 2D
There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Modeling
the Way category of Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they
lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2012-2013 API
scores.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
137
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.
Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2012-2013) were
placed in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API
(2012-2013) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the two
groups based on the principals’ overall perceived level of application of
Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of Modeling the
Way were compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of
significance was set at .05. The results showed no significant difference between the
means. The results showed no significant difference in principals’ Transformational
Leadership practices between high and low performing schools (see Table 44).
Table 44
Independent Samples t-test, Model the Way and 2012-2013 API Scores
N Mean Standard
Deviation
t P
Low Performing 77 51.12 4.74 -.656 .513
High Performing 77 51.65 5.08
Hypothesis 2E
There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Inspiring
a Shared Vision category of Transformational Leadership practices based on
whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-
2012 API scores.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
138
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.
Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2011-2012) were
placed in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API
(2011-2012) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the two
groups based on the principals’ overall perceived level of application of
Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of Inspiring a
Shared Vision were compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of
significance was set at .05. The results showed no significant difference between the
means. The results showed no significant difference in principals’ Transformational
Leadership practices between high and low performing schools (see Table 45).
Table 45
Independent Samples t-test, Inspire a Shared Vision and 2011-2012 API Scores
N Mean Standard
Deviation
t P
Low Performing 84 48.71 6.92 .300 .764
High Performing 70 48.39 6.57
Hypothesis 2F
There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Inspiring
a Shared Vision category of Transformational Leadership practices based on
whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2012-
139
2013 API scores.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.
Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2012-2013) were
placed in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API
(2012-2013) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the two
groups based on the principals’ overall perceived level of application of
Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of Inspiring a
Shared Vision were compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of
significance was set at .05. The results showed no significant difference between the
means. The results showed no significant difference in principals’ Transformational
Leadership practices between high and low performing schools (see Table 46).
Table 46
Independent Samples t-test, Inspire a Shared Vision and 2012-2013 API Scores
N Mean Standard
Deviation
t P
Low Performing 77 48.51 6.55 -.107 .915
High Performing 77 48.62 6.97
Hypothesis 2G
There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s
140
Challenging the Process practices category of Transformational Leadership based on
whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-
2012 API scores.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.
Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2011-2012) were
placed in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API
(2011-2012) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the two
groups based on the principals’ overall perceived level of application of
Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of Challenging the
Process were compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of
significance was set at .05. The results showed no significant difference between the
means. The results showed no significant difference in principals’ Transformational
Leadership practices between high and low performing schools (see Table 47).
Table 47
Independent Samples t-test, Challenge the Process and 2011-2012 API Scores
N Mean Standard
Deviation
t P
Low Performing 84 48.04 6.90 .341 .733
High Performing 70 47.69 5.58
141
Hypothesis 2H
There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Challenge
the Process category of Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they
lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2012-2013 API scores.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.
Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2012-2013) were placed
in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API (2012-
2013) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the two groups
based on the principals’ perceived level of application of Transformation Leadership
practices associated with the category of Challenge the Process were compared using
a t-test for independent samples. The level of significance was set at .05. The results
showed no significant difference between the means. The results showed no
significant difference in principals’ Transformational Leadership practices between
high and low performing schools (see Table 48).
142
Table 48
Independent Samples t-test, Challenge the Process and 2012-2013 API Scores
N Mean Standard
Deviation
t P
Low Performing 77 47.88 6.73 .013 .990
High Performing 77 47.87 5.92
Hypothesis 2I
There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Enabling
Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership practices based on whether
they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-2012 API
scores.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.
Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2011-2012) were
placed in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API
(2011-2012) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the two
groups based on the principals’ perceived level of application of Transformation
Leadership practices associated with the category of Enabling Others to Act were
compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of significance was set
143
at .05. The results showed no significant difference between the means. The results
showed no significant difference in principals’ Transformational Leadership
practices between high and low performing schools (see Table 49).
Table 49
Independent Samples t-test, Enable Others to Act and 2011-2012 API Scores
N Mean Standard
Deviation
t P
Low Performing 84 53.11 3.56 .193 .847
High Performing 70 52.99 4.23
Hypothesis 2J
There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Enabling
Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership practices based on whether
they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2012-2013 API
scores.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.
Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2012-2013) were
placed in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API
(2012-2013) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the two
groups based on the principals’ overall perceived level of application of
144
Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of Enabling
Others to Act were compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of
significance was set at .05. The results showed no significant difference between the
means. The results showed no significant difference in principals’ Transformational
Leadership practices between high and low performing schools (see Table 50).
Table 50
Independent Samples t-test, Enable Others to Act and 2012-2013 API Scores
N Mean Standard
Deviation
t P
Low Performing 77 53.04 3.37 -.042 .967
High Performing 77 53.06 4.33
Hypothesis 2K
There is a difference in principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s
Encouraging the Heart practices based on whether they lead high performing
schools or low performing schools using 2011-2012 API scores.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.
Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2011-2012) were
placed in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the
API (2011-2012) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the
145
two groups based on the principals’ perceived level of application of
Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of
Encouraging the Heart were compared using a t-test for independent samples.
The level of significance was set at .05. The results showed no significant
difference between the means. The results showed no significant difference in
principals’ Transformational Leadership practices between high and low
performing schools (see Table 51).
Table 51
Independent Samples t-test, Encourage the Heart and 2011-2012 API Scores
N Mean Standard
Deviation
t P
Low Performing 84 49.45 6.99 .204 .839
High Performing 70 49.23 6.55
Hypothesis 2L
There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s
Encouraging the Heart category of Transformational Leadership practices based on
whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2012-
2013 API scores.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.
146
Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2012-2013) were placed
in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API (2012-
2013) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the two groups
based on the principals’ overall perceived level of application of Transformation
Leadership practices associated with the category of Encouraging the Heart were
compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of significance was set
at .05. The results showed no significant difference between the means. The results
showed no significant difference in principals’ Transformational Leadership practices
high and low performing schools (see Table 52).
Table 52
Independent Samples t-test, Encourage the Heart and 2012-2013 API Scores
N Mean Standard
Deviation
t P
Low Performing 77 49.18 7.08 -.309 .758
High Performing 77 49.52 6.48
Research Question Three
How do other factors beyond the Transformational Leadership style
of principals impact academic achievement?
