PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your recond. TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE JAN092015 7021' J l l J! Jl___J IF 1:4 II II i II II _| MSU Is An Afflmdlve Action/Equal Opportunity Institution cmmt A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE CHANGE-FACILITATOR STYLE OF THEIR PRINCIPALS AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ARE PRESENT IN THEIR SCHOOLS By Keith E. Mino, Jr. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partiai fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1990 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE CHANGE-FACILITATOR STYLE OF THEIR PRINCIPALS AND THE EXTENT TO HHICH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS ARE PRESENT IN THEIR SCHOOLS By Keith E. Mino, Jr. This study focused on ‘the relationship that exists between teachers’ perceptions of the change-facilitator style of their principals and the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in the school. One hundred seventy-seven teachers from 13 elementary schools in Michigan were involved in the study. Schools were selected to participate in the study only if they had already completed at least two years of school improvement using the Effective Schools model. Three questionnaires were administered to participating teachers. The Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire was used to determine teachers’ perceptions of the change-facilitator style demonstrated by ‘their principals. The Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire was used to determine the extent to which teachers perceived the characteristics of effective schools to be present in their schools. liith the data from these two questionnaires, a significant relationship was found between Keith E. Mino, Jr. the teacher’s perception of the principal’s change-facilitator style and the extent to which the characteristics were present in the school for the majority of the characteristics. The third questionnaire used in the study was the Staff Perception of Change Survey, which examined the teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools had changed in their schools since the school entered into its school improvement process. The data gathered with this survey were analyzed for low and high perception of change and to determine whether a relationship existed between the extent of change perceived by the teacher and the perceived change-facilitator style of the principal. It was determined that a significant relationship existed. Copyright by KEITH E. MINO, JR. 1990 DEDICATION Throughout the time I have spent in the doctoral program at Michigan State University, I have been able to count on my wife, Nancy, to supply moral support, encouragement, love, and understanding. Sometimes the demands of the program required individual and family sacrifice. During those times, Nancy demonstrated patience and unselfishness above and beyond the call of duty. There were many times when she would have preferred to be doing something other than sitting alone in one area of our home while I worked on this dissertation in another. There were times when the costs of tuition and this research project made it difficult to respond adequately to other obligations. Nancy always managed to find the necessary finances and never complained. Without question, Nancy is the best thing that ever happened to me, and without her it would have been impossible to complete this degree. As a small measure of my gratitude to Nancy for being there when I needed her, I dedicate this dissertation to my loving wife, Nancy Thayer Nino. Nancy, I truly owe you one! Thank you for being so wonderful to me. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Several very special people need to be acknowledged for the help they gave me during this dissertation project. ‘RJ begin, I would like to thank Dr. Samuel Moore II, my doctoral committee chairperson. Dr. Moore was there when I needed him to supply advice and encouragement. As the project approached completion, he must have come to expect my daily telephone call to make sure I was still on track. Thank you, Dr. Moore, for being there throughout my dissertation writing and for being a friend. After everyone else had grown thoroughly tired of hearing about the project, you were still patient and always supplied me with the direction I needed to continue. I would also like to acknowledge the remaining members of my committee: Drs. Doug Campbell, Richard Gardner, Louis Romano, and Daniel Kruger. Without their direction and guidance, this research project would not have been possible. Dr. Gene Hall of the University of Northern Colorado and Dr. Roland Vandenberghe created the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire. By allowing me to use that questionnaire, they made the project possible. Dr. Joan Schumaker of the Connecticut State Department of Education shared ideas about the research design and allowed me to vi use the revised Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire in the project. That instrument was of utmost importance to this research. Dr. Archie George of the University of Idaho served as a research design and statistical consultant throughout the project. His help was critical, and he was always there to provide needed encouragement. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .................... Statement of the Problem ............. How the Characteristics of Effective Schools Were Identified ................. The Weber Study ................. The New York Office of Education Performance Review Study ................. The Madden, Lawson, and Sweet Study ....... The Brookover and Lezotte Study ......... The Connecticut School Effectiveness Project . The Connecticut School Effectiveness Question- naire ..................... Connecticut Summary Profile .......... The Change-Facilitator Style of the Principal . . . The Work of Hall, Rutherford, Hard, and Huling . The Thomas Study ................ Research by Hall, Rutherford, and Griffin . . . . The Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire . . Staff Perceptieon of Change Survey ........ How This Study Will Benefit Participating Schools and Principals ................. Importance of the Study .............. General Hypotheses ................ Assumptions and Clarification ........... 11. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................ School Culture .................. “Culture and School Performance” ........ “Good Seeds Grow in Strong Cultures" ...... ”Leadership and Excellence in Schooling ..... Summary ..................... School Improvement ................ “In the Aftermath of Excellence" ........ viii Page Page ”Sisyphus and School Improvement” ........ 44 "The Vision of an Insider: A Practitioner’s View" ..................... 45 “On School Improvement in Pittsburgh: A Conversation With Richard Wallace" ...... 46 'Ramrodding Reform in Texas” .......... 49 "Common Sense" ................. 50 Effective Schools ................. 51 ”Effective Schools for the Urban Poor" ..... Sl "Growing Use of the Effective Schools Model for School Improvement" .............. 57 "Ingredients of a Successful School Effective- ness Project” ................. 59 "New Evidence on Effective Elementary Schools” . 65 "Using Effective Schools Studies to Create Effective Schools: No Recipe Yet" ....... 68 Effective School Principals ............ 70 "Effects of Three Principal Styles on School Improvement” ................. 70 ”Principal Leadership and Student Achievement” . 72 Summary ...................... 74 III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ........... 7S Hypotheses .................... 75 Sample Selection ................. 78 Data Collection .................. 80 Instrumentation .................. 8l The Connecticut School Effectiveness Question- naire ..................... 8l The Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire . . . 82 The Staff Perception of Change Survey ...... 9l Data Analysis ................... 93 IV. FINDINGS ...................... 95 Results From the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire .................. 95 Findings From the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire .................. 98 Examining the Null Hypotheses ........... lOO Safe and Orderly Environment .......... 103 Clear School Mission .............. l07 Instructional Leadership ............ 109 High Expectations ................ ll2 Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task ...... llS Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress ..... ll8 Home-School Relations .............. 121 ix Page Findings From the Staff Perception of Change Survey ..................... 124 Summary ...................... 134 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS .................... 135 Summary and Conclusions .............. 135 Summary of Findings Regarding the Null Hypotheses .................. 135 Summary of Findings Regarding the Staff Perception of Change Survey .......... 153 Recommended Research ............... 157 Reflections .................... 158 APPENDICES A. QUESTIONNAIRE PACKAGE ADMINISTERED TO PARTICIPATING TEACHERS ..................... 159 B. CONNECTICUT SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS QUESTIONNAIRE PROFILE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL ......... 174 C. LETTERS GRANTING PERMISSION TO USE THE CONNECTICUT SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS QUESTIONNAIRE AND THE CHANGE FACILITATOR STYLE QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 183 D. LETTER FROM UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS GRANTING APPROVAL TO CONDUCT THE RESEARCH .............. 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ 187 LIST OF TABLES Patterns of Scores on Each Scale of The Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire .......... Hypothetical Patterns of Teachers’ Scores on the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire ....... Mean and Median Teacher Scores on the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire ......... Overall Means on the Six Scales of the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire .......... Chi-Square Results for the Relationship Between Change-Facilitator Style and Perceived Extent of Presence of Safe and Orderly Environment Chi-Square Results for the Relationship Between Change-Facilitator Style and Perceived Extent of Presence of Clear School Mission ........ Chi-Square Results for the Relationship Between Change-Facilitator Style and Perceived Extent of Presence of Instructional Leadership ...... Chi-Square Results for the Relationship Between Change-Facilitator Style and Perceived Extent of Presence of High Expectations .......... Chi-Square Results for the Relationship Between Change-Facilitator Style and Perceived Extent of Presence of Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task ...................... Chi—Square Results for the Relationship Between Change-Facilitator Style and Perceived Extent of Presence of Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress ...................... Chi-Square Results for the Relationship Between Change-Facilitator Style and Perceived Extent of Presence of Home-School Relations ........ xi Page 90 98 101 104 107 110 113 116 119 122 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 5.1 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Extent to Which the Effective Schools Characteristics Were Present at the Beginning of the School Improvement Program ...................... Teachers’ Perceptions of the Extent to Which the Effective Schools Characteristics Had Changed From the Beginning of the School Improvement Program to the Time of the Survey ......... Chi-Square Results for Staff Perception of Initial Extent of Prsence of the Characteristics of Effective Schools ................. Chi-Square Results for Staff Perception of Change Summary of Null Hypotheses Retained and Not Retained, Based on Teachers’ Perceptions of Principals’ Change-Facilitator Styles and Extent of Presence of the Characteristics of Effective Schools xii Page 128 130 133 148 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In recent. years, it has become increasingly apparent that public education in America is in need of significant improvement. Many other countries appear to be achieving a greater degree of success in educating their young people than the United States. One country that is often referred to as a country that seems to be doing an outstanding job of educating its young is Japan. In that country, organizational improvement has been a primary focus since World War II. The war essentially devastated the Japanese economy and all of the organizational structures that had been in place and in the process of evolving for centuries. Something good, however, did come out of the devastation. With their entire country in shambles, the Japanese had no alternative but to rebuild from the ground up. Rather than recreating all of the organizational structures that had been destroyed, the Japanese elected to examine closely all aspects of the society that needed to be replaced and to recreate only those aspects of the former society that had been effective. It was decided that aspects of the society that had been ineffective before the war should be improved before they were reinstituted. As a result of this concentrated focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the prewar society, the Japanese were able not only to rebuild their society, but also to emerge as a world leader in several categories, including industry and education. The Japanese took a crucial step in the direction of improving their society' when they admitted that weaknesses existed. By identifying strengths and weaknesses, the Japanese provided themselves with a blueprint for improving their entire society. It is next to impossible to repair something until one is willing to admit that it is broken. After that important step is taken, it is imperative that a thorough assessment take place to determine precisely where the strengths and weaknesses lie and how the strengths can be enhanced and the weaknesses eliminated. The present study focuses on school improvement. Several models of school improvement are available to school districts working to improve their educational programs. This researcher focused specifically on the Effective Schools model of school improvement created by Ron Edmonds and Larry Lezotte. The Effective Schools model identifies several characteristics of effective schools and provides school districts with strategies for increasing the presence of these characteristics in their schools. To understand and appreciate the model, it is first necessary to explain how the characteristics that are the basis of the Effective Schools model were identified and the important role they play in the school improvement process. Later, the researcher will identify specific change-facilitator styles of building principals. W The major emphasis in this study was to determine whether there is a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of the change- facilitator style of the building principal and the extent to which teachers perceive the characteristics of effective schools are present in the principal’s school. If a significant relationship is found to exist, educators can begin to focus on methods of modifying the change-facilitator style of the building principal to enhance the effectiveness of schools and the achievement level of students. If’ a significant relationship does exist and educators fail to recognize it, they' might miss an important opportunity to make schools more effective. The problem is first to determine whether or not a significant relationship does, in fact, exist between how teachers perceive the change-facilitator style of the building principal and the extent to which they feel the characteristics of effective schools are present in the principal’s school. This study was undertaken to answer that question. Ho he h r ri t 've W W Although it was apparent for several years that improvements needed to be made in America’s system of public education, very little research was performed to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the existing system. In 1971, Weber conducted a study of four inner-city schools in which children from all socioeconomic and ethnic categories were achieving well on nationally normed standardized tests. Weber’s purpose in performing the research was to provide an alternative to the research by Coleman (1966), Jensen (1969), and other researchers, who had established that the low achievement of poor children was principally a result of the fact that poor people, in general, suffer from inherent disabilities that characterize the poor. Weber believed that if poor children in the four schools he was studying were achieving well academically, similar children in other schools could also achieve good results. Before he could make that case, however, it was necessary to determine why the poor children in the four schools involved in the study were achieving those results. Through his research, Weber identified several characteristics that distinguished the schools he was studying from schools in general. All feur schools had strong leadership, 'hi that their principal was instrumental in setting the tone of the school, helping decide on instructional strategies, and organizing and distributing the schools’ resources. Personnel in all four schools had "high expectations" for all of their students. Weber was careful to point out that high expectations are not sufficient for school success, but they are certainly necessary. Teachers in all four schools strongly emphasized pupils’ acquisition of reading skills and reinforced that emphasis by careful and frequent evaluation of pupils’ progress. According to Edmonds (1979), the characteristics discovered by Weber became the focus of several other researchers who were also attempting to identify characteristics that typify effective schools and separate them from schools that are not doing as well. Weber’s findings clearly illustrated that student achievement is influenced by the school. Before Weber’s research, the consensus seemed to be that factors outside the school had a greater effect on student achievement than did factors inside the school. If factors under the control of the school that positively influenced student achievement could be isolated and identified, they could be applied in any school to enhance student achievement. Several researchers and agencies attempted to identify the characteristics of effective schools shortly after Weber published the results of his research. [he New York Office of Education Performance Review Study In 1974, the State of New York’s Office of Education Performance Review published the results of a study that confirmed several of Weber’s findings regarding the school’s role in student learning. The study involved two inner-city schools. In one of the schools, students were achieving well; in the other, students were achieving poorly. Both schools were studied to identify specific differences that seemed most responsible for the variations in achievement. The following findings were reported: 1. The differences in student performance in the two schools seemed to be attributable to factors under the schools’ control. 2. Administrative' behavior, policies, and practices in the schools appeared to have a significant effect on school effective- ness. 3. The more effective school was led by an administrative team who provided a good balance between management and instructional skills. 4. The administrative team in the more effective school had developed a plan for' dealing with the reading problem and had implemented the plan throughout the school. 5. Classroom reading instruction did not appear to differ between the two schools. Teachers in both schools had problems in teaching reading and assessing pupils’ reading skills. 6. Many professional personnel in the less effective school attributed children’s reading problems to nonschool factors and were pessimistic about their ability to have an influence, creating an environment in which children failed because they were not expected to succeed. However, in the more effective school, teachers were less skeptical about their ability to have an effect on children. 7. Children responded predictably' to unstimulating learning experiences; they were apathetic, disruptive, or absent. The findings of 'the New York study indicated that student achievement is based on school practices and not on influences outside the school. In essence, the findings reaffirmed Weber’s conclusion that the characteristics of effective schools could be used to enhance student achievement in any school. dd w on t d Edmonds (1979) described the results of a 1976 study by Madden, Lawson, and Sweet, which also focused on the characteristics of effective schools. In that study, 21 pairs of elementary schools in California were matched on the basis of pupil characteristics; they differed only in terms of pupil performance on standardized achievement measures. Madden et al. sought to identify the institutional characteristics of higher- and lower-achieving schools. They found that, in comparison to lower-achieving schools: 1. Teachers at higher-achieving schools reported that their principals provided them with greater support. 2. Teachers in higher-achieving schools were more task oriented in their classroom approach and applied more apprOpriate principles of learning. 3. There was more evidence of student monitoring, student effort, happier children, and an atmosphere conductive to learning in classrooms in higher-achieving schools. 4. Teachers at higher-achieving schools reported that they spent relatively more time ("I social studies, less time on mathematics and physical education/health, and about the same amount of time on reading/language development and science. 5. Teachers at higher-achieving schools reported (a) more adult volunteers in nuthematics classes, (b) fewer paid aides in reading, and (c) more likelihood of using teacher aides for nonteaching tasks, such as classroom paperwork, watching children on the playground, and maintaining classroom discipline. 6. Teachers at higher-achieving schools reported greater access to "outside the classroom" materials. 7. Teachers at higher-achieving schools believed their faculty, on the whole, had less influence on educational decisions. 8. Teachers at higher-achieving schools rated district administration higher on support services. 9. In the higher-achieving schools, classrooms were divided into fewer groups for instructional purposes. 10. Teachers in higher-achieving schools reported being more satisfied with various aspects of their work. According to Edmonds, the major importance of Madden et al.’s study was the reinforcement of leadership, expectations, atmosphere, and instructional emphasis as essential institutional determinants of pupil performance. Beginning with Weber, the same characteristics began to emerge in research designed to identify the qualities of effective schools. In subsequent studies of effective schools, the characteristics began to assume a more precise definition. Of importance in the present research is the fact that the same essential characteristics, with minor variations, were identified in each study. Those characteristics are of major importance in the current study. r e o S d In 1977, Brookover and Lezotte published a report of their study, entitled Changes in Seheel Cheraeterjstice Cejnejdent Wth Chengee jg §tgdent Aehjevement. Since the early 19705, the Michigan State Department of Education has mandated the annual testing of students throughout the state to ascertain whether they are achieving specific educational objectives identified as being critical in a quality educational experience. This testing is called the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). The MEAP test battery is a criterion-referenced battery of standardized measures of pupil performance in basic school skills. Based on MEAP test scores gathered over an extended period of time, the Michigan State Department of Education was able to identify certain elementary schools in the state that had educational programs that were either improving or declining. Brookover and Lezotte chose eight of these schools to be part of their study. Six of the schools were identified as improving, and two were identified as declining. Trained interviewers visited each of the schools to identify differences between improving and declining schools and to discover which differences seemed to be important to variations in pupil performance between the two sets of schools. The findings were as follows: 1. The improving schools differed from the declining schools in the emphasis staff members placed on accomplishment of basic reading and mathematics objectives. In the improving schools, these goals and objectives were accepted and emphasized; in declining schools, much less emphasis was given to such goals, and they were not specified as fundamental. 2. Teachers’ and principals’ evaluations of students differed in the improving and declining schools. Staff members in the improving schools tended to believe that all of their students could master the basic objectives; furthermore, the teachers perceived 10 that the principal shared this belief. They tended to report higher and increasing levels of student ability. In the declining schools, teachers believed that students’ ability levels were low and that they could not master even the basic objectives. 3. Staff members in the improving schools held higher and apparently increasing levels of expectations with regard to their students’ educational accomplishments. In contrast, staff members in the declining schools were much less likely to believe their students would complete high school and/or college. 4. Teachers and principals in the improving schools were much more likely to assume responsibility for teaching basic reading and math skills and were much more committed to doing so. Staff members in the declining schools thought there was not much that teachers could do to influence their students’ achievement. They tended to place the responsibility for learning these skills on the parents or the students themselves. 5. Because teachers in the declining schools believed there was little they could do to influence the learning of basic skills, they spent less time in direct reading instruction than did teachers in the improving schools. The staffs in improving schools devoted much more time to achieving reading and math objectives. 6. There seemed to be a clear difference between the improving and declining schools with regard to the principal’s role. In the improving schools, the principal was more likely to be an instructional leader, was more assertive in his/her institutional ll leadership role, was more of a disciplinarian, and assumed responsibility for evaluating students’ achievement of basic objectives. Principals in the declining schools appeared to be permissive and to emphasize informal and collegial relationships with teachers. They put more emphasis on general public relations and less emphasis on evaluation of the school’s effectiveness in providing students with a basic education. 7. Staff members in the improving schools evidenced more acceptance of the concept of accountability and were further along in developing an accountability model. They accepted the MEAP tests as one indication of their effectiveness to a much greater extent than did the staff of declining schools. The latter tended to reject the relevance of the MEAP tests and made little use of these assessment devices as a reflection of their instruction. 8. In general, teachers in the improving schools were less satisfied than the staffs in the declining schools. The higher levels of reported staff satisfaction and morale in the declining schools seemed to reflect a pattern of complacency and satisfaction with the current levels of educational attainment. Conversely, staff members in the improving schools appeared more likely to experience some tension and dissatisfaction with existing conditions. 9. Differences between improving and declining schools with regard to parent involvement were not clear-cut. There was less overall parent involvement in the improving schools; however, the 12 staffs of these schools indicated their schools had higher levels of parent-initiated involvement. 10. The compensatory education program data suggested differences between improving and declining schools, but these differences might have been distorted by the fact that one of the declining schools had just initiated a compensatory education program. In general, the improving schools were not characterized by an emphasis on paraprofessional staff or heavy involvement of the regular teachers in selecting students to be placed in compensatory education programs. The declining schools had a greater number of different staff involved in reading instruction and more teacher involvement in identifying students to be placed in compensatory education programs. The regular classroom teachers in the declining schools reported spending more time planning for noncompensatory education reading activities, as well as greater emphasis on programmed instruction. W. In Brookover and Lezotte’s study, several of the characteristics of effective schools that had been identified in earlier studies were again specified. As a result, these characteristics came to be generally accepted as the critical characteristics that distinguished between improving and declining schools. The next problem researchers faced was designing a tool to measure the extent to which the identified characteristics of effective schools were, in fact, present in schools. 13 n ' h l ff 'v - Meet In an effort to enhance the effectiveness of schools in the state, Connecticut Department of Education staff created an instrument with which to measure school effectiveness. Using a theoretical model created by Gauthier in 1983, department staff began to design a research-based measurement tool that would enable school personnel to measure the extent to which identified characteristics of effective schools were present in their respective schools. Gauthier had proposed that certain research— based characteristics of school and classroom effectiveness can be influenced by school personnel to facilitate students’ growth toward mastery of basic skills. Gauthier’s model assumes that all students are capable of achieving grade-appropriate levels of skill mastery and that schools can make a measurable difference in helping students achieve such mastery. In the Connecticut School Effectiveness Project, an instructionally effective school was defined as follows: A school in which the proportion of low-income children performing below minimum (acceptable) levels of basic skill proficiency is not greater than the proportion of other children in the school who perform below such levels; and children as a total group are performing at acceptable levels of basic skill proficiency as determined by the application of a generally accepted standard. (Connecticut State Department of Education, l989, p. 2) In the Connecticut Project, school effectiveness was defined as directly relating to the presence of identifiable school-level characteristics that can be influenced by school personnel. The same definition was used in the present study. Employing the 14 research referred to earlier in this chapter, Connecticut Project staff identified the following characteristics of effective schools as those having the greatest effect on student achievement. The present researcher also focused on these characteristics. Characteristics of Effective Schools 1. Sefe and ereerlv environml. There is an orderly, pur- poseful atmosphere that is free from the threat of physical harm. The atmosphere is not oppressive and is conducive to teaching and learning. 2. gleer school mission. The school has a clearly articulated mission through which the staff shares an understanding of and a commitment, to instructional goals, priorities, assessment proce- dures, and accountability. 3. Instrgctionel leedership. The principal acts as the instructional leader who effectively communicates the school mission to the staff, parents, and students. The principal understands and applies the characteristics of instructional effectiveness in managing the instructional program of the school. 4. fligh_expee1e11en§. The school climate is one of expecta- tion; the staff believes and demonstrates that students can attain mastery of basic skills and that teachers can help students achieve such mastery. 5. i 0 nd . Teachers allocate a significant amount of classroom time to instruction in 15 basic skills. For much of that time, students are engaged in planned learning activities. 6. Ereggent monjtorjng ef stgdeet pregress. Teachers fre- quently obtain feedback on students’ academic progress. Multiple assessment methods, such as teacher-made tests, samples of student work, skill-mastery checklists, and criterion-referenced tests, are used. Test results are used to improve individual student performance and to enhance the instructional program. 7. flome-echool relations. Parents understand and support the basic mission of the school and are assured they have an important role in achieving that mission. The Connectieut School Effeerivenese Questienneire Connecticut State Department of Education personnel created the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire to measure the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in schools involved in the state’s school improvement and school effec- tiveness program. This questionnaire was designed to be adminis- tered to staff’ members in the participating schools. It was intended to measure staff members’ perceptions of the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in their particular school. The questionnaire contains 97 questions, which are grouped under the seven characteristics of effective schools listed above. Teachers’ responses to these questions are analyzed, and a summary profile for each participating school is created. The information 16 contained in the profile is discussed more fully in Chapter III. The following paragraphs contain an explanation of how the data collected with the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire will be reported in this study. onne ti mmar Pr The Summary Profile, which will be created for each participating school, will depict scale data showing aggregate responses across all items for each of the seven characteristics. The response frequencies for each point on the five-point scale will also be converted to percentages for each participating school. An Integrated Item Profile will be created for each of the seven characteristics. The distribution of response frequencies will be expressed in percentages for each item on the questionnaire. This profile will provide detailed information for each item, including its contribution to general response patterns found in the Summary Profile. Information gathered with the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire will provide important and relevant data for this study. That information will also give the participating schools an idea of the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in their schools and thus serve as a guideline for eliminating weaknesses and enhancing strengths in the overall school program. 