v.2
FE.

 

it... .7- l
¢ int-a; Via’u‘ ‘35.!

A o.b.1..|\\hh.. v .. ‘ L1‘
9,3.an ﬁvarmHWHﬁuéuwwmmwnm. . i

 

Jlllll’llllll'illml‘ll'll‘lll‘l'lillllll lililllllll L

3 1293 00794 9898

#—

r "' _.‘
LIBRARY
llﬂchﬂumunlmato

‘ Unhordty J

ﬁ—ﬁ

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MIDDLE
SCHOOL PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AND

SEVENTH GRADE STUDENT READING ACHIEVEMENT
presented by

WILLIAM C . SKILLING

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment

of the requirements for
Ph . D EDUCAT IONAL

ADMI NI STRAT ION

6 w/éoMANo

DR. L

degree in

 

 

 

 

Major professor

Date JULY 22, 1992

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL
LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
AND I
SEVENTH GRADE STUDENT
READING ACHIEVEMENT

By

William C. Skilling

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

1992

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MIDDLE
SCHOOL PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AND
SEVENTH GRADE STUDENT READING ACHIEVEMENT

By
William C. Skilling

The researcher's purpose in this study was to analyze the relationship
between student reading achievement based on the seventh grade Category
3 MEAP reading scores and middle school principal leadership behavior as
perceived by the principals and teachers in Regions 1, II, and III in Kent
County, Michigan. The study was designed to determine if the leadership
behavior of the principal was related to student reading achievement and
also to identify any speciﬁc leadership behavior characteristics which could
be associated with better student reading achievement.

Using a systematic sampling technique, twenty-ﬁve percent of the
teachers in sixteen middle schools in Regions 1, H, and IR of Kent County,
Michigan, were asked to complete the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire. The principals were also asked to complete the
questionnaire.

Four hypotheses were formulated with each stating there would be

no signiﬁcant difference between middle school principal leadership

behavior scores and student achievement. The Pearson Product-Moment
Correlation Coefﬁcient was used to analyze the data. The acceptable level
of signiﬁcance was an alpha of .05 for each hypothesis.

A statistically signiﬁcant relationship was not found between student

reading achievement and total leadership behavior of principals as (,1, ,, ., .. _« ‘

l , .
perceived by the principals on the Leader Behavior Description i t "‘ i L

Questionnaire 1n Regions I, II, and III of Kent County, Michigan.
Furthermore, signiﬁcant relationships were not evident between student
achievement and each of the twelve dimensions of leadership behaviorras
pgtccived by the principals.

A statistically signiﬁcant relationship was found between student
achievement and total leadership behavior of principals as perceived by the
teachers on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire 1n Regions 1,

II, and ID of Kent County, Michigan. Also, with the exception of
Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom, there were signiﬁcant
relationships found between student reading achievement and each of the
remaining ten dimensions of leadership behavior as perceived by the
teachers on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire in Regions 1,

II, and III of Kent County, Michigan.

DEDICATION

The completion of this dissertation is a testimony to the loving
support of my best friend and wife, Nancy. Nancy has enabled me to
become a better person and to reach higher goals than would have been
thought possible by former teachers and colleagues. It has been her faith in
me that has given me the conﬁdence to complete this doctorate and obtain
leadership positions in education. I thank the Lord for such a wonderful

wife and, friend.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am extremely grateful to Dr. Lou Romano for being my
chairperson. He saved this struggling Ph.D. student from dropping out. I
appreciated his assistance, counsel, and guidance throughout the writing of
this dissertation. Furthermore, he instilled within me the strength and
desire to complete this study.

I want to say a special thank you to Dr. Sam Moore who is
responsible for my becoming a Ph.D. student at Michigan State University.
Also, I appreciated his constructive criticisms and help in setting up my
proposal and his patience and guidance through the dissertation revisions.

I want to thank Dr. Lois Bader and Dr. Edward Duane for their
willingness to serve and be of help on my committee.

Special thanks to Shirley Fritz who spent many hours editing and
typing this dissertation. Her perfectionism was deeply appreciated.

Without the loving support of my wife Nancy and our three
children, Ryan, Ross, and Kelsey, this dissertation would not have been
possible. My family made the biggest sacriﬁce by allowing me to be gone
many days and nights. They were a great source of strength and
encouragement.

Finally, I want to thank all the middle school principals and teachers
who participated in this study.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................. x
CHAPTER
I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ........................................ 1
Introduction .......................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study .............................................................. 3
Hypotheses ............................................................................ 4
Assumptions .......................................................................... 5
Limitations and Delimitations .................................................. 5
Deﬁnition of Terms ............................................................... 6
Summary and Overview ......................................................... 8
11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................... 9
Overview .............................................................................. 9
Effective Leaders ................................................................... 9
Leadership Behavior ............................................................ 16
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire ............................ 19
Leader Behavior and Student Achievement ............................. 23
Summary ............................................................................ 26

vi

III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY .................................................... 28
Introduction ........................................................................ 28
Population and Sample .......................................................... 28
Data Collection .................................................................... 3O
Instrumentation .................................................................... 31
Testable Hypotheses .............................................................. 35
Analysis of the Data ............................................................. 38
Summary ............................................................................ 38

IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ..................... 40
Introduction ........................................................................ 40
Statistical Data ..................................................................... 4O
Null Hypothesis 1 ................................................................. 4O
Null Hypothesis 2 ................................................................. 41
Null Hypothesis 3 ................................................................. 42
Null Hypothesis 4 ................................................................. 45
Summary ............................................................................ 46

V. SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH, AND REFLECTIONS ........................ 48
Introduction ........................................................................ 48
Summary ............................................................................ 48
Findings Relative to the Hypotheses ........................................ 50
Implications for Future Research ........................................... 53
Reﬂections .......................................................................... 54
APPENDICES
A. LETTER OF REQUEST TO
MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ......................................... 57
B. LETTER OF REQUEST TO
MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS ........................................... 58
LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE 59
D. LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT

FOR RESEARCH AND DEAN OF THE GRADUATE
SCHOOL ............................................................................. 65

vii

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................. 66

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table

2.1

4.1

4.2

4.3

5.1

5.2

Proposed Leadership Dimensions and Descriptions

by Stogdill .......................................................................

Correlations Between Student Reading Achievement and
Each of the Dimensions of Middle School Principal
Leadership Behavior as Perceived by the Teacher on the

Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire ........................

Interpreting the Size of a Correlation Coefﬁcient .................

Correlations Between Student Reading Achievement and
Each of the Dimensions of Middle School Principal
Leadership Behavior as Perceived by the Principals on the

Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire ........................

Correlations Between Student Reading Achievement and
Each of the Dimensions of Middle School Principal
Leadership Behavior as the Behavior is Perceived by the
Teachers on the Leader Behavior Description

Questionnaire ...................................................................

Correlations Between Student Reading Achievement and
Each of the Dimensions of Middle School Principal
Leadership Behavior as the Behavior is Perceived by the
Principals on the Leader Behavior Description

Questionnaire ...................................................................

ix

Page

........ 21

........ 42
........ 43

........ 46

........ 51

........ 53

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 Quadrants Formed by Using the
LBDQ Dimensions .......................................................................................... 2 O

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

mm

The problem underlying this study is fourfold: (1) the extent to
which leadership behavior of middle school principals is related to student
reading achievement as the behavior is perceived by, the principals; (2) the
extent to which leadership behavior of middle school principals is related
to student reading achievement as the behavior is perceived, by the
teachers; (3) the extent to which teachermerceived characteristics of , middle
school principal leadership behavior are associated with better student
reading achievement and (4) the extent to which principal-perceived
characteristics of middle school‘principal leadership behavior are
associated with better student reading achievement.

For many reasons, school achievement is a matter of national
concern. In their report "A Nation at Risk," the National Commission on
Excellence in Education (1983) suggested that achievement test scores of
US. students have been declining and compare unfavorably with those
students in other industrialized countries. Yet, the percentage of all US.
workers in the "knowledge industries," those that produce, process, and
distribute information goods and services, rose from 5 percent in 1960 to

about 50 percent in 1980; and the growth sectors of the economy may

1

2

require that their workers have even greater verbal, numerical, scientiﬁc,
and social abilities in the future if the United States is to remain
internationally competitive in the production of goods and services and in
the relative quality of the lives of its citizens (W alberg, 1983).

Since the Commission's report, there have been many other national
reports. Many of these reports call for expanding the core curriculum.
Some call for an increase in certiﬁcation requirements for teachers and
administrators. As the consensus for national goals for education becomes
greater, there may be a sacriﬁce of local autonomy and individual
initiative. To avoid this pitfall educators, parents, and students can work
longer, harder, and more effectively (W alberg, 1983); and school
principals can lead this important effort. we 1

"If a school is a vibrant, innovative, child-centered place; if it has a
reputation for excellence in teaching; if students are performing to the best
of their ability, one can almost always point to the principal's leadership as
the key to success" (Lipham, 1981). The principal ”plays an importantrole
in supporting teachers who maintain high levels of expectation. Unless a
building-level value is shared by all, a teacher is unlikely to pursue a path
of high expectation. When teachers have a high level of academic
expectations for their students, their students tend to achieve academically
at a higher level. The research points out that these expectations are
communicated to students in the way teachers give assignments, assign
classroom responsibilities, require students to bring books and pencils to
class, and provide students with leadership roles in the classroom (Rossow,
1990). Student achievement, therefore, is particularly contingent on the
leadership behavior of the. principal. The principal's level of expectation
will affect the teacher's level of expectation for his/her students.

3

"Principals and teachers in higher achieving schools express the
belief that students can master their academic work, and that they expect
them to do so, and they are committed to seeing that their students learn to
read, and to do mathematics, and other academic work. These principal
and teacher expectations are expressed in such a way that the students
perceive that they are expected to learn and the school academic norms are
recognized as setting a standard of high achievement" (Brookover, 1979).

The principal who has high standards and expectations demonstrates
strong leadership, which is consistent with the ﬁndings in effective school
research. The research on effective schools focuses on the leadership
qualities of the principal. Ron Edmonds (1979) argued that one of the
most tangible and indispensable characteristics of effective schools is
"strong administrative leadership without which the disparate elements of
good schooling can neither be brought together nor be kept together."

W

The purpose of this study was to determine whether student reading
achievement in suburban middle schools is signiﬁcantly related to
principals' leadership behavior.

Student achievement has become one of the current indicators for
evaluating school success. Past research has identiﬁed certain principal
behaviors which affect student achievement. Setting the climate for
academic emphasis; maintaining a safe, orderly environment; and high
expectations for success are variables said to be associated with student
achievement. These three variables are most controllable by the principal
(Squires, Huitt, and Segars, 1985). The behaviors of the principal, as an

authority ﬁgure, communicate what is really valued by both teachers and

4

students. Teachers and students will tend to initiate the actions, attitudes,
and beliefs of those in authority.

Since the researcher's intent in this study was to investigate
signiﬁcant relatedness between middle school principal leadership behavior
and student reading achievement, the following questions needed to be
studied.

1. What is the relationship between student reading achievement and
the middle school principal leadership behavior as the behavior is
perceived by the principals? a Law-A3 p.13 \‘9 p . s .-

2. What is the relationship between student reading achievement and
the middle school principal leadership behavior as the behavior is

perceived by the teachers? r r m Li X '1': +61»? It,

3. Which teacher-perceived characteristics of middle school
principal leadership behavior are associated with better student
reading achievement?