Hypothesis 3A
The percent of students receiving free and reduced price meals, the
utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of professional learning
communities, and the number of students per computer each contributed to schools’
2011-2012 API ranking, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational
147
Leadership practices.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
A multiple regression analysis using two ordered sets of predictors was
conducted to determine how much of the Transformational Leadership practiced by
principals who responded to the survey contributed to the 2011-2012 API scores of
their respective schools after controlling for demographic factors. The first set
consisted of one predictor, Transformational Leadership (as a single variable),
practiced by the principals who responded to the survey. The second set of predictors
included four factors that included (1) student participation in the free and reduced
price meals program, (2) utilization of instructional coaches, (3) presence of
professional learning communities, and (4) the number of students per computer.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that no
two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the relationships
in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type I Error
(.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so there was
no need to omit any variables. Table 53 summarizes the pair-wise correlations.
148
Table 53
Pair-Wise Correlations of Transformational Leadership Practices and Other factors
Included in Multiple Regression Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. 2011-2012 API scores -
2. Transformational
Leadership -.05 -
3. Participation in Free and
Reduced Price Meals -.16 -.06 -
4. Utilization of
Instructional Coaches -.38 -.00 -.04 -
5. Presence of
Professional Learning
Communities
-.35 .02 -.00 .37 -
6. Students Per Computer .08 .07 .05 -.08 -.03
As a separate set, the perceived leadership style of the principals did not
significantly explain performance on the 2011-2012 API scores of the principals’
respective schools, [R2 = .002, F (1, 149) =.325, p = .57]. The other factors
significantly explained performance on the API scores [R2 change = .23,
F (4, 145) = 10.667, p < .01]. While the other four factors had significant predictor
power as a set, examination of the zero-order and partial correlations revealed that
three of the four were individually significant predictors of the 2011-2012 API scores.
The factors of student participation in the free and reduced price meal program,
utilization of instructional coaches and presence of professional learning communities
each had a significant negative correlation to API scores (see Table 54).
149
Table 54
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors with 2011-2012 API Scores
Predictors
Zero-Order
Controls
All Other
Predictors
Transformational Leadership -.05 -.07
Participation in Free
and Reduced Price Meals -.16 -.20
Utilization of Instructional Coaches -.38 -.29
Presence of Professional Learning
Communities -.35 -.25
Students Per Computer .08 .07
Hypothesis 3B
The percent of students receiving free and reduced price meals, the
utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of professional learning
communities, and the use of technology each contributed to schools’ 2012-2013
API ranking, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational Leadership
practices.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
A multiple regression analysis using two ordered sets of predictors was
conducted to determine how much of the Transformational Leadership practiced by
principals who responded to the survey contributed to the 2012-2013 API scores of
150
their respective schools after controlling for other factors. The first set consisted of
one predictor, Transformational Leadership (as a single variable), practiced by the
principals who responded to the survey. The second set of predictors included four
factors: (1) student participation in the free and reduced price meal program, (2)
utilization of instructional coaches, (3) presence of professional learning
communities, and (4) students per computer.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type
I Error (.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so
there was no need to omit any variables. Table 55 summarizes the pair-wise
correlations.
151
Table 55
Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and other Factors
Included in Multiple Regression Analysis
1. 2012-2013 API scores 2. Transformational
Leadership
3. Participation in Free
and Reduced Price Meals
4. Utilization of Instructional
Coaches
5. Presence of Professional
Learning Communities
6. Students Per Computer
As a separate set, the perceived leadership style of the principals did not
significantly explain performance on the 2012-2013 API scores of the principals’
respective schools [R2 = .002, F (1, 149) = .298, p = .59]. The other factors
significantly explained performance on the API scores [R2 change = .24, F (4, 145) =
11.277, p < .01]. While the other four factors had significant predictor power as a set,
examination of the zero-order and partial correlations revealed that three of the four
were individually significant predictors of the 2012-2013 API scores. The factors of
student participation in the free and reduced price meal program, utilization of
instructional coaches and presence of professional learning communities each had a
significant negative correlation to API scores (see Table 56).
1
2
3
4
5
6
-
-.05 -
-.17 -.06 -
-.37 -.00 -.04 -
-.37 .02 -.00 .37 -
.08 .07 .05 -.08 -.03
152
Table 56
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors with 2012-13 API Scores
Predictors
Controls All Other
Zero-Order Predictors
Transformational Leadership -.05 -.06
Participation in Free
and Reduced Price Meals -.17 -.21
Utilization of Instructional Coaches -.37 -.28
Presence of Professional Learning
Communities -.37 -.28
Students Per Computer .08 .07
Hypothesis 3C
The percent of students receiving free and reduced price meals, the utilization
of instructional coaches, the presence of professional learning communities, and the
students per computer each contributed to the percent of students who pass the
CAHSEE in mathematics, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational
Leadership practices.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
A multiple regression analysis using two ordered sets of predictors was
conducted to determine how much of the Transformational Leadership practiced by
principals who responded to the survey contributed to the CAHSEE pass rates in
mathematics of their respective schools after controlling for demographic factors.
153
The first set consisted of one predictor, Transformational Leadership (as a single
variable), practiced by the principals who responded to the survey. The second set of
predictors included four demographic factors: (1) student participation in the free and
reduced price lunch program, (2) utilization of instructional coaches, (3) presence of
professional learning communities, and (4) students per computer.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type
I Error (.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so
there was no need to omit any variables (see Table 57).
Table 57
Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and Other
Factors Included in Multiple Regression Analysis
1. 2012-2013 CAHSEE
2. Transformational
Leadership
3. Participation in Free
and Reduced Price Meals
4. Utilization of Instructional
Coaches
5. Presence of Professional
Learning Communities
6. Students Per Computer
1 2 3 4 5 6
-
-.03 -
-.04 -.02 -
-.42 -.01 -.10 -
-.46 .11 -.06 .42 -
.07 -.20 .18 -.04 -.01
154
As a separate set, the perceived leadership style of the principals did not
significantly explain performance regarding the percent of students who passed the
CAHSEE in mathematics at their respective schools [R2 = .001, F (1, 81) =.068,
p = .795]. The other factors significantly explained performance regarding the percent
of students who passed the CAHSEE in mathematics [R2 change = .28,
F (4, 77) = 7.594, p < .01]. While the four factors had significant predictor power as a
set, examination of the zero-order and partial correlations revealed that two of the
four were individually significant predictors regarding the percent of students who
passed the CAHSEE in mathematics. The factors of utilization of instructional
coaches and presence of professional learning communities each had a significant
negative correlation to the percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in
mathematics (see Table 58).