17 The researcher relied heavily on information gathered through use of this questionnaire. Several Michigan elementary schools that had been involved for at least two years in a school improvement program employing the Effective Schools model created by Edmonds and Lezotte were invited to participate in the study. As a result, 13 schools representing several school districts in Michigan volunteered to participate. Responses to the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire constitute only one segment of the study. All participating schools were asked to have their teachers complete the questionnaire. When those data were compiled, the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools were perceived by teachers to be present in their schools was known. It was then necessary to use those data as a foundation from which other information could be gathered, to help schools involved in school improvement enhance their effectiveness. T e Chan -Faci 'tat r 1e f th P 'n i a1 School improvement is not an event; it is an ongoing process. As a process, school improvement is constantly being implemented. As it is implemented, it is a change or an innovation, in relation to what is already in place in the school. Implementing change is difficult and time consuming. According to several researchers whose work is discussed later, the success or failure of the implementation phase of any innovation in a school depends on the change-facilitator style of the building principal. 18 This theory was investigated in the present study. The researcher focused on the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools, measured with the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire, are perceived to be present in the participating schools. Next, the researcher' measured teachers’ perceptions of the change-facilitator style of the building principal. The writer’s overall purpose in the study was to determine whether a relationship existed between teachers’ perceptions of the principal’s change-facilitator style and the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools were perceived by teachers to be present in the school. At this point it is necessary to review research that has been conducted on the building principal as a change facilitator. During the 19805, several important studies were conducted to establish an understanding of the building principal’s role in relation to school effectiveness, student achievement, and teacher success in implementing educational innovations. Because the findings from these studies were remarkably similar, several characteristics of building principals’ change-facilitator style have come to be accepted as valid depictions of the building principal as a change facilitator. The specific kinds and combinations of behaviors that principals should exhibit to bring about improvement in schools have been identified in a number of studies. Researchers have. maintained that if ‘the role of ‘the building principal is critical in effecting change in schools, that role needs to be defined as precisely as possible, in order to apply 19 identified strengths and eliminate identified weaknesses in the principal’s role. W W According to Hall, Rutherford, Hard, and Huling (1984), most recent research on the building principal has focused specifically on the principal’s role as a change facilitator. Previous researchers attempted to consider all aspects of the principal’s responsibility in the school and, as a consequence, the studies were too broad to be of assistance in establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between the behaviors of the building principal and success or failure in implementing particular innovations in the school. By focusing on the principal as a change facilitator, researchers have identified certain critical principal behaviors that have a direct and measurable effect on the change-facilitation process . W Over the years, by studying the behaviors of building principals, researchers have been able to identify specific principal styles that can be used to categorize these administrators. In 1978, Thomas conducted a study involving more than 60 schools. She focused on the role of principals in managing diverse educational programs. Thomas identified three patterns or classifications of principal behavior related to the facilitation of alternative programs: director, administrator, and facilitator. 20 According to Thomas, principals who were directors maintained an active interest in all aspects of the school, from curriculum and teaching to budgeting and scheduling. They also retained final decision-making authority ‘Hl the school, although teachers contributed to decisions affecting the classroom. Administrators made decisions in areas affecting the school as a whole, leaving teachers with much autonomy in their own classrooms. These principals tended to identify with district management rather than with their own faculties. Facilitators, on the other hand, thought of themselves as colleagues of the faculty. They perceived their primary role to be supporting and assisting teachers in their work. One way they did this was to involve teachers in the decision-making process. Thomas concluded that, although many factors influenced the success or failure of the implementation of an alternative program, the principal’s leadership style appeared to be one of the most important factors. Schools with a directive or facilitative principal had greater implementation of alternative programs than did schools headed by an administrative principal. In schools that had a single alternative program (versus multiple-building programs), when strong leadership was lacking, program offerings tended to drift toward something different from what was originally intended, and teachers in the program tended to follow disparate classroom practices. Thomas also found that directive principals had more difficulty managing multi-building alternative programs than did administrators and facilitators. 21 Researeh by Hall, Rutherforg, eng erffin In their' work at the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education in Austin, Texas, Hall, Rutherford, and Griffin (1982) identified three change-facilitator styles demonstrated by building principals. These styles were very similar to those identified by Thomas and were the focus of the present study. Hall et al. identified those three change-facilitator styles as responder, manager, and initiator. The operational description of each style is given below. 1. Responders place heavy emphasis on allowing teachers and others the opportunity to take the lead. They believe their primary role is to maintain a smoothly running school by focusing on traditional administrative tasks, keeping teachers content and treating students well. They view teachers as strong professionals who are able to carry out instruction with little guidance. Responders emphasize the personal side of their relationships with teachers and others. Before making decisions, they often give everyone an opportunity to have input so as to weigh their feelings or to allow others to make the decision. A related characteristic is the tendency to make decisions in terms of immediate circumstances rather than in terms of longer-range instructional or school goals. This perhaps is due to their desire to please others and their more limited vision of how the school and staff should change. 22 2. Managers demonstrate responsive behaviors in answer to situations or people; they also initiate actions in support of the change effort. Variations in their behavior seem to be linked to their rapport with teachers and central office staff, as well as to how well they understand and accept a particular change effort. Managers work without fanfare to provide basic support to facilitate teachers’ use of an innovation. They keep teachers informed about decisions and are sensitive to teachers’ needs. 'They will defend their teachers from demands they perceive to be excessive. When they learn that the central office wants something to happen in their school, they become involved with their teachers in making it happen. Yet they do not typically initiate attempts to move beyond the basics of what is imposed. 3. Initiators have clear, decisive long-range policies and goals that transcend but include implementation of current innovations. They tend to have strong beliefs about what good schools and teaching should be like and work intensely to attain that vision. Decisions are made in relation to their goals for the school and what they believe to be best for students, based on current knowledge of classroom practice. Initiators have strong expectations for teachers, students, and themselves. They convey and monitor these expectations through frequent contacts with teachers and clear explication of how the school is to operate and how teachers are to teach. When they believe it is in the best interest of the school, particularly the students, initiators will seek changes in district programs or policies, or they will 23 reinterpret them to suit the needs of the school. Initiators are adamant but not unkind; they solicit input from staff and then make decisions in terms of school goals. 1 ‘ 1 ' n i In a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Hall and George (1988) described the process of developing a tool to measure the change-facilitator style of building principals. The first decision that needed to be made was with regard to who should complete the questionnaire. After' much deliberation, the researchers decided that the most logical people to respond to the instrument were teachers who taught in the buildings whose principals’ change-facilitator styles were to be assessed. The reasons for this decision included the fact that with teachers there would be multiple sources of information about the principal’s facilitator style. Second, teachers are daily in a position to observe and experience the principal’s facilitator style. Also, any other assessors, such as district office personnel, would not be in a position to appraise the daily emphasis of principals across a number of schools. Some individuals might have valid images, but in other districts attempting to identify the "right” person would be expensive and often impossible. Once the design decision was made, Hall and Vandenberghe worked for 12 months to develop an item pool. The items were drawn from field notes of descriptions of principal interventions, interviews with teachers, the intervention data collected in the original 24 Principal-Teacher Interaction Study, and subsequent replication studies in Australia, the United States, and Belgium. Item development began in April 1986 and continued through April 1987, at which time Hall and Vandenberghe pooled their sets of items and individually rated each item as to which dimension and pole it reflected. They then compared their individual ratings. Through this sorting process, the wording of items was refined and a consensus rating for each item was determined. In developing the items and preparing the questionnaire, careful attention was given to selecting items that would fit standard questionnaire practice. Typical errors (such as including the word "not" in an item, which would result in a double negative) were eliminated. In addition, several of Hall’s colleagues, graduate students, and others completed the prototype questionnaire to check for meaning and points of confusion in the items, the directions, and response options. It was decided that a six-point Likert-type scale (1 - Never or Not True, 2 . Rarely, 3 - Seldom, 4 - Sometimes, 5 - Often, 6 - Always or Very True) would be used to indicate teachers’ assessment of each item. In the present study, the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire was included in the survey package that was sent to every participating school, to be completed by teachers in the school. A copy of that questionnaire and the other two surveys included in the survey package may be found in the Appendix. 25 af Per e ' n rv Because this study' was administered only once in the participating schools, a third survey was included in the package for the teachers to complete. This instrument, the Staff Perception of Change Survey, was designed to stand in lieu of a pre- and post- administration of the entire survey package. The Staff Perception of Change Survey measured the extent to which teachers perceived the characteristics of effective schools to be present in the school when the school entered into its school improvement program and the extent to which the teachers perceived the characteristics to be present in the school at the time of the survey. The Staff Perception of Change Survey was intended to provide a portrayal of teachers’ perceptions of whether there had been a change in the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools were present in the school at the time the school was involved in its school improvement program. flenghis Study Will Benefit Eariieipeting Schools and Principals This study was designed to enable participating schools to use the data that are compiled regarding their school, to enhance their progress in the area of school improvement. By using the data collected with the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire, schools *will be able to use the currently perceived levels of effective school characteristics to set goals and make adjustments in their educational programs. Many schools involved in a school 26 improvement effort target goals in each of the effective school characteristic areas and then monitor’ progress toward attaining those goals. By using data collected with the Change Facilitator Style Survey, principals from the participating schools will learn which change-facilitator style their teachers perceive them to be demonstrating in the school. With that knowledge, those principals can take the necessary steps to make adjustments in their change- facilitator style if they so desire. The Staff Perception of Change Survey can also be helpful to participating schools. With the results from that survey, schools should be able to determine whether there has been a change in the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in the school. This is important because it is possible for the staff of a school involved in a school improvement program to spend much time discussing school improvement and never accomplish anything. If teachers who completed the survey accurately recorded their perceptions of the amount of change that has occurred, school personnel will know whether their efforts in the area of school improvement have been successful. m n o This study is important for several reasons. Over the years, educators have used methods in the classroom that seem to work most effectively for them. The methods they have employed might not have been the most effective ones available. Herein lies the problem. 27 Teachers historically have used methods that are comfortable for them in the classroom. This strategy essentially focuses on teaching solely as an art. Based on the fact that thousands of researchers, employing the most sophisticated research techniques, have been focusing on what works most effectively in the classroom and in the school setting, and based on the fact that these research findings are available to teachers and other educators, it is imperative that educators begin to view teaching as both an art and a science. Educators must learn what is working and what is not working to improve student achievement. One of the reasons this study is important is that it focuses on the factors researchers have identified as critical in improving the quality of educational programs. The effective schools research is important, and the characteristics that have been identified as components of effective schools can help schools improve their programs if they are incorporated into a school improvement effort. This researcher focused on the change-facilitator style of building principals as well as the characteristics of effective schools. According to Hall (1988), leadership for change in schools is important everywhere. The principal’s change-facilitator style makes a difference in teachers’ success in implementation and, as a result, student success. Being able to describe and conceptualize differences in change-facilitator styles will enable educators to help principals and their schools develop even more successful approaches to continuing school improvement. 28 This study was designed to determine whether there is a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of the change-facilitator style of the building principal and the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are perceived by teachers to be present in the school. This information is relevant to all educators and is critical to the school improvement effort. n r H t 5 Based on the literature on the areas under consideration in this study and the experiences the researcher has had during 19 years as an educator, some general hypotheses regarding the project were formulated. The three change-facilitator styles identified by Hall and his associates were listed and described above. To elaborate on the hypotheses underlying this study, it is necessary to return to those three change-facilitator styles now. Hall explained that responders place heavy emphasis on allowing teachers and others the opportunity to take the lead. They believe their primary role is to maintain a smoothly running school by focusing on traditional administrative tasks, keeping teachers content and treating students well. They view teachers as strong professionals who are able to carry out instruction with little guidance. According to Hall, responders emphasize the personal side of their relationships with teachers and others. Before they make decisions, they often give everyone an opportunity to have input so as to weigh their feelings or to allow others to make the decision. A related characteristic the responder demonstrates is the tendency 29 to make decisions in terms of immediate circumstances rather than longer-range instructional or school goals. This seems to be due, in part, to their desire to please others and in part to their limited vision of how their school and staff should change in the future. Hall and his associates said that managers represent a broad range of behaviors. They demonstrate both responsive behaviors in answer to situations or people and also initiate actions in support of the change effort. Variations in their behavior seem to be linked to their rapport with teachers and central office staff, as well as how well they understand and accept a particular change effort. Managers tend to work without fanfare to provide basic support to facilitate teachers’ use of an innovation. They keep teachers informed about decisions and are sensitive to teachers’ needs. They will defend their teachers from what are perceived as excessive demands. When they learn that the central office wants something to happen in their school, they become involved with teachers in making it happen. Yet they do not typically initiate attempts to move beyond the basics of what is imposed. Hall explained that initiators have clear, decisive long-range policies and goals that transcend but include implementation of current innovations. They tend to have strong beliefs about what good schools and teaching should be like and work intensely to attain this vision. Hall said that initiators’ decisions are made in relation to their goals for the school and in terms of what they 30 believe to be best for students, which is based on current knowledge of classroom practice. Initiators have strong expectations for students, teachers, and themselves. They convey and monitor these expectations through frequent contacts with teachers and clear explication of how the school is to operate and how teachers are to teach. When they believe it is in the best interest of their school, and particularly the students, initiators will seek changes in district programs or policies, or they will reinterpret them to suit the needs of the school. According to Hall, initiators are adamant but not unkind; they solicit input from staff and then make decisions in terms of school goals. With these definitions in mind, the first general hypothesis of the study is that principals who are perceived by teachers as responders will administer schools in which teachers perceive a lower extent of presence of the characteristics of effective schools than in schools where teachers perceive principals to be either managers. or initiators. The second general hypothesis is that schools in which teachers perceive principals to be managers will have a higher perceived extent of presence of the characteristics of effective schools than schools with responders as principals, but a smaller perceived extent of presence of the characteristics than schools with initiators as principals. The third general hypothesis is that schools in which the principal is perceived by teachers to be an initiator will have the highest perceived extent of presence of the characteristics of effective schools. 31 These general hypotheses were tested during the course of this study, employing 21 null hypotheses focusing on every change- facilitator style and also on every characteristic of effective schools. The findings of this project will be based on a comparison of the perceived change-facilitator style of the building principal and the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are perceived to be present in the school. Aseumptione and Clarificatien The researcher assumed that teachers involved in this study were familiar with the characteristics of effective schools. ‘This assumption was made, based on the fact that all 13 schools included in the study had been involved in the Effective Schools model school improvement process for at least two years. This study was based entirely on teacher perceptions. It needs to be pointed out that perception is not necessarily reality. It also needs to be mentioned that if the perceptions of other persons in the 13 schools involved in the study had been solicited, the findings might not have been the same. For instance, principals might have perceived themselves to be demonstrating a different change-facilitator style than teachers perceived them to be demonstrating. In addition, the change-facilitator style of principals might, to a certain extent, be situational. That is, a particular principal might demonstrate any or all of the three change- 32 facilitator styles when faced with situations that require varying administrative responses. Two of the questionnaires used in this study have been validated and are recognized as credible survey tools. They are the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire and the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire. The third questionnaire, the Staff Perception of Change Survey, was designed specifically for this study and, as a consequence, was not previously validated. In this study, the researcher focused on teachers’ perceptions of the change-facilitator style of the principal and teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools were present in the school. The writer did not focus on student outcomes, which are the ultimate~ measure of a school’s effectiveness. The researcher recognizes that student outcomes are critical to the school-improvement process. When the school improves, student outcomes will improve. Without improved student outcomes, a school’s school-improvement efforts have failed. Student outcomes were not included as a focus of this study, simply because the scope was already comprehensive enough. In the recomended-research section of Chapter V, additional research on student outcomes is recommended. In the following chapter, literature relevant to the study is reviewed. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The body of literature on school improvement is extensive and growing. Hundreds of articles and books on the broad topic of school improvement and on many more specific subjects encompassed within school improvement are available for consideration. To place the current study in proper perspective in relation to other available literature, several articles and books were reviewed for discussion in this chapter. The literature that proved to be most relevant to the study was published primarily in Egueetienel W. The four major topics examined in this chapter are school culture, school improvement, effective schools, and effective school principals. School Culture "Cglture and School Performanee" In ”Culture and School Performance,” Deal and Kennedy (1983) examined characteristics that lead to organizational effectiveness. Before focusing on the culture of schools, the authors examined successful companies to determine which characteristics specifically contributed to their organizational success. 33 34 To provide the reader with a framework in which to place the identified characteristics, Deal and Kennedy defined culture. They indicated that culture is "an informal understanding of the ’way we do things around here’ or what keeps the herd moving roughly west." They went on to explain that "the elements of culture are shared values and beliefs, heroes and heroines, rituals and ceremonies, and an informal network of priests and priestesses, storytellers, spies, and gossips” (p. 14). Deal and Kennedy identified shared values and beliefs as the most important aspect of culture. They cited several successful companies to illustrate the importance of culture in an organization. In focusing on International Business Machines (IBM), the authors pointed out that service is the value around which IBM’s immense success was established. The IBM motto, "Our Business Is Service," is the value that serves as a motivational force at all levels of the corporate structure, from the ”corporate suite to the sales force or shop floor" (Deal & Kennedy, 1983, p. 14). In the companies Deal and Kennedy used as examples, visionaries within the company structure created the values around which everything else revolves. These people, like Tom Watson of IBM and Ray Kroc of McDonalds, became the heroes and heroines of their respective companies. The beliefs and values they demonstrate become ‘the beliefs and values that are ultimately emulated and reinforced by others in the company. When employees demonstrate these values, successful companies celebrate the accomplishment and reinforce it in award ceremonies attended by other employees. 35 Deal and Kennedy cited several successful organizations that have created cultures that provide "direction, motivation, and support in human institutions” (p. 15). According to the authors, Caterpillar, McDonalds, IBM, Proctor and Gamble, Tandem, General Electric, Johnson and Johnson, and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing have one common characteristic: ”They have strong cultures, which include shared values, heroes and heroines, rituals and ceremonies and a vibrant informal network" (p. 15). Deal and Kennedy also discussed the importance of culture to the school improvement, process. 'They viewed the importance of culture from two perspectives: internal and external. Considering the importance of culture from an internal perspective, the authors pointed out that unless a culture is established that relates specifically to the beliefs and values of the school, there will be confusion. Teachers and students need to know what is expected of them and how their individual efforts relate to schoolwide endeavors. Without a strong culture in place to give direction, various subcultures will develop which focus on parochial considerations. In essence, people may end up pulling in different directions. In such a circumstance, according to Deal and Kennedy, beliefs, standards, motivation, effort, consistency, and other essential ingredients of teaching and learning will be negatively affected. From an external perspective, the authors pointed out that having a strong culture in a school is very important. They wrote: 36 Schools are judged by appearance as much as by results. Internal squabbling, mixed signals, unfavorable stories, and a lack of tangible evidence that a school stands for something special, make it difficult to secure the faith and support of external groups. (p. 15) Deal and Kennedy mentioned some things educational leaders can do to ascertain what type of culture is in place in a particular school and how to begin building a culture that provides the direction necessary to improve the school’s educational program. They suggested that the building principal begin by ”mapping" the school culture. They said the principal should: . . . ask parents, students, and teachers what the school really stands for. Solicit stories about the school or school- related events. Note how people spend their time and what they pay attention to. How much time do people spend in meetings, and what is discussed? What do students do at recess and after school? What happens at P.T.A. meetings and parents’ nights? Who are the heroes and heroines, and what values do they represent? What kinds of metaphors are used frequently in daily conversation? What does the school building say about the school? Who plays what role in the cultural network? What’s posted on the classroom walls or written on restroom walls? It is imperative that the principal map the existing culture in the school and then establish precisely which aspects of the culture are encouraging and which are hindering educational performance. (p. 15) According to Deal and Kennedy, cultures evolve through human interaction. Cultural patterns can be created that provide the necessary direction for a school to improve its program and continue to adjust and improve. Cultures can become weak or inappropriate, but they can also be revised and reinforced. According to this article, principals need to "reflect the desired values in everyday speech and behavior” (p. 15). They also need to "anoint heroes and heroines among teachers, students and parents who exemplify these values” (p. 15). They need to set aside 37 time in faculty meetings to talk about values and philosophy, and publicly recognize teachers who have demonstrated the values and beliefs of the school culture. Deal and Kennedy recommended that the principal use every available opportunity to focus on the values and beliefs of the school. In so doing, the culture of the school can be transformed to one that "will yield dividends in learning, achievement, morale, personal growth, and other indicators of school performance" (p. 15). ” d d w in t 1 ur ” In "Good Seeds Grow in Strong Cultures," Saphier and King (1985) focused on the importance of the school culture in the school improvement process. They began by identifying four elements that are critical to school improvement: (a) the strengthening of teachers’ skills, (b) systematic renovation of the curriculum, (c) improvement of the organization, and (d) involvement of parents and citizens in responsible school-community partnerships. The authors explained that, for school improvement to occur, a school culture that includes these four elements needs to be in place. The absence of any of these elements will undermine the entire school improvement. process. To support this contention, Saphier and King quoted an article in which Purkey and Smith (1982) stated: We have argued that an academically effective school is distinguished by its culture: a structure, process, and climate of values and norms that channel staff and students in the direction of successful teaching and learning. The logic 38 of the cultural model is such that it points to increasing the organizational effectiveness of a school building and is neither grade level nor curriculum specific. (p. 68) Saphier and King also noted: If certain norms of school culture are strong, improvements in instruction will be significant, continuous, and widespread; if these norms are weak, improvements will be at best infrequent, random and slow. They will depend on the unsupported energies of' hungry self-starters and be confined to individual classrooms over short periods of time. The best workshops or ideas brought in from the outside will have little effect. In short, good seeds will not grow in weak cultures. (p. 67) Saphier and King identified 12 cultural norms that affect school improvement. These norms constitute a structure of beliefs and values that provide direction for the schools that use them, and are similar to the characteristics of effective schools. It is not essential that schools attempting to engage in school improvement employ the Effective Schools model to accomplish positive results. It is, however, essential that a culture of values and beliefs that supply direction be in place or school improvement efforts will not be successful. The norms identified by Saphier and King are as follows: l. 011 i 't . Collegiality essentially means that the professional staff help each other. They plan special projects together, focus on curriculum needs together, and share ideas with each other to improve individually and collectively. 2. fixeerimeetetiee. Teachers are encouraged to experiment with new ideas, and even if the experiment fails, they are rewarded for trying. 39 3. W. Teachers and administrators are held accountable for high performance, which is measured through evaluation. High performance is rewarded, and anything less is sanctioned. All professional staff are encouraged to continue to grow through staff development. Emphasis is placed on enhancing the potential of all professional-staff members. By enhancing these individuals’ potential, the school’s ability to improve its educational program will also be improved. 4. [rget end confidence. 'Teachers’ professional judgment is recognized and respected. They are given the discretion to use the methods and materials they believe will be most effective for them. 5. Tangible eupport. Teachers attempting to improve their instruction receive help from administrators and other teachers. There is also a commitment to provide teachers with the resources they need to bring innovative methods and materials into their classrooms. 6. h' th nowled . Much literature is available on successful classroom practices, and this literature can be used to achieve new levels of success in schools. In schools in which using the data base is a cultural norm, teachers are learning new methods by turning to the literature. In so doing, they are expanding their potential and that of their schools. 