4. Which principal-perceived characteristics of middle school
principal leadership behavior are associated with better student
reading achievement?

W
The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether there is

a signiﬁcant relationship between middle school principal leadership
behavior and student reading achievement. Therefore, the following null

hypotheses needed to be tested.

M11: There is no linear relationship between student
reading achievement and the total middle school principal leadership
behavior as the leadership behavior is perceived by the principal.

W: There is no linear relationship between student
reading achievement and the total middle school principal leadership
behavior as the leadership behavior is perceived by the teachers.

5

W: There is no linear relationship between student
reading achievement and any of the twelve middle school principal
leadership behavior dimensions as the leadership behavior is
perceived by the teachers.

‘ : There is no linear relationship between student
reading achievement and any of the twelve middle school principal
leadership behavior dimensions as the leadership behavior is
perceived by the principals.

Assumptions
Underlying the research questions of this study are the following

important assumptions.

1. The principals and teachers responding are representative of
middle school educators.

2. Category 3 of the seventh grade MEAP reading scores are
representative of achievement for seventh grade students.

3. Principal leadership behavior is related to student reading
achievement.

4. The responses on the questionnaires used are valid indicators of
leadership behavior.

5. Teachers' behavior will be affected by their perception of the
principal's leadership behavior.

' i n li i i
A major limitation of this study is that the sample was based only on
sixteen- swaths!!! middle s9hools..in. Kent County, Michigan. Furthennore.

leaderSEiB.P¢;l‘?YiQF..9§ Pb? Principal- ishassd ‘91} perceptions 0f tbs.

 

respondents as reported on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire
(LBDQ).
1. The breadth of this study was limited to those middle schools in

Regions 1, II, and III of Kent County, Michigan. The results,
therefore, may not be generalized to all suburban middle schools.

2. Use of an opinion-type instrument to collect data was a limiting
factor.

3. The attitude and integrity of the respondents may have inﬂuenced
the results obtained.

4. Student reading achievement may be dependent on factors not
measured by Category 3 of the seventh grade MEAP reading
scores.

5. Leadership behavior may be dependent on factors and variables
not measured by the test instrument.

6. There were only sixteen principals in the population sample for
this study.

7. The MEAP test is a criterion reference test not a norm reference
test.

8. The MEAP reading test was changed in 1990. Therefore,
students may not have been adequately prepared to take the new
test since parts of the test are based on prior knowledge.

DENI. [I

The following terms were used in this study. To reﬂect their

speciﬁc use, they are deﬁned for the reader.

Cam-Gives the percent of those seventh graders who met or
exceeded the minimal competencies on the story and informational
passages on the reading test for the MEAPs.

--"A school demonstrating at least a 5%
decrease in the number of fourth-grade students successfully passing
75% of the objectives on the MEAPs and at least a simultaneous 5%
increase in the number of students passing less than 25% of the
objectives between 1974 and 1976" (Brookover and Lezotte, 1979).

DEW-”A school had to have evidenced at least a 5%
increase in the number of fourth-grade students successfully passing
75% of the objectives on the MEAPs and at least a simultaneous 5%

7

decrease in the number of students passing less than 25% of the
objectives between 1974 and 1976" (Brookover and Lezotte, 1979).

WuA county located in southwestern
Michigan which is 24 by 36 miles.

LBDQ—The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire; used to
assess teacher perceptions of the principal's leadership behavior (see

Appendix C).

' «The observed behavior of principals as
perceived by their teachers and as measured by the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire.

WW--"The underlying need-structure of the
individual which motivates behavior in various leadership situations"

(Fiedler, 1967). The interactive characteristics of the leader's
personality which forms a relationship with the followers
(Hollander, 1971).

WuWhen two variables are either negatively or
positively correlated; two variables are correlated if they tend to
move in the same direction.

MEAPuMichigan Educational Assessment Program; collects
information and student achievement in all of Michigan public
schools. This test assesses all fourth, seventh, and tenth graders in
mathematics and reading.

Won-A principal's interpretation as to his
effectiveness as measured by the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire.

Went-4s determined by Category 3 of the seventh
grade MEAP reading score.

M' l h l--A school which contains grades six,

seven, and eight and is located in the suburbs.

Teacher—A professional educator possessing a minimum of a
bachelor's degree.

8

' --A teacher's interpretation as to the
principal's effectiveness as measured by the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire.

We!

Many studies on student achievement have been explained by the
characteristics of the individual student and his/her family background.
These studies have largelyignoredthe inﬂuence of the students' principal's
leadership behavior on student achievement.

If f Therefore, the focus of this study was to determine the relatedness of
principal leadership behavior and student reading achievement at the
middle school level. Even though this study was of alimiﬁngnatul'ﬁ $199!?
the number of participants and because of the'opinion-type' instrument, the
study may still help to identify those leadership behaviors that are related i
to student achievement. I

This dissertation is divided into ﬁve chapters. Chapter I consists of
an introduction, a description of the researcher's purpose of the study,
hypotheses, assumptions, the limitations and delimitations, and deﬁnitions
of important terms.

In Chapter II, pertinent literature is reviewed. The focus is on
leadership behavior of principals and student reading achievement. Also,
there is a discussion on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire to
assess leadership behavior.

Chapter III is a discussion of the methods, materials, and procedures
used in the study. This includes the data collection, instrumentation, and
method of analysis.

Chapter IV presents the ﬁndings of the study.

Chapter V includes a summary of the ﬁndings, implications for

future research, and reﬂections of the researcher.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

91min!

The researcher's purpose in this chapter is to present a review and
discussion of the literature pertaining to effective leaders, leadership
behavior, the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, and leadership
behavior of principals as leadership behavior relates to student reading
achievement. There is a discussion of the rationale for using the Leader
Behavior Description Questionnaire to assess leadership behavior in
education.

This chapter consists of ﬁve sections. Section one presents a
discussion on effective leaders. Section two discusses leadership behavior.
Section three describes the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire and
gives a rationale for its use. Section four discusses the relatedness of
leadership behavior and student achievement. Finally, section ﬁve is a
summary.

iv r

"The quality of leadership, more than any other single factor,
determines the success or failure of an organization. This is as true of
national affairs as it is of a small work crew. Without George

Washington's skill and determination, the Revolutionary War might have

9

10

had a different outcome. Without the leadership of Abraham Lincoln, the
Union might have been destroyed. And men like Henry Ford, Thomas
Edison, and J. P. Morgan left an indelible imprint on American business
and industry, just as Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King, Jr. helped
to change the social roles of large groups of Americans" (Fiedler, 1976).

The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
sponsored a study on effective middle level principals in 1981. This study
had on-site interviews with ﬁfty effective middle level principals and
selected teachers, students, and parents from their schools. Questions
centered around personal and professional traits of the effective principals,
their job tasks and problems, students, staff, community characteristics,
school programs, and selected middle level educational issues.

The following are the conclusions and ﬁndings (Keefe, J.; Clark, D.;
Nickerson, N.; and Valentine, J., 1983).

1. Effective principals average 62 hours 1n the workweek compared
to 54 hours for the typical middle level principal ‘ 2

2. Effective principals place high value on their jobs and report
signiﬁcant authority to ﬁll teaching and other vacancies in their
schools

3. Effective principals perceive the inability to provide teachers with
time for planning or professional development as the major
administrative roadblock rather than such problems as
administrative detail or difﬁcult parents/students; these principals
are very teacher-oriented

4. Principals and teachers view good school climate in terms of
effective working relationships; parents see it as ﬁrm, fair, and
consistent rules and policies; students judge it by the quality of the
teachers

10.

11.

12.

13.

ll

. Effective principals and their teachers prefer one—to-one contacts

and small group meetings to full-scale faculty meetings

. Effective principals prefer in-service programs for teachers based

on school-planned activities or personal growth plans rather than
university preservice preparation

. The chief school-related concern of students is the disruptive and

inappropriate behavior of other students (bullies, thieves, etc.),
not academic success

. Effective principals are very knowledgeable about most

contemporary middle level programs and research

. Principals, teachers, and parents all agree that the major school

program strengths are diversity and variety of electives and
program ﬂexibility

Principals and parents generally believe that the 6-7-8
conﬁguration is the ideal grade organization structure for middle
level schools

Effective principals are perceived as the primary agents of change
in their schools and as highly effective facilitators and sometimes
initiators of change

The most signiﬁcant inﬂuence on middle level youth during the
next three to ﬁve years will be the prevalence of single-parent
families

Effective principals are quite systematic in making preparations
to respond to the emerging inﬂuences on middle level youth and
schools

One of the most consistent ﬁndings in the research on both excellent

businesses and effective schools is the importance of strong leadership.

Organizations cannot be successful without effective leadership. According

to Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus (1985), effective leadership is "the key

factor in the ability of business to translate its vision into reality."

Excellent businesses achieve their excellence through the extraordinary

12

efforts of ordinary people who "have been truly blessed with unusual
leadership," according to Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (1982).
Excellent leadership in schools also has a profound effect on the quality of
the program and success of the students. Keith Goldhammer and George
Becker (1972) concluded "that excellent schools are inevitably led by
aggressive, professionally alert, dynamic principals determined to provide
the kind of educational program they deem necessary." In their study of
effective principals, Blumberg and Greenﬁeld (1980) stated that a unique
person is needed to create a school's progressive image and second to
provide the drive, support, and skills to make that image approximate
reality.

Although there is no one best way to create an effective school, there
does appear to be a number of behaviors by principals that are associated
with greater student achievement (Brookover and Lezotte, 1979). In
general, effective principals have a clear conception of what they expect
from their teachers and students and are able to clearly articulate these
goals. The effective principal announces his or her expectations and serves
as a role model while buffering the school from outside interference
(Brookover, 1979).

"While schools make a difference in what students learn, principals
make a difference in schools. This is recognized by scholars, researchers,
journalists, practitioners, parents, citizens, and even politicians. They have
all found that the local school is the key to educational improvement and
that the leadership of the principal is crucial to the school's success with
students. The principal as head of the school, which is a social system, has
great potential to reﬁne or renew its educational program" (Lipham,
1981).

13

Journalists who were involved in a fellowship program at George
Washington University's Institute for Educational Leadership did a study of
schools considered to be effective across the nation. They were considered
effective schools when student achievement was higher than expected
(Brundage, 1980). Robert Benjamin from W stated:
"Good principals tend to rock the boat. They forsake the desire to be loved
for the hard task of monitoring students' progress. They set achievement
goals for their students, and they judge their teachers and themselves by
them" (1979). _, ,

According to Margo Pope from W:
"Effective schools have effective leaders . . . usually described as people
who have high expectations for staff and students, are knowledgeable in
their jobs and set the tone for their schools" (Pope, 1979).

Finally, as reported by Jane Eisner of the Virginia-Pilot ". . . the
history of the school provides almost a textbook example of what is loosely
referred to as the 'principal-principle': the notion that a strong
administration with vision and with the ability to carry out its goals can
make an enormous difference in a school" (Eisner, 1979).