Table 58
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 CAHSEE Pass
Rates in Mathematics)
Predictors
Controls All Other
Zero-Order Predictors
Transformational Leadership -.03 .02
Participation in Free
and Reduced Price Meals -.04 -.09
Utilization of Instructional Coaches -.42 -.28
Presence of Professional Learning
Communities -.46 -.35
Students Per Computer .07 .06
155
Hypothesis 3D
The percent of students receiving free and reduced price meals, the
utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of professional learning
communities, and the students per computer each contributed to the percent of
students who pass the CAHSEE in English language arts (ELA), above and beyond
the principals’ Transformational Leadership practices.
Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their
perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with
effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided
demographic information about their respective schools.
A multiple regression analysis using two ordered sets of predictors was
conducted to determine how much of the Transformational Leadership practiced by
principals who responded to the survey contributed to the percent of students who
passed the CAHSEE in English language arts (ELA) at their respective schools after
controlling for other factors. The first set consisted of one predictor,
Transformational Leadership (as a single variable), practiced by the principals who
responded to the survey. The second set of predictors included four factors that
included: (1) student participation in the free and reduced price meal program, (2)
utilization of instructional coaches, (3) presence of professional learning
communities, and (4) students per computer.
Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that
no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the
156
relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for
Type I Error (.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were
found, so there was no need to omit any variables. Table 59 summarizes the pair-
wise correlations.
Table 59
Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and Other
Factors Included in Multiple Regression Analysis
e
As a separate set, the perceived leadership style of the principals did not
significantly explain performance regarding the percent of students who passed the
CAHSEE in English language arts at their respective schools [R2 = .005,
F (1, 81) =.432, p = .513]. The other factors significantly explained performance on
the percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in English language arts
[R2 change = .234, F (4, 77) = 5.933, p < .01]. While the other four factors had
significant predictor power as a set, examination of the zero-order and partial
correlations revealed that two of the four were individually significant predictors of
the percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in English language arts. The factors
of utilization of instructional coaches and presence of professional learning
1. 2012-2013 CAHSEE
2. Transformational
Leadership
3. Participation in Free
and Reduced Price Meals
4. Utilization of InstructionalCoach
1 2 3 4 5 6
-
-.07 -
-.08 .02 -
s -.42 -.01 -.10 -
5. Presence of Professional
Learning Communities
-.37
.11
-.06
.42
-
6. Students Per Computer .06 -.20 .18 -.04 -.01
157
communities each had a significant negative correlation to the percent of students
who passed the CAHSEE in English language arts (see Table 60).
Table 60
The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 CAHSEE Pass
Rates in ELA)
Predictors
Controls All Other
Zero-Order Predictors
Transformational Leadership -.07 -.05
Participation in Free
and Reduced Price Meals -.08 -.14
Utilization of Instructional Coaches -.42 -.32
Presence of Professional Learning
Communities -.37 -.24
Students Per Computer .06 .01
Summary
This study involved the testing of 27 hypotheses to determine whether
relationships and differences exist between the self-perceived Transformational
Leadership practices of principals and student academic achievement. A series of
multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to address the first research
question and its respective hypotheses; independent samples t-tests were performed
to address the second research question and its respective hypotheses, and a series of
multiple linear regression analyses were performed to address the third research
question and its respective hypotheses. Implications of these results will be discussed
in Chapter V.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Chapter V summarizes this dissertation and synthesizes its findings to
determine the effects of self-perceived Transformational Leadership practices of
principals on student academic achievement. The results of this study may help in the
determination of whether effective school leadership practices improve student
performance on standardized exams in California. The chapter begins by presenting a
summary of this study. Next, this researcher responds to the three research questions.
The results of the quantitative tests are discussed in relationship to current research
and the implications for Transformational Leadership and student academic
achievement. Finally, this researcher offers recommendations for further study.
Summary
The NCLB Act of 2002 renewed the call for increased accountability,
standardized testing, and closing of the achievement gap from kindergarten through
high school (NCLB, 2002). Academic success is typically determined by how well
students perform on standardized tests. The increased accountability of school
principals prompted the examination of innovative ways to raise student test scores.
Kline and Saunders (1993) stated that principals must stay informed of innovative
approaches to make a difference in student achievement. In fact, many believe that
school principals are essential players in school reform efforts to boost student
158
159
academic achievement (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2000; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a). It is
through this understanding that educational researchers have begun studying the
specific leadership styles of principals who have made a genuine difference in school
effectiveness and student achievement (Gordon, 2011). Scholars have viewed the
challenge of improving student achievement through effective school leadership
(Marzano et al., 2005).
The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between the
self-perceived Transformational Leadership practices of principals and student
academic achievement. The results may benefit a wide array of educational
stakeholders such as school board members and superintendents regarding the
selection and retention of principals. Other possible contributions of this study
include the potential to influence administrative practices, principal training, and
leadership development programs. Also, this study may be used to identify the
professional development needs of principals or highlight best practices. Ultimately,
the students may benefit academically from better-trained principals.
The behaviors of the principal vary according to the extent of their work
responsibilities. School principals have become instructional leaders, focusing on
raising student achievement (Butler, 2008). Studies presented in Chapter II have
shown that educational leaders in California may be able to raise the academic
performance of teachers by improving the administrators’ practices on improving
student achievement. However, few studies show the degree to which the leadership
styles of school principals and other factors affect student achievement. This study
160
attempted to bridge this gap in the literature by responding to three research
questions: (1) What impact do the school principals’ level of Transformational
Leadership practices have on student academic achievement? (2) How do the
principals’ leadership practices differ between high performing schools and low
performing schools? and (3) how do other factors beyond the Transformational
Leadership style of principals’ impact academic achievement?