7. Aeereeietiee_eng_reeegnit1en. Teachers are recognized for their efforts and achievements in the classroom and the school. The authors suggested that teacher recognition should be a regular 4O feature of school committee meetings, P.T.A. luncheons, and end-of- the-year events for faculty and staff. Principals might put a note in teachers’ mailboxes to recognize praiseworthy efforts and accomplishments. In essence, behavior that promotes the cultural norms is reinforced, morale is enhanced, and those receiving the praise are rejuvenated; this enthusiasm tends to be contagious. 8. Caring, eelebratien, ene humor. Staff' should be given opportunities to get together and learn more about each other. According to Saphier and King, sharing laughter and humor with each other is very satisfying. 9. Involvement in decision IN. The authors recommended involving staff in the decision-making process, especially those decisions that directly affect them and/or their students. Participation in decision making is also a major component of the Effective Schools model. 10. Ereteetion ef whet’e importent. It is important to protect teachers’ instructional and planning time. One way to do this is to keep meetings and paperwork to a minimum. Memos and personal conversations between teachers and the principal can replace many unnecessary meetings. 11. lreditiene. Activities such as trips and special projects that are repeated from year to year give staff and students special events to anticipate during the school year. 12. n mm i . Staff input should be solicited and encouraged. People need to feel free to disagree, discuss, confront, and resolver matters constructively. No one 41 should think his/her esteem will be negatively influenced because of sharing his/her perceptions of a school situation. Saphier and King’s article illustrates the importance of school culture in making schools desirable workplaces. If the cultural norms, values, or beliefs are strong, ”the school will not only be attractive, it will be energized and constantly improving" (p. 74). " hi nd cell nc in h o in " In "Leadership and Excellence in Schooling," Sergiovanni (1984) discussed the importance of‘ culture in schools. He said that schools that lack a clearly defined culture tend to be characterized by confusion and inefficiency in operation and malaise in human climate. In such schools, student achievement also tends to be lower than in schools that have a clearly defined culture. Sergiovanni focused on the role of the leader in effective organizations. He said one of the leader’s major responsibilities is "purposing," which he defined as the "continuous stream of actions by an organization’s formal leadership which has the effect of inducing clarity, consensus, and commitment regarding the organization’s basic purposes" (p. 6). All persons who function in an organizational structure desire a sense of order and direction. When these aspects are provided in the school setting, teachers and students tend to respond with increased work motivation and commit- ment. Sergiovanni stressed the importance of leadership in the successful organization. Leaders are responsible fOr creating and 42 communicating a vision of the I'desired state of affairs” for the organization (p. 7). After that vision has been formulated, the successful leader induces commitment on the part of organization members to achieve that desired state of affairs. Leaders must articulate the school purpose and mission, socialize new members into the culture, and reinforce myths, traditions, and beliefs that explain "the way things operate around here" (p. 8). The leader is also responsible for rewarding those who reflect the defined culture and strive to achieve the desired outcome. According to Sergiovanni: The net effect of the cultural force of leadership is to bond together students, teachers, and others as believers in the work of the school. Indeed, the school and its purposes are somewhat revered as if they resembled an ideological system dedicated to a sacred mission. As persons become members of this strong and binding culture, they are provided with opportunities for enjoying a special sense of personal importance and significance. Their work and their lives take on a new importance, one characterized by richer meanings, an expanded sense of identity, and a feeling of belonging to something specia1--all highly motivating conditions. (p. 8) The culture of schools is actually ”constructed reality" (Ser- giovanni, 1984, p. 9). The leader’s role in creating that reality is a key factor in determining whether the culture is a success. Sergiovanni asserted, ”The more understood, accepted and cohesive the culture of a school, the better able it is to move in concert toward ideals it holds and objectives it wishes to pursue” (p. 8). Summit The articles reviewed in this section share a common theme that is relevant to the present study. The authors explained that 43 without a strong culture in place, schools will lack the direction necessary to provide sound educational programs and to enter into successful school improvement projects. The school culture provides a source of meaning and significance for teachers, students, administrators, and others as they work within the school setting. Sehoel Imprevemeht ”In the Aftermath ef Excellenee" In this article, Boyer (1985) examined the status of school improvement efforts in the United States and made several recommendations with regard to such efforts. The movement for school improvement came about as a response to the 1983 report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, which stated, in essence, that schools in the United States were not doing a good job of“ educating ,young people. Students were not being adequately prepared to compete nationally or internationally. Claims made in the National Commission report made the American public uncomfortable about the nation’s educational system. A primary' concern was that other countries, such as Japan, were surpassing the United States in the quality of education provided to their young people. Realizing that a problem existed in American educational programs, people in positions of authority began issuing mandates for change. Boyer expressed his concern that, in the search for school improvement, the emphasis would be (“1 regulation rather than renewal. He saw a danger of local schools being bypassed as statewide mandates were imposed. 44 Boyer said that as educators became concerned with school improvement, they looked for direction to American industry and what successful companies were doing to achieve success. One tactic successful businesspeople were using was to involve workers at all levels of the organizational structure in the decision-making process. Boyer' pointed out that, whereas American industry is encouraging "more responsible involvement of the workers, the public sector seems to have it just the other way around. . . . We are still trying to fix education from the top, and in the process, imposing more bureaucracy and control" (p. 11). As a result, “we may be shaping unwittingly a bureaucratic education model that leaves teachers and principals more accountable, but less empowered. In the process, they will be blamed for the failure of design prob- lems dictated unilaterally from above" (p. 11). Boyer emphasized the importance to school improvement of involving principals and teachers in the decision-making process. Such participation is an important aspect of the Effective Schools model. " i hu n Sc 1 m rov men ” Donaldson (1985) focused on school improvement as a process rather than an event. If a school were to establish a particular criterion for excellence and then achieve that criterion, and fail to set new goals and establish new criteria for excellence, it would not remain excellent for long. According to Donaldson, excellence is not a state of being, but rather a state of becoming. He pointed 45 out that the "excellence of a school lies in how its internal processes work to constantly improve its performance" (p. 4). Donaldson said that teaching must be redesigned to focus on four functions: (a) studying students, (b) creating tailored learning experiences, (c) evaluating long-term school effects, and (d) advocating diversity. To create a truly professional teaching culture, he asserted, all of these functions must be incorporated. These elements are also stressed in the Effective Schools model. "The Vision of an Insider: A Brectitioner’s View" Dombart (1985) provided a teacher’s perspective on the manner in which change takes place in schools. She pointed out that although current research on school improvement and the implementation of change in other organizations has stressed the importance of involving persons at all levels of the organizational structure, participatory management is not a reality in schools. Teachers are rarely asked for their opinions about conditions in the school; when they share an unsolicited opinion, they are often punished for "making waves" and are regarded by administrators as "bad teachers" (p. 71). Dombart was concerned that the recently established task forces, study teams, and top-level commissions that have been created to study schools and recommend changes to improve the quality of educational programs have not included classroom teachers. In most cases, the members of these task forces and 46 commissions comprise university professors, foundation administra- tors, and research assistants. According to Dombart, if teachers continue to be overlooked, they will ”retain the aura of powerless- ness and invisibility” (p. 72) that has come to define teachers’ perception of their status in the schools. Dombart’s article is important to the present study because she illustrated the need for teacher involvement in the school improvement process. This valuable and accessible resource should not be wasted. The Effective Schools model of school improvement incorporates this concept. "On School Improvement in Pittsburgh; A Cenyersatien With Richerd Walleee" This article is a report of Brandt’s (1987) conversation with Richard Wallace, Superintendent of the Pittsburgh Schools, about school improvement in that system. Brandt focused on how key school improvement concepts were applied in the school system, rather than merely discussing the theory regarding how these concepts might be used in an actual school improvement effort. When Wallace was appointed superintendent, one of the first projects he undertook was a comprehensive needs assessment, which involved representatives of several groups in the district. Community leaders, school employees, board of education members, and parents of public and private school students were surveyed to determine the problems they believed existed in the schools. Once the problems were identified, Wallace shared the results with the board of education and asked them to highlight problems they 47 believed required inmediate attention. The board identified three priorities that needed to be addressed inmediately: (a) improving student achievement, (b) improving the quality of personnel evaluation, and (c) managing enrollment decline. After the board identified improving student achievement as its first priority, Wallace took the next step, which he maintained is very important to the school improvement process. He selected a group of teachers representing a cross-section of the curriculum and asked them to identify the 20 most important learning outcomes in their academic disciplines at each grade level. After the teachers had reached consensus about these learning outcomes, the other teachers in the district were given an opportunity to review the identified outcomes. After the teachers collectively identified the learning outcomes they believed to be the most important, the teacher task force was dismissed. Next, another group of teachers was recruited to identify the criteria they believed would indicate that the outcomes identified by the task force had been achieved. These criteria were then taken to the entire teaching staff to reach consensus. The second teacher group was then dismissed. A third group of teachers was next recruited to identify the instructional materials necessary for teachers to achieve the objectives thus far identified. A list of the materials they specified was then presented to the entire teaching staff for their CODSBI‘ISUS . 48 Representatives of all three of the teacher groups that had been involved in identifying key information were convened to focus on developing a plan for implementing the program. 'This plan included the teacher training that would be needed to prepare them to implement the newly created educational program. The key to the success of the Pittsburgh school improvement effort was the emphasis placed on participation of the teachers who would ultimately be teaching the new program. The literature reviewed thus far has addressed the importance of creating ownership in the employees who will ultimately be required to implement the changes in the Workplace. In Pittsburgh, the teachers were involved in the process from its inception. In essence, they created the educational program. The Effective Schools model stresses the importance of teacher participation, as well as the importance of consensus decision making in establishing district priorities. In this model, consensus decision making is viewed as the most logical and productive means of accomplishing school improvement. Pittsburgh Superintendent Wallace also emphasized the importance of establishing high expectations for student achievement, another characteristic of effective schools. In addition, the district frequently monitors student progress on all objectives, another aspect of the Effective Schools model. 49 ” rm xa ' In this article, Brandt (1985) discussed some of the problems that are arising in states that have mandated change in their educational programs without involving teachers in identifying which areas of the program need change. He focused on Texas, where Ross Perot, a billionaire executive, donated his time to serve as head of a state-appointed commission to improve education in the state. Members of the commission visited Texas schools and listened to testimony regarding the condition of public education in the state. After collecting sufficient data, the commissioners reported their findings to the Governor, who then worked with Perot to pass legislation to remedy the problems the commission had identified. The resulting legislation, House Bill 72, known as the Educational Reform Act, required thorough appraisals of teachers and administrators, created a career ladder for teachers based on those appraisals, provided for public schooling for four year olds who needed it, demanded that students be promoted only if they scored 70% or better on tests measuring grade-level objectives, and provided tutoring for students who did not pass. Brandt pointed out the growing problem of changes being imposed on the educational system by outside forces, including state legis- latures. Brandt contrasted Perot’s leadership style in business and his leadership technique in changing public education in Texas. In business, he avoided "bureaucratic restrictions and [gave] his employees trust and responsibility” (p. 94). Yet as head of the state-appointed commission to reform public education, Perot 50 demonstrated complete disregard for the teachers and administrators who constitute the educational work force. He disregarded their input and could not understand why they did not enthusiastically support the legislation resulting from the comission’s efforts. Brandt noted that persons from outside the field of education should not be excluded from school improvement efforts, but rather they should work with educators in a combined undertaking to enhance the educational offering. "Commeh Senee" Sizer (1985) also focused in the process of school improvement. In this article he examined the length of time required to implement a school improvement program. He wrote: School improvement cannot come about quickly nor can it be hurried by a rush of mandates. It requires a slow and determined effort, reflected in sound policies and patience. A good school does not emerge like a prepackaged frozen dinner stuck for 15 seconds in a radar range; it develops from the slow simmering of carefully blended ingredients. (p. 22) The Effective Schools model recognizes the importance of a long-ternl school improvement, effort. Schools are encouraged to establish three- to five-year school improvement programs in which goals are established and strategies devised to accomplish those goals. When goals are accomplished, new goals are formulated. Thus, the Effective Schools model is one of internal renewal, which is carried out through a process of incremental adjustments. As Sizer wrote, it takes time and patience for a school improvement program to be successful. 51 ff 1 ” ffe iv h 01 r the Urban P ' In this article, Edmonds (1979) outlined the development of the Effective Schools model of school improvement. He began by stating his belief that children of the poor have been receiving an inferior education primarily because they are poor. 'Inequity in American education," he wrote, "derives first and foremost from our failure to educate the children of the poor” (p. 20). He pointed out that many early researchers (Coleman, 1966; Jensen, 1969) concluded that poor children’s low achievement derived principally from inherent disabilities characterizing the poor. He then went on to summarize research in which findings regarding the learning potential of poor children contradicted the results of these traditional studies. The first study that contradicted the standard line of thinking on this subject was performed by Weber in 1971. Weber studied four inner-city schools in which poor' children’s reading achievement exceeded the national norm. To determine why poor children were performing well in these schools and not in others, Weber looked for characteristics in the four schools that might distinguish them from typical schools in which poor children were performing inadequately. He found that all four schools had strong leadership, which involved the principal’s setting the tone for the school. The principals helped teachers decide on instructional strategies and were involved in organizing and distributing the school’s resources. Teachers and administrators had high expectations for student achievement; these 52 expectations were for all students, regardless of their families’ economic status. All four schools had an orderly, relatively quiet and pleasant atmosphere. Emphasis was placed on pupils’ acquisition of reading skills, and students’ progress was frequently monitored. The significance of Weber’s study is that, for the first time, a researcher had shown that all students could be taught, regardless of their families’ background or economic status. Weber showed that excuses that had typically been used to justify the failure to teach the children of the poor were no longer valid. Edmonds also discussed a 1974 study conducted by the State of New York’s Office of Education Performance Review. The focus of this study was on two inner-city schools, both serving predominantly poor student populations. In one school, student achievement was high; in the other, it was low. In analyzing the characteristics that distinguished the two schools, certain of Weber’s findings were confirmed. In the New York study, it was feund that the differences in student performance in the two schools resulted from factors under the schools’ control. Administrative behavior, policies, and practice appeared to have a significant influence on school effectiveness. In the more effective school, administrators demonstrated a balance between being managers and being instructional leaders. The administrative team in the more effective school not only recognized that reading achievement was a key determinant of overall school success, but they also had created 53 and implemented a plan for dealing with the schoolwide reading problem. In the less effective school, professional staff tended to blame poor student achievement on factors beyond their immediate control. The teachers had blamed everything but themselves for poor student achievement. In essence, students in the less effective school were performing poorly partly because their teachers expected that of them. Edmonds also cited a 1976 study by Madden, Lawson, and Sweet, involving 21 pairs of elementary schools in California. The researchers selected these schools because of the similarities of the students enrolled in them. The primary difference between the schools was in the area of student achievement. Madden et al. focused on identifying specific characteristics that differentiated the higher-achieving from the lower-achieving schools. Their findings were similar to those of Weber and the New York study. The researchers found that teachers at the higher-achieving schools, as compared to those at the lower-achieving schools, reported that their principals provided them with more support. Teachers in the higher-achieving schools were more task oriented and demonstrated a better understanding of the principles of learning. Also, in the higher-achieving schools, there was more evidence of an ongoing monitoring of student progress. In these schools there appeared to be a higher level of student effort, happier children, and an atmosphere that was generally more conducive to learning than 54 that in the lower-achieving schools. Teachers in the higher- achieving schools reported more satisfaction with various aspects of their work than did teachers in the lower-achieving schools. Edmonds indicated that the California study is notable because of its ”reinforcement of leadership, expectations, atmosphere and instructional emphasis as consistently essential institutional determinants of pupil performance" (p. 23). In relation to the current study, Madden et al.’s research confirmed that schools in which student achievement is high have certain characteristics that distinguish them from schools with lower levels of student achievement. In developing the Effective Schools model, Edmonds relied on the findings Brookover' and Lezotte gleaned from their study on "Changes in School Characteristics Coincident With Changes in Stu- dent Achievement" (1977). The characteristics of effective schools that are a major focus in the present study came about as a result of Brookover and Lezotte’s work. Using data gathered through the Michigan Educational Testing Program (MEAP), discussed in Chapter I of this dissertation, Brookover and Lezotte attempted to identify the primary differences between improving and declining schools. Six of the eight schools included in their study were improving, and two were declining. In addition to using the MEAP test data, the researchers had interviewers conduct interviews and administer’ questionnaires in these schools. The following findings of Brookover and Lezotte’s study are of particular importance to the current research: 55 l. The improving schools differed from the declining schools in the emphasis their staffs placed on accomplishing basic reading and mathematics objectives. 2. There was a clear contrast in teachers’ and principals’ evaluations of pupils in the improving and declining schools. Teachers in the improving schools tended to believe that all their students could master the basic objectives and tended to report higher' and increasing levels of student abilityu In contrast, teachers in the declining schools believed that students’ ability levels were low; therefore, they could not master even the basic objectives. 3. Staff members in the improving schools had higher expectations for the future educational accomplishments of their students. In contrast, staff members in the declining schools were much less likely to believe that their students would complete high school or college. 4. Teachers and principals in the improving schools were much more likely to assume responsibility for teaching the basic reading and math skills and were more committed to such instruction. In declining schools, teachers believed there was not much they could do to influence students’ achievement. They tended to place responsibility for skill learning on the parents or the students themselves. 5. There was a clear difference in the principal’s role in the improving and declining schools. In the former, the principal 56 was more likely to be an instructional leader, more assertive in his/her institutional leadership role, more of a disciplinarian, and assumed responsibility for evaluating students’ achievement of basic objectives. Principals in the declining schools appeared to be permissive and to emphasize informal and collegial relationships with the teachers. They placed more emphasis on general public relations and less stress on evaluation of the school’s effectiveness in providing students with a basic education. 6. Staff in the improving schools showed greater acceptance of the concept of accountability and were further along in developing an accountability model. They accepted the MEAP tests as one indication of their effectiveness to a much greater degree than did the staff in declining schools. The latter tended to reject the relevance of the MEAP tests and made little use of these assessment devices in evaluating their instruction. 7. In general, teachers in the improving schools were less satisfied than those in the declining schools. The higher level of satisfaction and morale in the declining schools seemed to reflect complacency and satisfaction with current levels of educational attainment. In contrast, staff in the improving schools were more likely to express dissatisfaction with the existing condition. In summing up his research on the characteristics of effective schools, Edmonds concluded that: In and of itself, pupil family background neither causes nor precludes elementary school instructional effectiveness. Our findings strongly recommend that all schools be held responsible for effectively teaching basic school skills to all children. (p. 25) 57 ” r win e f t'v 1 r c rove n " In this article, Lezotte and Bancroft (1985) focused on some of the key ingredients of the Effective Schools model of school improvement. They explained that some criticism had been directed at the Effective Schools model because it seemed to be used only in large inner-city schools with multicultural student populations and had not been tested in school districts outside the inner-city setting. In addressing this criticism, the authors pointed out that the model has been implemented in districts of various sizes and demographic configurations and has been helpful in improving educational programs. The Effective Schools model was created with the local school as the site where improvement efforts would take place. Site-based decision making, at the school building level, is a major strength of the model. Lezotte and Bancroft indicated that schools using the model have several things in common. First, the individual building is the strategic unit being targeted for improvement. These schools also have a school improvement team that includes teachers and administrators who work in the school and parents whose children attend the school. Team members work together to identify strengths and weaknesses of the school and to create strategies for eliminating the weaknesses and expanding on the strengths. The Effective Schools model of school improvement is designed to involve schools in long-term improvement efforts, usually from three to five years. During this time, the school team establishes 58 goals and works toward achieving them. When the initial school improvement program concludes, the school enters the next phase of the program, which is another long-term improvement effort. Thus, school improvement is an ongoing process. According to Lezotte and Bancroft, schools involved in a school improvement effort using the Effective Schools model have accepted the following premises as the foundation for their long-term project: 1. School improvement based on effective schools research begins with the belief that "the primary purpose of schooling is teaching and learning" (p. 26). School personnel must be prepared to modify any patterns and practices that do not support that pur- pose. 2. Progress in the area of school improvement is assessed in terms of student outcomes. Educators need to ask themselves which outcomes they care most about and decide which indicators they will use to determine whether those outcomes are being achieved. 3. The method the school district chooses to assess student outcomes accurately reflects the educational outcomes the school or school district cares most about. A process for thorough measurement of student progress needs to be devised, and frequent monitoring of student progress needs to take place to determine where adjustments need to be made in the educational program. 4. To be effective, a school’s educational program must demonstrate both quality and equity. According to Lezotte and 59 Bancroft, two outcome standards need to be in place in effective schools. First, students’ overall level of achievement on the outcome measures should be high enough to indicate acceptable mastery of the essential curriculum. Second, subsets of students, such as minorities, boys, girls, or socioeconomically disadvantaged youngsters, should not be achieving at a significantly lower level than other students in the school. 5. ”Quality and equity are achieved and maintained only when the school improvement effort has been designed to accrue benefits for all students." It is important to understand the major premises and assumptions underlying the implementation of a school improvement program using the Effective Schools model. In this article, Lezotte and Bancroft established important ground rules to guide schools engaging in such a program. " n redient f a c s 1 ch 01 Effeetiveneee Erejeet" McCormack-Larkin (1985) described in detail the implementation of an Effective Schools model of school improvement in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Eighteen of the lowest achieving schools in the system had been directed to improve student achievement levels in reading, math, and language skills--without additional staff or expenditures. All of these schools were located in the inner city and served predominantly low-income and minority students. The 18 schools entered the mandated school improvement effort, and after five years all of them had significantly improved student achievement. 60 McCormack-Larkin indicated that this improvement was a result of the schools’ implementation of the "essential elements of effective schools" (identical to the characteristics of effective schools that were the focus in this study). However, these charac- teristics were expanded to insure a common level of understanding and application across all 18 participating schools. The essential elements are as follows (p. 32): 01th SCHOOL CLIMATE Strong sense of academic mission. High expectations conveyed to all students. Strong sense of student identification and affiliation. High level of professional collegiality among staff. Ongoing recognition of personal and academic excellence. CURRICULUM Grade-level expectations and standards in reading, math, and language. Planning and monitoring for full content coverage. INSTRUCTION Efficient classroom management through a structured learning learning environment. Academic priority evidenced in an increased amount of allocated time. Key instructional behaviors (review and homework check, develop- mental lesson, process/product check, actively monitored seat- work, related homework assignment). Direct instruction as the main pedagogical approach. Maximizing academic engaged time (time on task). 61 Use of the accelerated learning approach (planning for more than one year’s growth). Reading, math, and language instruction beginning at the kinder- garten level. COORDINATION OF SUPPORTIVE SERVICES Instructional approach, curriculum content and materials of supplementary instructional services coordinated with the class- room program. Pullout approach used only if it does not fragment the classroom instructional program, does not result in lower expectations for some students, and does not interfere with efforts to maximize the use of time. EVALUATION Frequent assessment of student progress on a routine basis. Precise and informative report card with emphasis on acquisition of basic school skills. Serious attitude toward test taking as an affirmation of indi- vidual accomplishment. Test-taking preparation and skills. PARENT AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT Regular and consistent communication with parents. Clearly defined homework policy that is explained to students and parents. Emphasis on the importance of regular school attendance. Clear communication to parents regarding the school’s expecta- tions related to behavioral standards. Increasing awareness of community services available to reinforce and extend student learning. 