The effective principal is a forceful, dynamic person. The ideal
principal takes the initiative but at the same time is willing to listen to
others and is skillful in leading through indirection (Brookover, Beady,
Flood, Schweitzer, and Wisenbaker, 1979). Effective principals appear to
have a vision of what their school should be like. Above all, principals can
do their job better if they are secure in themselves and have faith that their
decisions will prove to be the best given the speciﬁc circumstances they

ﬁnd themselves confronting. In essence, strong leadership is the capacity

14

to mobilize available resources in order to implement policies that lead to
desired outcomes.

Several distinctions between more effective and less effective
principals have consistently emerged from the educational research. For
instance, Rutherford (1985) states that effective principals "have clear
informed visions of what they want their schools to become--visions that
focus on students and their needs; translate these visions into goals for their
schools and expectations for their teachers, students, and administrators;
continuously monitor progress; and intervene in a supportive or corrective
manner when this seems necessary." Persell & Cookson $1982), who
reviewed more than seventy-ﬁve research studies, remgedrecurrent
whence that. seem. to be associated With strong principals-

l. Demonstrating a commitment to academic goals
2. Creating a climate of high expectations

3. Functioning as an instructional leader

5‘

Being a forceful and dynamic leader
Consulting effectively with others
Creating order and discipline
Marshaling resources

Using time wisely

99°39?

Evaluating results

Andrews & Soder (1987) found that when behavioral descriptors
were used to categorize schools in which teachers perceived. their principals
to be strong, average, or weak instructional leaders, there were signiﬁcant

differences in incremental growth in student academic achievement.

15

"Schools operated by principals who were perceived by their teachers to be
strong instructional leaders inhibited signiﬁcantly greater gain scores in
achievement-in reading and mathematics than did schools operated by
average and weak instructional leaders." The general descriptors that
Andrews & Soder used were organized into EQBFPIQSS- areas of strategic
interaction between the school principal and teachers: "(1) the principal as '
resource provider, (2) the principal as instructional resource, (3) the
principal as communicator, and (4) the principal as visible presence"
(1987). i ‘ ‘ ‘ ’

Witte & Walsh (1990) also stated in their study that there is an
ability to predict achievement outcomes of students based on teachers' and
principals' perceptions of the instructibnal leadership activities of the
principals within the schools. They stated that this relationship held true
for both the elementary and high schools they examined for their study.

Heck, Marcoulides & Lang's (1991) study concurred with Witte &
Walsh's study on teachers' and principals' perceptions of the instructional
leadership being related to student achievement. In their study of students
from other countries, "they were able to classify correctly by achievement
77% of the sample schools according to a similar model of principal
instructional leadership." Furthermore, in his own study of secondary
students in Singapore, Heck (1991) was able to classify correctly "77% of a
random sample of high- and low-achieving schools according to the
school's climate, teacher expectations, and the instructional leadership
proﬁle of the principals."

The results of Heck's 1992 study, "Principals' Instructional
Leadership and School Performance: Implications for Policy

Development," and the ones just previously mentioned, "have focused on

16

the principal as well as the classroom behavior of teachers which provide
needed empirical support for the belief that school variables, including
principal instructional leadership, are predictive of the school's academic
outcomes" (Heck, 1992).

According to Heck, policy implications can be instituted as a result of
the ﬁndings. He states, "At least some leadership activities of the principal
appear to be good predictors of school performance" (1992). "If we hold
the environment constant and measure the principal's instructional
leadership at various points in time, the resulting proﬁle of the school's
instructional leadership provides options for changing the desired direction
of the organization" (Heck, 1992).

Heck's study indicated three instructional leadership predictors
within the domain of instructional organization. The three indicators "are
the amount of time principals spend directly observing classroom practices,
promoting discussion about instructional issues, and emphasizing the use of
test results for program improvement" (1992).

Regardless of what descriptors the different researchers used, the
importance of strong leadership in bringing about high levels of student
achievement is found in nearly all the effective schools research (Andrews
& Soder, 1987; Brookover and Lezotte, 1979; Edmonds, 1979; Heck, 1991
& 1992; Heck, Marcoulides, & Long, 1991; Hoover, 1978; Persell &
Cookson, 1982; Rutherford, 1985; Weber, 1971; and Witte & Walsh,
1990).

methane:

Leadership behavior has been deﬁned by many different dimensions.

These dimensions are autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire; initiating

structure and consideration; nomothetic, idiographic, and transactional;

17

goal emphasis, work facilitation, support and interaction facilitation; and
instrumental, supportive, and participative. "Regardless of which
characteristics are used to describe leadership behavior, today it is
generally recognized that the effective principal provides direction to the
school while at the same time supporting the efforts of others" (Lipham,
1981).

The present concept of leadership began to evolve in the 1950's and
early 1960's with the foundation of the behavioral sciences approach to
leadership. This approach views leadership as a product of both personal
traits and the situation at hand (Henchley, McCleary, and McGrath, 1970).
Similarly, Darwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander (1953) described
leadership in terms of two sets of group functions. They concluded that
group objectives can be categorized under one of two headings: (1) goal
achievement-—the achievement of some speciﬁc group goal and (2) group
maintenance or strengthening of the group itself. Etzioni (1961) theorized
that every collectivity must meet two basic sets of needs: (1)
instrumentational needs--the mobilization of resources to achieve the task
and (2) expressive needs--the social and normative integration of group
members.

Studies of leader behavioral styles reveal that concern for the
individual and for the task of the organization are important dimensions of
leadership. As deﬁned in The Ohio State University studies, these
dimensions were "initiating structure" and "consideration" (Stogdill and
Coons, 1957). Initiating structure refers to the manner in which
organizational procedures and leader-follower role relationships are

deﬁned in seeking to satisfy organizational goals. Consideration is that

18

capacity to foster and engender leader-follower trust, warmth, and respect
(Stogdill and Coons, 1957).

Likert's research generated similar dimensions of leadership. He
concluded that leaders could be classiﬁed as being "job centered" or
"employee centered" (Likert, 1961). Cartwright and Zander's research
indicates that goal achievement and group maintenance are signiﬁcant
features of leadership (1953).

Concern for the task of the organization or the interpersonal needs
of individuals are distinct facets of leader behavior. Some leaders manifest
more of one than the other; some neither. In general, leaders who
frequently display high levels of individual consideration and concern for
organizational goals tend to be more effective (Halpin, 1966).
Effectiveness of leadership style, however, is contingent on the situation.
Therefore, a single leadership style is impractical (Hemphill, 1949).

White and Lippitt have developed a simple approach to
understanding the relationship between the behavior of leaders and their
_ effect on followers. They classiﬁed leadership behavior by three styles:
autocratic, democratic, andlaissez-faire (1960).

With the autocratic style, the leader would respond to poor
work performance with close supervision and punishment. Task
orientation would be a primary focus. Autocratic leadership has

been found to produce the greatest results in terms of quantity but
very poor results in terms of quality.

The democratic style focuses on participation of the group in
the decision making. ‘Subordinates are given responsibility for
shaping their environment. They share part of the managing with
the leader. The democratic style appears to be the most effective of
the three approaches. Group performance produces results of high
\qnantity and quality.

19

The laissez-faire approach is the opposite of the autocratic
approach. The laissez-faire leader allows complete freedom within
the group and sees the followers as being responsible for supervising
themselves. This style produces results of both poor quantity and
poor quality. ' i " ' ‘ ’ ' “ ‘

Concerning leader behavior, Halpin's deﬁnition of leader behavior
was used which "focuses upon observed behavior rather than upon a
posited capacity inferred from this behavior" (Halpin and Winer, 1957).
This observable behavior of the leader is perceived as the leader engages in
administrative activities and duties. Even if the group's perceptions are
inaccurate, they behave as if the perception represents reality. How the
group sees the leader, then, is a large determinant of how successful he/she
will be in his/her dealings with them (Halpin and Winer, 1957).

For the purpose of this study, leader behavior is the observed
behavior of the suburban middle school principal as perceived by the
teachers and principals.

Hemphill and Coons developed the original version of the Leader
Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) in 1950. However, Halpin's
1955 study of school superintendents deﬁned the two dimensions of
Initiation of Structure and Consideration (Halpin, 1957).

W: "the leader's behavior in delineating the
relationship between himself/herself and members of the work group

and in endeavoring to establish well-deﬁned patterns of organization,
channels of communication and methods of procedure."

Consideration: "behavior indicative of friendship, mutual trust,
respect and warmth in the relationship between the leader and
members of his/her staf ."

Early studies using the LBDQ indicated that the consideration and

initiating structure factors seemed to be separate and distinct, not opposite

20

ends of the same continuum. Therefore, four quadrants, or leadership
styles, can be formed by cross-partitioning on the mean or median score
values of each scale (Halpin, 1957). Each subscale is divided into high and
low groups and then combined with one another to yield four groups, or

quadrants (see Figure 2.1).

Consideration
Quadrant II Quadrant I
Initiating (+) Low Consideration (-) High Consideration (+)
Structure High High Initiating Structure (+) High Initiating Structure (+)
II=(-.+) I=(+.+)
Quadrant III Quadrant IV
(-) Low Consideration (~) High Consideration (+)
Low Low Initiating Structure (-) Low Initiating Structure (-)
m=co N=eo

Figure 2.1 Quadrants Famed by Using the LBDQ
Dimensions (Halpin, 1966)

Figure 2.1 depicts the two dimensions of leadership with each
quadrant representing one leadership style. Quadrant I represents those
leaders who score above the mean on both dimensions and are identiﬁed
as "dynamic leaders." Quadrant 111 represents those leaders who score
below the mean in both dimensions and are called "passive leaders."
Quadrant H represents those leaders who score above the mean in initiating
structure but below the mean in consideration and are designated
"structural leaders." Finally, Quadrant IV represents those leaders who
score above the mean in consideration and low in initiating structure and

are called "considerate leaders." Using these two dimensions, initiating

structure and consideration, four leadership styles are possible (Halpin,

l 966).

Stogdill (1963) proposed twelve dimensions of the Leader Behavior

Description Questionnaire which provided a more comprehensive

delineation of leadership. The dimensions with their descriptions are

presented in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Proposed Leadership Dimensions and Descriptions by Stogdill

(1963)

 

Initiating Structure
mammalian-Applies

pressure for production output

--Clearly
deﬁnes own role and lets followers
know what is expected

' «Speaks and acts as
the representative of the group

WEN-Actively exercises
the leadership role rather than surrender-
in g leadership to others

' «Uses persuasion and argu-
ment effectively; exhibits strong con-
victions

' «Maintains cordial
relations with superiors, has inﬂuence
with them, and strives for higher status

Consideration

lam-Allows staff mem-
bers scope for initiative, decision, and
action

' --Is able to tolerate
uncertainty and postponement without
anxiety or upset

Consideration-Regards the comfort, well-
being and status of followers

' ' «Reconciles conﬂict-
ing demands and reduces disorder to
system

--Exhibits foresight and
ability to predict outcomes accurately

Wow-Maintains a close-knit organi-
zation and resolves intermember conﬂicts

 

Through factor analysis, the twelve separate dimensions can be

divided equally into six dimensions of initiating structure and six

dimensions of consideration. Eight of the twelve dimensions are comprised

of ten separate items on the questionnaire; each of the other four

22

dimensions consists of ﬁve individual items. The questionnaire consists of
a series of statements about the leader's behavior. In the case of the
researcher's study, the leader behavior would be the principal's. The
group or teachers are asked to rank their principal on a ﬁve-point scale
ranging from always to never. An exampleof an item from the
consideration dimension is, "He is friendly and approachable." "He keeps
the work moving at a rapid pace," and nine other items describing the
principal's behavior are used to identify the production emphasis
dimension. Other examples of items include: "Things usually turn out as
he predicts" (Predictive accuracy) and "He sees to it that the work of the
group is coordinated" (Integration) (Getzels, Lipham, & Campbell, 1968).