The population included 3,622 middle and high school principals in
California. One hundred and fifty-four principals responded to the LPI survey.
Leadership practices were measured using the Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI), a
self-administered, 30-question (10-point Likert-type scale) instrument. This particular
assessment was used since it is widely endorsed in the literature (Leong, 1995).
Academic Performance Index (API) scores were retrieved from the California
Department of Education website. Multiple regressions were used to determine if
Transformational Leadership is predictive of student academic achievement.
Independent sample t-tests were used to determine whether differences exist in
Transformational Leadership practices between principals of high performing schools
and principals of low performing schools and multiple regressions were used to
determine if the use of instructional coaches, presence of professional learning
communities, percent of students eligible for free and reduced price meals, and the
number of students per computer are indicative of student academic achievement over
and above Transformational Leadership. IBM Statistical Package for the Social
161
Sciences (SPSS) 22.0 was the statistical tool used in analyzing the data. All analyses
were conducted at the .05 level of significance.
Conclusions
Research Question One
What impact does the school principals’ level of Transformational Leadership
practices have on student academic achievement?
The first research question was analyzed through multiple regressions that
tested 11 hypotheses. The independent variable included the five categories of
effective Transformational Leadership while the dependent variable was student
academic achievement. Student academic achievement was measured through the
Similar Schools Decile Ranking, API, and the percentage of students who passed the
California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) in mathematics and English
language arts (ELA) for various years.
The results suggest that Transformational Leadership has no significant
impact on student academic achievement as measured by the Similar Schools Decile
Ranking, API, or the percentage of students who pass the CAHSEE exams in
mathematics and ELA. However, the results of one multiple regression suggest that
the Enabling Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership influenced
middle school student achievement as measured by the Similar Schools Decile
Ranking.
Kouzes and Posner (2007) stated that a good transformational leader should
enable others to follow them willingly through team spirit, trust, and strong
162
relationships. Educational staff should be included in decision making (Cotton, 2003).
By allowing teachers to make their own choices and receive support for the choices
they make, principals may help teachers create an effective learning environment for
middle school students which translates to higher academic achievement.
This study corroborated the findings of Beaver (2011), Crain (2010),
Di Vincenzo (2008), Dorward (2009), Estapa (2009), Gulbin (2008), Starcher (2006),
and Stobaugh (2003) that showed Transformational Leadership had no effect on
student academic achievement. Gulbin (2008) conducted a study to examine the
relationship between Transformational Leadership and student academic
achievement. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated no relationship between the
Leithwood model of Transformational Leadership and achievement in mathematics
(r = .01, p = .96), reading (r = .01, p = .96), attendance (r = -.46, p = .13), or 4-year
graduation rates (r = .07, p = .48). Dorward (2009) studied the relationship between
the Transformational Leadership behavior of principals and change in student
academic performance. Findings suggested no correlation between the
Transformational Leadership scores attributed to participating principals and changes
in the percentage of students in their schools that achieved mastery on the
standardized tests. The results of the study conducted by Crain (2010) found no
significant relationship between perceived effectiveness and flexibility of the
principals and the dependent variable, student achievement (R2 = .035, p = .351).
Beaver (2011) conducted quantitative research to examine the relationship between
student achievement and leadership styles demonstrated by school principals. Beaver
163
(2011) used the Bolman and Deal Leadership Orientations Instrument (Self) and
found no significant effect was found [F (16, 484) = .627, p = .863]. There was no
significant relationship between the leadership frames collectively and student
achievement. Starcher (2006) conducted a study to determine if a significant
relationship existed between each of Kouzes and Posner’s five categories of
Transformational Leadership and student achievement in mathematics and reading.
The results yielded no significance between the five categories and student
achievement in both mathematics and reading. Stobaugh (2003) conducted a study to
investigate teacher-perceived leadership of principals in Kentucky by examining
relationships between different forms of leadership and student outcomes.
Transformational Leadership did not significantly relate to standardized test scores,
[R2= .03, F (1, 35) = 2.09, p = .16].
Research Question Two
How do the principals’ leadership practices differ between high performing
schools and low performing schools based on 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 API scores?
The second research question was tested using independent samples t-tests on
12 hypotheses. The principals were placed into one of two groups. Principals of
schools that scored at or above 800 on the API were placed in one group and
principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API were placed in the other
group. The mean scores of the two groups based on the principals’ overall perceived
level of application of Transformation Leadership practices as well as their scores in
each of the five categories of Transformational Leadership were compared using a t-
164
test for independent samples. The level of significance was set at .05. The results of
the independent samples t-tests suggest there are no significant differences overall
regarding the perceived application of effective Transformational Leadership
practices between principals of high and principals of low performing schools in
terms of API.
The failure to accept all the hypotheses for the second research question may
indicate that the perceived leadership practices of principals has no impact on how
well a school generally fares on standardized tests. Hill (2011) showed that a
principal’s leadership practices did not affect the performance of schools or of their
students significantly, for neither high performing nor underperforming schools.
(Benkovitz, 2008a) argued that how well schools perform was not dependent
on the leadership practices employed but on several demographic factors that
included socioeconomic status and race. Generally, students who were poorer and
were not White performed worse than their richer and White peers. Benkovitz
(2008a) said that schools that put more emphasis on academics generally had better-
performing students regardless of both leadership practices and socioeconomic
factors. The results corroborated Benkovitz’s conclusion that leadership practices do
not play a role in determining whether a school has students who excel academically.
Regardless of what leadership practice a principal employs, what is important is the
vision and direction of the school focuses on increasing the chances of students
excelling academically.
165
Research Question Three
How do other factors beyond the Transformational Leadership style of
principals impact academic achievement?