62 Although all 18 schools in the Milwaukee school improvement project increased their students’ achievement, some of those schools evidenced exceptional rates of gain in achievement. These schools made noteworthy changes in the following four categories: Change; in eteff ettitgee. The staff developed an attitude that reflected their belief that every student in the school, regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or past academic performance, could learn. All students could be taught, and all could achieve. Once the staff developed this positive attitude about students’ potential, they came to realize that as teachers they could make a difference in their students’ achievement. Inservice activities that focused on the educability of all children helped effect this change in staff attitude, and research was made available to teachers that highlighted other schools’ successes in educating poor children. h n ' ho man emen ad r n’ a 'on. Many changes were made in the way in which the participating schools were administered. Principals assumed the responsibility of being instructional leaders in their schools, and in so doing they were able to influence the total school program. As instructional leaders they had an opportunity to interact with principals from other schools that were involved in school improvement programs; this interaction helped them realize the importance of understanding curriculum and effective instructional practices. In addition, principals began to practice participatory management strategies. They involved teachers in identifying problems in current school 63 programs and in creating plans to eliminate those difficulties. They began to involve teachers in all important decisions relevant to the school. The essential elements of effective schools were incorporated into the schools’ improvement plans. Teams were assigned the responsibility for making plans for improvement in each of the essential elements, and those plans were taken back to the entire staff for discussion, modification, and adoption. Here again, the process was a participatory one. In addition, teachers began to recognize the interrelatedness of what they were individually attempting to accomplish in their classrooms; as a result, they joined forces to tackle mutual concerns. Principals emphasized the need for teachers at various grade levels to work. on programs cooperatively. Teachers also created behavioral expectations for the students and collectively agreed to reinforce these expectations. The principal shared the behavioral expectations with the students at an opening-day assembly, and the teachers went over the expectations in the classroom. From then on, the entire staff made it their business to reinforce these behaviors. Chehgee_1h_eehee1_preetiee§_ehe_pe11e1e§. In the schools where student achievement improved most markedly, great emphasis was placed on academics. If it was discovered that students were not achieving certain educational objectives, adjustments were made in the manner in which these objectives were being taught. The focus 64 was always on improving students’ grasp of basic skills, particularly in reading, math, and language arts. In these schools, high expectations were established for student achievement, and students’ progress in meeting these expectations was frequently monitored. In this way, teachers were able to determine what was working and what was not working in the classroom and to adjust their teaching strategies until they discovered the most effective methods for their students. Another key to the success of the school improvement project in these schools was the emphasis on homework. Students and their parents were informed that homework would be assigned and that it must be completed. When students failed to complete the assigned homework, they were retained during recess, at lunch, and after school until it was finished. With regard to completion of homework, no flexibility was demonstrated. han ' a r o r 'c . After teachers had identified the grade-level objectives students would be expected to master, these objectives were incorporated into units of instruction. Lessons were highly structured, even to the extent of including key instructional behaviors for the classroom teacher. Teachers explained that the highly structured instructional format minimized the incidence of disruptive behavior during class and increased students’ academic engagement time. 65 W Wheels: Mortimore and Samons (1987) described a study involving 50 elementary schools in London, England. Schools in which student achievement was high were compared with those in which achievement was low. The researchers’ purpose was to determine which factors distinguished higher-performing from lower-performing schools. During the course of this four-year study, Mortimore and Sammons identified the following 12 "key factors of effectiveness" to which they attributed the differences between the higher- and lower- performing schools. 1. f r i f b Principals of the effective schools understood the needs of the school and were actively involved in the daily work of the school. However, they avoided exerting control over the staff through their involvement. These principals were knowledgeable about curriculum issues and discussed those issues and teaching strategies with the teachers. Principals were concerned about student achievement and, to ascertain whether established goals were being achieved, they monitored student progress closely and regularly. 2. .1hye1yehent__ef__the__eeei§teht__hr1heipel, The assistant principals in the effective schools were involved in decision making regarding policy issues in the schools. This key factor is not typically identified as a characteristic of effective schools, although the Effective Schools model does advocate the involvement of all staff in the decision-making process. 66 3. 1W. In the effective schools, teachers were involved in decisions regarding all aspects of the school’s overall program, including curriculum, their personal teaching schedule, resource expenditures, and school policy. 4. o n m . Teachers in the effective schools were consistent in how they presented lessons and approached their teaching assignment. Guidelines established in the schools also were applied consistently. 5. Struetured eeeeiens. In the effective schools in Mortimore and Sammons’s study, the school day and lessons were highly structured. The researchers asserted that students achieve better academic results when their day is structured, although it must not be so rigid that it restricts youngsters’ freedom and movement in the classroom. 6. n 11 n ' n . Students achieve better results in classrooms in which teachers communicate interest and enthusiasm. Teachers who encourage students to use creativity and problem-solving techniques stimulate and challenge youngsters in their learning. 7. or - n n . In classrooms in which a high level of student industry is apparent, students have a desire to begin new tasks and seek new challenges. 8. Limited_feehe_rith1n_ee§eieh§. Mortimore and Sammons found that children’s achievement was higher when teachers concentrated on one curriculum area during a classroom session. However, students could be working on different facets of the subject that was the 67 focus of the session. In addition, teachers who responded to individual student needs in presenting material and designing classroom work fostered a high level of student achievement. 9. ... A -m 1 °. .- .:- -: I‘ a . _.- Students demonstrated higher levels of achievement in classrooms in which the teacher communicated with all students, either individually or collectively, during the class. Students who had little teacher communication directed at them achieved more poorly than those who received more frequent communication from the teacher. 10. Beeerci_keepjhg. In classrooms where teachers maintained comprehensive records of student progress, youngsters achieved better academically. It follows that teachers who maintained comprehensive records of students’ achievement used those records to monitor the progress of youngsters in their classroom and adjust their instructional methods when necessary. 11. Eerehtel_ihrelyemeht. Mortimore and Sammons found that the effective schools in their study had a higher level of parental participation and involvement than did the less effective schools. The researchers recommended encouraging parents to serve as volunteers in the classroom and to focus on their children’s academic development at home. They pointed out that communication between the school and parents regarding the children’s educational development is beneficial to student achievement. 68 12. W. In the effective schools in Mortimore and Sammons’ study, much less emphasis was placed on punishment of student misbehavior than in the less-effective schools. Instead, emphasis was placed on praising and rewarding students who behaved appropriately. Student self-control was encouraged. Outside the classroom, as well, teachers concentrated on creating and maintaining a positive school atmosphere. They organized lunch-hour and after-school clubs and activities for students and even ate lunch with children in the cafeteria to enhance the positive school climate. Mortimore and Sammons concluded with regard to school effectiveness: The school contributed substantially to students’ progress and development. In fact, for many of the educational outcomes, especially progress in cognitive areas, the school is much more important than background factors in accounting for variations among individuals. . . . Although some schools are more advantaged in terms of their size, status, environment, and stability of teaching staff, these favorable characteristics do not, by themselves, ensure effectiveness. They provide a supporting framework with which the principal and teachers can work to promote student progress and development. However, it is the policies and processes within control of the principal and teachers that are crucial. These factors can be changed and improved. (p. 6) Some of the literature regarding the Effective Schools model of school improvement has not been positive. In his article, "Using Effective Schools Studies to Create Effective Schools: No Recipe Yet,” D’Amico (1982) was critical of many aspects of the literature 69 that has been generated regarding the characteristics of effective schools. In particular, he repeatedly pointed out that, although researchers associated with the Effective Schools model have placed a good deal of emphasis on certain characteristics that seem to define effective schools, the characteristics seem to change from article to article, even when the author remains consistent. D’Amico asserted: Although these authors’ conclusions about the characteristics of effectiveness seem similar, they do not match. Not only is the number of characteristics different in each study, but also the characteristics that seem similar are expressed differ- ently. Finally, some characteristics seen as "indispensable” by' some authors--for* example, strong administrative leader- ship--are not included by the others. This discordance from study to study presents an obstacle for practitioners who attempt to use their conclusions as a recipe. Without more unanimity about which characteristics contribute to a school’s effectiveness, it is difficult to know which characteristics to use as a focus for improvement. And the studies offer little guidance for selecting the most appropriate. (p. 60) D’Amico pointed out that, in some of the research regarding effective schools characteristics, numerous characteristics have been identified in the findings, but significantly fewer characteristics in the conclusions. He voiced a concern that some authors who have reduced the number of characteristics from findings to conclusions have not explained adequately the rationale they used to eliminate certain characteristics or to retain others. D’Amico explained that, although hundreds of effective schools exist, they do not necessarily exist because they share conunon characteristics. Instead, D’Amico maintained that each effective school’s effectiveness is the result of intricate, idiosyncratic processes that are unique to the school. 70 D’Amico’s major thrust in this article was to argue that the effective schools movement and resulting literature have failed to provide a recipe that schools desiring to improve their educational programs can use as a guide. f ec 'v 1 ' l "Effeete ef Ihree Erineipel Styles en Seheel Imhreyemeht" Hall, Rutherford, Hard, and Huling (1984) investigated the change-facilitator styles of school principals. They asserted that the change-facilitator style of the principal has a direct effect on the implementation of any change in the school, including a school improvement program. The change-facilitator styles that were investigated in the present study were based on the research reported in Hall et al.’s article. To identify the change-facilitator styles of principals, Hall et a1. observed the principals in their buildings as they facilitated the implementation of various types of alternative programs. The researchers identified three distinct change- facilitator styles among the principals; these styles are discussed in the following paragraphs. Beepeheer. According to Hall et al.: Responders place _a heavy emphasis on allowing teachers and others the opportunity to take the lead. They believe that their primary role is to maintain a smooth running school by focusing on traditional administrative tasks, keeping teachers content and treating students well. They view teachers as strong professionals who are able to carry out instruction with little guidance. Responders emphasize the personal side of their relationships with teachers and others. (p. 24) 71 Responders tend to give all staff members an opportunity to give their input on decisions regarding educational programs in the building; this strategy allows responder principals to pass decision-making responsibilities along to others in the building. Respondents demonstrate a lack of vision regarding long-range instructional programs and goals for the school. They have a desire to please others, which helps explain their tendency to let others make decisions for them and their lack of initiative in introducing new ideas, programs, and methods in the school. hehegers. Principals who are managers in terms of change- facilitator style tend to demonstrate a broader range of behaviors than responders. .Although managers demonstrate some responsive behaviors, they will also initiate actions in support of a particular change effort in their schools. Managers are supportive of their teachers and typically will defend them from excessive demands. When central office directs manager-principals to implement a change in their school, they will become involved with teachers in ensuring the change is implemented successfully. In general, however, managers will not initiate innovations other than those they have been ordered to implement. Initietere. Initiators have clear, decisive, long-range goals for their schools. They know what qualities define a good school and dedicate themselves to having their schools attain those characteristics. Initiators’ decisions are based on what they believe is best for their school and the students. They maintain 72 high expectations for teacher and student performance. ‘To ensure that these expectations are being achieved, they work closely with teachers and regularly monitor student progress. Initiators typically do what they believe needs to be done to achieve the goals they have set for their schools. Sometimes they will seek changes in school district policy or interpret that policy to suit their schools’ needs. They tend to practice participatory management by soliciting input from staff members regarding decisions that will affect the school’s educational program. Because the principal’s role is so broad, it is difficult to consider all of the administrator’s daily behaviors in assessing his/her influence on the school’s educational program. Hall and his colleagues narrowed the focus considerably. By considering only the change-facilitator style of the principal, it is easier to determine the effect of the principal on particular areas of the educational program, as was attempted in the present study. ' i i de ' an 51W In this article, Andrews and Soder (1987) established a link between the behavior of the building principal and student achievement. They measured 18 strategic interactions between principals and teachers in terms of the principal’s role as (a) resource provider, (b) instructional resource, (c) communicator, and (d) visible presence. Characteristics of these roles are discussed in the following paragraphs. 73 Beeeeree_preyieer. As a resource provider, the principal takes whatever action is deemed necessary to ensure that the school will have the necessary tools to achieve its vision and goals. These resources include personnel, materials, information, and opportunities the principal is able to obtain for the school. Instructienal_resource- The principal establishes expectations for improvement of the school’s educational program. To ensure that improvement takes place, he/she actively engages in staff development by presenting information and coordinating staff- development opportunities. The principal focuses on enhancing classroom circumstances and ultimately improving student achievement. Cemmghieeter. As a communicator, the principal models behavior that is designed to improve the school’s educational program; a commitment to school goals is apparent in all he/she does. In addi- tion, the principal articulates a vision for achieving school goals and comunicates high standards regarding teacher performance and quality of instruction. 11W. The principal visits classrooms and helps teachers develop effective teaching strategies. He/she often talks with students and teachers spontaneously to set the tone for the building and to solicit input about various aspects of the school program. Andrews and Soder asked teachers in 33 schools to respond to questionnaires regarding their perceptions of their principals in selected areas of strategic interaction. Using the response data, 74 the researchers grouped the principals into three categories: strong leaders (11 highest scoring principals), average leaders (ll scoring in the middle), and weak leaders (ll lowest scoring). They found that, in the schools whose principals were classified as strong leaders, student scores were significantly higher than in schools whose principals were classified as average or weak leaders. Andrews and Soder concluded that teachers’ perceptions of the principal as an instructional leader were an accurate assessment of those qualities. They also pointed out that the results of the study established a direct link between the principal’s leadership style and student performance. Summar This chapter contained a review of pertinent literature on school culture, school improvement, effective schools, and effective school principals. The articles reviewed in this chapter were selected because they represent common themes in the literature on school improvement and effective schools. The authors are among the leaders in school improvement. No literature was discovered on the relationship between the principal’s change-facilitator style and the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in the school. That topic was addressed in the present study. The methodology used in conducting the study is explained in Chapter III. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This study was undertaken in an attempt to answer questions that have not been addressed in the literature on school improvement. There is a considerable amount of material on school improvement in general, the Effective Schools model of school improvement, and school principal behaviors. However, to this researcher’s knowledge, no attempt has been made to establish a link between the change-facilitator style of the principal and the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in the school. This researcher focused on that topic. fineness; The following hypotheses, stated in the null form, were tested in this study: he I: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. fle_2: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. 75 76 he_S: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he 4: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Clear School Mission is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change facilitator style, as opposed to another style. he_S: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Clear School Mission is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he_e: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Clear School Mission is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as Opposed to other styles. he 2: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Instructional Leadership is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he_§: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Instructional Leadership is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he_S: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Instructional Leadership is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he 19: There is TH) significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic High Expectations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. 77 he 1|: There is IN) significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic High Expectations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. ho 12: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of' the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic High Expectations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he IS: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of ‘the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task is present in the school when the principal is perceived as. demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator' style, as opposed to other styles. He 15: There is 1") significant difference between the teacher’s perception of’ the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he IS: There is 1") significant difference between the teacher’s perception of 'the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task is present in the school when the principal is perceived as. demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator' style, as opposed to other styles. he 16: There is TH) significant difference between the teacher’s perception of' the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he IZ: There is IN) significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools. model characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. 78 he IS: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he IS: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of ‘the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Home-School Relations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the1 Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other sty es. 13L_zg: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of ‘the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Home-School Relations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he 21: There is TH) significant difference between the teacher’s perception of ‘the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Home-School Relations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. W In planning the study, the researcher decided that the schools selected to participate in the study should be familiar with the Effective School model of school improvement. Thus, the need to familiarize school personnel with the characteristics of effective schools would be eliminated, and these individuals would be using the same school improvement vocabulary. This was important because the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire, one of the three instruments used in the study, contains questions on teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in their school. 79 The first step in conducting the research, then, was to identify schools that were familiar with the Effective Schools model of school improvement. Over the past several years, the Wayne County Intermediate School District has coordinated a statewide program of school improvement training for school personnel interested in improving their educational programs. The program is funded through a school improvement grant from the State of Michigan and has been very successful. Participants from hundreds of schools throughout Michigan gather monthly at regional training sites to focus on strategies for school improvement. The training provided through this program, called Strategies Used to Cooperatively Create Successful Schools and Staffs (SUCCESS), is based on the Effective Schools model of school improvement. The researcher approached the program coordinators and requested their permission to invite participants from schools that had been involved in the SUCCESS program for at least two years to participate in the current study. That permission was granted, and flyers describing the study and inviting involvement were circulated to SUCCESS participants at several training sites throughout the state. Because two of the three surveys to be used in the study had been validated in elementary schools, participation was restricted to staff from elementary schools to insure that the results of the study would be valid. Principals from 13 elementary schools expressed an interest in participating. Six of these schools were located in urban settings, and seven were in rural settings; they ranged in staff size from 5 80 to 26 teachers. They were all in at least the second year of an Effective Schools model school improvement program. Meghan All of the principals who had expressed an interest in participating in the study were telephoned to confirm their involvement. The researcher described the study to them and collected preliminary data on their teaching staffs. Principals were asked how many teachers comprised the staff and were told that it would take the teachers about 45 minutes to complete all three survey instruments. The researcher suggested that a staff meeting be dedicated to having teachers complete the survey package but said that teachers could take the surveys to their classrooms or homes to complete at their leisure. After determining the number of teachers in each of the participating schools, the researcher assembled a packet containing the three surveys (the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire, the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire, and the Staff Perception of Change Survey) and directions for each teacher in the sample. Principals distributed these packets to the teachers. Principals were asked to place the completed instruments in the stamped envelope provided to them and to return the envelopes to the researcher without reviewing the surveys. Principals and teachers were assured that the results of the study would remain completely confidential. 81 W h nn u h l Effeetiyenees Qeeetienneire The Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire fecuses on the seven characteristics of effective schools. The survey contains 97 questions relating to particular characteristics. Teachers were to indicate the extent to which they agreed that the condition described in each item was present in their school, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). When the responses are scored, the result is an aggregate teacher perception of the extent to which a particular characteristic is present in the school. (See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire.) Because this study was based on teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which individual characteristics of effective schools were present in the school, as well as their perceptions of their building principal’s. change-facilitator’ style, individual teacher responses rather than the aggregated responses of all teachers in a particular school were analyzed. However, a complete school profile or aggregate analysis of one of the participating schools is included in Appendix B. In analyzing individual teachers’ responses to the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire, the median score for all teachers in the study was calculated for each characteristic of effective schools. To establish the extent to which individual teachers perceived a particular characteristic to be present, the 82 researcher decided that a teacher response that was greater than the median would indicate high presence of the characteristic, and a response that was equal to or less than the median would indicate a perception of low presence of the characteristic being considered. lhe Chenge Eeeiliteter Style Questiennmg Hall and his colleagues developed the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire to assess the change-facilitator style of a principal in implementing a particular innovation in the school. (See Appendix A for a copy for the questionnaire.) For the purpose of this study, the innovation was the implementation of school improvement in the principal’s school. The 30 questionnaire items pertain to three dimensions of the change-facilitator style. Teachers rate the extent of emphasis given to each item by the principal, using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Never or Not True) to 6 (Always or Very True). The three dimensions, along with their polar extremities--referred to by the test authors as scales, are discussed in the following paragraphs. Ceheerh_jer_£eee1e. This dimension pertains to the extent to which the principal, as a change facilitator, emphasizes Social/ Informal or Formal/Meaningful interactions with his/her staff and others with whom he/she interacts. According to Vandenberghe (1988): 83 A change facilitator who emphasizes the Social/Informal end of the dimension believes that attending to feelings, open discussions of questions and problems are the important foci. A great deal of time and energy is invested in probing to find out what people inside and outside the school think and feel. This attention to feelings and perceptions is focused more on listening, trying to understand and acknowledging iInnediate concerns than in providing answers or anticipating long-range consequences. There is a personable, friendly, almost chatty tone to many of the interactions. When concerns are addressed for resolution it is done in ways that are responsive rather than anticipatory and the emphasis is on being personal and friendly rather than task oriented. (p. 9) The other end of the Concern for People dimension is termed the Formal/Meaningful scale. The facilitator who demonstrates behavior at this end of the dimension will engage in interactions that primarily' center' on school priorities and directions. Discussions are focused on teaching and learning and other substantive issues. Most interaction is designed to support teachers in their school-related tasks. In contrast to the chatty types of interactions at the other end of this dimension, the principal at the Formal/Meaningful end is almost always looking for long-lasting solutions to the problems he/she and the school face. Vandenberghe stated that the principal at the Formal/Meaningful end of the dimension is aware of the feelings and perceptions of the staff but tends not to be overly influenced by "superficial and short-lived feelings and needs of people" (p. 9). Instead, the principal who demonstrates facilitator behavior at this end of the Concern for People dimension maintains a constant emphasis on teaching and learning activities. In essence, the primary difference between the Social/Informal and the Formal/Meaningful ends of the dimension appears to be the 84 demeanor' of’ the principaJ in carrying out the business of ‘the school. At one end of the dimension, the facilitator is relaxed and chatty; at the other' end, the facilitator is focused and businesslike in all interactions he/she undertakes. With regard to the three change-facilitator types of concern in this study (Responder, Manager, and Initiator), the Initiator was expected to score low on Social/Informal behavior and high on Formal/Meaningful behavior. In other words, the Initiator was expected to demonstrate facilitator behavior that is formal and meaningful as opposed to social and informal. The Manager was expected to have average scores--neither high nor low--on the two ends of the dimension. The Responder was expected to score high on the Social/Informal end and low on the Formal/Meaningful end. Thus, the Responder was expected to demonstrate facilitator behavior that was more social and informal than that of the Initiator. r an“ ' n l f ' 'en . The Organizational Efficiency dimension is designed to) measure the extent to which a change facilitator locates resources, establishes procedures, and manages schedules and time. One end of the Organizational Efficiency dimension is Trust in Others. The principal who demonstrates Trust in Others assumes that the staff under his/her direction know how to carry out their responsibilities with minimum monitoring or direction by the principal. The principal is slow to recognize the need for change and will typically introduce changes to the staff by making 85 suggestions or supplying loosely structured guidelines within which the staff can establish procedures and inaugurate necessary policy changes without the principal’s direction. Decisions are delayed to allow all concerned individuals to have input into the decision- making process. Administrative systems in the school are strictly a response to external pressures and the expressed needs of the staff. The other end of the Organizational Efficiency dimension is referred to as the Administrative Efficiency scale. The principal functioning as a facilitator at this end of the dimension establishes clear procedures and resource systems to help teachers and others do their jobs efficiently. Providing support for efficient systems is a priority for this type of principal, whose emphasis is on establishing and maintaining clear procedures so that teachers and other organization members can function at their best. As the need for new systems and procedures becomes apparent, they are established and implemented on a priority basis. The change facilitator at this end of the dimension is the epitome of organizational efficiency. The Trust in Others end of the dimension represents the lowest level of efficiency, whereas Administrative Efficiency represents the highest level. The Initiator was expected to score low on Trust in Others and high on Administrative Efficieney. The Manager was expected to have average scores on the two ends of the dimension. The responder was expected to score high on Trust in Others 86 (indicating the least efficient change-facilitator behavior) and low on Administrative Efficiency. Stretegie Senee. This dimension measures the principal’s ability to view things from the overall perspective of accomplishing long-term goals and organizational objectives. Some principals can place daily activities into proper perspective, whereas others cannot. At one end of this dimension is the Day-to-Day scale. Principals functioning as change facilitators at this end demonstrate very little anticipation of *future developments and organizational needs within the school. These individuals respond to problems and issues as they surface and have no conception of how organizational systems might be improved. very little thought is focused on the long term; everything is a short-term response to eliminate problems as they arise. At the other end of this dimension is the Vision and Planning scale. The principal functioning as a change facilitator at this end of the dimension demonstrates a long-term vision that is integrated with an understanding that the daily activities are means to the desired end. Teachers and others in the organization are pushed to accomplish all they can. This type of principal demonstrates assertive leadership, continual monitoring, commitment to action, and creative interpretations of policy and uses of resources to accomplish long-term goals and organizational objectives. This end of the dimension reflects the most efficient form of change facilitation a principal can demonstrate. 