Halpin (1966) identiﬁes six major ﬁndings from The Ohio State
University LBDQ studies.

1. Initiating structure and consideration as measured by the LBDQ
. are fundamental dimensions of leader behavior

2. Effective leader behavior tends most often to be associated with
high performance on both dimensions

3. Superiors and subordinates tend to evaluate the contributions of
the leader behavior dimensions oppositely in assessing
effectiveness; superiors tend to emphasize initiating structure,
whereas subordinates are more concerned with consideration;
hence, the leader often ﬁnds some degree of role conﬂict

4. The leadership style characterized by Quadrant 1, high in both
dimensions, is associated with such group characteristics as
harmony, intimacy, and procedural clarity and with favorable
changes in group attitude

5. Only a slight relationship exists between how leaders say they
should behave and how subordinates describe that they do behave

23

6. Different institutional settings tend to foster different leadership
styles

According to Halpin, administrators generally are most effective
when they score high in both dimensions of leader behavior. Alan Brown
(1967) studied the LBDQ and stated that "although strength on both
dimensions is highly desirable, principals committed to developing
effective organizational dynamics may make up for weakness on one
dimension with unusual strength in the other. Leaders weak on both
dimensions tend to be ineffective; indeed, they tend to suffer from a lack of
leadership, and general chaos imbues the work stations."

According to Stogdill, the expanded LBDQ using the twelve
dimensions of leader behavior has been found to be the most effective
instrument available to measure teacher perceptions of principal leader
behavior (1963). He refers to the expanded LBDQ as the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire Form XII (LBDQ-XII). Form KB of the
LBDQ was used for this study.

h i n A h'

Student achievement in the past was recognized to be a factor of
school administrative practices. Student achievement was usually associated
with teaching techniques and materials, student abilities, and parents.
However, one of , the most consistent ﬁndings of the research today on
effective schools is the importanceof strong leadership in regards t0"""‘“*.

‘_ . student achievement (Goldhammer & Becker, 1972; Edmonds, 1979;
Eisaer, 1979; Weber, 1971; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979). Keith
Goldhammer and George Becker concluded "that excellent schools are
inevitably led by aggressive, professionally alert dynamic principals

determined to provide the kind of educational program they deem

24

necessary" (1972). Stewart Purkey and Marshall Smith stated, "It seems
clear that leadership is necessary to initiate the improvement process . . .
[and] the principal is uniquely position (sic) to ﬁll the role" (1983).

Research conducted with effectiveschools consistently supports the
notion that effective schools have principals who act as strong instructional
leaders. In 1971, George Weber listed strong instructional leadership from
the principal as one of the eight schoolwide characteristics that inﬂuenced
student achievement. Ron Edmonds (1979) discovered in his research that
one clear difference between schools whose students were improving
academically and those who were declining was that in the former
principals acted as instructional leaders.

The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (1984) identiﬁed

several behaviors that characterize instructional leadership.

1. Understanding the school's mission and stating it in direct,
concrete terms in order to establish a focus and unify the staff

2. Portraying learning as the most important reason for being in
school

3. Demonstrating the belief that all students can learn and that the
school makes the difference between success and failure

4. Establishing standards and guidelines that can be used to monitor
the effect of the curriculum

5. Protecting learning time from disruption and emphasizing the
priority of efﬁcient use of classroom time

6. Maintaining a safe, orderly school environment

7. Monitoring student progress by means of explicit performance
data and sharing those data with the staff

10.
ll.
l2.

13.
14.
15.
16.

17.
18.

25

Establishing incentives and rewards to encourage excellence in
student and teacher performance

Allocating resources according to instructional priorities
Establishing procedures to guide parental involvement
Maintaining two-way communication with parents

Expressing the expectation that instructional programs improve
over time

Involving staff and others in planning implementation strategies
Monitoring the implementation of new practices and programs
Celebrating the accomplishments of students, staff, and the school

Knowing, legitimizing, and applying research on effective
instruction

Making frequent classroom visits to observe instruction

Focusing teacher supervision on instructional improvement

Paul Berman and Milbrey McLaughlin (1975) stated that the role of

the principal is so crucial to school improvement that they refer to

principals as "gatekeepers of change." James Lipham (1981) stated that "no

change of substantial magnitude can occur in any school without their

[principals'] understanding and support."

In their paper on "Changes In School Characteristics Coincident
With Changes In Student Achievement," Brookover and Lezotte (1979)

stated that "there seems to be a clear difference in the principal's role in the

improving and declining schools. In-the improving schools, the principal is

more likely to be an instructional leader; is more likely to be assertive in

his/her instructional leadership role; is more of a disciplinarian; and,

26

perhaps most of all, assumes responsibility for the evaluation of the
achievement of basic objectives." 2

- Brookover and Lezotte (1979) also discuss the characteristics of an
ineffective or noninstructional leader. "The principals in the declining
schools appear to be permissive and to emphasize informal and collegial
relationships with the teachers. They put more emphasis on general public
relations and less emphasis on evaluation of the school's effectiveness in
providing a basic education for the students."

Clearly, the effective school research supports the notion that the
behavior of the principal does relate to the achievement level of the
students.

Summary

A portion of the literature has been reviewed with regard to
effective leaders, leadership behavior, the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire, and the relationship between leader behavior and student
achievement. The research reported supports that principals who score
high on both dimensions of the LBDQ are more effective leaders.

ii Furthermore, thoseprincipals (who are considered effective leaders have
students who have higher levels of achievement. Whereas, in declining
schools, those principals are classiﬁed as ineffective.

Two dimensions of leader behavior have been identiﬁed. These two
dimensions, Initiating Structure and Consideration, have been qualiﬁed by
the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire.

The . research regarding the relationship between leader behavior and
student achievement indicates conclusively that the actions and procedures

of the principal do affect the performance of students. This conclusion

27

justiﬁes the rationale for this research project which is to study the

relationship between leadership behavior and student achievement.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF - THE STUDY

1mm

This chapter will cover the methods, materials, and procedures used
in this study. This includes a description of the methods, population, and
sample. Second, there is a discussion on the procedures used to attain the
sample and data collection. Third, there is a review of the reliability and
validity of the survey questionnaire. Fourth, there is a formulation of the
testable null hypotheses as determined by the research questions. Finally,
the statistical procedures used to analyze the data are also explained.

Meridian]:

The population for this study included all suburban public middle
schools in Regions 1, II, and HI of Kent County, Michigan. The number of
middle schools in these three regions is nineteen. There is a fourth region
in Kent County, which is the Grand Rapids Public Schools. However, the
middle schools in this region did not ﬁt the criterion of being a suburban
middle school. Region IV consists of only urban middle schools.

Regions 1, H, and III of the Kent Intermediate School District
contain nineteen suburban school districts: Byron Center, Caledonia,
Cedar Springs, Comstock Park, East Grand Rapids, Forest Hills, Godfrey-
Lee, Godwin Heights, Grandville, Kenowa Hills, Kent City, Kentwood,

28

29

Lowell, Northview, Rockford, Sparta, Thomapple-Kellogg, and Wyoming
public schools. Five of the school districts were eliminated from the study
because they had junior high schools instead of middle schools. Pinewood
Middle School in Kentwood was not used in this study because of being a
ﬁrst-year school. Finally, the researcher was not able to use Northview's
two middle schools because one contained only grades ﬁve and six, and the
other contained only grades seven and eight. Since all the remaining
schools agreed to participate in this study, the total came to sixteen schools.

All principals of the sixteen middle schools were contacted by phone.
They agreed to participate and sent their staff lists. From these staff lists,
a systematic sampling technique was applied whereby every fourth teacher
on the list was selected to be part of the sample. Therefore, approximately
twenty-ﬁve percent of each teacher population participated in this study.
Since a listing of the teaching staffs was available, a systematic sampling
technique was used. This technique provides sampling throughout the
population by spacing the selections over the entire population list (Hinkle,
Wiersma, and Jurs, 1979).

Some middle schools were eliminated for having a ﬁrst-year
principal or lacking all three grades, meaning sixth, seventh, and eighth
grades. Likewise, all ﬁrst-year teachers were designated on the teacher
lists by the principals. These ﬁrst-year teachers were eliminated from the
study. Since the MEAP reading tests are given in late September, new
teachers would not have enough time to accurately respond on the LBDQ

regarding their principals' behavior.

30

mm

For reasons already mentioned, three schools were eliminated from
the potential nineteen middle schools in Regions 1, II, and III. By
telephoning the sixteen principals of the remaining middle schools and
explaining the study to be conducted, they all agreed to participate. Each
principal was requested to send a list of his/her teachers and to cross out
any ﬁrst-year teachers. Once the teacher lists were received, every fourth
teacher on the list was selected to be part of the study. After selecting the
teachers, the principals were sent a letter of instructions (See Appendix A)
in a packet with all the teachers identiﬁed as to who should receive one of
the envelopes. Each envelope contained a request letter of explanation and
instructions for the teachers (See Appendix B), the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire (See Appendix C), and a pre-addressed stamped
envelope for return purposes. The principals also received a copy of the
LBDQ to be completed and returned in the pre-addressed stamped envelope
provided.

Each return envelope was coded with a number from one through
sixteen. The number represented the school. The envelopes were also
coded with a letter to represent the teacher or principal who returned the
questionnaire. The letter code enabled the researcher to identify those
teachers or principals who did not return their answer sheets for the LBDQ
in a timely fashion. The principals were contacted by phone and asked to
remind those teachers who had not returned their answer sheets to please
do so. These two codes were placed in the upper left-hand comer of the
envelopes. This technique enabled the researcher to ensure accuracy in

compiling data that arrived daily.

31

The seventh grade MEAP reading scores for the sixteen middle
schools were secured by calling the Michigan Department of Education.
School- and district-level MEAP reading scores are public record and must
be released, if requested, under Michigan law.

Instrumentation

The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form-XII (LBDQ-
XII) was the instrument used to provide an assessment of the leadership
behavior of the suburban middle school principal. The instrument used for
measuring student achievement was Category 3 of the MEAP reading
scores for seventh grade students. A discussion and description of these
two instruments follows in this section. The LBDQ was originally
developed by Hemphill and Coons as part of the staff of the Personal
Research Board at Ohio State University (Halpin, 1957). Halpin and
Winer, working from the original LBDQ, identiﬁed two dimensions that
could be tested with this instrument: W and
Consideration (Halpin, 1959). "Initiating Structure refers to the leader's
behavior in delineating the relationship between himself and members of
the work- group, and in endeavoring to establish well-deﬁned patterns of
organization, channels of communication, and methods of procedures.
Consideration refers to behavior indicative of friendship, mutual trust,
respect, and warmth in the relationship between the leader and the
members of his staff" (Halpin, 1959).