Multiple regressions were conducted to determine how much of the self-
perceived Transformational Leadership practiced by principals who responded to the
survey and other factors contributed to API scores and CAHSEE pass rates of their
respective schools. The first set consisted of one predictor, Transformational
Leadership (as a single variable), practiced by the principals who responded to the
survey. The second set of predictors included four other factors that included (1)
student participation in the free and reduced price meal program, (2) utilization of
instructional coaches, (3) presence of professional learning communities, and (4)
number of students per computer. As a separate set, the perceived Transformational
Leadership style of the principals did not significantly explain the 2011-2012 and the
2012-2013 API scores of the principals’ respective schools. However, the factors
other than Transformational Leadership significantly explained performance on API
scores. Although all four factors had predictive power as a set, the examination of the
zero-order and partial correlations revealed three individually significant predictors of
the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 API scores. These were student participation in the free
and reduced price meal program, utilization of instructional coaches and the presence
of professional learning communities. all four factors had predictive power as a set,
the examination of the zero-order and partial correlations revealed two individually
significant predictors of the 2012-2013 CASHEE scores. These were utilization of
166
instructional coaches and the presence of professional learning communities.
Implications
The results of the study failed to champion the cause of Transformational
Leadership and its effects on student academic achievement. However, it should be
noted that the scope of the study involved 154 principals in California. Since the
sample population hardly represented the entire principal population in California, the
results should not be generalized to the entire population. Results may be different if
the same set of parameters and hypotheses were tested across a larger geographic
region. Broadening the sample size serves as a recommendation for additional
research on Transformational Leadership.
Recommendations for Further Research
The scope and limitations of the study gave particular focus on middle schools
and high schools in California. It would be insightful for future researchers to widen
the scope of this study by analyzing more schools across a larger geographical region
or delve into the effects of leadership across a wide array of educational institutions.
This researcher recommends the following:
1. Conduct a study that uses different measurements of academic achievement or
school effectiveness.
2. Conduct a mixed-methods case study that gathers insight from the principals on
how they perceive their leadership style affects student academic achievement.
3. Conduct a study to examine the use of leadership components that effectively
train coaches and mentors of new principals.
167
4. Conduct a study to compare principals’ self-perceived Transformational
Leadership practices with the perceptions of teachers regarding their principals’
application of Transformational Leadership.
5. Replicate this study using different instruments, such as the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) or Bolman and Deal Leadership
Orientations Instrument (Self).
6. Replicate this study using a large sample size across a broader region.
REFERENCES
169
REFERENCES
Adams, K. L., & Hambright, W. G. (2005). Helping teachers become
transformational leaders. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(2), 90-93
Anderson, G. L. (2004). William foster’s legacy: Learning from the past and
reconstructing the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(2), 240-
258. doi: 10.1177/0013161x03261225
Arrington, C. B. (2010). The relationship between transformational leadership and
instructional coaching. (Ph.D. 3446173), Auburn University, United States --
Alabama. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social
Sciences Collection database.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., & Kena, G. (2012). The condition of education 2012: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K.
(2011). The condition of education 2011. Nces 2011-033. National Center for
Education Statistics
Avolio, Bass, & Jung. (1999a). Re-examining the components of transformational
and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462
Avolio, Bass, & Jung. (1999b). Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462
170
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (mlq). Mind
Garden
Balyer, A. (2012). Transformational leadership behaviors of school principals: A
qualitative research based on teachers’ perceptions. International Online
Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 581-591
Barnes, J. K. (2011). Leadership styles of principals in successful middle schools in
tennessee (Ed.D. 3490934), Lincoln Memorial University, United States --
Tennessee. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social
Sciences Collection database.
Bartlett, J. C. (2008). Principal leadership practices: A correlation study of specific
instructional leadership practices and student achievement on the Tennessee
Gateway Tests. (3297430 Ed.D.), Liberty University, United States --
Virginia. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and
Social Sciences Collection database.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York,
London: Free Press; Collier Macmillan.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to
share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992
and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5)
171
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Mlq multifactor leadership questionnaire .
Redwood City. CA: Mind Garden
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2005). Transformational leadership: Psychology Press.
Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1989). Transformational leaders know themselves
better: DTIC Document.
Beaver, H. O. (2011). The relationship between situational leadership and student
achievement. (3455428 Ph.D.), The University of Southern Mississippi, Ann
Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social
Sciences Collection database.
Benkovitz, J. (2008a). Schools of excellence and equity: Closing achievement gaps
through academic emphasis. (Ed.D. 3310962), The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States -- North Carolina. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection
database.
Benkovitz, J. (2008b). Schools of excellence and equity: Closing achievement gaps
through academic emphasis: ProQuest.
Bennis, W. G., & Townsend, R. (1995). Reinventing leadership: Strategies to
empower the organization (1st ed.). New York: Morrow.
172
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher
development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35(3), 349-378. doi: 10.1177/0013161x99353003
Blase, J., & Blase, J. R. (1994). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do.
CA: corwin.
Breaker, J. L. (2009). Transformational leadership and the leadership performance of
oregon secondary school principals (Ed.D. 3383803), Seattle University,
United States -- Washington. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The
Humanities and Social Sciences Collection database.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Butler, K. (2008). Principal preparation programs. District Administration, 44(10),
66-70
Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic
status on individual academic achievement. The Journal of Educational
Research, 90(5), 269-269
California Department of Education. (2013). Standardized testing and reporting (star).
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/
Chin, J. M.-C. (2007). Meta-analysis of transformational school leadership effects on
school outcomes in taiwan and the USA (transformational). Asia Pacific
Education Review, 8(2), 166-177
173
Cook, J. W. (2011). Examining leadership styles in ten high poverty elementary
schools. (Ph.D. 3454918), Loyola University Chicago, United States --
Illinois. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social
Sciences Collection database.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says.
Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cotton, K., & Savard, W. G. (1980). The principal as instructional leader. Research
on School Effectiveness Project: Topic Summary Report.
Crain, F. S. (2010). The effect of leadership style on student achievement in Title I
elementary schools. (Ed.D. 3411203), Louisiana Tech University, United
States -- Louisiana. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and
Social Sciences Collection database.
Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide
for educators of adults (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. T. (2007). Preparing
school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership
development programs. School leadership study. Executive summary.
Stanford Educational Leadership Institute
De Pree, M. (1997). Leading without power : Finding hope in serving community (1st
ed.). San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
174
Di Vincenzo, R. J. (2008). School leadership and its relation to school performance
(lpi-no impact). (D.M. 3323345), University of Phoenix, United States --
Arizona. ABI/INFORM Complete; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The
Humanities and Social Sciences Collection database.