87 With regard to the two ends or scales of the Strategic Sense dimension, the Initiator was expected to score low on Day-to-Day and high on Vision and Planning behaviors. The Manager was expected to receive average scores on both scales. The responder was expected to score high on Day-to-Day and low on Vision and Planning behaviors. Thus, there was an expected pattern of scores on each scale of the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire for each type of principal--Initiator, Manager, and Responder. These patterns are shown in Table 3.1. To classify each teacher’s perception of his/her principal’s style into one of these three categories, the six scale scores for the three dimensions were compared with the specified patterns. If the teacher’s scores tended to be low, high, low, high, low, high, that teacher was said to perceive the principal as an Initiator. If the teacher’s scores on the six scales tended to be average, that teacher was classified as perceiving the principal as a Manager. If the teacher’s six scale scores tended to have a high, low, high, low, high, low pattern, the teacher was classified as perceiving the principal as a Responder. High, average, and low scores were defined in accord with data collected in previous studies of the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire. On each scale, the average score was that obtained in 1988 from a sample of 479 teachers from 46 schools, during initial studies of the questionnaire. A high score was defined as one standard deviation above the mean, whereas a low score was 88 304 saw: so; now: 384 5mm: emccoammm mmmem>< mmmem>< mmmem>< mmaem>< mmmco>< mmmem>< Lounge: ;m_: 3o; saw: 384 saw: so; ecumepwce mcwccmpm awn aocmmummem mgmgao psemcwcmmz pasLomcH a cowmw> -o~-a~o .mp=_su< cw “mach \Pasgcg \pamucm 25m mmzmm ufiumhuzmuuuugm 4Nmuemq ma newepmmapu we: Logommu mesa .opm can we can» mmwp m, Ne mmsmumm "ouoz emucoqmoz sage mucmpmwo . opm . oop+ Fm+ em+ ¢e+ mN+ e augmLmNNNe caeaaam op- a e- N m- N Naucogmmm eoLN .Nc_o comment sage mucmumPo a Ne u m~+ e+ ¢+ m+ P+ e augmemmmpc umeazcm m- N N- m N- N- sewage: scLN .Nema Noeapoch seem oucmpm_o a No a o m+ ¢+ ¢+ m+ mm oucmeommwu nogazcm o N- N N- N m- NONNEN_=_ sage .Ne.o on o, NN o_ mN SN N< caguamh ON a, PN m_ cN mN Laecoqmmm mN NP mN NN SN NN Lamaze: an N NN m mN mp NoN~_NN=N o m_Num m mpaum S apaum N aNNum N m_Num N mpwum mmgoom mmagm>< .ogwmccopa -mmaa «Papm soumuwp_umu omcmgu mg» no mmeoum .mgmguamu ea mcsmuaaq pauwaoguoaaz--.~.m m—nmh 91 After the change-facilitator styles had been assigned, the individual teachers’ responses to the Connecticut Survey were used to determine whether the teacher would be classified as perceiving that each attribute of the characteristics of effective schools was present in the school. Next the relationships between classifica- tions on the Connecticut Survey and the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaires were assessed to determine whether, based on teachers’ perceptions, the principal’s change-facilitator style was related to the extent to which each of the seven characteristics of effective schools was present in the school. These relationships provided answers to the null hypotheses tested in the study. T t ff i f Ch n urve The Staff Perception of Change Survey was designed to measure teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the presence of each of the characteristics of effective schools had changed during the time the school had been involved in its Effective Schools model school improvement program. This survey contained two questions on each of the seven effective schools characteristics. In response to the first question on each characteristic, teachers were to indicate the extent to which they perceived the characteristic to have been present in the school at the beginning of the school improvement program, using a five-point scale ranging from 1 (Not Present) to 5 (Fully Present). In response to the second question on each characteristic, teachers were to indicate the extent to which they 92 perceived the characteristic to be present in the school at the time of the survey, using the same five-point scale. Teachers’ responses to the Staff Perception of Change Survey were first calculated individually to determine the extent of change each teacher perceived to have taken place for each of the seven characteristics. The difference between responses to the first and second questions for: each characteristic was calculated. This difference represented the teacher’s perception of the amount of change that had taken place from the beginning of the school improvement program to the time of the survey. Each teacher’s perception of change was classified as low or high, based on the median change score for the entire sample. (The overall change score was the sum of the seven differences.) Teachers with change scores less than or equal to the median were assigned to the low-change group, whereas teachers with change scores above the median were assigned to the high-change group. This classification was then compared with the Initiator, Manager, and Responder categories in which teachers perceived their principals to be functioning (as indicated on the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire). This comparison enabled the researcher to determine whether there was a significant difference in the number of teachers who said that change had occurred in their school and those who said change was absent, within each of the principal facilitator-style classifications. These comparisons also focused on the importance of the teacher’s perception of the change- facilitator style of the principal and thus helped validate, to some 93 extent, the relationships previously established between the change- facilitator style of the principal and the characteristics of effective schools. M31153. Preliminary categorization and analysis of responses to the three questionnaires were explained in the discussions of the individual instruments. In addition to these steps, the following procedures were employed. The Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire response forms were sent to the Connecticut Department of Education for computer scoring. When the Department returned the profiles of the participating schools, the surveys were reunited with the other two surveys used in the study and sent to the University of Idaho. There, Archie George, one of the co-authors of the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire, statistically analyzed the survey data to determine means, medians, standard deviations, and overall response patterns. Chi-square analyses were performed to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in the number of teachers who perceived a low or high extent of presence of the characteris- tics in ‘their* school for each change-facilitator style. 'These analyses were done to test the null hypotheses. Chi-square analyses were also performed to determine whether there was a significant difference in the number of teachers assigned to each change- facilitator-style category who perceived a low or high extent of 94 change in the characteristics (according to the Staff Perception of Change Survey). The results of the data analyses are presented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This chapter contains the findings of the data analyses performed in this study. Results from the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire are presented first, followed by those from the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire. The results of the hypothesis tests are then presented and discussed. Findings from the Staff Perception of Change Survey are the topic of the fourth section. Included is a discussion of the relationship between the teachers’ perceptions of change in their schools and the change- facilitator styles of their principals. e 1 F m t nn i o l Eff !' D l' . The Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire fecuses on the characteristics of effective schools. Each of the seven char- acteristics is listed, and several questions that relate to each characteristic are asked. In total, the questionnaire contains 97 questions, each of which requires a response on a scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). All of the responses to the questions that relate to a particular characteristic are tabulated when the questionnaires are scored by the Connecticut Department of Education, and a profile for 95 96 each participating school is created on a question-by-question basis. The percentage of teachers giving each of the five responses for each question is provided in the profile, and the mean numerical response by teachers to a particular question is also provided. In addition to the mean teacher response to each question under a particular characteristic, the profile also gives an overall mean for all of the teacher responses to all questions relating to a particular characteristic. In other words, the profile provides an overall mean score, which summarizes the teacher perception regarding the extent of presence of each characteristic. It also provides mean scores for each question relating to a particular characteristic. This reporting enables schools to address specific areas of concern perceived by teachers or to deal with the overall mean score for a characteristic in setting school improvement goals. An example of a profile from this questionnaire is included in Appendix B. This is a profile of one of the schools that participated in the study. Identifying information has been eliminated to ensure anonymity. The completed Connecticut questionnaires were sent to the Connecticut State Department of Education for computer scoring. .A complete profile was created for each participating school. When the school profiles arrived, copies were sent to each of the participating schools to enable them to use the data to measure the effectiveness of their school improvement efforts and also to establish new goals in any of the characteristic areas in which their scores were lower than desired. 97 The profiles created by the Connecticut State Department of Education did not provide specific information regarding each teacher’s responses. To examine the 21 null hypotheses, each teacher’s questionnaire had to be considered separately to determine whether a particular teacher perceived a low or high extent of presence of a particular characteristic in the school. To place teachers in categories of low or high perception of presence of a characteristic, teachers whose scores were at or below the median score for' a characteristic. were placed in the category of low perception of presence. Those whose scores were higher than the median score were placed in the category of high perception of presence. Once the categories of low and high perception of presence of the characteristics were assigned, the change- facilitator style each teacher perceived his/her principal to be demonstrating was considered, in order to determine whether a relationship existed between the teacher’s perception of the principal’s change-facilitator style and the extent to which the teacher perceived the characteristics of effective schools to be present in the school. (Findings from the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire are discussed later in this chapter.) Table 4.1 contains the mean and median scores for each of the seven characteristics of effective schools, based on teachers’ responses to the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire. The median scores shown in Table 4.1 will be presented again for each characteristic as it is discussed. 98 Table 4.1.--Mean and median teacher scores on the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire. Characteristic of Effective Schools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean 3.600 3.590 3.340 3.490 3.530 3.540 3.820 Median 3.667 3.688 3.375 3.429 3.500 3.556 3.895 Std. dev. .712 .723 .886 .614 .629 .666 .660 Key: Characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment 1 . Characteristic 2 - Clear School Mission Characteristic 3 s Instructional Leadership Characteristic 4 = High Expectations Characteristic 5 . Opportunity to Learn and Time-on-Task Characteristic 6 = Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress Characteristic 7 . Home-School Relations n m the ili t The Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire focuses on three dimensions of change-facilitator style. Each dimension is evaluated by measuring responses to items on a Likert-type scale, the two ends of’ which are essentially opposites. Each type of principal-- Initiator, Manager, or Responder--has an expected pattern of scale scores on the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire. To classify each teacher’s perception of his/her principal’s style into one of ‘these categories, the six scale scores were compared with the specified patterns. If the teacher’s six scores tended to be low, high, low, high, low, high, that teacher was said to perceive the principal as an Initiator. If the teacher’s scores 99 on all six scales tended to be average, that teacher was said to perceive the principal as a Manager. If the teacher’s six scores tended to have a high, low, high, low, high, low pattern, the teacher was classified as perceiving the principal as a Responder. High, average, and low scores were defined according to data collected in previous studies on the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire. On each scale, the average score was that obtained in 1988 on a sample of 479 teachers from 46 schools, during initial studies of the questionnaire. A high score was defined as being one standard deviation above the mean; a low score was defined as being one standard deviation below the mean. To classify a teacher’s perception of the principal into one of the three patterns, three numbers were computed, each representing the distance between the teacher’s scores and each of the patterns. The difference between the teacher’s Social/Informal scale score and the low score in the norm group on that scale was calculated and then squared. This was added to the squared difference between the teacher’s Formal/Meaningful scale score and the high score on that scale in the norm group. This process continued for the remaining four scales. The result was one value that represented the distance between the teacher’s scores and the expected Initiator pattern. Similarly, the squared differences between the teacher’s six scale scores and the average score in the norm group on each scale were summed to represent the distance between the teacher’s responses and the expected Manager profile. The distance from the Responder 100 profile was also calculated. The lowest distance value determined to which group the teacher’s perception of the principal was assigned. Table 4.2 contains overall mean scores for teacher responses on each of the six scales in the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire. Each dimension in the questionnaire is measured on two scales; the first measures inefficiencies, and the second measures efficiencies. For example, the Social/Informal scale under the dimension Concern for People measures inefficiencies; the Formal/Meaningful scale under the same dimension measures efficiencies. xam' ' h 1 With the overall median and individual teacher scores calculated for the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire and teachers assigned to the change-facilitator-style categories they perceived their principals to be demonstrating, it was possible to begin answering the 21 null hypotheses examined in the study. In assigning teachers to the change-facilitator categories they perceived their principals to be demonstrating, teachers whose scores matched the Initiator style pattern were assigned to the Initiator category, those whose scores matched the Manager style pattern were assigned to the Manager category, and teachers whose scores matched the Responder pattern were assigned to the Responder category. As a result, 42 of the 177 participating teachers were 101 mo.m P¢.m ep.m mm.m oo.m mm.¢ .>mu .uum om.m~ pm.vp ne.- Po.o_ em.- mm._~ cam: m=_ccmpm awe aucm_omemm mcmsuo psmmcvcmwz paeeomc_ a covmp> ou-»~o .mwcpsu< :. umzep \paeecm \Pa_uom mmzmm uuwupuzm~u~umm .NHzo--.~.¢ open» 102 assigned to the Initiator category, 35 to the Manager category, and 100 to the Responder category. After the teachers had been assigned to a change-facilitator- style category, their scores on the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire were examined to determine whether they perceived a high or low extent of presence of each of the characteristics of effective schools in their own schools, based on their scores in relation to the median score for each characteristic. In the following pages, the results of testing the null hypotheses pertaining to each of the seven characteristics of effective schools are presented. One chi-square table was constructed for each characteristic. In each table, teachers are separated into the three change-facilitator-style categories to which their scores qualified them to be assigned. In each of these categories, the individual teachers’ Connecticut scores were analyzed to determine whether the teachers in the particular change- facilitator-style category perceived a low or high extent of presence of the particular characteristic of effective schools being considered. Each table also indicates the number of observations that would be expected to appear in a particular category if there were no relationship between teachers’ perceptions of change- facilitator style and perceived extent of presence. The table also includes the calculated chi-square value, which is based on the number of actual observations in the category in comparison to the expected number of observations. To determine the significance of 103 the calculated chi-square values in each category, a Pearson and Hartley chi-square probability table was examined. WM he I: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he_2: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he_S: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Before examining the first three null hypotheses, the 177 teachers were assigned to one of the change-facilitator-style categories and also to a low or high perception of extent of presence category. Table 4.3 contains (a) the number of teachers assigned to each change-facilitator-style category; (b) the number of teachers in each change-facilitator-style category who perceived low and high extents of presence of a Safe and Orderly Environment; (c) the number of observations that could be expected in the low and high categories of perceived presence if the numbers were selected randomly; (d) the chi-square value for the numbers that appear as actual observations in the low and high categories, in relation to the expected numbers based on random selection; and (d) the probability that such a numerical configuration would occur by 104 chance if there were no relationship between the two instruments. This format was used for all of the chi-square tables. Table 4.3.--Chi-square results for the relationship between change- facilitator style and perceived extent of presence of Safe and Orderly Environment. Change- Extent of Presence Facilitator Total Style Low High Initiator Obs. 3 39 42 Eip. 22.3 19.7 X 16.7086 18.9230 Chi-square - 35.63* Manager Obs. l8 17 35 Exp. 18.6 16.4 X .018574 .021035 Chi-square - 0.04 Responder Obs. 73 27 100 Exp. 53.1 46.9 X 7.45128 8.43880 Chi-square - 15.89* Total 94 83 177 *Significant at p < .01. As shown in Table 4.3, 100 of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Responder' change-facilitator‘ style. Of those 100 teachers, 73 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment in their schools and 27 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of presence, the expected number of teachers to be placed in the low perception of 105 presence category would have been 53.1. The expected number of teachers to be placed in the high perception of presence category would have been 46.9. The chi-square value regarding the relationship between the observed number of teachers in the low and high perception of change categories and the expected number of teachers to be placed in those categories was 15.89. By referencing a Pearson and Hartley chi-square probability table, it can be seen that the difference between the observed number of teachers in the low and high perception of presence categories and the number of teachers who would have been expected to be placed in the categories randomly was significant. The probability that 73 teachers would have been placed in the low perception of presence category and 27 would have been placed in the high perception of presence category, according to the chi-square probability table, is less than .01 (less than 1 in 100). Therefore, based on the information presented in the Responder section of Table 4.3, Null Hypothesis 1 was not retained. Null Hypothesis 2 pertains to the Manager section of Table 4.3. Thirty-five of the 177 teachers participating in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style. Eighteen of the teachers who perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style perceived a low extent of presence of a Safe and Orderly Environment, and 17 perceived a high extent of presence of this characteristic. On a random basis, 18.6 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low perception of change category and 16.4 ‘Hl the high 106 perception of presence category. The chi-square value regarding the relationship between the observed number of teachers in the low and high perception of presence categories and the expected number in these categories was .04. According to the chi-square probability table, this value was not significant. Thus, based on the information presented in the Manager section of Table 4.3, Null Hypothesis 2 was retained. Null Hypothesis 3 was addressed in the Initiator section of Table 4.3. Forty-two of the 177 teachers participating in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change- facilitator style. Three of these teachers perceived a low extent of presence of a Safe and Orderly Environment in their schools, and 39 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, the expected number of teachers in the low perception of presence category would have been 22.3, and the expected number in the high perception of presence category would have been 19.7. Considering the relationship between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the chi-square value was 35.63, which was significant at p < .01. Thus, based on the information presented in the Initiator section of Table 4.3, Null Hypothesis 3 was not retained. 107 W he_5: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Clear School Mission is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change facilitator style, as opposed to another style. he_S: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Clear School Mission is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he_§: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Clear School Mission is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Table 4.4 contains the data used in addressing Null Hypotheses 4 through 6, all of which pertain to the second characteristic of effective schools: Clear School Mission. Table 4.4.--Chi-square results for the relationship between change- facilitator style and perceived extent of presence of Clear School Mission. Change- Extent of Presence Facilitator Total Style Low High Initiator Obs. 18 24 42 Exp. 22.1 19.9 X .749824 .830163 Chi-square - 1.58 Manager Obs. 15 20 35 Exp. 18.4 16.6 X .624854 .691802 Chi-square - 1.32 Responder Obs. 60 40 100 Eép. 52.5 47.5 X 1.05850 1.17191 Chi-square - 2.23 Total 93 84 177 108 Null Hypothesis 4 is addressed in the Responder section of Table 4.4. Of the 177 teachers who participated in the study, 100 perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change- facilitator style. Of those 100, 60 perceived a low extent of presence of a Clear School Mission in their schools; 40 perceived a high extent of presence of this characteristic. If the teachers placed in the low and high perception of presence categories had been placed there randomly, the number of teachers expected to be placed in the two categories would have been 52.5 and 47.5, respectively. Considering the relationship between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the chi-square value was calculated to be 2.23, which was not statistically significant. Therefore, based on the data presented in the Responder section of Table 4.4, Null Hypothesis 4 was retained. Null Hypothesis 5 is addressed in the Manager section of Table 4.4. Of the 35 teachers who were assigned to the Manager change- facilitator style, 15 perceived a low extent of presence of a Clear School Mission, and 20 perceived a high extent of presence. If the teachers who were placed in the low and high perception of presence categories had been placed there randomly, the expected numbers of teachers in these categories would have been 18.4 and 16.6, respectively. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the chi-square value was calculated to be 1.32, which was not statistically 109 significant. Therefore, based on the data presented in the Manager section of Table 4.4, Null Hypothesis 5 was retained. Null Hypothesis 6 is addressed in the Initiator section of Table 4.4. Forty-two of the 177 teachers who participated in the study were assigned to the Initiator change-facilitator style. Of those 42, 18 perceived a low extent of presence of a Clear School Mission, and 24 perceived a high extent of the presence of this characteristic in their schools. If teachers had been placed randomly in the low and high extent of presence categories, the expected number of teachers in the two categories would have been 22.1 and 19.9, respectively. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the chi-square value was calculated to be 1.58, which was not statistically significant. Thus, based on the data presented in the Initiator section of Table 4.4, Null Hypothesis 6 was retained. Instructionel Leederehie ho 2: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Instructional Leadership is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he_§: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Instructional Leadership is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he_2: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Instructional Leadership is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. 110 Table 4.5 contains the data used in addressing Null Hypotheses 7 through 9, all of which pertain to the third characteristic of effective schools: Instructional Leadership. Table 4.5.--Chi-square results for the relationship between change- facilitator style and perceived extent of presence of Instructional Leadership. Change- Extent of Presence Facilitator Total Style Low High Initiator Obs. 4 38 42 Eép. 21.6 20.4 X 14.3342 15.1676 Chi-square - 29.50* Manager Obs. 8 27 35 Exp. 18.0 17.0 X 5.55102 5.87376 Chi-square . 11.42* Responder Obs. 79 21 100 Exp. 51.4 48.6 X 14.8033 15.6640 Chi-square - 30.47* Total 91 86 177 *Significant at p < .01. Null Hypothesis 7 is addressed in the Responder section of Table 4.5. One hundred of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style. Of those 100, 79 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic Instructional Leadership in their school, and 21 perceived a high extent of presence of this characteristic. If there were no relationship between the 111 perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, 51.4 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low perception of presence category and 48.6 in the high perception of presence category. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the chi-square value was calculated to be 30.47, which was statistically significant at p < .01. Thus, based on the information presented in the Responder section of Table 4.5, Null Hypothesis 7 was not retained. Null Hypothesis 8 is addressed in the Manager section of Table 4.5. Thirty-five of the 177 teachers involved in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change- facilitator style. Of those 35, 8 teachers perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic Instructional Leadership, and 27 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of presence, 18 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low perception of presence category and 17 in the high perception category. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 11.42, which was significant at p < .01. Thus, Null Hypothesis 8 was not retained. Null Hypothesis 9 is addressed in the Initiator section of Table 4.5. Forty-two of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style. Of those 42, 4 teachers perceived a low 112 extent of presence of the characteristic Instructional Leadership in their schools, and 38 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of presence, the number of teachers expected to be placed in the low perception of presence category would have been 21.6, and the number of teachers expected to be placed in the high perception category would have been 20.4. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 29.50, which was significant at p < .01. Thus, Null Hypothesis 9 was not retained. i h t i he IO: There is TH) significant difference between the teacher’s perception of 'the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic High Expectations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he 1!: There is 1") significant difference between the teacher’s perception of ‘the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic High Expectations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he lz: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of ‘the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic High Expectations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Table 4.6 contains the data used in addressing Null Hypotheses 10 through 12, all of which pertain to the fourth characteristic of effective schools: High Expectations. 113 Table 4.6.--Chi-square results for the relationship between change- facilitator style and perceived extent of presence of High Expectations. Change- Extent of Presence Facilitator Total Style Low High Initiator Obs. 9 33 42 Eép. 21.6 20.4 X 7.3444 7.7714 Chi-square - 15.12* Manager Obs. l7 18 35 Exp. 18.0 17.0 X .054947 .058141 Chi-square - 0.11 Responder Obs. 65 35 100 Exp. 51.4 48.6 X 3.5910 3.79978 Chi-square . 7.39* Total 91 86 177 *Significant at p < .01. Null Hypothesis 10 is addressed in the Responder section of Table 4.6. One hundred of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style. Of those 100, 65 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic High Expectations in their school, and 35 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, 51.4 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low extent of presence category, and 48.6 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the high extent of presence category. Based on the difference between the 114 observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 7.39, which was significant at p < .01. Thus, Null Hypothesis 10 was not retained. Null Hypothesis 11 is addressed in the Manager section of Table 4.6. Thirty-five of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change- facilitator style. Of those 35, 17 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic High Expectations in their school, and 18 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, 18 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low extent of presence category, and 17 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the high extent of presence category. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was .11, which was not significant. Thus, Null Hypothesis 10 was retained. Null Hypothesis 12 is addressed in the Initiator section of Table 4.6. Forty-two of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style. Of those 42, 9 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic High Expectations in their school, and 33 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, 21.6 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low extent of presence category, and 115 20.4 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the high extent of presence category. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 15.12, which was significant at p < .01. Thus, Null Hypothesis 12 was not retained. Qeeorthnity te Leere and lime en Teeh ho l3: There is no sdgnificant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task is present in the school when the principal is perceived as. demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. ho 14: There is 1") significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. He 15: There is run significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Table 4.7 contains the data used in addressing Null Hypotheses 13 through 15, all of which pertain to the fifth characteristic of effective schools: Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task. 116 Table 4.7.--Chi-square results for the relationship between change- facilitator style and perceived extent of presence of Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task. Change- Extent of Presence Facilitator Total Style Low High Initiator Obs. 10 32 42 Exp. 21.8 20.2 X 6.41125 6.93924 Chi-square - 13.35* Manager Obs. 17 18 35 Exp. 18.2 16.8 X .078115 .084548 Chi-square - 0.16 Responder Obs. 65 35 100 Eép. 52.0 48.0 X 3.26273 3.53142 Chi-square - 6.79* Total 82 85 177 *Significant at p < .01. Null Hypothesis 13 is addressed in the Responder section of Table 4.7. One hundred of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style. Of those 100, 65 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task in their school, and 35 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change- facilitator' style and ‘the perception of' extent of' presence, 52 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low extent of presence category, and 48 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the high extent of presence category. Based on the 117 difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 6.79, which was significant at p < .01. Thus, Null Hypothesis 13 was not retained. Null Hypothesis 14 is addressed in the Manager section of Table 4.7. Thirty-five of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change- facilitator style. Of those 35, 17 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task in their school, and 18 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, 18.2 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low extent of presence category, and 16.8 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the high extent of presence category. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 0.16, which was not significant. Thus, Null Hypothesis 14 was retained. Null Hypothesis 15 is addressed in the Initiator section of Table 4.7. Forty-two of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style. Of those 42, 10 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task in their school, and 32 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, 21.8 teachers would 118 have been expected to be placed in the low extent of presence category, and 20.2 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the high extent of presence category. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 13.35, which was significant at p < .01. Thus, Null Hypothesis 15 was not retained. MW ho l§: There is 1") significant difference between the teacher’s perception of' the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he II: There is TH) significant difference between the teacher’s perception of ‘the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he l8: ‘There is I") significant difference between the teacher’s perception of 'the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Table 4.8 contains the data used in addressing Null Hypotheses 16 through 18, all of which pertain to the sixth characteristic of effective schools: Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress. 119 Table 4.8.