The two leader behavior dimensions, Initiating. Structure and
Consideration..are indicators of effective leaders. Ihose..WhQ scorehigh
on bothwdirnensinrls of leader behavior are effective leaders. Halpin

reported this ﬁnding in a study of B-29 aircraft commanders ﬂying combat

32

missions over Korea (Halpin, 1953). Hemphill came to the same
conclusion from his study of the departmental administrators in a liberal
arts college (Hemphill, 1955).

The one hundred-item LBDQ (See Appendix C) has twelve separate
dimensions, each describing a different leader behavior. Through factor
analysis, they divide equally into normative and personal behaviors
described by Getzels (Getzels, Lipham, and Campbell, 1968). Deﬁnitions

of the subscales are:
Representation-Speaks and acts as the representative of the group

WuUses persuasion and argument effectively; exhibits
strong convictions

W-Clearly deﬁnes own role, and lets

followers know what is expected

WuActively exercises the leadership role rather
than surrendering leadership to others

WuApplies pressure for productive output

i n l --Maintains cordial relations with superiors;
has inﬂuence with them; is striving for higher status

Wit-Reconciles conﬂicting demands and

reduces disorder to system

WAS able to tolerate uncertainty and

postponement without anxiety or upset

Won-Regards the comfort, well-being, and status of
followers

Wummws followers scope for initiative,

decision, and action

33

BMW-Exhibits foresight and ability to predict
outcomes accurately.

W--Maintains a closely knit organization; resolves
intermember conﬂict (Stogdill, 1974).

Eight of the twelve dimensions are made up of ten separate items on
the questionnaire; each of the four dimensions consists of ﬁve individual
items. The questionnaire consists of a series of statements about the
principal's behavior, and the teacher is asked to rank his/her principal on a
ﬁve-point scale ranging from always to never.

A modiﬁed Kuder-Richardson formula was used to establish
estimates of reliability on each of the twelve dimensions on the LBDQ-XII.
The average reliability coefﬁcient for the twelve dimensions was .75
(Stogdill, 1974). Keith Punch also tested the reliability through his study
of bureaucratic structure of schools in 1967. He found the reliability for
the twelve dimensions to range from .55 to .89 (Punch, 1967).

In 1969 Stogdill tested the validity of the LBDQ-XII. Using a movie
in which the actors demonstrated behaviors described by the twelve
different dimensions of the LBDQ-XII, different observing groups were
asked to describe the behaviors they saw in the movie (Stogdill, 1974).
Since there was signiﬁcant agreement between behavior portrayed and the
behavior reported by the observers that represented the twelve dimensions
on the LBDQ-XII, Stogdill concluded that "the scales measure what they
are supposed to measure" (Stogdill, 1974). Since the reliability and
validity of the LBDQ-XH have been established, they were used in this
study to determine middle school principal leadership behavior.

Category 3 of the MEAP reading test for seventh graders was the

instrument used to measure student achievement. The MEAP reading test

34

is designed to measure the new deﬁnition of reading that is more than just
reading for information. The test also includes reading for
comprehension. Students are tested on two reading selections, a story and
an informational passage. Each selection measures constructing meaning;
topic familiarity; knowledge about reading; and the student's self-report of
performance, effort, and interest. The reading selections are
representative of materials students are likely to encounter in their
classrooms. They include full-length stories and informational passages
taken from classroom materials such as children's magazines, literature
anthologies, and content-area textbooks. In order for students to perform
satisfactorily on this test, they must perform well on the comprehension
portions of each of the reading selections (Michigan State Board of
Education, 1991).

The MEAP reading test does not identify the reading level of
students but tells whether students have met the achievement standard
established for their respective grades. There are four categories of
achievement reported on this test. Category 3 gives the percentage of
students who have passed both the story and informational passages from
their respective schools. Category 2A gives the percentage of students who
passed only the story passage. Category 2B gives the percentage of those
students who passed the informational passage but not the story passage.
Category 1 gives the percentage of students who did not pass either the
story passage or informational passage on the seventh grade MEAP reading
test. When adding up all four categories, they equal 100 percent.

35
W

The following four null hypotheses were identiﬁed for examination

in this study.

W: There is no linear relationship between
student reading achievement and the total middle school principal

leadership behavior as the leadership behavior is perceived by the
principal.

Symbolically: H1: X1: Y1

Legend: X1: Student reading achievement as measured by the
seventh grade MEAP reading scores

Y1: Total principal leadership behavior scores as perceived
by the principals using the LBDQ

: There is no linear relationship between
student reading achievement and the total middle school principal
leadership behavior as the leadership behavior is perceived by the
teacher.

Symbolically: H2: X2 at Y2

Legend: X2: Student reading achievement as measured by the
seventh grade MEAP reading scores

Y2: Total teacher leadership behavior scores as perceived
by the teachers using the LBDQ

i : There is no linear relationship between
student reading achievement and each of the twelve middle school
principal leadership behavior dimensions as the leadership behavior
is perceived by the teachers.

36

For each i where i = 1 through 12

Legend: X3:

Y1-123

Student reading achievement as measured by the
seventh grade MEAP reading scores

The following twelve dimensions of teacher leadership
behavior scores as perceived by teachers using the

LBDQ

: Representation

: Demand Reconciliation
: Tolerance of Uncertainty
: Persuasiveness

: Initiation of Structure
: Tolerance of Freedom
: Role Assumption

: Consideration

: Production Emphasis

: Predictive Accuracy

: Integration

: Superior Orientation

37

: There is no linear relationship between

student reading achievement and each of the twelve middle school
principal leadership behavior dimensions as the leadership behavior
is perceived by the principals.

For each i where i = 1 through 12

Symbolically: H4: X4 it Y1-12

Legend: X4:

Yl-12:

H4.i‘ x4 "i Y1

Student reading achievement as measured by the
seventh grade MEAP reading scores

The following twelve dimensions of principal

leadership behavior scores as perceived by the
principals using the LBDQ

: Representation

: Demand Reconciliation

: Tolerance of Uncertainty
: Persuasiveness

: Initiation of Structure

: Tolerance of Freedom

: Role Assumption

: Consideration

: Production Emphasis

: Predictive Accuracy

38
Y1 1: Integration

Y1'2: Superior Orientation
mm

The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefﬁcient was used to
analyze all four of the hypotheses. This method provides the researcher
with a measurement of the linear relationship between two variables, such
as student reading achievement and leadership behavior of the middle
school principal as perceived by the teachers, and produces a single statistic
which describes the strength of the association.

Slimmer:

Since the researcher's purpose in this study was to look at suburban
middle school principal leadership behavior and its relationship to seventh
grade student reading achievement as determined by seventh grade MEAP
reading scores on Category 3, Regions 1, H, and III were selected for study
in Kent County, Michigan. Within these three regions, there were nineteen
middle schools. However, three had to be eliminated because one had a
ﬁrst-year principal; and the other two contained only grades ﬁve and six at
one middle school and grades seven and eight at the other. A systematic
sampling was used to obtain the teachers who participated in this study.
Every fourth teacher was chosen from the teacher lists sent to the
researcher by the principal. Using a systematic sampling was more
convenient than simple random sampling because a listing of the population
was available. Systematic sampling provided sampling throughout the
population by spacing the selections over the entire population (Hinkle,
Wiersma, and Jurs, 1979). Therefore, approximately twenty-ﬁve percent

39

of the teachers and all sixteen principals responded to the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire.

Four hypotheses were formulated to explore the relationship between
middle school principal leadership behavior and seventh grade student
achievement as measured by the seventh grade MEAP reading scores on
Category 3. All four hypotheses were tested using the Pearson Product-
Moment Correlation Coefﬁcient. A discussion of the results is presented in
Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Intmdustian
In this chapter the researcher provides an explanation of the data
analyses with regard to the research design explained in Chapter III. There
is a statement of the statistical test used and analysis of the data for each of
the four hypotheses given in Chapter III. Each hypothesis is reviewed
followed by the results obtained from the data for each hypothesis.
SI l' l' l D |
The hypotheses formulated in response to the research questions
were all stated as null hypotheses for statistical analytical purposes. The
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefﬁcient was utilized to test
empirically the data collected for this particular study. An alpha level of

.05 was used to determine signiﬁcance of the correlations.

Null Hypothesis 1: There is no linear relationship between
student reading achievement and the total middle school principal
leadership behavior as the leadership behavior is perceived by the
principal.

Hypothesis 1 was tested using the Pearson Product-Moment
Correlation Coefﬁcient. The test yielded a Pearson r of .1526 which was

not signiﬁcant at the .05 level of conﬁdence. The level of conﬁdence was

40

41

.573. The null hypothesis was retained because there was not a statistically
signiﬁcant relationship between seventh grade student reading achievement
and total middle school principal leadership behavior as perceived by the
principals. A Pearson r of .1526 indicates little to no relationship between
middle school principal leadership as perceived by the principal and student
reading achievement in Regions I, II, and III of Kent County, Michigan.
Therefore, no inference can be made regarding principal perceived
leadership behavior scores, as measured by the Leader Behavior

Description Questionnaire, and student achievement.

: There is no linear relationship between
student reading achievement and the total middle school principal
leadership behavior as the leadership behavior is perceived by the
teacher.

Hypothesis 2 was tested using the Pearson Product-Moment
Correlation Coefﬁcient. The test yielded a Pearson r of -3633 which was
signiﬁcant at the .01 level of conﬁdence. The level of conﬁdence was .000.
Therefore, the null hypothesis was not retained because there is a
statistically signiﬁcant relationship between seventh grade student reading
achievement and total middle school principal leadership behavior as
perceived by the teachers. Since the level of conﬁdence was .000, the
Pearson r of .3633 is considered reliable which means there is a moderate
positive relationship between principal leadership behavior as perceived by
the teachers and student reading achievement.

The inference here is that middle school teachers who perceive their
principals as having high leadership behavior scores, as measured by the
LBDQ, also had high student reading achievement scores. This ﬁnding is

consismnt with the effective school research on leadership behavior and its

42

relatedness to student achievement (Weber, 1971; Edmonds, 1979;
Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Heck, 1991 & 1992).

: There is no linear relationship between

student reading achievement and each of the twelve middle school
principal leadership behavior dimensions as the leadership behavior
is perceived by the teachers.

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9

Representation

Demand Reconciliation
Tolerance of Uncertainty
Persuasiveness

Initiation of Structure
Tolerance of Freedom
Role Assumption
Consideration

Production Emphasis

3.10 Product Accuracy
3.11 Integration

3.12 Superior Orientation

Hypothesis 3 was tested using the Pearson Product-Moment

Correlation Coefﬁcient. Table 4.1 presents a summary of the results.

Table 4.1:

Correlations Between Student Reading Achievement
and Each of the Dimensions of Middle School
Principal Leadership Behavior as Perceived by the
Teacher on the Leader_Behavior Description
Questionnaire

43

Table 4.1 (cont'd)

 

LBDQ Dimensions

.1 Representation

.2 Demand Reconciliation
.3 Tolerance of Uncertainty
.4 Persuasiveness

5 Initiation of Structure
6 Tolerance of Freedom
.7 Role Assumption

8 Consideration

9 Production Emphasis
.10 Predictive Accuracy
3.11 Integration

3.12 Superior Orientation

Correlations

.3082
.3650
.1468*
.2225
.3457
.1308*
.3460
.1850
.4090
.3959
.2929
.4544

*All coefﬁcients except Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of

Freedom are signiﬁcant at the .05 level of signiﬁcance.