Dorward, P. N. (2009). A study of the relationship between principal leadership style
and student achievement (mlq). (Ph.D. 3350024), Capella University, United
States -- Minnesota. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and
Social Sciences Collection database.
Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the
revolutionary process. New York: Free Press.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a "professional learning community"? Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 6-11
Ed-Data. (2011-2012). Fiscal, demographic, and performance data on California k-12
schools. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layout
s/EdDataClassic/profile.asp?Tab=1&level=04&reportNumber=16
ED-Data. (2012-2013). Fiscal, demographic, and performance data on California k-12
schools.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership: The Albert
Shanker Institute Washington, DC.
175
Estapa, A. L. (2009). The relationship between the transformational leadership
characteristics of principals, as perceived by teachers, and student
achievement on standardized tests. (Ph.D. 3378413), Capella University,
United States -- Minnesota. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities
and Social Sciences Collection database.
Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-
life problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Faitar, G. M. (2011). Socioeconomic status, ethnicity and the context of achievement
in minority education. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 5, 1-8
Feinberg, B. J., Ostroff, C., & Burke, W. W. (2005). The role of within‐group agreement in understanding transformational leadership. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(3), 471-488
Freedberg, L. (2010). Number of failing schools in California increases dramatically.
Retrieved from http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/number-failing-schools-
california-increases-dramatically-4684
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8),
581
Gallos, J. V. (2008). Making sense of organizations: Leadership, frames, and
everyday theories of the situation. Business Leadership: A Jossey-Bass
reader, 161-179
176
Gamble, P. C. (2009). The relationship between principals' leadership styles and
student achievement that meet adequate yearly progress goals. (Ed.D.
3370939), University of Phoenix, United States -- Arizona. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection
database.
Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G. J., & Burns, J. M. (2004). Encyclopedia of leadership.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Goleman, D. (2006). The socially intelligent leader. Educational Leadership, 64(1),
76-81
Gordon, P. J. (2011). Achievement spirals: Understanding academic achievement
differences in an urban school. (Ph.D. 3481804), Rutgers The State University
of New Jersey - Newark, United States -- New Jersey. ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection database.
Gray, S. P., & Streshly, W. A. (2008). From good schools to great schools: What
their principals do well. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Greb, W. (2011). Principal leadership and student achievement: What is the effect of
transformational leadership in conjunction with instructional leadership on
student achievement? (3468985 Ph.D.), Marian University, United States --
Wisconsin. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and
Social Sciences Collection database.
177
Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff
job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of
Educational Administration, 42(3), 333-356
Gulbin, K. M. (2008). Transformational leadership: Is it a factor for improving
student achievement in high poverty secondary schools in pennsylvania? .
(D.Ed. 3303551), Indiana University of Pennsylvania, United States --
Pennsylvania. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social
Sciences Collection database.
Gulek, J. C., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop
use on student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and
Assessment, 3(2), 1-39
Haggard, R. L. (2008). The instructional leadership practices of principals in K-8
schools and their impact on student learning outcomes. (Ed.D. 3329704),
California State University, Fresno and University of California, Davis,
United States -- California. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities
and Social Sciences Collection database.
Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A., & Kepner, K. (2002). Transformational leadership:
The transformation of managers and associates. Retrieved august 3, 2006.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of
education, 33(3), 329-352
178
Hallinger, P., & McCary, C. E. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of
instructional leaders. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 89-108
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1987). Assessing and developing principal
instructional leadership. Educational leadership, 45(1), 54-61
Hamzah, M., Yakop, F., Nordin, N., & Raahman, S. (2011). School as learning
organisation: The role of principal's transformational leadership in promoting
teacher engagement. World Applied Sciences, 14(Special Issue of Innovation
and Pedagogy for Diverse Learners), 58-63
Harris, A. (2003). Effective leadership for school improvement. London; New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Hill, A. (2011). The impact of leadership practices on the academic achievement of
elementary students in satisfactory schools and unsatisfactory schools in
georgia. (Ed.D. 3489195), South Carolina State University, United States --
South Carolina. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social
Sciences Collection database.
Huber, Maas, McCloskey, Goode, & Watson. (2000). Evaluating nursing
administration instruments. Journal of Nursing Adminstration, 30(5), 251-272
Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). Why do high-poverty schools have difficulty staffing their
classrooms with qualified teachers? : Center for American Progress, Institute
for America's Future.
179
Johnson, R. L., II. (2004). A study of instructional leadership behaviors of principals
and student achievement. (3149147 Ed.D.), University of Virginia, Ann
Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social
Sciences Collection database.
Kline, P., & Saunders, B. (1993). Ten steps to a learning organization. Arlington,
Va.: Great Ocean Publishers.
Knab, D. K. (1998). Comparison of the leadership practices of principals of blue
ribbon schools with principals of randomly selected schools. (Ph.D.), United
States -- District of Columbia. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The
Humanities and Social Sciences Collection database. (9826676)
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting
extraordinary things done in organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003a). Encouraging the heart: A leader's guide to
rewarding and recognizing others (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003b). The Jossey-Bass academic administrator's
guide to exemplary leadership (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006). A leader's legacy (1st ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
180
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2010). The truth about leadership: The no-fads,
heart-of-the-matter facts you need to know (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2011). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why
people demand it. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make
extraordinary things happen in organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kurland, H., Peretz, H., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010). Leadership style and
organizational learning: The mediate effect of school vision Journal of
Educational Administration, 48(1), 7-30. doi: 10.1108/09578231011015395
Lake, R. J., Hill, P. T., O'Toole, L., & Celio, M. B. (1999). Making standards work:
Active voices, focused learning: Center on Reinventing Public Education, UW
Graduate School of Public Affairs.
Larsen, T. J. (1984). Identification of instructional leadership behavior and the
impact of their implementation on academic achievement (effective schools,
high achieving schools; Los Angeles county, California). (Educat.D.
8508956), University of Colorado at Boulder, United States -- Colorado.
181
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences
Collection database.