--Chi-square results for the relationship between change- facilitator style and perceived extent of presence of Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress. Change- Extent of Presence Facilitator Total Style Low High Initiator Obs. 9 33 42 Exp. 22.3 19.7 X 7.93654 8.98837 Chi-square - 16.92* Manager Obs. 17 18 35 Exp. 18.6 16.4 X .135595 .153565 Chi-square . 0.29 Responder Obs. 68 32 100 Exp. 53.1 46.9 X 4.17628 4.72976 Chi-square - 8.91* Total 84 83 177 *Significant at p < .01. Null Hypothesis 16 is addressed in the Responder section of Table 4.8. One hundred of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style. Of those 100, 68 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress in their school, and 32 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, 53.1 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low extent of presence category, and 46.9 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the high extent of presence category. 120 Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 8.91, which was significant at p < .01. Thus, Null Hypothesis 16 was not retained. Null Hypothesis 17 is addressed in the Manager section of Table 4.8. Thirty-five of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change- facilitator style. Of those 35, 17 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress in their school, and 18 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, 18.6 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low extent of presence category, and 16.4 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the high extent of presence category. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 0.29, which was not significant. Thus, Null Hypothesis 17 was retained. Null Hypothesis 18 is addressed in the Initiator section of Table 4.8. Forty-two of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style. Of those 42, 9 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress in their school, and 33 perceived a high extent of 121 presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, 22.3 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low extent of presence category, and 19.7 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the high extent of presence category. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 16.92, which was significant at p < .01. Thus, Null Hypothesis 18 was not retained. heme-Seheol Reletiene he 19: There is 1") significant difference between the teacher’s perception of ‘the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Home-School Relations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. he 2e: There is I") significant difference between the teacher’s perception of' the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Home-School Relations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the1 Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other sty es. he 2|: There is 1“) significant difference between the teacher’s perception of' the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Home-School Relations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Table 4.9 contains the data used in addressing Null Hypotheses 19 through 21, all of which pertain to the seventh characteristic of effective schools: Home-School Relations. 122 Table 4.9.--Chi-square results for the relationship between change- facilitator style and perceived extent of presence of Home-School Relations. Change- Extent of Presence Facilitator Total Style Low High Initiator Obs. 7 35 42 Exp. 21.1 20.9 X 9.43887 9.54613 Chi-square - l8.98* Manager Obs. 17 18 35 Eép. 17.6 17.4 X .020379 0.02061 Chi-square - 0.04 Responder Obs. 65 35 100 Exp. 50.3 49.7 X 4.30777 4.35672 Chi-square - 8.66* Total 89 88 177 *Significant at p < .01. Null Hypothesis 19 is addressed in the Responder section of Table 4.9. One hundred of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style. Of those 100, 65 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic Home-School Relations in their school, and 35 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, 50.3 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low extent of presence category, and 49.7 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the high extent of presence category. Based on the difference 123 between the~ observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 8.66, which was significant at p < .01. Thus, Null Hypothesis 19 was not retained. Null Hypothesis 20 is addressed in the Manager section of Table 4.9. Thirty-five of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change- facilitator style. Of those 35, 17 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic Home-School Relations in their school, and 18 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, 17.6 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low extent of presence category, and 17.4 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the high extent of presence category. Based on the difference between the' observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 0.04, which was not significant. Thus, Null Hypothesis 20 was retained. Null Hypothesis 21 is addressed in the Initiator section of Table 4.9. Forty-two of the 177 teachers who participated in the study perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style. Of those 42, 7 perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristic Home-School Relations in their school, and 35 perceived a high extent of presence. If no relationship existed between the perception of change-facilitator style and the perception of extent of presence, 21.1 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the low extent of presence 124 category, and 20.9 teachers would have been expected to be placed in the high extent of presence category. Based on the difference between thel observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 18.98, which was significant at p < .01. Thus, Null Hypothesis 21 was not retained. i ' r m th i v The Staff Perception of Change Survey was designed to stand in place of a pre- and post-survey format, which is usually employed to discern movement on a continuum from some point in a project to a subsequent point. The survey was designed to examine teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools were present in their schools at the beginning of the school improvement program, as well as teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which those characteristics were present when the survey was administered. Teachers rated the presence of each characteristic on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not Present) to 5 (Fully Present). All of the schools that participated in the study had been involved in an Effective Schools model school improvement program for at least two years. In the initial stages of planning the study, thought was given to exempting teachers who had not been teaching in the participating schools for at least two years. The researcher later decided that the feedback of all teachers on the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire and the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire would be important. Thus, he 125 decided to allow all teachers to participate in the study. The rationale for including all teachers was that the questionnaires would be administered in the spring of the school year, which would ensure that all teachers completing the questionnaires would have at least one year of experience in their schools. That is, every participating teacher would have been able to assess some change in the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools were present in their buildings because they had been teaching there for at least a year during which a school improvement program was in progress. Whereas 177 teachers responded to the other two questionnaires, only 161 completed and returned the Staff Perception of Change Survey. To link the Staff Perception of Change Survey with the rest of the study, the researcher decided not only to examine the staff perceptions of change, but also to reassign teachers to the change- facilitator-style categories to which they had been assigned earlier in the study, based on the change-facilitator style they perceived their principal to be demonstrating. After teachers were reassigned to change-facilitator-style categories, their responses to the survey were analyzed to determine whether the extent to which they perceived the effective schools characteristics to be present when the school began its improvement program would be affected by their perceptions of the change- facilitator style they perceived their principal to be demonstrating. The researcher also decided to determine whether the 126 amount of change the teachers perceived to have taken place in the extent to which the characteristics were present in the school would be affected by the change-facilitator style the teachers perceived their principal to be demonstrating. The odd-numbered questions in the Staff Perception of Change Survey pertain to the teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the effective schools characteristics were present at the beginning of the school’s improvement program. Conversely, the even-numbered questions refer to the teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the characteristics were present when the survey was administered. The difference between the scores on the odd and the even questions was the perceived change. The seven characteristics of effective schools were addressed in the Staff Perception of Change Survey in the same order in which they appeared in the Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire. Questions 1 and 2 pertained to Safe and Orderly Environment, Questions 3 and 4 concerned Clear School Mission, Questions 5 and 6 pertained to Instructional Leadership, Questions 7 and 8 referred to High Expectations, Questions 9 and 10 pertained to Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task, Questions 11 and 12 concerned Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress, and Questions 13 and 14 pertained to Home-School Relations. Teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the effective schools characteristics were present at the beginning of the school improvement program are shown in Table 4.10. The means and standard 127 deviations are listed for each of the odd-numbered questions in the survey. Table 4.10.-~Teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the effective schools characteristics were present at the beginning of the school improvement program. Question Characteristic Mean Std. Dev. 1 Safe and Orderly Environment 3.5909 1.0073 3 Clear School Mission 2.3766 1.4600 5 Instructional Leadership 3.3377 1.1559 7 High Expectations 3.8571 1.0380 9 Opportunity to Learn and 4.0325 .9247 Time on Task 11 Frequent Monitoring of Student 3.7532 1.0498 Progress l3 Home-School Relations 3.5909 1.0007 The teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the presence of the effective schools characteristics changed from the beginning of the school improvement to the time of the survey are shown in Table 4.11. The mean and standard deviation are given for each characteristic. 128 Table 4.11.--Teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the effective schools characteristics had changed from the beginning of the school improvement program to the time of the survey. Change Characteristic Mean Std. Dev. 1 Safe and Orderly Environment .2922 .7224 2 Clear School Mission 2.1039 1.6256 3 Instructional Leadership .3506 .8287 4 High Expectations .3831 .9089 5 Opportunity to Learn and .2597 .5694 Time on Task 6 Frequent Monitoring of Student .3831 .8339 Progress 7 Home-School Relations .3377 .7068 Teachers perceived an increase in the extent to which each characteristic was present from the beginning of the school improvement program to the time the survey was administered. The median scores for the perceived extent of change were used to place teachers in the categories of low and high extent of change. If a teacher’s score was at or below the median, he/she was placed in the low extent of change category; if a teacher’s score was above the median, he/she was placed in the high perception of change category. The next step was again to place teachers in the change- facilitator-style categories they had indicated (on the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire) they perceived their principals to 129 be demonstrating. Because 16 of the 177 teachers participating in the study chose not to complete the Staff Perception of Change Survey, the number of teachers placed in each of the three categories was different. However, the process of placing teachers in the categories was simply a matter of cross-referencing the individual teacher identification numbers and determining which style they had previously indicated their principal was demonstrating. After determining the change-facilitator style they had previously identified, all the researcher had to do was place the teachers in the categories of low or high perception of change. The median score for the sum of all presence of characteristics perceived by teachers at the beginning of the school improvement process was calculated to be 17.1429. Teachers whose scores were at or below the median were placed in the low perception of presence category; teachers with scores above the median were placed in the high perception of presence category. After the teachers were placed into change-facilitator-style and perception of presence categories, the data were transferred to chi-square tables for additional analysis. Table 4.12 contains the results of the chi-square analysis of teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the effective schools characteristics were present in their school at the beginning of the school improvement process. The table shows the distribution of teachers according to the change-facilitator styles they' perceived their' principals to be demonstrating. Distribution of teachers in the low or high perception of presence categories is also shown. The table shows 130 the chi-square value for the proportion in which teachers were placed in the perception of presence categories and provides information regarding the probability that placement in the categories, in the same proportion, could happen again on a random basis. Table 4.12.--Chi-square results for staff perception of initial extent of presence of the characteristics of effective schools. Change- Extent of Presence Facilitator . Total Style Low High Initiator Obs. 10 29 39 Exp. 20.3 18.7 X 5.26236 5.74075 Chi-square - ll.00* Manager Obs. l7 14 31 Exp. 16.2 14.8 X .042193 .046028 Chi-square - 0.09 Responder Obs. 57 34 91 Exp. 47.5 43.5 X 1.90958 2.08318 Chi-square . 3.99** Total 84 77 161 *Significant at p < .01. **Significant at p < .05. 0f the 161 teachers who completed the Staff Perception of Change Survey, 91 identified their principals as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style. Of those 91 teachers, 57 indicated that at the beginning of the school improvement process, 131 they perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristics of effective schools in their schools, whereas 34 perceived a high extent of presence of the characteristics. If the teachers had been placed randomly in the low and high perception of presence categories, the expected number of teachers in the low and high perception of presence categories would have been 47.5 and 43.5, respectively. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 3.99, which was significant at p < .05. That is, the probability that teachers would be placed in the low and high perception of presence categories on a random basis was less than .05. Of‘ the 161 teachers who completed the Staff Perception of Change Survey, 31 perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style. Of those 31 teachers, 17 indicated that at the beginning of the school improvement process, they perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristics of effective schools in their schools, whereas 14 indicated that they perceived a high extent of presence of the characteristics. If the teachers had been placed randomly in the low and high perception of presence categories, the expected number of teachers in the low and high perception of presence categories would have been 16.2 and 14.8, respectively. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 0.09, which was not significant. 132 Of the 161 teachers who completed the Staff Perception of Change Survey, 39 perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style. Of those 39 teachers, 10 indicated that at the beginning of the school improvement process, they perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristics of effective schools in their schools, whereas 29 indicated that they perceived a high extent of presence of the characteristics. If the teachers had been placed randomly in the low and high perception of presence categories, the expected number of teachers in the low and high perception of presence categories would have been 16.2 and 14.8, respectively. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in these categories, the calculated chi-square value was 11.00, which was significant at p < .01. In Table 4.13, teachers are placed in the change-facilitator- style categories they perceived their principals to be demonstrating. The distribution of teachers in the low and high perception of change categories is also shown. The table also contains the expected frequency in each category, as well as the chi-square results for each comparison. Of the 161 teachers who completed the Staff Perception of Change Survey, 91 perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style. Of those 91 teachers, 50 perceived a low extent of change in the effective schools characteristics in their schools, whereas 41 perceived a high extent of change. If the teachers had been placed randomly in the low and high perception of change categories, the expected number of 133 teachers in these categories would have been 41.3 and 49.7, respectively. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in the low and high perception of change categories, the calculated chi-square value was 3.39, which was not significant. Table 4.13.--Chi-square results for staff perception of change. Change- Perception of Change Facilitator Total Style Low High Initiator Obs. 16 23 39 Exp. 17.7 21.3 X .160223 .132912 Chi-square - 0.30 Manager Obs. 7 24 31 Exp. 14.1 16.9 X 3.54198 2.93823 Chi-square - 6.48* Responder Obs. 50 41 91 Exp. 41.3 49.7 X 1.85096 1.53546 Chi-square - 3.39 Total 73 41 161 *Significant at p < .05. Of 'the 161 teachers who completed the Staff Perception of Change Survey, 31 perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style. Of those 31 teachers, 7 perceived a low extent of change in the effective schools characteristics in their schools, whereas 24 perceived a high extent of change. If the teachers had been placed randomly in the low and high perception of 134 change categories, the expected number of teachers in these categories would have been 14.1 and 6.48, respectively. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in the low and high perception of change categories, the calculated chi-square value was 6.48, which was significant at p < .05. Of' the 161 teachers. who completed the Staff Perception of Change Survey, 39 perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style. Of those 39 teachers, 16 perceived a low extent of change in the effective schools characteristics in their schools, whereas 23 perceived a high extent of change. If the teachers had been placed randomly in the low and high perception of change categories, the expected number of teachers in these categories would have been 17.7 and 21.3, respectively. Based on the difference between the observed and expected numbers of teachers in the low and high perception of change categories, the calculated chi-square value was 0.30, which was not significant. 5.9mm The data that have been presented in Chapter IV are further analyzed and discussed in Chapter V. A summary of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for additional research are also included in that chapter. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS 51mm Semmerv of Findings Regereing the Nell Hyeethesee Now it is important to determine what all of the data that have been gathered mean. The null hypotheses were examined in Chapter III in seven chi-square tables, each of which served to respond to three of the null hypotheses. In the following paragraphs, each of the null hypotheses is restated, followed by a summary of the findings for that null hypothesis. he_l: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 1 was not retained, based on the fact that the number of teachers placed in the categories of low and high perception of presence was significantly different from the number that could have been expected to be placed in the categories. Such placement was found to have a probability of less than .01. Because this hypothesis was not retained, it can be inferred that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, significantly more teachers will perceive 135 136 a low extent of presence of the characteristic Safe and Orderly environment in their schools. Of the 100 teachers who perceived their principals as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, 73 indicated that they perceived a low extent of presence of Safe and Orderly Environment in their schools. It can be inferred from the nonretention of this null hypothesis that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change- facilitator style, they also will perceive a low extent of presence of the effective schools characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment. he_2: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 2 was retained, based on the fact that no significant difference was found between the proportion in which teachers were placed in the categories of low and high extent of perceived presence and the proportion in which they would have been placed in the categories if no relationship were found to exist between the teachers’ perceptions of the principals’ change- facilitator style and the extent to which the characteristic was perceived to be present in the school. It can be inferred from the retention of this null hypothesis that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, there will be approximately the same number of teachers who perceive a low extent of presence of the 137 characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment as there will be teachers who perceive a high extent of presence of the characteristic. As stated in this null hypothesis, there will be no difference in the teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which a Safe and Orderly Environment is present when the teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style. he_S: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 3 was not retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high perceived extent of presence in a pr0portion that was significantly different from that which could have been expected. Such placement was found to be less than .01 probability. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was not retained that significantly more teachers will perceive a high extent of presence of the characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment when the principal is perceived to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style. In the present study, significantly more teachers perceived a high extent of presence of the characteristic when they perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change- facilitator style as opposed to another style. Based on a probability of .01, it can be inferred that when teachers perceive 138 their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change- facilitator style they also will perceive a high extent of presence of the characteristic Safe and Orderly Environment. he_1: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Clear School Mission is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change facilitator style, as opposed to another style. Null Hypothesis 4 was retained, based on the fact that the proportion of teachers placed in the low and high perception of presence categories was not significantly different from the proportion that would have been observed if no relationship were found between the teachers’ perceptions of the principal’s change- facilitator style and the extent to which the characteristic was perceived to be present in the school. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was retained that there will be no significant difference between teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the characteristic Clear School Mission is present when their principals are perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style as opposed to another style. he_S: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Clear School Mission is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 5 was retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high extent of perceived presence of the characteristic Clear School Mission in a proportion that was not significantly different from the proportion that would have been observed if no relationship were found to exist between 139 teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ change-facilitator style and their perception of the extent to which the characteristic was present. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was retained that teachers will perceive no significant difference in the extent to which the characteristic Clear School Mission is present in the school when they perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style as opposed to another style. he_§: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Clear School Mission is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 6 was retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high extent of perceived presence in a proportion that was not significantly different from the proportion in which they would have been placed in the categories if no relationship existed between the teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ change-facilitator style and their perceptions of the extent to which the characteristic is present in the school. It. can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was retained that there will be no significant difference between teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the characteristic Clear School Mission is present in the school when they perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style as opposed to another style. In other words, if teachers were randomly placed in the perception of 140 presence categories, there would not be any significant difference in that random placement and the placement that resulted in the study when the principal was perceived to be an Initiator. he 2: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Instructional Leadership is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 7 was not retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high perception of presence in a proportion that was significantly different from what could have been expected. Such placement was found to be a less than a .01 probability. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was not retained that significantly more teachers will perceive a low extent of the presence of the characteristic Instructional Leadership when they perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style. he_§: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Instructional Leadership is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 8 was not retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high extent of presence in a proportion that was significantly different from what could have been expected. Such placement was found to be less than a .01 probability. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was not retained that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, 141 significantly more teachers will perceive a high extent of presence of the characteristic Instructional Leadership in their schools. he_S: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Instructional Leadership is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 9 was not retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high perception of presence in a proportion that was significantly different from what could have been expected. Such placement was found to be less than a .01 probability. It can be inferred from the fact that this hypothesis was not retained that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, significantly more teachers will perceive a high extent of presence of the characteristic Instructional Leadership in their schools. he 19: There is I“) significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic High Expectations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 10 was not retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the low and high perception of presence categories in a proportion that was significantly different from what could have been expected. Such placement was found to be less than a .01 probability. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was not retained that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator 142 style, significantly more teachers will perceive a low presence of the characteristic High Expectations in their schools. he ll: There is no sjgnificant difference between the teacher’s perception of’ the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic High Expectations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 11 was retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high perception of presence in a proportion that was found not to be significant. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was retained than when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, there will be no significant difference between the number of teachers who perceive a low extent of presence of the characteristic High Expectations and the number who perceive a high extent of presence of the characteristic in their schools. he l2: There is 1") significant difference between the teacher’s perception of' the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic High Expectations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 12 was not retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high perception of presence in a proportion that was significantly different from what could have been expected. Such placement was found to be less than a .01 probability. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was not retained that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator 143 style, significantly more teachers will perceive a high extent of presence of the characteristic High Expectations in their schools. he 13: There is 1“) significant difference between the teacher’s perception of' the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 13 was not retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high extent of perceived presence in a proportion that was significantly different from what could have been expected. Such placement was found to be less than a .01 probability. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was not retained that when teachers perceive their principal to be demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, significantly more teachers will perceive a low extent of presence of the characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task. he l4: There is 1") significant difference between the teacher’s perception of 'the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 14 was retained, based on the fact that the proportion in which teachers were placed in the categories of low and high perception of presence was not significantly different from the proportion that would have resulted if teachers had been placed randomly in the categories. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was retained that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator 144 style, there will be no significant difference between the number of teachers who perceive a low or a high extent of presence of the characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task in their schools. he lS: There is I") significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 15 was not retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high perception of presence in a proportion that was significantly different from what could have been expected. Such placement was found to be less than a .01 probability. It can be inferred from the fact that Null Hypothesis 15 was not retained that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, significantly more teachers will perceive a high extent of presence of the characteristic Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task. he 15: There is I“) significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 16 was not retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high extent of perceived presence in a proportion that was significantly different from what could have been expected. Such placement was found to be 145 less than a .01 probability. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was not retained that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change- facilitator style, significantly more teachers will perceive a low extent of presence of the characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress in their schools. He l2: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 17 was retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high extent of perceived presence in a proportion that was determined not to be significant. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was retained that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, there will be no significant difference between the number of teachers who perceive a low or a high extent of presence of the characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress. he 1e: ‘There is TH) significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 18 was not retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high perception of presence in a proportion that was significantly different from what could have been expected. Such placement was found to be less than 146 a .01 probability. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was not retained that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, significantly more teachers will perceive a high extent of presence of the characteristic Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress in their schools. he l2: There is I") significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Home-School Relations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 19 was not retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high extent of perceived presence in a proportion that was significantly different from what could have been expected. Such placement was found to be less than a .01 probability. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was not retained that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change- facilitator style, significantly more teachers will perceive a low extent of presence of the characteristic Home-School Relations in their schools. he 29: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Home-School Relations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 20 was retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high extent of 147 perceived presence in a proportion that was determined not to be significant. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was retained that when teachers perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style, there will be no significant difference between the number of teachers who perceive a low or a high extent of presence of the characteristic Home-School Relations in their schools. h_o__2_l_: There is no significant difference between the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the Effective Schools model characteristic Home-School Relations is present in the school when the principal is perceived as demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, as opposed to other styles. Null Hypothesis 21 was not retained, based on the fact that teachers were placed in the categories of low and high extent of perceived presence in a proportion that was significantly different from what could have been expected. Such placement was found to be less than a .01 probability. It can be inferred from the fact that this null hypothesis was not retained that when teachers perceive their principal to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, significantly more teachers will perceive a high extent of presence of the characteristic Home-School Relations in their schools. In total, 13 of the null hypotheses were not retained and 8 were retained. This would seem to indicate that there is a significant relationship between the teacher’s perception of the change-facilitator style of the principal and the teacher’s 148 perception of the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in the school. Table 5.1 contains a synthesis of the findings pertaining to the null hypotheses. Each null hypothesis is listed, along with the number of teachers assigned to the low and high perception of presence categories and whether or not the null hypothesis was retained. Table 5.1.--Summary of null hypotheses retained and not retained, based on teachers’ perceptions of principals’ change- facilitator styles and extent of presence of the characteristics of effective schools. No. of Teachers Null Hypothesis/ Perceiving Change-Facilitator Extent of Presence Decision Style Low High afe nd Or r nvironm nt Ho 1: Responder 73 21 Not retained Ho 2: Manager 18 17 Retained Ho 3: Initiator 3 39 Not retained Cl S h ’ ion Ho 4: Responder 60 40 Retained Ho 5: Manager 15 20 Retained Ho 6: Initiator 18 24 Retained r io Ho 7: Responder 79 21 Not retained Ho 8: Manager 8 27 Not retained Ho 9: Initiator 4 38 Not retained Tabl e 5.l.--Continued. No. of Teachers Null Hypothesis/ Perceiving Change-Facilitator Extent of Presence Decision Style Low High High Exeeetetiehs Ho 10: Responder 65 35 Not retained Ho 11: Manager 17 18 Retained Ho 12: Initiator 9 33 Not retained O ortun’t ar an m n T k Ho 13: Responder 65 35 Not retained Ho 14: Manager 17 18 Retained Ho 15: Initiator 10 32 Not retained Freeuent Monitering of Stud n ro r 5 Ho 16: Responder 68 32 Not retained Ho 17: Manager 17 18 Retained Ho 18: Initiator 9 33 Not retained on - ol 1 io Ho 19: Responder 65 35 Not retained Ho 20: Manager l7 l8 Retained Ho 21: Initiator 7 35 Not retained Of the eight null hypotheses that were retained, six pertained to the Manager change-facilitator style. In Chapter 1, some general assumptions or hypotheses for the study were presented. One of those hypotheses concerned the Manager change-facilitator style. It stated that although principals perceived by their teachers to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style would have a 150 higher extent of presence of the characteristics of effective schools in their schools than principals perceived to be Responders and a lower extent of presence of the characteristics than principals perceived to be Initiators, teachers would generally not perceive a low or high extent of presence of the characteristics when principals were perceived to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style. In Chapter III, it was explained that Managers would typically receive average scores on all six scales of the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire. Teachers typically perceive Managers to fall somewhere between the low level of efficiency, which is classified as Responder, and the high level of efficiency, which is classified as Initiator. The findings in this study indicate that for six of the seven effective schools characteristics, approximately the same number of teachers perceived a low extent of presence as perceived a high extent of presence when the principal was perceived to be a Manager. These findings are consistent with the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire profiles, which were explained in Chapter 111. Teachers tend to be placed in low and high perception of presence categories in distributions that are not statistically significant when principals are perceived to be Managers. Null Hypothesis 8 was the only one pertaining to the Manager change-facilitator style that was not retained. This hypothesis concerned the characteristic Instructional Leadership. It appears 151 that when teachers were asked to indicate their perception of the extent to which the characteristic Instructional Leadership was present in the schools, they perceived Managers to have a higher extent of presence of the characteristic in their schools than Responders. With regard to the characteristic Instructional Leadership, the findings for Null Hypothesis 7 help explain the findings for Null Hypothesis 8. More teachers perceived a low extent of presence of the Icharacteristic Instructional Leadership when principals were perceived to be Responders than perceived a low extent of presence for any other characteristic. It appears that for this characteristic, the Responders were perceived to be so inefficient that teachers perceived the Managers to be significantly more efficient in comparison. The remainder of the findings were consistent with the general hypotheses stated in Chapter I, with two exceptions. Findings for 12 of the 14 null hypotheses that pertained to the Responder and Initiator change-facilitator styles were consistent with the general hypotheses stated in Chapter I. With the exception of Null Hypotheses 4 and 6, all findings for null hypotheses pertaining to Responder’ and Initiator' change-facilitator styles indicated that teachers would perceive a low extent of presence of the characteristics of' effective schools when their principals were perceived to be Responders and a high extent of presence when their principals were perceived to be Initiators. 152 The two null hypotheses for which findings were exceptions to this pattern both pertain to the characteristic Clear School Mission. This can be explained by the fact that creating a mission statement is one of the first steps that must be taken under the Effective Schools model of school improvement. Teachers appear to perceive the change-facilitator style of the principal to have little to do with whether the characteristic is present in the school. All of the other characteristics of effective schools require ongoing focus throughout the school improvement process. After the school mission statement is created and the school improvement process is under way, the relationship between the change-facilitator style of the principal and the extent to which teachers perceive the characteristics of effective schools to be present in the school appears to become more significant. The relationship between the teacher’s perception of the change—facilitator style of the principal and the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in the school has been established. Now efforts can be focused on modifying the change-facilitator style of the principal to increase teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the characteristics are present in the school. Much of the literature referred to earlier documented the fact that an important relationship has already been established between the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in the schools and enhanced student achievement. By establishing a relationship between the change-facilitator style of the principal 153 and the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in the school, another important element has been added. If a relationship exists between the change-facilitator style perceived by a teacher to be demonstrated by the principal and the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are perceived to be present. in the school, and if the extent to which these characteristics are perceived to be present in the school affects students’ achievement level, it seems logical to infer that there is a positive relationship between the principal’s change-facilitator style and the level of student achievement in the school. Although the relationship appears to be indirect, it seems to be an important relationship that needs to be investigated further. Sem wary of eFindinge Reger reihg rthe ff ion 0 an The last findings that need to be discussed pertain to the Staff Perception of Change Survey. The Connecticut School Effectiveness Questionnaire and the Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire provided the necessary information to determine whether a relationship existed between the teacher’s perception of the change-facilitator style of the principal and the teacher’s perception of the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools were present in the school. Determining whether a relationship existed between the perceived change-facilitator style of the principal and the perceived extent to which the characteristics of effective schools were present in the school was 154 the primary focus of this study. The findings that were collected from the Staff Perception of Change Survey were not necessary to establish the relationship that was established using the other two questionnaires. The findings generated by the Staff Perception of Change Survey did, however, provide some insights that were not provided by the other two instruments. The Staff Perception of Change Survey examined teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools were present in the school at the beginning of the school improvement process and their perceptions of the extent to which the characteristics were present when the survey was administered. To connect this survey with the remainder of the study, the researcher decided to return teachers to the change-facilitator style categories that they had previously indicated they perceived their principals to be demonstrating. By doing this it was possible to determine whether the change-facilitator style teachers perceived their principals to be demonstrating was related to the extent to which they perceived the characteristics to be present in their schools. When teachers were asked to indicate to what extent they perceived the characteristics to be present at the beginning of the school improvement process, significantly more teachers who perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change- facilitator style perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristics in their schools. In 1984, Hall found that of the 155 three change-facilitator styles, the Responder was described as the least efficient. From the fact that significantly more teachers perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristics at the beginning, it can be inferred that their principals had been demonstrating the behaviors described as Responder behaviors before the school entered into the school improvement process. Focusing on the teachers who perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change- facilitator style, attention was given to the teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which the characteristics changed between the beginning of the school improvement process and the time the survey was administered. It was found that the teachers who perceived their principals as Responders perceived no significant amount of change in the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools were present in their schools through the first two years of the school improvement process. It can be inferred from this that teachers who perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Responder change-facilitator style perceived a low extent of presence of the characteristics at the beginning and an insignificant amount of change between the beginning of the school improvement program and the time the survey was administered. Teachers who perceived their principals to be responders will perceive a low extent of presence of the characteristics of effective schools at the beginning of a school program and after the program is well under way (in this case, two years). 156 Teachers who perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style indicated by their responses to the portion of the Staff Perception of Change Survey that examined perception of presence of the characteristics at the beginning of the school improvement process that the perceived change-facilitator style of Manager had no significant effect on the extent to which the characteristics were perceived to be present in the school. Teachers who perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style perceived the greatest amount of change in the extent to which the characteristics were present in the school. From the fact that teachers who perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Manager change-facilitator style perceived the greatest amount of change in the extent to which the characteristics were present in the schools, it can be inferred that these principals were more efficient than those who were perceived to be Responders. In similar circumstances, one might anticipate that teachers would perceive a greater increase in the extent to which the characteristics are present in their schools when they perceive their principals to be demonstrating the Manager as opposed to the Responder change-facilitator style. Looking at the responses of teachers who perceived their principals to be demonstrating the Initiator change-facilitator style, one finds that teachers perceived a high extent of presence of the characteristics at the beginning of the school improvement 157 process. Also, it was found that the amount of change teachers perceived to have taken place in the characteristics was not significant. This seems to be confusing in that Initiators are considered the most efficient of the three change-facilitator styles (Hall, 1984). When one considers the fact that the teachers who perceived their principals to be Initiators indicated they perceived a high extent of presence of the characteristics at the beginning of the school improvement process, the fact that they perceived an insignificant amount of change in the characteristics seems to make sense. Because there already was a high perception of presence of the characteristics in the schools, there was not as much room for an increase in the extent of perceived presence to take place. The perceived presence was high at the beginning and remained high when principals were perceived by their teachers to be Initiators. It can be inferred from the findings presented relevant to the Initiator change-facilitator style that teachers who perceive their principals to be Initiators will perceive a high extent of presence of the effective schools characteristics in their schools. mm A. relationship has been established in this study between teachers’ perceptions of the change-facilitator style of the principal and the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are perceived by teachers to be present in the schools. It would seem to be important for others to conduct research to examine the relationship between the change-facilitator style of the 158 principal and the achievement levels of students in the schools where the three change-facilitator styles are perceived to exist. If a relationship is established, it may provide valuable information relevant to the future preparation of school administrators and also may provide information suggesting the need for principals who are already in the field to modify their behavior to increase the effectiveness of their schools. Research also needs to be conducted to determine whether a relationship exists between the principal’s perception of his/her change-facilitator style and the principal’s perception of the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools are present in the school. Rem Conducting this study has been an exciting experience, which has provided the researcher with an increased respect for those who conduct research on a regular basis. It also has resulted in a feeling of pride that was not anticipated at the outset. Because the study has provided important insights into school improvement, the entire process was worthwhile. It is hoped that others who read this dissertation will be better prepared to carry out the school improvement process in their schools. APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE PACKAGE ADMINISTERED TO PARTICIPATING TEACHERS 159 Dear Teacher: I want to thank you in advance for participating in this research project. The project is designed to measure your perceptions regarding a variety of factors concerning your school’s school improvement program. You will be asked to complete three separate surveys. The first survey is the “Revised Connecticut Correlate Survey“. Please complete this survey by responding on the attached “Scantron” computer form with a No. 2 pencil. In the area designated for name, please enter your school district name and the name of your school, is. Bay City Public Schools/ Johnson Elementary. This information will only be used to separate the schools participating in the study as data is entered into the computer for analysis and to provide me with the necessary information to return the results to the appropriate participating schools, after they are analyzed. All results will be confidential and no participating schools will be identified in the final research report. The second survey in your package is the “Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire". Please enter your school district name and the name of your school in the space designated “school“ and the date on which you completed the survey. Once again, strict confidentiality will be preserved throughout the project. To complete this questionnaire, please circle the appropriate responses. The last survey in the package is the “Staff Perception of Change Survey". Once again, please enter your school district and school name in the space designated for school and the date on which you completed the survey. To respond to this survey, please circle the appropriate responses. When you finish with the package, please return it to your principal’s office. It will be placed in an envelope and returned to me for scoring as soon as all packages are collected. The results of this survey will be provided to your school as soon as they are available to help you with your school improvement program. I sincerely hope that you find them to be extremely helpful. Thank you once again for your time and effort. I really appreciate it! Sincerely, M Keith E. Mino, Jr. 160 error EDITION ‘ . THE CONNECTICUT SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS QUESTIONNAIRE CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Principal Author: Ce-Authora: Revision Authors: NLRIGHTSRESERVED NOTTOBE REPRWLDEDWITFWTPWSSIO‘I Robert M. Vlianova William J. Gauthier. Jr. C. Patrick Proctor Joan Shoemaker Hilary E. Freedman Richard E. Lappert Holden T. Waterman Copyright 1901 Revised October 1009 161 THE CONNECTICUT SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS QUESTIONNAIRE Introduction . This Questionnaire is one component oi the Connecticut School Eiiectiveness Assessment Process. Items are drawn trom the research on school and instructional etiectiveness. The school eiiectiveness characteristics assessed through this Questionnaire are the local points oi the Connecticut School Eiiectiveness Project. The purpose oi this Questionnaire is to survey your perceptions based on your experiences In this school. There are no right or wrong answers. Responses are summarized and wit! be reported to the staii at this school in group proiiic iorm. To ensure confidentiality. do not write your name on the Answer Sheet. 1. 2. msrnucnons Please DO NOT MARK the Questionnaire. All responses are 'to be recorded on a separate Answer Shee’t. All items have live (5) possble responses. arranged on a scale from i to 5. The scale represents the amount oi agreement with the item. 1 2 3 4 6 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree (Theacondition is (The condition not present.) is present to the highest degree.) . if you do not have enough knowledge to answer the Item. please leave the Item blank. . Although some items may seem to warrant a Yes-No response. the response categories permit you to indicate the intensity oi your agreement with me Item. Your perceptions based on your experience in this school are1mportant. items are designed to measure 'schooi eiiects' and you will be asked to generalize about the conditions It this schooL You should respond from your own experiences. The person administering this Questionnaire is available to answer procedural questions. but it Is your hierpretation oi each item that is important. Each item must be read carefully. There is no time limit. Completion oi this Questionnaire ls expected to take approximately thirty (30) minutes. 1o. 11. 12. 13. ' 14. ‘5. 16. 162 SAFE AND ORDERLY ENVIRONMENT Sims» ° Disagree Thisschooiisasaieandsecursplacstoworir 1 The school building is neat. bright. clean and comiortabie- 1 A positive ieeling permeates the school 1 Most students it this school are eager and enthusiastic about ieaming 1 Student behavior is generally positive in this school 1 Teachers. administrators. and parents work cooperatively to support the discipline policy in this school 1 The discipline policy is consistently eniorced by all stall in this schcci 1 Students in this school abide by school tutti: 1 Class atmosphere in this school is generally very conducive to learning ior all students 1 CLEAR SCHOOL utsStou This school has a written statement oi purpose that is the driving iorce behind most important decisions 1 in this school. the primary emphasis is on teaching and learning 1 All materials and supplies necessary ior instruction are available 1 in reading. written. sequential objectives exist It all grades 1 Reading objectives are coordinated and monitored it all grades ' 1 in reading. there is an ldentiiled set oi objectives Ital all students must master it all grades 1 in reading. curriculum objectives are the locus oi instruction '1 II'iIS SCHQQI 1 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. £2. 23. 24. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 163 in language arts. written. sequential objectives exist In all grades Language arts objectives are coordinated and monitored it all grades Sirens» Disagree in language arts. there is an identified set ol objectives that all students must master in all grades in language arts. curriculum objectives are the locus ol instruction in this school in mathematics. written. sequential objectives exist in all grades Mathematics objectives are coordinated and monitored in all grades in mathematics. there is an identified set ol objectives that all students must master in all grades lrt mathematics. curriculum objectives are the locus ol instruction in this school Almost ail the students irt this school try hard to get good grades..- 1 INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP There is clear. strong. centralized instructional leadership irom the principal in this school Most problems lacing this school can be solved by the The principal is very active in securing resources. arranging opportunities and promoting stall principal and laculty without a great deal ol outside heip..............1 development activities lor the laculty The principal ls.highiy visible throughout the sohoot Theprincbsilsawesslbietodlscussmattersdeallng with lrtstructiorI The principal is an important hstructional resource personlnthisschool Strongly Agree '32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 4.0. 41. ‘2. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. ' Supervision is directed at instruction 164 Teachers in this school turn to the principal with instructional concerns or problems Emir Disagree The principal makes inlorrnal contacts with students and teachers around the school Discussions with the principal olten result in some aspect oi improved instructional practice The principal leads lrsquent lonnal discussions concerning instruction and student achievement The principal regularly brings instructional issues to the laculty lor discussion The principal reviews and interprets test results with the laculty The principal emphasizes the meaning and the use ol test results The princi'pallrequently communicates to teachers their responsibility in relation to student achiwement.................. 1 The principal uses test results b recommend modifications or changes in the instructional program...................1 At the principals initiative. teachers work together to coordinate the instructional program within and between grades.................... 1 The principal requires and regularly reviews lesson plans- ....... 1 The principal regularly gives leedback to teachers concerning lesson plans The principal makes lonnal classroom observations individual teachers and the principal meet regularly to discuss what the principal will observe during a classroom observation Formal observations by the principal are regularly lollowed by a post-observation conlerence Stencil! Agree 48. 43. so. 5‘. 52. '53. 5‘. 55. 57. 58. 60. 61. 62. 165 smut Disagree During loiiow-up to lormal observations. a plan lor improvement lrequently results 1 During lollow-up to lonnal observations. the principals main emphasis is on instructional issues HIGH EXPECTATIONS Ninety-five to one hundred percent ol the students it this school can be expected to complete high school”... 1 All teachers in this school hold consistently high expectations lor all students 1 Teachers believe that a student's home badrground is not the primary lactor that determines individual student achievement in this school 1 in this school low-achieving students are as well-behaved as other students 1 Teachers in this school believe they are responsible lor all students mastering basic skills at each grade level 1 Teachers believe that all students in this school can master basic skills as a direct result ol the hstructionai program........... 1 This school has successlul preventive strategies lor helping students at risk ol school laiiure 1 in this school. remedial programs are a last resort. 1 The number ol loweincome children promoted is proportionately equivalent to all other children promoted..............1 . in this school. there are clear guldefines lor grouping students lor instruction in reading. hstructlon is often presented to a heterogeneous ability group of students 1 in mathematia. instruction is olten presented to a heterogeneous ability group ol students 1 in language arts. hatructlon is olten presented to a heterogeneous ability group oi students 1 Strongly Agree ‘3. 64. 65. 67. 83. 7o. 71. 72. 73. 7‘. 75. 166 8W Disagree Within the classroom. students are assigned - to groups ior extra help on a temporary basis only 1 2 ' OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN mo nus-on-resx The school's daily schedule supports the goals at his instructional program 1 2 Two hours or more are allocated lor reading lianguage arts each 'day throughout this school 1 2 Filly minutes or more are allocated lor mathematics each day throughout this school 1 2 Pull-out programs (e.g. Chapter 1. special ed.. instrumental music. etc.) do not disrupt or interiors with basic skills instruction 1 2 Special instructional programs lor individual students are integrated with classroom instruction and the school curriculum 1 2 Teachers implement the homework policy in this scltooLW1 2 Factors outside the classroom rarely hierlere with instruction in this school 1 2 There are low interruptions due to discipline problems during class time 1 2 During classroom instruction students do not work independently on seatworlt tor the majority ol the allocated time . 1 2 Students are absent irom school only lor good reasons 1 2 FREOUENT NONITORING OF STUDENT PROGRESS Multiple indicators are used regularly to assess student progress (e.g.. grades. tests. attendance. discipline relerrsis. extracurricular. etc.) 1 2 The testing program is an accurate and vsfid measure ol the curriculum in this school 1 2 Small 4 5 167 Stone» Disagree .76. Criterion-relerenced tests are used to assess instruction throughout the school 1 2 77. Achievement test scores are analyzed separately lor subgroups ol students (e.g.. gender. race. ethnicity social class. etc.) to assure that all students are achieving.............1 2 78. Teachers and the principal thoroughly review and analyze test results to plan hatructional program modifications 1 2 79. Many students receive honor and recognition lor academic perlorrnance 1 2 80. Students have many opportunities to demonstrate , leadership skills . 1 2 81. Students have many opportunities to demonstrate talents 81 art. music. drama. dance. and athletics 1 2 82. in this school. ail teachers apply consistent criteria to assigning course grades 1 2 HOME-SCHOOL RELATIONS 83. There is an active parent/school group in this school 1 2 84. Many parents are involved in school activities 1 2 85. Many parents initiate contacts with the school each month. 1 2 86. ' Most parents understand and promote the school's instructional program 1 2 87. ' Parents support the school in matters oi student discipline..........1 2 88. Parents support his homework policy in this school 1 2 as. There is cooperation with regard to homework between parents and teachers in this school 1 2 so. Ahnost all students complete assigned homework belore coming to school 1 2 91. Ninety to one hundred percent oi your students' parents attend scheduled parent-teacher conierences . 1 2 4 Brunei! ’2. 33. 34. ’5. 36. 37. , than a superficial. role in the educational program 168 During parent-teacher conierences there is a locus on lactors directly related to- student achievement Sims» Disagree Parent-teacher conierences result it specific plans lor home-school cooperation aimed at improving student classroom achievement Beyond parent conierences and report cards. teachers in this school use other ways oi communicating student progress to parents (e.g.. home visits. phone calls. newsletters. regular notes) Parents oi students in your class have regular opportunities to observe the instructional program Parents ol students in your class have a significant. rather Most parents would rate this school as excellent ' Strongly 49'” 169 ‘ CPS-87 School: Date: #1 I CHANGE FACHJTATOR STYLE QUESTIONNAIRE On the following pages is a list of short phrases that describe different activities. goals and emphases that principals and other leaders can have. Studies have shown that different people place different emphases on each of these behaviors and that there is an overall pattern or style that is unique to each. This questionnaire is a way to estimate the emphasis that is given to different leadership activities. It has been designed to be a way to help leaders analyze what they are doing. There is no right or wrong way. however. there do seem to be some patterns. in this instance. would you consider the leadership/facilitating activities of your principal. Note that some of the items in this questionnaire refer to how this person is working in relation to a particular program or innovation. For those items please think about your principal's role with School Improvement . Also. some of the items are similar to other items. This is done deliberately in a questionnaire of this type. By having similar items. each item can be less complex and it is possible for you to complete the questionnaire in a minimum amount of time. Having each item rated on a continuum is important too. For most facilitators/leaders most items will apply. what makes the difference is the amount of emphasis or de-emphasis a particular leader gives to each type of activity. Please read each phrase and use the following scale points to rate the degree of emphasis given to each by your principal. l ........ 2. ....... 3. . . . . . . . 4 ........ 5 ........ 6. never rarely seldom sometimes often always or or not true very true This questionnaire is not to be copied or used unless permission has been granted by the authors. Copyright 1987. Gene 5. Hall a Roland Vandenberghe Concerns Based Systems international Copyright Based Systems international 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 170 '1 ......... .2 .......... 3 .......... 4.....:....S .......... 6 Never or Rarely Seldom Sometimes Often Always or not true very true ls friendly when we talk to him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Knows a lot about teaching and curriculum. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Procedures and rules are clearly spelled out. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Discusses school problems in a productive way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Seems to be disorganized at times. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Shares many ideas for improving teaching and l 2 3 4 5 6 learning. Plans and procedures are introduced at the 1 2 3 4 5 6 last moment. Keeps everyone informed about procedures. 1 2 3 4 5. 6 Slhe is heavily involved in what is happening 1 2 3 4 5 6 with teachers and students. Proposes loosely defined solutions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Is primarily concerned about how teachers feel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Asks questions about what teachers are doing 1 2 3 4 5 6 in their classrooms. 'Has few concrete ideas for improvement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Provides guidelines for efficient operation 1 2 3 4 5 6 of the school. Supports his/her teachers when it really 1 2 3 4 5 6 counts. Allocation of resources is disorganized. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. 18. 19. 20., 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 171 l ......... .2. .' ........ 3 .......... 4 ....... Never or Rarely Seldom Sometimes not true Efficient and smooth running of the school is his/her priority. Uses many sources to learn more about the program/innovation. Being accepted by teachers is very important to him/her. Slhe sees the connection between the day to day activities and moving toward a long-term goaL Knows very little about programs/and innovations. 1s skilled at organizing resources and schedules. Has an incomplete view about the future of his/her school. Attending to feelings and perceptions is his/her first priority. Explores issues in a loosely structured way. Chats socially with teachers. Delays making decisions to the last possible moment. Focuses on issues of limited importance. Takes the lead when problems must be solved. Has a clear picture of where the school is going. ...5 ........ M6 Often Always or very true 123456 172 How many years have you been a teacher or staff member in this school? Circle one: 1 2 3 4 5 6-9 10-14 15 or more In your career, including your current principal. how many different principals have you worked with? Circle one: 1 2 ' 3 - 4 5 or more Are there other key things that your principal does that you see as being important aspects of how she/he facilitates the school? If so please describe them here. Any other ideas or‘suggestions about how to look at the principal's role in facilitating improvements? Thank you. School District: 173 STAFF PERCEPTION OF CHANGE SURVEY Name of School: During our school's school improvement implementation process. the following changes have been made in the extent to which the Correlates of Effective Schools are present in our building. Please circle the response which most accurately describes your perception. Characteristics of Effective Schools NOT mm FULLY W i. In the beginning of school improvement: 1 2 4 5 Safe and Orderly Environment 2. Presently: 1 2 4 5 Safe and Orderly Environment 3. In the beginning of school improvement process: 1 2 4 5 Clear School Mission 4. Presently: l 2 4 5 Clear School Mission 5. In the beginning of school improvement process: 1 2 4 5 Instructional Leadership 6. Presently: l 2 4 5 Instructional Leadership 7. In the beginning of school improvement process: 1 2 4 5 High Expectations 8. Presently: l 2 4 5 High Expectations 9. In the beginning of school improvement process: 1 2 4 5 Opportunity To Learn And Time On Task 10. Present: 1 2 4 5 Opportunity To Learn And Time On Task 11. Inthebeginning ofschoolimprovementproccss: l 2 4 5 Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress 12. Presently: l 2 4 5 Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress 13. In the beginning of school improvement process: 1 2 4 5 Home School Relations 14. Presently: 1 2 4 5 Home School Relations APPENDIX B CONNECTICUT SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS QUESTIONNAIRE PROFILE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL T74 O Report: mm Pr‘ntedJULtaso Questionnaire: ammmW-mim PD" Admlnletratlon: - " - FACULTY “FE AND ORDER“ ENVIRONMENT 80 . . . 8A Not 'l’otal Ilean (1) (2) (3) (1 (”Known 1. “I'liissdrcolbaedemdseuaeplacebworlt 0% 0% 33% 8% m 0% 12 3.83 2 Theadicolbulldiripbneubr'nmmanend 3% 17% 5% 3% 0% 0% 12 2.75 Womble. A positive leel‘ng permeates the adrool. 8% m 5% 0% 0% 0% 12 2.42 Ibststudentslnthisschoolareeeperand 0% 0% 0% 67% 8% 0% 12 4.17 enthusiastic about learning. 5. Student behavior is generally positive in this 0% 0% 8% 42% m 0% 12 4.08 schooL 6. Teachers. administrators. and parent work 0% 17% 42% m 8% 0% 12 3.33 cooperatively to support the diee'pline policy in themed. 7. The discipline policy is consistently eniorced by 0% 5% 33% 5% 8% 0% 12 3.00 all staii in this school. 0. Students in this school abide by school rules. 0% 0% 17% 75% 0% 0% 12 3.02 Class atmosphere in this school is generally very 0% 0% 0% 58% 3% 0% 12 4.00 conducive to learning tor all students. Toni! 8% 12% 24% 40% 18% 0% 108 3.50 T75 'nepon: mm Pris-cu. isso Ousstlonnelre: WWW-m 130 Pqez Admlnlstretlon: - FACULTY CLEAR SCHOOL W 00 . . . 8A Not Total Bean (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Mon 10. Thhadroolhasawrttenuatemeudpupcse 0% 17% 3% 3% 17% 0% 12 3.50 that is the driving lorce behind rncst inportant m 11. hfibachcottheprinaryemphashison 0% 0% 0% 50% 3% 0% 12 4.8 new and leaning. 12. Almderlelsandstmpiesnecesserybr 17% 17% 8% 42% 0% 0% 12 2.02 hstruction are averldile. 13. h reed’eig. written. sequential obiealves exist 0% 0% 0% 07% 0% 0% 12 3.58 hdgrades. 14. Readlnoobieahresareaiordinatedandrnonitored 0% 0% 3% 50% 0% 0% 12 350 h algrades. 1s. hreadlng.there‘eanidentfledsetot 0% 0% 42% 0% 0% 12 33 objectivesthatallstudentsmustmaster'nall own. 10. hreeding.curriwlurncbieethresaretheloeus 0% 0% 8% 50% 0% 0% 12 3.67 oihstructioninthisaehcol. 17. hlenpuapearts.wrltten.aequentialobiectives 17% 8% 3% 8% 0% 0% 12 267 exhtinallgredes. 10. Lanpuepeutscbieaivesaremordinatedand 0% 50% 17% 17% 0% 0% 12 2.45 rnon‘aored'nalgrades. 10. hmuapemthereisanuerfliedsetol 8% 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 12 2.50 daiectivesthetalstudemsmustmestetinal M 20. hbtpuageangcurriculumobiectivesarethe 17% 8% 17% 42% 0% 0% 12 2.03 betrsolinstmctionhthisachcol. 21. hnmhemmwrlttertaequentielobiealves 0% 0% 0% 3% 42% 0% 12 4.3 eattlnallgrades. alhthemat‘nscbieaivesaremdirw 0%0%0%00%8%0%124.00 mothoredinalgrades. ' 23. hmflrerehanldentfiedeetoi 0% 0% 0% 07% 17% 0% 12 302 mamammmnan I“ 24. hmmmweeuethe 0% 0% 0% 07% 17% 0% 12 3.3 bandiuuctionhthbechool. 8. mathemrmidicoltryhld 0% 0% 3% 17% 17% 0% 12 3.45 bpstpodgredes. T76 Report: am ME Prhed M 10 so Guestlonnelre: EBENTARY W - FEVBED 1000 P93 Admlnlstratlon: .‘— :eFACULTY CLEAR SCHOOL 00881011 80 . . . 0A Not 1on1 Ilean 11) (2) (3) (4) (5) M 701010 0% 18% 21% 00% 11% 1% 102 0.03 T77 . s Report: mm ' “030.1110” Questionnaire: WWW-W130 pg“ Administration: -: Z " '--' F’AGULTY 0157110011011”. LEADERSHIP 00 . . . 8A Not Total Mean (1) (2) (3) (4) (31mm 20. 111erebcleu.suong.cemalizedlnstrualonal 3% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 12 zoo badershb iron the princbel In this school. 27. lbstproblernsiecingthisechcolcenbeeohredby 0% 8% 3% 17% 17% 0% 12 3.3 theprincbeiand lacuty wihout eyed deaiot when i a a a a 20. Theprlrwelhverydveinseaahg 0% 12 1.75 reeources.arrangingopponuntieaandpromoting staildevelcpmentaraivliesiortheiaculy. 20. TheWishighlyvlsblethroughouthe 0% 8% 17% 0% 0% 0% 12 2.17 achooL 30. Theprincbelisamessblebdiecussrna'ners 8% 8% 8% 17% 0% 0% 12 2.58 dealingwithinstruction. 31. Theprincipelism'erportanthstructional 8% 07% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12 13 reaourcepereoninthisschool. 32. Teachersinthlsachcoltumtotheprincbal 8% 8% 3% 17% 0% 0% 12 2.42 with hermetional concernsorproblems. 3 mwmmmm 0% 8% 0% 17% 0% 0% 12 2.02 studentsandteachersaroundtheachool. 34. Discussionswlththeprirwalohenresulh 3% 8% 3% 0% 0% 0% 12 217 aomeaspectotirnprovedhstruaionslpractiee. 8. Theprhehelleadsirequentbrmaldiscuesions 8% 58% 0% 8% 0% 0% 12 2.00 concerning instruction and student achievement 3. 1heprincbalragulurybringslnstructbnal 8% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12 217 lssuestcthetacultylordiscussion. 37. 'l'heprincbeireviewsmdhterprststestresuits 3% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12 2.8 withtheiacully. 30. MWWesthemeaningendtheme 3% 8% 8% 0% 0% 8% 12 2.18 oltestresults. 30. Theprlncbeiirequentlyccrnmunlcetestoteechers 17% 17% 8% 3% 0% 0% 12 2.02 theirreepcnsbillylnreletlonbswdent More 40. Theprhqiduestedreeusbremrnmend 0% 8% 17% 0% 0% 17% 12 1.70 Mordurgeehthemnal m 41. mammogram 80%17% 8% 0% 0% 0% 12 2.3 hgetherbcordhatethelnaniabnelprcgrem mum-rm T78 . 1 Report: Simmons ‘ Pr'ndequw Questionnaire: MARY W -EVISED1000 Pms Administration: ‘ ' ‘ACULTY NSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP 00 . . . 0A Not total ”sen (1) (2) 13) (4) anthem 42. 1heprh¢elrequiresmdregtrluiyrevievls 0% 8% 0% 17% 0% 0% 12 2,5 bseonplms. 43. Theprincbdregulariygivesieerbedtb 50% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12 1.50 teecheraconceminglesaonpiens. 44. Supervisionlsdirecteduinstnnion. 3% 8% 3% 0% 0% 0% 12 2.17 45. mwmwm 17%17% 8% 0% 3% 0% 12 3.8 observations. 48. lndividualteschersendthepnncbslmeet 42% 17% 17% 17% 0% 0% 12 2.00 mthodisarsswhltlteerwili observeduringaclessroomcbservation. 47. Fonnalobservatbnsbytheprincbalare 8% 0% 3% 0% 3% 0% 12 3.00 regularly lollowedbyspost-obeervation Woe. 40. Duringiolicw-mbionnalweervationstlan 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 12 3.00 lot improvement 1requently results. 40. Duinglolow-rpbionnalobservationa.” 17% 17% 8% 0% 0% 3% 12 2.50 pnncpal" ' smain' emphasisisonimtructro’nal hiss Tabb 30% 27% 24% 0% 0% 0% 200 2.32 T79 13...". summons mm 10 so Guestlonnalre: MARY DIES‘I'DNNAHE . EVISED1009 M0 Administration: ' ' ‘ FAGUL'W 1001-1 EXPECTATIONS 00 . . . 0A Not 'rotal Ilean (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) mm 3. Nisan/Jive to one hundred percent at the 8% 8% 17% 17% 0% 17% 12 2.30 students in this school can be expected to m lfll sdrocl. 51. Alteadiershthhsdrcolhoidconsistently 0% 0% 0% 8% 3% 0% 12 4.3 huh aapedatlons tor a0 students. 52. Techers believe that a student's home background 17% 0% 8% 0% 17% 0% 12 3.42 h nottheprlmaryiadorthat detennlnes hdividual student achievement in this school. 53. lnthisachcollow-drievingmrdentaueaa 0% 8% 3% 17% 0% 0% 12 2.75 well-behavedasotherstudents. 54. Techersinthisedioolbeievetheyce 0% 0% 3% 0% 17% 8% 12 3.02 reeponsblelorallstudents masteringbasic ddsledtqfielevel. 55. Teachersbelievethatallstudentshthisechcol 0% 0% 8% 50% 0% 8% 12 3.84 canrnasterbasicakilsasadirearesuldthe Wm 50. mssehoolhassuccesatulpreventlvestrategles 0% 3% 17% 17% 0% 0% 12 2.02 brhelplngstudentsatriskoischooliailure. 57. htl'iissdioolaemedidprogran'oueaiast 0% 0% 8% 50% 17% 0% 12 3.67 700011. 50. Thewmberotlovr-lncomechiidrenpromctedis 0% 0% 8% 0% 3% 0% 12 4.00 proportionately equivalent b all other children normed. 50. hti'iisachooLthereuedearguidelinestor 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 17% 12 300 grouping students ior instmction. 3. hrsadinanstructionisohenpreeentedba 8% 0% 8% 3% 0% 0% 12 2.82 heterogeneous ability group at students. 01. hmatherndics.hstrudionlsoitenpresentedto 0% 0% 0% 07% 8% 0% 12 4.17 aheterogeneous ability gromot students. 02. hianguageertsJistructionboiienpreeented 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 12 4.8 baheterogeneousfiiliiygroupotawdents. 03. Whithtlredsssroom.smdentsuensignedb 0% 0% 3% 3% 17% 0% 12 355 mumhebonatempomybasisonly. Tm 7%10%2I% 10% 0%100 3.50 T80 . 0 Report: mamas Prhsd M. 10 80 Questionnaire: MARY OLESTDNNABE - FEVBED1800 pg" Administration: " 3'3 FACULTY QPPORTWTY 1’0 LEARN AND Mom-TASK 00 . . . 0A Not 1’otal Usan (1) (2) (3) (4i (5) Known 04. medioorsdailyechedulestmortsthegoalsoi 0% 0% 8% 3% 3% 0% 12 3.3 ms hatructional program. 05. Tmiousormcreuemdedbr 0% 0% 8% 8% 17% 17% 12 3.40 readirrgflmguageartseadidaythrougroutthis dead 08. Whitheormoreueahuedhr 0% 0% 0% 8% 3% 0% 12 4.27 memematlcseadrdeytluoughcutthissdrool 07. Pull-ouprograrns(e.g.chqiter1.q:ecieled.. 0% 17% 3% 0% 0% 0% 12 2.17 hstmmentalmushenwonddismnor Merewlhbesbsltih'nstnnbn. 00. Specialinshuciionaiprogramsiorindividual 0% 17% 8% 17% 8% 8% 12 3.36 students are integrated wihciassroom hatructionandu'ieachoolwnhmm. 08. Tenherslmplementthehomeworitpolicyiithis 17% 8% 17% 17% ms 8% 12 2.44 achooL 70. Fataorsoutsfletheclassrcomrarelylnteriere 17% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 12 2.3 vrlhhstructioninthbachool. 71. Thereuelewinternptionsduetodiscbllne 0% 0% 8% 8% 0% 0% 12 3.75 problemsduringclmstirne. 12 3.55 i r a 72. Duringciasaroomhstrudionstudentadoruvrork 0% 0% 3% hdependentlyonseatvrorkiorthemalorlyoithe with. 73. Shrdentsareabeentiromachcolonlyiorgood 8% 17% 3% 8% 0% 0% 12 2.3 reasons. 700010 10% 10% 20% 27% 14% 7% 120 0.21 18T noponz'smm Priade103 00001100110110: EBENTARY m - EVBED 130 ”0 “10111101101100: ' FAWL‘IY FREQUENT WORM OF STUDENT PROGRESS SD . 0A 1401 70101 I001! m (:3 (5) (a) (51mm 0% 74. W hdicators are used reguhrty b assess 0% student progress (e.g.. grades. tests. lurid-ice. dac’pine retards. mm. etc.) 75. Missthgprogramlsanmcuateandvalid 0% 8% 0% 17% 0% 0% 12 3.00 measueotmecuniculurnhthissdrcol. 17% 0% 17% 12 3.3 § 70. Orlerion-reierencedtestsareuaedbasaess 0% 0% hstnrctionthroughouttheachool. fl. Adrievementtestscorescemalyaedseparately 8% 8% 17% 0% 0% 17% 12 2.40 br subgroups cl students (e.g.. gender. race. ethnizty.scciaiclass.ete.)toassurethdal 78. Teachersandtheprhc'palthoroughlyreviewand 8% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12 2.00 malyzetestresuitstoplanlnstruetional progrunrnodla'ons. 12 3.82 91 ll 9 a 70. Manyatudentsreceivehonorandrecognltionior 0% 0% academic perlormance. 17% 12 4.3 1 1 a 80. Studentshavemanycpporhrnltiesbdemonstrate 0% 0% leadershbekllls. 9 ll 5 3 re 81. Smdenuhavemanycpportunitiesbdemonstrate 0% 0% Usntshutmuhdrunndance.“ “It: 3. hdisechoolalteadreremph/onelstent 17%17% 0% 0% 0% 17% 12 2.00 aiensbasabningmuraegrades. 701010 0%15%27%25%17% 0%100 0.20 182 e 0 . Report: mm: P11300110” Questionnaire: WWW-W180 PpO Admlnlstretlen: * 93 FACUIJY MENU” 0‘ 1101 70101 “I 00 (11 1!) 0% 0% as is 3 00. 111000-1deth 0% 12 0.00 educaL 3 3 3 re 04. methdnolm 2.02 3 3 3 n 2.02 H 11 mwmmmhm «mm 00. Ibstperentsunderstmdendpromoteflieschoofs Madman. 07. Perersswpportmeschoolhmenersdstuderl “pins. 00. wwwmmhm 0011001. 1:: 1:: 111111119 3 3 00. Therebmuperstionvlflregudbm betweenperentsendteechershtflsednol. 00. mummmm bebrecomhgtoechool. 111111 1 1 E 01. Mbonehmdredpercentdywrstudents‘ 8% 0% perents attend scheduled perentoteecher m 4.3 1 1 a 02. mwmcorfleremestherebe 0% 0% 17% mmmdhctlyreletedbstudeu M 4m 1 1 3 s 8. PM-tedurmderencesrewlhepedic 0% 0% 17% plens1orhome-eduooloopersfionelmedet WMWM “Wampum-0mm 0%“an 01512401 Whmbsdmlueeotherweysd ammonia-101g studerl progress to perents (e.g.. mmplmcslsmewslmreguhr notes). 8. MthWdesshlvereguhr 0% 17% 8% 8% 8% 0% 12 0.50 mmnmmwmu m 8. Mthmhu-vee 17% 0% 8% 00% 0% 0% 12 100 mMeWroleh ”Wm 3.17 07. ummmwM-m 0% 0% “1”“ 1m 4% 10% 183 STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION September 10, 1990 Mr. Keith Mino 147 8. Holiday Drive lonia, Ml 48846 Dear Mr. Mino: We hereby grant you permission to reprint and administer the Connecticut School Effectiveness instruments with the condition that the Connecticut State Department of Education be properly cited. Sincerely, gig-MM Joan Shoemaker Bureau of School and Program Development 25 Industrial Park Road 0 Middletown, Connecticut 06457 An Equal Opportunity Employer 184 PERMISSION TO QUOTE OR REPRODUCE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL I, gene E. I_~1all, owner(s) of the copyright of the work known as Change ’ 'tato S ues io nai e S-87 hereby authorize W to use the following material as part of his dissertation to be submitted to Michigan State University. Page Inclusive Line Numbers Passages to be Quotegjgeproduced Four (4) pages consisting of CPS-87 (cover page, two pages of items and demographic page). I further extend this authorization to University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the purposes of reproducing and distributing microformed copies of the dissertation. Gene E. Hall Signature of Copyright Holder Dated: September 25, 1990 APPENDIX D LETTER FROM UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS GRANTING APPROVAL TO CONDUCT THE RESEARCH 'F85 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 0014-10“ DEM 01" EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION BICKSON HAIL April 30, 1990 Dr. John K. Hudzik Chair, UCRIHS Dear Dr. Hudzik: The doctoral guidance committee for Mr. Keith E. Mine, Jr. has approved his prospectus for the doctoral dissertation on h/30/90. Samuel A. Professor and Committee Chair 1b "I \E 'u -n .1'31'vvutrr'c . 1.:: w: 3.1.1-!11.-fungus}: I-tttrlut'm 186 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY W COMMITTEE ON ma! INVOLVING EAST MNSING 0 IICHIGAN 0 (0020-1111 HUMAN SUBJECTS (1101115) I“ my “All (517) 353-9730 May 4, 1990 IRB# 90-197 Keith Mino, Jr. 250 E. Tuttle Road lonia, MI 48846 Dear Mr. Mino: RE: “A STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF CHANGE FACILITATOR STYLE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN 'EFFECTlVE SCHOOLS MODEL’ SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IR8# 90-197“ The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proposed research protocol has been reviewed by another committee member. The rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to May 4. l99l. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. It I can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, J .hn K. Hudzik, Ph.D. Chair, UCRIHS JKH/sar cc: S. Moore mu 3. .- 4.1/M Arrive/Eyed Opportunity Institution APPENDIX E CHANGE-FACILITATOR-STYLE PROFILES FOR INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS “1’25"” -IIII'II 187 CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: ONE 100 PERCENTILE 75 50' 25' 111101'11101 FOIMI 0111010 EHIOIODOV “V'W'fiV Vlslon CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: TWO PERCENTILE 4 Informal Formal Others Ettlolenw Dev-to-dey Vlolcn CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMSINTERNA 'I'INO AL 189 CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: THREE PERCENTILE 75 26 9 11110111101 FOI'I'MI 0111010 511101011” DIV-b-“V VIIIOI'I CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 190 CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: FOUR 11110111101 FOIMI 0111010 EWIOIOM DIV’M‘CY V1010“ CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 191 CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: FIVE Informal Formal Others Efflolencv Dev-to-dey Vlslon CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 192 CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: SIX 100 PERCENTILE 75 60 25 11110111101 Formal 0111010 ENIOIODOV DDY‘tfl-“V VIOIOD CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 193 CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: SEVEN 99 100 100 PERCENTILE 76 60 25 1111011110I F0111101 0111010 E111010110V DIY'10'00Y V10101'l CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL e". -Jihfi 194 CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: EIGHT 11110111101 F011110| 0111010 5111010110Y Dev-to-dsy V1010" CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 195 CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: NINE 100 Panorama 75 - 26' 11110111101 F0111I1 0111010 E111010110V Dev-to-dey V101011 CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 196 CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: TEN 100 Panorama 75 60 26' Informal Forms! Other. Efficiency Day—to-dey Vlelon CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 197 CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: ELEVEN 100 PERCENTILE 75 26' 11110111101 F0111I1 0111010 E111010110Y Dev-ic-dsy V101011 CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 198 CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: TWELVE 100 Panorama 75 lnlormsl Forms! Others Efficiency Dev-to—ssy Vlslon CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMS NTERNATIONAL 199 CHANGE FACILITATOR PROFILE SCHOOL: THIRTEEN Informal Forms! 0111010 E111010110Y Dev-to-dey V101011 CONCERNS BASED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrews, R. L., and Soder, R. "Principal Leadership and Student Achievement.‘I Educational Leaderehig 44 (March 1987): 9-ll. Barr, R., and Druben, R. how Sehools Kerk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Barth, R. L. "Good News! A Response to Dombart." Educatienal Leadership 43 (November 1985): 73. Bennis, H., and Nanus, B. Leaders, The Strategies for Teking Charge. New York: Harper and Row, 1985. Blanchard, K. H., and Hersey, P. Management of Orgenizetiohel Behavior: Utilizingefluman Resogrees. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1982. Blumberg, A., and Greenfield, N. The f ive Prin i a1: P c- Ljves oh Sehgel Leadership. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980. Bossert, S.; Rowan, 8.; Dwyer, D.; and Lee, G. The 1n§tructionel Management Role of the Erjhcigal: A Preliminary Review and Conceptualizatjgn. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Education Research and Development, 1981. Boyer, E. L. ”In the Aftermath of Excellence." Edgcational Leader- ship 42 (March 1985): 10-13. Brandt, R., ed. f c 'v 1 m men . 1989. . "0n Improving Achievement of Minority Children: A Conversation With James Comer.“ Eggcetjgnel Leederehjp 43 (February l986): l3-l7. "0n Leaders and Student Achievement: A Conversation With Richard Andrews." {gheetiehel_LeegeL§hip 45 (September 1987): 9-l6. . heaegrjhg end Attaining the figels gf Egugetjeh. ASCD Committee on Research and Theory, 1980. . "Ramrodding Reform in Texas.” Eggeetiehel_Leeger§h1p 42 ““‘Tfi3rch l985): 3, 94. 200 201 "On School Improvement in Pittsburgh: A Conversation —1Iith Richard Wallace.” MW 44 (May 1987): 39-43. Bridges, E. m he . Philadelphia: Palmer, 1986. Brookover, H. 8., and Lezotte, L. H. Qhepges_1p_§ehpp1_§hprpttep_ MW. East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Urban Develop- ment, 1977. Brookover. ll. 8.. et al. WWW Aehieyemeht. East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Urban Development, 1976. Brookover, H. 8., and others. em Aehievemeht. East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Urban Development, 1976. Cawelti, G. "Nhy Instructional Leaders Are So Scarce.” c al Leadership 45 (September 1987): 3. Coleman, J. S., et al. Eggplity of Edueptipnpl Qppprtghjty. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics, l966. Connecticut State Department of Education. G tut Schppl Effeptjyehess Project. Hartford: School Effective- ness Unit, Bureau of School and Program Development, July 1989. Corbett, H. D. Three Epths tp Implementing ghpnge. Pennsylvania: Research for Better Schools, 1989. Corbett, H. D., and D’Amico, J. "No More Heroes: Creating Systems to Support Change.” Eggtetional Lepdepshjp 44 (September 1986): 70-72. Corbett, H. D, Dawson, J. A. ; and Firestone, N. A. Ssh po 0] Qpht est end Sphpp! Chenge 1m pljta tjo ops fpr Etfeptjv ve Elghhjpg. Penn- sylvania: Research for Better Schools, l984. Corbett, H. D., and Rossman, G. 8. “Three Paths to Implementing Change: A Research Note.” Curpjpgluh Ihggjry (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education) l9 (1989): 2. Cox, P. L. "Complementary Roles in Successful Change.” Eggppttppel Leggetshtp 41 (November 1983): l0-13. D’Amico, J. ”Using Effective Schools Studies to Create Effective Schools: No Recipe Yet.“ Eggpettppel_tepgetsh1p 40 (December l982): 60-62. 202 D’Amic0. J . and Corbett H 0 WW m m t P - n a n . Pennsylvania. Research for Better Schools, l987. Deal, T. E., and Kennedy, A. A. "Culture and School Performance.” 40 (February 1983): l4-lS. De Bevoise, H. ”Synthesis of Research on the Principal as Instruc- tional Leader." Eggeetippel_teedership 41 (February 1984): 4-20. Dombart, P. M. "The ’Vision’ of an Insider: A Practitioner’s View." Edgcetiphpl Lepdetship 43 (November 1985): 70-73. Donaldson, G. A., Jr. ”Sisyphus and School Improvement: Fulfilling the Promise of Excellence." Edueatipnal Leedenship 42 (March l985): 4-7. Dwyer, D. C. ”The Search for Instructional Leadership: Routines and Subtleties in the Principal’s Role.“ Edgeatiphpl Leppep- ship 41 (February l984): 32-37. Dwyer, D. C. ; Lee, G. V. ; Rowan, B. ; and Bossert, S. Eive Princi- pals in ActiontPerspeptives pn Instrgpti phel hahegem ept. San Francisco: Far Nest Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, 1983. Edmonds, R. R. "Effective Schools for Urban Poor." Educational Leadership 37 (October 1979): 15-18, 20-24. "Programs of School Improvement: An Overview." Eduta— ti ignel lLeadetship (December 1982). Edmonds, R.; Cheng, C.; and Newby, R. ”Desegregation Planning and Educational Equity: Prospects and Possibilities.” Thepry ipto Erpptice 17 (February l978): 12-l7. Edmonds, R., and Frederiksen, J. R. Seereh fp: Effective Sthpols Ihe Identification and Analysis of City Schools That Are r cti nall f tiv or or 'ldr . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Center for Urban Studies, I978. Frederiksen, J. o v n u Qpppytghity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Center for Urban Studies, 1975. Fullan, M. ”The Meaning of Educational Change." Gersten, R.; Carnine, 0.; and Green, S. ”The Principal as Instruc- tional Leader: A Second Look." fipgtptipppl_Leepership 40 (December I982): 47-50. 203 Greenfield, W., Jr. "Research on Public School Principals: A Review and Recommendations.” Paper presented at the NIE Conference on Principals for Educational Excellence in the 19805, Washington, D.C., 1982. Greer, C. "How Schools Began to Care About Learning." Speiel Polity 8 (September 1977): 68-71. Hall, Gene E. ”The Concerns-Based Approach to Facilitating Change." Wm (Summer 1979). “The Principal as Leader of the Change Facilitating Team.” Journal pf Researeh end Development in Edupatiph 22 (Fall l988): 78-89. . "Strategic Sense: The Key to Reflective Leadership in School Principals." Paper presented at the Conference on Reflection in Teacher Education, Houston, Texas, October, l987. "Using the Individual and the Innovation as the Frame of Reference for Research on Change.” Austin: University of Texas, 1979. Hall, G. E., and George, A. A. ”Development of a Framework and Measure for Assessing Principal Change Facilitator Style." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa- tional Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 988. ”Stages of Concern About the Innovation: The Concept, Initial Verification and Some Implications." Austin: Univer- sity of Texas. Hall, G. E., and Griffin, T. "Analyzing Context/Climate in School Settings--Which Is Which?" Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, New York, 1982. Hall, G. E., and Guzman, F. M. ”Sources of Leadership for Change in High Schools." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1984. Hall, G. E., and Hard, S. M. "Confirmations of School Based Leader- ship Teams." Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hall, G. E., and Loucks, S. ”Teacher Concerns as a Basis for Facilitating and Personalizing Staff Development.” Austin: University of Texas, 1978. 204 Hall, G. E.; Loucks, S.; Rutherford, W.; and Newlove, 8. "Levels of Use of the Innovation: A Framework for Analyzing Innovation Adoption.“ R & D Report 3004. Austin: University of Texas, Spring 1975. Hall, G. E.; Rutherford, W.; Hard, 5.; and Huling, L. ”Effects of Three Principal Styles on School Improvement.” fightetippel Leadership 4l (February l984): 22-29. Hall, G. E.; Wallace, R. C., Jr.; and Dossett, W. F. "A Developmen- tal Conceptualization of the Adoption Process Within Educa- tional Institutions." Austin: University of Texas, l973. Hallinger, P., and Murphy, J. F. "Assessing and Developing Princi- pals.” lnstrgetipnal Leegership 45 (September 1987): 54-61. Havelock, R. G. Th C an e A n ’ to nnova i in 'on. Educational Technology Publications, 1973. Hechinger, I. "No One Knows What Makes a Good School." lhe New Iprh Times, November 30, l977. Heck, S.; Stiegelbauer, S. M.; Hall, G. E.; and Loucks, S. F. "Measuring Innovation Configurations: Procedures and Applications." R & D Report 3l08. Austin: University of Texas, l981. Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K. ana n r ni ational Behavipr; Utilizing Hemah Resogrees. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1982. Hard, S. M. "Patterns of Leadership in Rural Effective School Projects: Where Do You Find It?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa- tion, April 1988. Hord, S. M., and Hall, G. E. "Three Images: What Principals Do in Curriculum Implementation.’I Austin: University of Texas, n.d. Hord, S. M., and Huling-Austin, L. "Acquiring Expertise." Austin: University of Texas, n.d. Hord, S. H., and Diaz-Ortiz, E. ”Beyond the Principal: Can the Department Head Supply Leadership for Change in High Schools?" Austin: University of Texas, 1986. Hard, S. H., and Hall, G. E. "Three Images: What Principals Do in Curriculum Implementation." R & D Report 3181. Austin: University of Texas, n.d. 205 Hard, S. M., and Huling-Austin, L. ”Why Isn’t It Working at the Classroom Level.” R 8 D Report 3178. Austin: University of Texas, March 1984. Hord, S. M., and Murphy, S. C. "The High School Department Head: Powerful or Powerless in Guiding Change?" Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1985. Hord, S. M., and Rutherford, W. L. ”Dogs Can’t Sing? Good News, a Dash of Optimism and High School Change.” Austin: University of Texas, June 1984. Hord, S. M.; Rutherford, W.; Huling—Austin, L.; and Hall, G. laking Charge ef Change. Southwest Educational Developmental Labora— tory, 1987. Huling, L. L.; Hall, 6.; Hord, S.; and Rutherford, L. "A Multi- Dimensional Approach for Assessing Implementation Success." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, 1983. Jencks, C., and others. : a m nt he ffect f Fami nd h lin i mer . New York: Basic Books, 1972. Jensen, A. ”How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" Harvard Egucationel Revieu (Winter 1969). Lezotte, L. W. "Base School Improvement on What We Know About Effective Schools." American Seheel Boarg Journel (August 1989). . "Effective Schools Research Model for Planned Change." lhe Amerieag School Jegrgel (August 1989): 18-20. "A Response to D’ Amico: Not a Recipe But a Framework. " Edueatienel Leaderehip 40 (December 1982): 53. Lezotte, L. W., and Bancroft, B. A. ”Growing Use of the Effective Schools Model for School Improvement.” Educational Leadership 42 (March 1985): 23-27. Lezotte, L; Edmonds, R. ; and Ratner, G. Re for ch 1 ilure Le Eguitebly Deliver Beeie Seho el Skills. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Center for Urban Studies, 1974. Lippett, R. "Utilizing Resistance as a Constructive Resource for Change.” 206 Loucks, S., and Hall, G. E. ”Assessing and Facilitating the Implementation of Innovations: A New Approach." Eddeeeippel Ieeppelpgy (February 1977). Loucks, S. F.; Newlove, B. W.; and Hall, G. E. "Measuring Levels of Use of the Innovation: A Manual for Trainers, Interviewers, and Raters." Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1975. Loucks-Horsley, S., and Hergert, L. lmppdyemept. ASCD/The Network, 1985. Madaus, G. F., et al. ”The Sensitivity of Measures of School Effectiveness." Harvard Edpcetippal Review 49 (1979): 207-30. McCormack-Larkin, M. "Ingredients of a Successful School Effective- ness Project.” Educetipnal Leadership 42 (March 1985): 31-37. McCormack-Larkin, M., and Kritiek, W. J. "Milwaukee’s Project Rise.” EQUEQL12D§1_L£§Q§£§hiD 40 (December 1982): 16-21. Miles, M. 8. "Planned Change and Organizational Health Figure and Ground.” Columbia University. Mortimore, P., and Sammons, P. ”New Evidence of Effective Elementary Schools." Edusetipnel Leadepsnip 45 (September 1987): 4-8. Murphy, J. F.; Weil, M.; Hallinger, P.; and Mitman, A. "Academic Press: Translating High Expectations Into School Policies and Classroom Practices.” Edgeationel Leedepship 40 (December 1982): 22-26. Newlove, B. W., and Hall, G. E. M 0 es in en- nded Stetements pf Cpneern About an Innpvetion. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1987. Purkey, S. C., and Smith, M. S. "Effective Schools: A Review." Elemeptery Schppl dpuppel 83,4 (1983): 427-52. ”Too Soon to Cheer? Synthesis of Research on Effective —‘HSc 601s." WWII: 40 (December 1982): 64-69. Rossman, G. 8.; Corbett, H. D.; and Firestone, W. Change end Effee- tiveness in Sehppls; A Cpltgrel Perspective. New York: State University of New York Press, 1988. Rutherford, W. L. ”Distinguishing Three Change Facilitator Styles From an Analysis of Principal Interventions.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 1988. 207 . ”School Principals as Effective Leaders." Ehi Delte Keppep (September 1985). . 'Teachers’ Contributions to School Improvement: Reflec- tions on Fifteen Years of Research." Austin: University of Texas. Rutherford, W. L., and Hard, S. M. ”Education and Urban Society." Edgeetipn and drpan Speiety 17 (November 1984). Rutherford, W. L.; Hord, S.; Hall, 6.; and Huling, S. "The Role of the School Principal in School Improvement Efforts." Austin: University of Texas, 1983. Rutherford, W. L.; Hord, S. M.; and Thurber, J. C. ”Preparing Principals for Leadership Roles in School Improvement." Edpceiion end Uppen Speiety 17 (November 1984): 29-48. Rutherford, W. L., and Huling-Austin, L. ”Changes in High Schools: What Is Happening--What Is Wanted.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa- tion, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1984. Rutherford, W. L., and Murphy, S. C. "Change in High Schools: Roles and Reactions of Teachers." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa- tion, Chicago, Illinois, 1985. Saphier, J., and King, M. ”Good Seeds Grow in Strong Cultures." Edpcational Leedership 42 (March 1985): 67—74. Schiller, J. M. "The Relationship of Principal Interventions to Teacher Success in Implementing Computer Education.‘I Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 1988. Schweitzer, and Wisenbaker, J. Sehppls, Speial Systems end Student i v m n : Sch n a ' f n . New York: Praeger, 1979. Sergiovanni, T. J. ”Leadership and Excellence in Schooling." Educetipnel Leedership 41 (February 1984): 4-13. Sizer, T. R. "Common Sense." Edueetipnal Leedepship 42 (March 1985): 21-22. Smith, W. F., and Andrews, R. L. ”Clinical Supervision for Princi- pals." Eddeetippe1_Leedepsh1p 45 (September 1987): 34-37. 208 Sparks, O. ”Mine Planning Steps for Instructional Improvement." WM (June 1984): 13-14- Sparks, G. M. “Synthesis of Research on Staff Development for Effective Teaching." Eddeetippe1_LeedeLspip (November 1983): 65-72. State of New York: Office of Education Performance Review. Sehool "10 10 ‘ ‘ ‘ 81 ' ; a ‘ o o W. -, i 1 ue I' . Ipper-Qiiy Sehppls. Albany: State of New York, March 1974. Stringfield, S., and Tiddlie, C. "A Time to Summarize: The Louisiana School Effectiveness Study." Eddeetiepe1_Leederspip 46 (October 1988): 43-49. . "School Climate and Socioeconomic Factors as Predictors of Students’ Achievement in Elementary Schools." Unpublished manuscript, University of New Orleans, 1987. (a) ”A Time to Summarize: Six Years and Three Phases of the Louisiana School Effectiveness Study.” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., April 1987. (b) Stringfield, 5.; Tiddlie, C.; and Suarrez, S. "Classroom Interac- tion in Effective and Ineffective Schools: Preliminary Results From Phase III of the Louisiana School Effectiveness Study." deprnal pf Clessrpom lnteractipn 20,2 (1986): 31-37. Summers, A. A., and Solfe, B. L. ”Do Schools Make a Difference?" Amepiean Ecpppmis Review 64 (1977): 639-52. Vandenberghe, R. "Development of a Questionnaire for Assessing Principal Change Facilitator Style." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 1988. Weber, G. - ' r a ° - fdl Sehppls. Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education, 1971.