 

As stated in Table 4.1, all correlations ranged from .1308

(Tolerance of Freedom Dimension) to .4544 (Superior Orientation

Dimension) (see Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: Interpreting the Size of a Correlation Coefficient

 

.90 to 1.00 Very high positive correlation
.70 to .90 High positive correlation
.50 to .70 Moderate positive correlation
.30 to .50 Low positive correlation
.00 to .30 Little if any correlation

-.30 to -.50 Low negative correlation

-.50 to -.70 Moderate negative correlation

Table 4.2 (cont'd)

-.70 to -.90 High negative correlation
-.90 to -1.00 Very high negative correlation

 

(Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs, 1979)

Only two dimensions were not signiﬁcant at the .05 level of
conﬁdence, which were Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of
Freedom. They also had a very low positive correlation. The two
dimensions, 3.3 and 3.6, were therefore retained; i.e., there is no
signiﬁcant relationship among student achievement and the Tolerance of
Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom Dimensions.

The other ten dimensions, 3.0 through 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7 through
3.12, were not retained because they were signiﬁcant at the .05 level of
conﬁdence. There is a signiﬁcant relationship between student reading
achievement and each of the ten remaining dimensions of leadership
behavior as perceived by the teachers, which are Representation, Demand
Reconciliation, Persuasiveness, Initiation of Structure, Role Assumption,
Consideration, Production Emphasis, Predictive Accuracy, Integration, and
Superior Orientation.

Some leadership dimensions were more highly correlated with
student reading achievement than were others. The highest correlation
coefﬁcients were in the low positive level (see Table 4.2) between student
reading achievement and each of the following principal leadership
behavior dimensions.

Superior Orientation: .4544
Production Emphasis: .4090
Predictive Accuracy: .3959

45

Demand Reconciliation: .3650
Role Assumption: .3460
Initiation of Structure: .3457
Representation: .3082

As deﬁned by Halpin (1957) leaders who score high on Initiation of
Structure are more "endeavoring to establish well-deﬁned patterns of
organization, channels of communication and methods of procedure." Five
of the seven above dimensions fall under the category of Initiation of

Structure.

W: There is no linear relationship between
student reading achievement and each of the twelve middle school
principal leadership behavior dimensions as the leadership behavior
is perceived by the principals.

4. 1 Representation

4.2 Demand Reconciliation

4.3 Tolerance of Uncertainty

4.4 Persuasiveness

4.5 Initiation of Structure

4.6 Tolerance of Freedom

4.7 Role Assumption

4.8 Consideration

4.9 Production Emphasis

4.10 Predictive Accuracy

4.11 Integration

4.12 Superior Orientation
Hypothesis 4 was tested using the Pearson Product-Moment

Correlation Coefﬁcient. Table 4.3 presents a summary of the results.

46

Table 4.3: Correlations Between Student Reading Achievement
and Each of the Dimensions of Middle School
Principal Leadership Behavior as Perceived by the
Principals on the Leader Behavior Description

 

Questionnaire
LBDQ Dimensions Correlations
4.1 Representation .1964
4.2 Demand Reconciliation .1208
4.3 Tolerance of Uncertainty -.0853
4.4 Persuasiveness .0195
4.5 Initiation of Structure .2969
4.6 Tolerance of Freedom .0905
4.7 Role Assumption .1086
4.8 Consideration .0224
4.9 Production Emphasis .2795
4.10 Predictive Accuracy .2852
4.11 Integration -.1614
4.12 Superior Orientation .0275

None of the Leadership Behavior Dimensions were signiﬁcant at the .05
level of conﬁdence.

 

Null hypotheses 4.1 through 4.12 were retained. These hypotheses
had low negative to low positive correlations and were insigniﬁcant. The
level of conﬁdence ranged from .943 to .264.

8mm
A statistically signiﬁcant relationship was not found among student
reading achievement and total leadership behavior of principals and each of
the twelve dimensions of leadership as the leadership was perceived by the
principals. However, there was a statistically signiﬁcant correlation

between student reading achievement and the total leadership behavior of

47

the principals as perceived by the teachers on the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire in Regions 1, II, and III of Kent County,
Michigan. Also, there were statistically signiﬁcant correlations between
student reading achievement and each of the leadership behavior
dimensions with the exceptions of Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance
of Freedom. The acceptable level of conﬁdence was .05 for all of the
hypotheses.

A summary of the study, discussion of the ﬁndings,
recommendations for further study, and reﬂections of the researcher are

presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH, AND REFLECTIONS

Intudnctian

The purpose of Chapter V is to present a summary of the ﬁndings
and give implications for future research. Also, the researcher reﬂects on
his ﬁndings relative to the theory stated in Chapter I.

This chapter is organized into three sections. The ﬁrst section
contains a summary of the purpose and procedures for this study as well as
the ﬁndings relative to the hypotheses. The second section discusses the
researcher's reﬂections on doing this study, and the third section gives
implications for future research.

Summary

The researcher's purpose in this study was to analyze the relationship
between student reading achievement based on the seventh grade Category
3 MEAP reading scores and middle school principal leadership behavior as
perceived by the principals and teachers in Regions I, H, and III in Kent
”County, Michigan. The study was designed to determine ifthe leadership
, behavior of the principal was related to student reading achievement and

‘\ also to identify any speciﬁc leadership behavior characteristics which could

\ be associated with better student reading achievement.

.---"’ r.

48

49

Using a systematic sampling technique, twenty-ﬁve percent of the
teachers in sixteen middle schools in Regions 1, H, and HI of Kent County,
Michigan, were asked to complete the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire. The principals were also asked to complete the
questionnaire.

Four hypotheses were formulated with each stating there would be
no signiﬁcant difference between middle school principal leadership
behavior scores and student reading achievement. The Pearson Product-
Moment Correlation Coefﬁcient was used to analyze the data. The
acceptable level of signiﬁcance was an alpha of .05 for each hypothesis.

A statistically signiﬁcant relationship was not found between student
reading achievement and total leadership behavior of principals as
perceived by the principals on the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire in Regions I, H, and ID of Kent County, Michigan.
Furthermore, signiﬁcant relationships were not evident between student
reading achievement and each of the twelve dimensions of leadership
behavior as perceived by the principals.

A:ta§sﬁcally_ signiﬁcant relationShipwas foundbetween student
reading achievement and total leadership behavior of principals as
perceived by the teachers on the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire 1n Regions 1, II, and HI of Kent County, Michigan. Also,
with the exception of Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom,
there were signiﬁcant relationships found between student reading
achievement and each of the remaining ten dimensionsof leadership
behavior as perceived by the teachers on the Leader Behavior Description

Questionnaire 1n Regions 1, H, and IH of Kent County, Michigan.

50

The principle ﬁnding was that principals who scored high on the
LBDQ as perceived by the teachers had a higher proﬁle of reading
achieving students in their schools. Furthermore, with the exception of
Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom, principals who score
high on the other ten dimensions of leadership behavior as perceived by the
teachers will also have higher achieving reading students. However,
principal-perceived leadership behavior scores resulted in statistically
insigniﬁcant correlations; therefore, no inferences were made.

The ﬁndings of this study relative to the data analyses presented in
Chapter IV are summarized in the following section. The results are

presented with reference to each hypothesis tested.

E'l' Bll' Ill 11 ll

MW: There is no linear relationship between
student reading achievement and the total middle school principal
leadership behavior as the leadership behavior is perceived by the
principal.

Hypothesis 1 was retained. Within the limits of this study, student
reading achievement and middle school principal leadership behavior as
perceived by the principals were found not to have a statistically signiﬁcant
relationship. A correlation coefﬁcient of .1526 with a level of conﬁdence
of .573 was obtained. Therefore, the researcher could not conclude that
student reading achievement was affected by leadership behavior of the
middle school principal as the behavior was perceived by the principals.

: There is no linear relationship between
student reading achievement and the total middle school principal
leadership behavior as the leadership behavior is perceived by the
teacher.

51

Hypothesis 2 was not retained. Within the limits of this study,
student reading achievement and the middle school principal leadership
behavior as perceived by the teachers were found to have a statistically
signiﬁcant positive correlation. A correlation coefﬁcient of .3633,
signiﬁcant at the .01 level of conﬁdence, was obtained. Teachers who
perceived their principals as having high leadership behavior scores also
had higher reading achieving students on Category 3 of the seventh grade
MEAP reading test.

W: There is no linear relationship between
student reading achievement and each of the twelve middle school

principal leadership behavior dimensions as the leadership behavior
is perceived by the teachers.

Hypotheses 5.3 and 5.6 were retained. However, the other ten
hypotheses were not retained. There was a statistically signiﬁcant
relationship between student reading achievement and each of the
dimensions of Representation, Demand Reconciliation, Persuasiveness,
Initiation of Structure, Role Assumption, Consideration, Production
Emphasis, Production Accuracy, Integration, and Superior Orientation as
the leadership behavior is perceived by the teachers. Correlations ranged
from .1850 to .4544. Therefore, more seventh graders achieved minimal
competency on Category 3 of the seventh grade MEAP reading test in those
schools in which principals scored high on the LBDQ as the leadership
behavior was perceived by the teachers (see Table 5.1).

Table 5.1: Correlations Between Student Reading Achievement
and Each of the Dimensions of Middle School
Principal Leadership Behavior as the Behavior is
Perceived by the Teachers on the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire

52

Table 5.1 (cont'd)

 

Leadership Behavior Correlation Level of
Dimensions Coefficient Confidence
5.1 Representation .3082 .000
5.2 Demand Reconciliation .3650 .000
5.3 Tolerance of Uncertainty .1468 .098*
5.4 Persuasiveness .2225 .012
5.5 Initiation of Structure .3457 .000
5.6 Tolerance of Freedom .1308 .141*
5.7 Role Assumption .3460 .000
5.8 Consideration .l 850 .037
5.9 Production Emphasis .4090 .000
5.10 Production Accuracy .3959 .000
5.1 1 Integration .2929 .001
5.12 Superior Orientation .4544 .000

*Only Tolerance of Uncertainty and Tolerance of Freedom were
insigniﬁcant at the .05 level of conﬁdence.

 

MW: There is no linear relationship between
student reading achievement and each of the twelve middle school

principal leadership behavior dimensions as the leadership behavior
is perceived by the principals.

Hypothesis 4 was retained. There were no statistically signiﬁcant
relationships between student reading achievement and each of the
leadership behavior dimensions 5.1 through 5.12. No inferences can be
made regarding the twelve leadership behavior dimensions and student
reading achievement as the leadership behavior is perceived by the
principals on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (see Table
5.2).

53

Table 5.2: Correlations Between Student Reading Achievement
and Each of the Dimensions of Middle School
Principal Leadership Behavior as the Behavior is
Perceived by the Principals on the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire

 

Leadership Behavior Correlation Level of
Dimensions Coefficients Confidence
5.1 Representation .1964 .466
5.2 Demand Reconciliation .1208 .656
5.3 Tolerance of Uncertainty -.0853 .753
5 .4 Persuasiveness .0195 .943
5.5 Initiation of Structure .2969 .264
5.6 Tolerance of Freedom .0905 .739
5.7 Role Assumption .1086 .689
5.8 Consideration .0224 .934
5.9 Production Emphasis .2795 .294
5.10 Predictive Accuracy .2852 .284
5.11 Integration -.1614 .550
5.12 Superior Orientation .0275 .919

None of the leadership behavior dimensions were signiﬁcant at the .05
level of conﬁdence.