Lea, P. G. (2011). High school principal leadership and student achievement: The
effects of transformational leadership on the illinois prairie state achievement
examination (Ph.D. 3457284), Capella University, United States -- Minnesota.
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences
Collection database.
Lee, J. (2005). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 655-672
Leithwood, K. (1993). Contributions of transformational leadership to school
restructuring. ERIC, 58. doi: ED367061
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518. doi:
10.1177/0013161x94030004006
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1995). Toward an explanation of how teachers'
perceptions of transformational school leadership are formed. ED386785
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999a). The relative effects of principal and teacher
sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 679-706. doi: 10.1177/0013161x99355002
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999b). Transformational school leadership effects: A
replication. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 10(4), 451-479
182
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership
research 1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199
Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423. doi:
10.1177/0013161x11436268
Leong, F. (1995). Review of the leadership practices inventory. The twelfth mental
measurements yearbook, 555-556
Long, C. N. (2008). A comparison of student achievement between Missouri
professional learning community project participants and non-participants.
(Ed.D. 3330538), Liberty University, United States -- Virginia. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection
database.
Lopez, S. (2011). Shaking up the status quo in Los Angeles schools. Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/06/local/la-me-1106-lopez-schools-
20111106
Marks, H. M., & Nance, J. P. (2007). Contexts of accountability under systemic
reform: Implications for principal influence on instruction and supervision.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 3-37
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance:
An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. doi: 10.1177/0013161x03253412
183
Marzano, Waters, & McNulty. (2005). School leadership that works: From research
to results. Alexandria, VA.
Maxwell, J. C. (2002). Leadership 101. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Maxwell, J. C. (2007). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership workbook: Follow them
and people will follow you (Rev. and updated 10th anniversary ed.). Nashville,
Tenn.: Thomas Nelson.
Maxwell, J. C. (2011). The five levels of leadership : Proven steps to maximize your
potential (1st ed.). New York: Center Street.
McConney, A., & Perry, L. B. (2010). Socioeconomic status, self-efficacy, and
mathematics achievement in australia: A secondary analysis. Educational
Research for Policy & Practice, 9(2), 77-91
McNeil, M. (2012). Waiver plans would scrap parts of nclb. EdWeek, 31, 28-29.
Merriam-Webster Inc. (2011). Merriam-Webster's collegiate encyclopedia.
Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster.
Minus, E. L. (2010). Leading in the middle: Leadership behaviors of middle level
principals that promote student achievement. (Ed.D. 3397616), The George
Washington University, United States -- District of Columbia. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection
database.
Moller, S., Mickelson, R. A., Stearns, E., Banerjee, N., & Bottia, M. C. (2013).
Collective pedagogical teacher culture and mathematics achievement:
184
Differences by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Sociology of
Education, 86(2), 174-194. doi: 10.1177/0038040712472911
Mosbacker, B. L. (2005). An investigation of technology and school leadership in
Christian schools in the United States (Ed.D. 3161849), The University of
North Carolina at Charlotte, United States -- North Carolina. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection
database.
Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership : Creating a compelling sense of direction for
your organization (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2001). Leading learning
communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do.
Alexandria, VA: Collaborate.
National Center for Children in Poverty. (2011). Child poverty in United States.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010). The nation's report card.
NCES. (2010). Digest of educaiton statistics, 2010 (nces 2011-015). Retrieved May
26, 2012, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=147
NCLB. (2002). No child left behind act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education
Nord, C., Roey, S., Perkins, R., Lyons, M., Lemanski, N., Brown, J., & Schuknecht,
J. (2011). The nation’s report card: America’s high school graduates (nces
185
2011-462). Washington, dc: Us department of education. National Center for
Education Statistics
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Northouse, P. G. (2009). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
OECD. (2010). OECD factbook 2010: OECD Publishing.
Palumbo, A., & Sanacore, J. (2009). Helping struggling middle school literacy
learners achieve success. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(6), 275-280
Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1993). Psychometric properties of the leadership
practices inventory--updated. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
53(1), 191-199
Quinn, R. R. (2011). The effect of elementary principals' self-perceived instructional
leadership behaviors on reading and math student achievement. (Ed.D.
3483953), Regent University, United States -- Virginia. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection
database.
Robbins, & Judge. (2005). Organizational behavior (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
186
Sagnak, M. (2010). The relationship between transformational school leadership and
ethical climate. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(2), 1135-1152
Sammons, P., Gu, Q., Day, C., & Ko, J. (2011). Exploring the impact of school
leadership on pupil outcomes. The International Journal of Educational
Management, 25(1), 83-101. doi: 10.1108/09513541111100134
Schindler, K. A. (2012). An analysis of the relationship of perceived principal
instructional leadership behaviors and student academic achievement.
(3511656 Ed.D.), Tarleton State University, United States -- Texas. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences
Collection database.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (2nd
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different?: Why
is it important? (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Elliott, D. L. (1975). Educational and organizational leadership
in elementary schools. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic
review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453. doi:
10.3102/00346543075003417
187
Skipper, C., & Bell, L. (2006). Leadership development of construction project
managers. Paper presented at the 2 nd Specialty Conference on Leadership
and Management in Construction.
Smith, S. C., & Piele, P. K. (2006). School leadership: Handbook for excellence in
student learning (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Smith, W. F., & Andrews, R. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals
make a difference: ERIC.
Starcher, S. L. (2006). The relationship between leadership practices of principals
and student achievement. (Ed.D. 3243222), Marshall University, United
States -- West Virginia. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities
and Social Sciences Collection database.
Stobaugh, R. R. (2003). School reform, transformational leadership, and student
achievement (Ph.D. 3120082), University of Louisville, United States --
Kentucky. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social
Sciences Collection database.
Thompson, J. (2012). Transformational leadership can improve workforce
competencies. Nursing Management (Harrow, London, England: 1994),
18(10), 21-24
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York:
Wiley.
188
Tignor, J. S. (2008). The relationship between the elements of professional learning
communities and student achievement of Illinois Spotlight Schools. (Ed.D.
3338884), Western Illinois University, United States -- Illinois. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection
database.
Tzu, S. (2007). The art of war: Pax Librorum Pub. H.
Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial
leadership and student achievement: High school principals make a difference
NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 5-30. doi: 10.1177/0192636511404062
Vellymalay, S. K. N. (2012). The impact of parent’s socioeconomic status on parental
involvement at home: A case study on high achievement Indian students of a
Tamil school in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 2(8), 11-24
Vogt, W. P. (2007). Quantitative research methods for professionals. Boston, MA:
Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American
Psychologist, 62(1), 17
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student
achievement: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning Aurora,
CO.
189
Webb, G. H. (2012). High school principal perceptions of instructional leadership:
Their rankings on the importance of the Marzano et al. 21 leadership
responsibilities and the impact of leadership on student achievement.
(3539639 Ed.D.), Edgewood College, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection database.
White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic
achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 461-481. doi: 10.1037/0033-
2909.91.3.461
Wooden, J., & Jamison, S. (2005). Wooden on leadership (1st ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Zinn, H. (2010). A people's history of the United States: 1492 to present:
HarperCollins.
APPENDICES
191
January 29, 2014
Sharon Chen
2124 Whitney Court
Atwater, CA 95301
APPENDIX A
PERMISSION LETTER
Dear Ms. Chen:
:
Thank you for your request to use the LPI®: Leadership Practices Inventory® in your dissertation. This letter grants
you permission to use either the print or electronic LPI [Self/Observer/Self and Observer] instrument[s] in
your research. You may reproduce the instrument in printed form at no charge beyond the discounted one-time
cost of purchasing a single copy; however, you may not distribute any photocopies except for specific research
purposes. If you prefer to use the electronic distribution of the LPI you will need to separately contact Ryan Noll
([email protected]) directly for further details regarding product access and payment. Please be sure to review the
product information resources before reaching out with pricing questions.
Permission to use either the written or electronic versions is contingent upon the following:
(1) The LPI may be used only for research purposes and may not be sold or used in conjunction with any compensated
activities;
(2) Copyright in the LPI, and all derivative works based on the LPI, is retained by James M. Kouzes and
Barry Z. Posner. The following copyright statement must be included on all reproduced copies of the instrument(s);
"Copyright © 2013 James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights
reserved. Used with permission";
(3) One (1) electronic copy of your dissertation and one (1) copy of all papers, reports, articles, and the like which
make use of the LPI data must be sent promptly to my attention at the address below; and, (4) We have the right to
include the results of your research in publication, promotion, distribution and sale of the LPI and all related products.
Permission is limited to the rights granted in this letter and does not include the right to grant others permission to
reproduce the instrument(s) except for versions made by nonprofit organizations for visually or physically handicapped
persons. No additions or changes may be made without our prior written consent. You understand that your use of the
LPI shall in no way place the LPI in the public domain or in any way compromise our copyright in the LPI. This
license is nontransferable. We reserve the right to revoke this permission at any time, effective upon written notice to
you, in the event we conclude, in our reasonable judgment, that your use of the LPI is compromising our proprietary
rights in the LPI.
Best wishes for every success with your research project.
Cordially,
Ellen Peterson
Permissions Editor
One Montgomery, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104-459
192
APPENDIX B
IRB APPROVAL
February 6, 2014
Institutional Review Board CSU Stanislaus One University Circle, MSR 250 Turlock, CA 95382
Telephone: (209) 667-3784 Email: [email protected] IRB BOARD MEMBERS
Jarrett Kotrozo, Ph.D., CHAIR Business Administration
Sharon S. Chen 2124 Whitney Ct.
Atwater, CA 95301
Dear Sharon,
Re: Protocol #1314-094
Susan Eastham, Ph.D. Kinesiology
Huan Gao, Ph.D. Criminal Justice
John Garcia, Ph.D. Social Work
Brian Jue, Ph.D.
Mathematics
Xun (Sunny) Liu, Ph.D.
Communication Studies
Susan Neufeld, Ed.D.
Advanced Studies
Jen Rinaldo, Ph.D.
Nursing
Brent Powell, Ph.D.
Kinesiology
Robin Ringstad, Ph.D.
Social Work
Gary Jones
Community Representative
Shawna Young
Research & Sponsored Programs
(non-voting)
IRB Administration
Julie Johnson, JD
Campus Compliance Officer
Heidi Britt
UIRB & AW Administration
Congratulations. Your research has been designated Expedited and can be conducted as detailed in your research protocol, “The Effects of the Transformational Leadership of Principals on Student Academic Achievement.”
Your approval to conduct research expires February 6, 2015. If you anticipate that you will need more time to complete your research, please apply for renewal at least 30 days prior to the expiration date.
If you have any questions regarding this designation, please contact UIRB at (209) 667-3493.
Please Note: Human subjects research liability protection from the university only covers IRB-approved research by faculty, students, and employees of CSU Stanislaus. If your employment or student status changes during the year or if you make changes to your methods, subject selection, or instrumentation, please discontinue your research and notify the IRB to obtain the appropriate clearances.
If any research subject experiences a serious adverse or unexpected event during or following participation, please notify Campus Compliance immediately.
Best regards,
Jarrett Kotrozo, Ph.D., Chair
193
APPENDIX C
EMAIL INVITATION
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, STANISLAUS
Department of Advanced Studies in Education Doctorate in Educational
Leadership Program
One University Circle, Turlock, CA 95382
Dear Principals,
As a requirement for my Doctorate in Educational Leadership at California State
University, Stanislaus, I am conducting a dissertation study to determine if
relationships exist between transformational leadership practices of school
administrators and student academic achievement and other areas of school
performance. Your participation in this study is voluntary and entirely confidential.
This survey instrument addresses transformational leadership practices and will take
approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. I am requesting that you grant me
permission by replying to this e-mail that you are interested in this study and
willing to be placed in an anonymous pool of potential participants. After receiving
your reply to this email, you will be contacted to participate in this study. Please feel
free to contact me by phone (408) 506-0384 or e- mail ([email protected]), or my
principal dissertation advisor Dr. John Borba at (209) 648-3570 or e-mail
Your contribution to this research would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Sharon S.Chen
Sharon S. Chen, Candidate
Doctorate in Educational Leadership Program
California State University, Stanislaus