 

Imnﬁmﬁmmmmh
Based on the results of this study, no inferences were made relating
student reading achievement to principal perceived leadership behavior.
However, past researchers have inferred that there is a relationship
between student reading achievement and teacher perceived leadership
behavior of the principals. In view of the ﬁndings of this study, the
following suggestions for further study appear to be pertinent.

1. The researcher recommends that this study be replicated using a
test such as the IOWA Basic Skills test in place of the MEAPs.

54

2. The researcher recommends that this study be replicated using the
grade-point averages of graduating seniors and using the LBDQ
with high school principals.

3. The researcher recommends that future studies concentrate on the
effects of teacher morale on student achievement using the Purdue
Questionnaire and IOWA Basic Skills test.

4. The researcher recommends that this study be repeated at the high
school level with seniors responding to the LBDQ on the building
principal and using ACT scores for student achievement.

5. The researcher recommends that an outlier study be done of
effective and ineffective principals uSing the LBDQ to determine
their leadership behavior and the IOWA Basic Skills test at all
three levels.

These recommendations are made to determine the validity of this
study and previous studies. Furthermore, this researcher desires to see the
ﬁeld of leadership behavior expanded so that current and future data might
help educational leaders to improve student achievement.

' Reﬂections

At this point the researcher will discuss his interpretations of the data
relative to the theory stated in Chapter 1. Furthermore, the researcher will
discuss problems encountered in doing this study.

The researcher's intent in this study was to investigate whether there
was a signiﬁcant relatedness between middle school principal leadership
behavior and student reading achievement. Hypotheses 1 and 4 were
retained, which means no inferences could be made relating leadership
behavior of the principal to student reading achievement as the behavior is

e perceived by the principals. There are two rational conclusions this
researcher deduced to explain the results. First, the population of the
principals was only sixteen. Second, the principals' perceptions of

themselves were probably not as accurate as the teachers' perceptions. In

55

fact, what really matters is only teachers' perceptions because teachers will
behave based on their perceptions of the principal's leadership behavior
and not on what they think the principals think of their own leadership
behavior. Even though many researchers may mistrust perceptions, "in a
sense the only reality is perceived reality--and people's perceptions of their
surroundings have a powerful inﬂuence on what they do" (Andrews,

1987). Because teachers behave on their perception of the leadership
behavior of the principals and not on the principal's perception of his/her
own behavior, a researcher could conclude that there would be
insigniﬁcant results on Hypotheses 1 and 4.

Hypotheses 2 and 3 were not retained. These two hypotheses were
based on teacher perceptions of leadership behavior. However, even
though they were not retained, they had low positive correlations. What
would account for these weak correlations? EFEMEAPIeadiDS test an
accurate measure of student reading achievement? There has been much
criticism of the MEAP over the years by many educators. First, the test is
not a norm referenced test. The MEAP is a criterion reference test.
Therefore, teachers could easily teach to the test. Second, the MEAP
reading test was changed last year. Many educators complained that the
reading tests were not at the appropriate grade level. When readability
studies were done on the test by educators, they found the reading levels
would vary within the same passages. With this knowledge, this researcher
would not have used the MEAP test as a student reading achievement
indicator. Instead, a norm reference test like the IOWA Basic Skills would
have been used, which is widely accepted and has been judged as a valid

and reliable test of student reading achievement.

56

Are the low correlations due to the principal's inﬂuence over student
reading achievement indirect at best? There are researchers who believe
that principals have a great effect on student reading achievement based on
the effective school research. However, many researchers are very
skeptical. They question who is controlling whom. Do the students behave
the way they do because of the principal's behavior? Or is the behavior of
the principal controlled by the students? Do we have schools where
students are achieving at a high level and the principals are considered
ineffective?

This study did not demonstrate that leadership behavior of principals
affects student reading achievement. However, the study does not refute
that student reading achievement is uneffective by leadership behavior of
etheprincipal. What can be inferred is that the possibility does exist that
there could be a relationship between the behaviorof the principal and

student reading achievement.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

LETTER OF REQUEST TO
MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

May 1, 1992

Dear Middle School Principal:

As explained by our phone conversation, I am a doctoral student in educational
administration. I am seeking your assistance in obtaining information necessary for the
completion of my doctoral dissertation. This research project is being conducted under the
general guidance of Dr. Louis Romano and the Department of Education at Michigan State
University. This study deals with the relationship between middle school principal
leadership behavior and student achievement.

Each middle school in Kent County is being asked to participate. Your part will take
approximately ﬁfteen minutes and consists of distributing the instrument packets to the
teachers whose assigned letter appears on the folders. They will then complete the survey
and retum the answer key directly to me in the pre-addressed stamped envelope provided in
the packet. There is also a copy of a survey for your completion. Please return this to me
in the envelope enclosed.

Please be assured that participation in this study is totally voluntary and that all results will
be treated with strict conﬁdence.

Your willingness to take part in this study is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,
William C. Skilling

saf

Enclosures

57

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

LETTER OF REQUEST TO
MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS

May 1, 1992

Dear Middle School Teacher:

Your school has been chosen to participate in my doctoral study involving the relationship
between middle school principal leadership behavior and student achievement. I am
seeking your assistance in obtaining information necessary for the completion of my
dissertation. This project is being conducted under the general guidance of Dr. Louis
Romano and the Department of Education at Michigan State University.

Randomly selected teachers in each suburban middle school in Kent County are being
asked to participate. Your part will take approximately ﬁfteen minutes and consists of
completing the attached survey form and returning the answer key directly to me in the pre-
addressed stamped envelope provided in the packet.

Please be assured that participation in this study is totally voluntary, that all results will be
treated with strict conﬁdence, and that all subjects will remain anonymous. Should you
have any questions or concerns regarding participation in this study, please call me at 878-
l 543.

Your willingness to take part in this study is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

William c. Skilling

Attachments

58

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions: Please complete this survey anonymously and conﬁdentially.

Read each item carefully.

Think about how frequently the principal engages in the behavior

described by the item.

c. Decide whether s/he (A) always, (B) often, (C) occasionally, (D)
seldom, or (E) never acts as described by the item.

d. Using a #2 pencil, mark the appropriate response on the attached
answer sheet.

e. Do NOT fold the answer sheet.

9‘.”

A = Always

B = Often

C = Occasionally
D = Seldom

E = Never

1. Acts as the spokesperson of the group

2. Waits patiently for the results of a decision

3. Makes pep talks to stimulate the group

4. Lets group members know what is expected of them
5. Allows the members complete freedom in their work
6. Readily takes initiative in the group

7. Is friendly and approachable
59

10.
ll.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
l8.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.

Encourages overtime work

Makes accurate decisions

Gets along well with the people above her/him
Publicizes the activities of the group

Does NOT become anxious when having difﬁculty ﬁnding out what is
coming next

Her/his arguments are convincing

Encourages the use of uniform procedures

Permits the members to use their own judgment in solving problems
Takes necessary action

Does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group
Stresses being ahead of competing groups

Keeps the group working together as a team

Keeps the group in good standing with higher authority

Speaks as the representative of the group

Accepts defeat in stride

Argues persuasively for her/his point of view

Tries out her/his ideas in the group

Encourages initiative in the group members

Does not let group members take away her/his leadership

Puts suggestions made by the group into operation

Needles members for greater effort

29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.

41.
42.
43.

45.

47.

48.
49.

61

Seems able to predict what is conring next

Is working hard for a promotion

Speaks for the group when visitors are present

Accepts delays without becoming upset

Is a very persuasive talker

Makes her/his attitudes clear to the group

Lets the members do their work the way they think best
Does not let members take advantage of her/him

Treats all group members as her/his equals

Keeps the work moving at a rapid pace

Settles conflicts when they occur in the group

Her/his superiors act favorably on most of her/his suggestions
Represents the group at outside meetings

Remains calm when waiting for new developments

Is very skillful in an argument

Decides what shall be done and how it shall be done
Assigns a task; then lets the members handle it

Is the leader of the group in more than name only
Gives advance notice of changes

Pushes for increased production

Things usually turn out as s/he predicts

50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.

61.
62.
63.

65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.

62
Enjoys the privileges of her/his position

Handles complex problems efﬁciently

Is able to tolerate postponement and uncertainty

Is a very convincing talker

Assigns group members to particular tasks

Turns the members loose on a job and lets them go to it
Stands ﬁrm when s/he needs to

Does not keep to her/himself

Asks the members to work harder

Is accurate in predicting the trend of events

Gets her/his superiors to act for the welfare of the group
Handles details well

Is patient; does not blow up

Speaks from a strong inner conviction

Makes sure that her/his part in the group is understood by the group
members

Allows members freedom of action

Does not give members authority that s/he should keep
Looks out for the personal welfare of group members
Does not permit members to take it easy in their work
Sees to it that the work of the group is coordinated

Her/his word carries weight with superiors

71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.

91.
92.

63
Does not get things all tangled up

Remains calm when uncertain about coming events

Is an inspiring talker

Schedules the work to be done

Allows the group a high degree of initiative

Takes full charge when emergencies arise

Is willing to make changes

Drives hard when there is a job to be done

Helps group members settle their differences

Gets what s/he asks for from her/his superiors

Can reduce a madhouse to system and order

Is able to delay action until the proper time occurs
Persuades others that her/his ideas are to their advantage
Maintains deﬁnite standards of performance

Trusts members to'exercise good judgment

Overcomes attempts made to challenge her/his leadership
Explains her/his actions

Urges the group to beat its previous record

Anticipates problems and plans for them

Is working her/his way to the top

Does not get confused when many demands are made

Does not worry about the outcome of new procedures

64

93. Can inspire enthusiasm for a project

94. Asks that group members follow standard rules and regulations
95. Permits the group to set its own pace

96. Is easily recognized as the leader of the group

97. Does not act without consulting the group

98. Keeps the group working up to capacity

99. Maintains a closely knit group

100. Maintains cordial relations with superiors

 

Do NOT fold the answer sheet.

When you have completed the survey, please place all materials in the
pre-addressed stamped manila folder provided.

Thank you for participating.

APPENDIX D

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

OFFICE OF VICE PRESlDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST l..-\NSlNG 0 MlCHlGAN 0 48824-1046
AND DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

June. 10, 1992

Mr. William C. Skilling
8464 Woodruff Dr., SW.
Byron Center, MI 49315

Dear Mr. Skilling:

The review committee convened by the Graduate School has considered your request for
an exception to the University Policy on Research with Human Subjects. The request has
been granted.

The Policy on Research with Human Subjects is clearly published in the University catalog
(see Graduate Studies, 1989-91, pp. 43-44). Each student is responsible for following the
procedures established for obtaining permission to proceed with research involving human
subjects, even where the type of research intended appears to the researcher to warrant
exemption from those procedures. However, the Review Committee concurs in the
judgment of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects that yours
was not a willful violation of the regulations and that the subjects in your project were
neither harmed nor put at risk by anything you did. Therefore the Graduate School will
accept your dissertation.

This letter is to be considered official notification of the exemption from the University
policy on research involving human subjects.

Yours sincerely,

#WMA/

Howard Anderson
Assistant Dean

HA/cb

cc: Kathryn M. Moore, Chairperson, Department of Educational Administration
Louis Romano, Professor, Department of Educational Administration
Robert Floden, Associate Dean, College of Education
Henry Bredeck, Assistant Vice President for Research
David Wright, Chairperson, UCRIHS

MSI " is an .‘lf/l'rmrttt'l't' .‘lt‘tlclnIt's/14.11Opportunity Institution

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, R., and Soder, R. "Principal Instructional Leadership and School
Achievement." MW, 44 (1987), pp. 9-11.

Bennis, W., and Nanus, B. '
New York: Harper and Row, 1985.

Berman, P., and McLaughlin, M. Federal Programs Supporting Education

and Change, Vol. IV. WW. Santa Monica,
Calif: Rand Corporation, 1975.

Blanchard, K. H., and Hersey, P. ' '
Bohaxioxs. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1977.

Blumberg, A., and Greenﬁeld, W. W. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon, 1980.

Bowers, D. G., and Seashore, S. E. "Predicting Organizational
Effectiveness with a Four-Factor Theory of Leadership. " Readings
- .Illinois:

 

Irwin Inc. andthe Dorsey Press, 1969, A pp. 519-615.

Brandt, R. "On Leadership and Student Achievement. A Conversation

with Richard Andrews." WM, 4 (1987),
pp. 9-16.

Brookover, W. B., and Lezotte, L. W. "Changes in School Characteristics
Coincident with Changes in Student Achievement." East Lansing:
Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1977.

Brookover, W.; Beady, C.; Flood, P.; Schweitzer, J .; and Wisenbaker, J.
"School Social Systems and Student Achievement: Schools Can Make
a Difference." So. Hadley, Mass: J. F. Bergin Co., distributed by
Praeger Publishers, New York, 1979.

66

67

Brookover, W., Beamer, L., Efthirn, H., Hathway, D., Lezotte, L., Miller,
S., Passalaacqua, J ., & Tornatsky, L. "Creating Effective Schools."
Holmes Beach, Florida: Learning Publications, Inc., 1982.

Brown, A. "Reactions to Leadership." EdnoationaLAdmiaisnation
Quantum 1967. PP- 62-73-

Cainpbell, R. 12., and Lipham ,_ M. at . . , .
9 .Qn. University of Chicago: The Interstate Printers and

Publishers, 1960.
Cartwright. Do and Zander. A. W

Evanston, H.: Row, Peterson, 1953.

Cawelti, G. "Effective Instructional Leadership Produces Greater

Learning " EdusatmnaLLeadersm'n January. 1980 PP 8- 10

Chase, F. S. "Factors for Satisfaction in Teaching." W
Kappan, Vol. 33, 1951. PP. 127-32.

Davis, R. C. IheEundamentalmLIQnManagemem. New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1951.

Edmonds, R. "Effective Schools for the Urban Poor." W
Leadership, October, 1979, pp. 15-23.

Eisner, J. "Good Schools Have Quality Principals." In Tholonmalism
("a l ‘Ill ’ Iron lI. liar-.1 l‘ I ‘_ mledited
by D. Brundage, Washington, D. C.: Institute for Educational
leadership, George Washington University, 1979.

Etzioni. A. Wm New
York: Press Press, 1961.

Fiedler F E West New York:
McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1967.

Fiedler, F. E. "Engineer the Job to Fit the Manager." 11mm
Km, 43, 1965, pp. 115-22.

Fiedler,..FE III I 1' ‘1I‘ LI I. ' ._t_- no. ,1
Concept. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1976.

68

Genck, F. H. ImprolingjohooLPodormanoo. New York: Praeger
Publishers, 1983.

Getzels, J. W., and Guba, E. G. "Social Behavior and the Administrative
Process." SothBoyiow 65 (Winter 1957), pp. 423-45.

Getzels, J. W.; Lipham, J. M.; and Campbell, R. F. Edooanoaal

n'!1||r|0!ne'ci"1101;7_I_.!I' II‘

New York. Harper & Row, 1968.

Gibb, C. A. "Leadership." In G. Lindzey, Handoookofﬁooial
Esyohology. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

Gibb, J. "Dynamic Leadership." loSoaroooLLeaoogs. Washington, DC:
National Education Association, 1967.

Glass, G. V., and Hopkins, K. D. StatisticaLMethndsinﬂucationand
W. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984.

Goldhammer, K., and Becker, G. 1
Schools. Eugene, Ore.: Center for the Advanced Study of
Educational Administration, 1972.

Goodlad,J.I. II' .llIJL I I- «.In-. II"TI.I__I1‘ II
Sohools. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.
Gouldner, A. W. W

Aotioo. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950.

Greenﬁeld. W. Wheat!
W. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1987.

Gross N and Herriot R E WMLA
W- New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965.

Grossnickle,D. R. '10110L‘ __l‘ " II.‘ II 1!.l 'I. III 94',
Wm Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 1988.

Guthrie, J. W., and Reed. R. J. Edmtionalﬁdnnlnsnanonandiolm
' r ' ' ' . New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1986.

69

Halpin, A. W., and Croft, D. B. "The Organizational Climate of Schools."
Administratcrlslﬂatehnok. 1963 PP 1-4

Halpin, A. W., and Winer, B. J. "A Factorial Study of the Leader
Behavior Descriptions." In R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons, Loads:

WW Columbus: The Ohio

State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957.

Halpin. A. W Chicago,
H.: Midwest Administration Center, The University of Chicago,
1959.

Halpin. A. W. Administratixelheominﬁducation New York: The
MacMillan Co., 1967.

Halpin, A. W. U1 la- I 1‘ .‘II‘ i‘lo. °I '4‘ IO!0!._'.01
Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and
Administration, The Ohio State University, 1957.

Hampton, D. R.; Summer, C. E.; and Webber, R. A. W
.:London Scott,
Foresman and Co., 1987.

Heck, R. Marcoulides, G.; and Lang, P. "Principal Leadership and School
Achievement: The Application of Discriminant Techniques." Sohml

WW. 2(1991), pp. 3- 21.

Heck, R. H. "Principals' Instructional Leadership and School Performance:
Implications for Policy Development." W
W, 14 (1992), pp. 21 -.34

Heck, R. H. "The Effects of School Context and Principal Leadership on
School Climate and School Achievement." Paper submitted for
presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA, 1991.

Heller, D. H. ' ' l '
anollonoo. Santa Barbara, CA. ABC— CLIO, Inc, 1989.

Hemphill, J. K. "Leadership Behavior Associated with the Administrative

Reputation of College Departments." IholomaLofEdooaﬁonal
Esyohology, Vol. 46, No. 7 (November 1955).

70

Hemphill, J. K. SimalioaaLantonsjnjoadozslu'o. Columbus: The Ohio
State University Press, 1949.

Henchley, S.; McCleary, L. and McGrath, J. H. Ihoﬁlomoamﬁohool
Erinoioal. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1970.

Hinkle, D.; Wiersma, W.; and Jurs, S. ' '
Soionoos. Boston: Houghton-Mifﬂin Co., 1979.

Hollander, E. "Style, Structure and Setting in Organizational Leadership."
Administratixeﬁcienteﬂuarterlx 16(1971) PP 1-9-

Hoover, M. R. "Characteristics of Black Schools at Grade Levele
Description." Wei, 1978, 31, pp. 757-762.

Hoy, W. K., and Miskel, C. G. EdooatioaaLAdmioistralion. New York:
McGraw-Hill Inc., 1991.

Jentz, B. C., and Wofford, J. W. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979.

Kaiser, J. Ihoﬂr'mcioalsbio. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing
Company, 1985.

Keefe, J. W.; Clark, D. C.; Nickerson, N. C.; and Valentine, J. W
.Reston, VA: National Association of
Secondary School Principals, 1981.

Lane, J. J ., and Walberg, H. J. W}; Berkeley,
Ca.: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1987.

Lezotte, L. W. ' ' . '
Tallahassee, FL. The Site Speciﬁc TeChnical Assistance Center,
1980.

 

Likert, R. "An Emerging Theory of Organization, Leadership, and
Management." leadershlnandlntetpersonalﬁetlaxlnr. eds L
Petrullo and B. M. Bass, New York. Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1961.

Lipham, J., and Hock, J. A. ' ' ' ° F
New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

71

Lipham. J. M. W. Reston, VA:
National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1981.

Lonsdale, R. C. "Maintaining the Organization 1n Dynamic Equilibrium."

BehamorjclencemﬁducannnalAdmlJiramn Chicago.
University of Chicago Press, 1964.

Lovell, J. T., and Wiles, J. W. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983.

Michigan State Board of Education. '
Program. Michigan Department of Education, 1991.

Nie. N. H.. and others. Wm 2nd ed..
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Wham;
MakingﬁchmlstEffestlxe Portland OR: 1984

Persell, C., and Cookson, P. "The Effect of Principals 1n Action." IILIhQ
Reston, Va.: National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 1982.

Peters T.. and Waterman R Jr W
AW New York: Harper and Row

1982.

Purkey, S. C., and Smith, M. S. "Effective Schools: A Review."
Elementauﬁchmuoumalﬂ (1983): 427-452.

Rossow,L.F. l-art in] i' Pit-1n 'l _ II. -In. any i.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.

Rutherford, W. "School Principals as Effective Leaders." EhLDella
Kaooan, 67 (1985). PP. 31-34.

Spotts, J. V. "The Problem of Leadership. A Look at Some Recent
Findings of Behavioral Science Research. " In W. B. Eddy (Ed)
BehardcraLScienmntheManager‘aRole Washington D C.: NTL
Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1969.

Squires. D.; Huitt. W.; and Segars J W
W. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 1985.

72

Stogdill R M and Coons A E WWII
W1. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of

Business Research, 1957.

Stogdill, R. M.; Ellis, S. L.; and Jaynes, W. E. loadogshioaniﬂolo
Exoootations. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of

Business Research, 1956.

Stogdill, R. M. W. New York: The Free Press,
1974.

Stogdill, R. M. "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey
of the Literature." loumaloLEsxohology, 1948, 25, pp. 35-71.

Stogdill, R. M., and Shartle, C. L. W

' . Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of
Business Research, 1955.

Stogdill, R. M. "Validity of Leader Behavior Description." Boisomlol
Esyohology 22 (1969). PP. 153-57.

Tagiuri, R. W. Boston, MA: Harvard University,
1968.

Tomlinson. T. M., and Walberg, H. J. W
anollonoo. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1986.

Thomson, S. D. W. Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 1982.

Walberg, H. J. _ . ° ' ._
Berkeley, CA. McCutchan Publishing Corp.,1982.

 

Walberg, H. J. "Scientiﬁc Literacy and Economic Productivity in
International Perspective." Daedalus 112 (Spring 1983): 1-28.

Wayson, W. W. F x l ' f 11

MoyomonLonﬁohools. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational Foundation, 1988.

73

Weber, G. "Inner City School Children Can Be Taught to Read: Four
Successful Schools." Qcoasionalﬁamr 18, Council for Basic
Education, Washington, DC, 1971.

White, R. K., and Lippitt, R. 0.
W New York Harper 1960

Witte, J. and Walsh, D. "A Systematic Test of the Effective Schools

Model." EducationalExaluaﬁnnandPolichnalxsis. 12(1990). PP-
188- 212.

Yuk, G. Isadozshiomjlrgamzanons. New York: Prentice Hall, 1981.

"Illllllllllllllllli