.Jrnizri . an“ .s .. . . .. . . :. . 9:» ...h§£i.. k2,... ...tp..z.,...an. .. :...u.....ri£2.b , ,1... .. g... $3.... r. 2.. iv . 9.1.... .11.; n .5. .I ‘31: '94:.6‘ is... , 0.. n. . 1.: 5:1,: 65.2.53. cu . $5.3, fie: :;...9S$..: . 35.3.... :2 at}? 2:03“. :5. :5. st: 1.. I. {I} .1 . 7717i. 5} 5:7... ‘12. 5.. I . 23...... . $‘ . i; :x’t. ., v :n , 0...! .A .3 ill... 1!.009 , 9 .7 z. I la: : .Ic- ‘n: . ..: .Drt .n .s. .1 13:1... I 3.2.5“: . ‘....x...:,. til}. ..: . . .‘F‘nuuhfln 2.3;. I > ‘ gr . 1.- 10A-., 3 . , .._mhLL.m$m€«.......fi.fi. z ..}mnmw.l.r.. :. - . : , t. . 5.3:: L), h. V . , 13.. (Quasar.~4;ng.w£1~n*w...fifl.w.‘h.r r... , : 1 UISNVEB STYLIB BIERAB IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II II III I8IIIIIIIIIII IIII5II 3129300895 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A STUDY OF THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES WHICH EXIST AMONG PRINCIPALS FROM OUTSTANDING ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN SELECTED FOR NATIONAL RECOGNITION IN 1987-88 COMPARED TO PRINCIPALS FROM SIMILAR BUT NONRECOGNIZED SCHOOLS presented by Christopher Warren has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree“, Educational Administration Major professor Date May 1990 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 7_fi_____gk;___'___ J University ‘— PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or betore date due. I DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU Is An Affirmative ActIoNEquel Opportunity Institution chnS-DJ A STUDY OF THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES HHICH EXIST AMONG PRINCIPALS FROM OUTSTANDING ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN SELECTED FOR NATIONAL RECOGNITION IN 1987-88 COMPARED TO PRINCIPALS FROM SIMILAR BUT NONRECOGNIZED SCHOOLS By Christopher Warren A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1990 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES WHICH EXIST AMONG PRINCIPALS FROM OUTSTANDING ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN SELECTED FOR NATIONAL RECOGNITION IN I987-88 COMPARED TO PRINCIPALS FROM SIMILAR BUT NONRECOGNIZED SCHOOLS By Christopher Warren Luceqse The researcher’s purpose in this study was to examine the leadership qualities of seven public elementary school principals whose schools were recognized as outstanding schools in Michigan in 1987-1988, compared to principals from similar but nonrecognized schools. The major goal of this study was to determine what similarities and differences existed among these seven outstanding leaders compared to the seven leaders from the nonrecognized schools. W A Leadership Questionnaire adapted from The Profile of a School (P05) Staff Questionnaire (Rensis Likert Associates, Inc.) was used to measure the effectiveness of the principals’ leadership based upon their self-perceptions and their teachers’ perceptions of their leadership. The seven areas of leadership examined in the Christopher Warren hypotheses were: instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, establishing a clear and focused school mission, emphasizing student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, having high expectations for students and teachers, and exhibiting a positive leadership role/style. Means, standard deviations, mean differences, p-values, and a one- tailed test of significance were used for measuring principals’ and teachers’ responses in each of the areas being studied. Major findings 1. Recognized principals perceived themselves to be highly effective leaders in each of the seven hypotheses examined. 2. Recognized principals rated themselves higher than non- recognized principals in each of the seven areas. 3. Recognized teachers also rated their principals higher than nonrecognized teachers rated their principals in all areas. 4. Both recognized and nonrecognized principals rated them- selves higher than their teachers rated them. 5. Recognized teachers rated their principals as highly effective in all seven areas. 6. Both nonrecognized principals and nonrecognized teachers rated the principals as effective in the area of exhibiting a positive leadership role/style. I dedicate this dissertation in loving memory to my brother, Robert Bruce Warren, who could have achieved his doctorate in English Literature from Michigan State University, and my nephew, David Eric Jacobson, who could have received his B.A. degree in Foreign Languages from Central Michigan University. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I deeply appreciate the assistance and support of my advisor and chairperson, Dr. Sam Moore II. My thanks also are extended to Dr. Jan Alleman, Dr. Richard Elmore, and Dr. Harry Perlstadt for serving on my dissertation committee. Many years of thanks go to my parents, Robert and Elizabeth Warren, for instilling in me the importance of striving for knowledge. I thank my wife, Pat, and my children, Jennifer and Joshua, for their patience and support over the years. I thank my friend, Stan Kirkendall, who stood by me and helped me persevere through the tough times. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... Chapter 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .............. Introduction ................... Purpose of the Study ............... Need for the Study ................ Hypotheses .................... Definition of Terms ................ Assumptions .................... Limitations .................... Design of the Study ................ Overview of the Study ............... II. THE LITERATURE REVIEW ................ The Principal’s Daily Routine ........... Instructional Leadership ............. Monitoring of Student Progress .......... Clear and Focused School Mission ......... Student Attainment of Basic Skills ........ Positive School Climate .............. High Expectations for Students and Teachers . . . . Positive Leadership Role/Style .......... Perceptions .................... A Closer Look at Effective-Schools Research and The Principal as an Instructional Leader . . Summary ...................... III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY ................. Purpose ...................... Backgrounds of Recognized and Nonrecognized Schools ..................... Population .................... Construction of the Questionnaire ......... Validity ..................... vi tomwxsulwww—a Reliability Analysis ............... 35 Data Collection .................. 38 Procedures for Analyzing the Data ......... 39 Interpretations of Means ............. 39 Research Hypotheses ................ 40 Summary ...................... 40 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ................ 42 Demographic Information .............. 43 Results of Analyses for the Research Hypotheses . . 44 Summary of the Data Analysis ........... 65 V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS ......... 68 Summary ...................... 68 Design of the Study ................ 69 Findings and Conclusions ............. 70 Overall Conclusions ................ 82 Discussion .................... 87 Recommendations .................. 89 Suggestions for Further Study ........... 9l Reflections .................... 92 APPENDICES A. CORRESPONDENCE ................... 95 B. INSTRUMENTS ..................... lOO BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ l20 vii Table 10. ll. l2. l3. 14. LIST OF TABLES Means of Principals’ Responses to Principals as Instructional Leaders ................ Means of Teachers’ Responses to Principals as Instructional Leaders ................ Means of Principals’ Responses to Principals’ Monitoring of Students ............... Means of Teachers’ Responses to Principals’ Monitoring of Students ............... Means of Principals’ Responses to a Clear and Focused School Mission ............... Means of Teachers’ Responses to a Clear and Focused School Mission ............... Means of Principals’ Responses Emphasizing Student Attainment of Basic Skills ............. Means of Teachers’ Responses Emphasizing Student Attainment of Basic Skills ............. Means of Principals’ Responses Regarding Creating a Positive School Climate for Learning ........ Means of Teachers’ Responses Regarding Creating a Positive School Climate for Learning ........ Means of Principals’ Responses Concerning High Expectations for Students and Teachers ....... Means of Teachers’ Responses Concerning High Expectations for Students and Teachers ....... Means of Principals’ Responses to Principals’ Leadership Role/Style ................ Means of Teachers’ Responses to Leadership Role/ Style ........................ viii Page 45 46 47 48 50 51 53 54 55 56 58 59 61 62 Page l5. Overall Means of Recognized and Nonrecognized Principals’ Responses ................ 63 l6. Overall Means of Recognized and Nonrecognized Teachers’ Responses ................. 64 l7. Overall Means of Responses of Recognized and Nonrecognized Principals and Teachers Collectively . 65 ix CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Intrgdugtion This is the fourth year of the National Elementary School Recognition Program sponsored by the U. S. Department of Education. During the year 1987-1988, ten Michigan public schools were recog- nized on a national level. The purpose of the National Elementary School Recognition Program is to identify and call attention to a national group of unusually successful public elementary schools. For a school to be recognized, there must be clear evidence that virtually all its students are developing a solid foundation of skills in reading, writing, and mathematics. In addition, there must be evidence that school programs, policies, and practices foster the development of sound character, democratic values, ethical judgment, and self- discipline. For 'this program, an elementary school is any school that includes at least three grades between K-8 and has its own administrator. A school must meet one of the following criteria: l. During each of the last three years, 75% or more of the students must have achieved at or above grade level in math and reading. (Schools that have experienced an enrollment change of 15% or more excluding the first grade, in one or more of the last three years, will be eligible if 65% or more of the students achieved at or above grade level during the year in which enrollment changed.) 2. During each of the last three years, the number of students who achieved at or above grade level in math and reading must have increased by an average of 5% annually, and in the last year 50% or more of them must have achieved at or above grade level in both areas. Once it has been determined that a school is eligible, the following criteria will guide the selection of schools for recognition: 1. Quality of school organization. Quality of building leadership. Quality of instructional program and curriculum. Quality of instruction. Quality of school climate. Quality of school/community relations. \IO'iU'I-FOON Quality of efforts to make improvements and to maintain high-quality programs. 8. Quality of student outcomes. One of the criteria for being selected as an outstanding elementary school in 1987-1988 by the U.S. Department of Education was quality of building leadership. In the present study, the researcher examined the leadership of the principals based on their self-perceptions and teachers’ perceptions of the principal’s leadership in the seven Michigan public elementary schools that re 19 SC F6 51' Ol received recognition by the U.S. Department of Education in 1987- 1988 compared to the leadership of the principals from nonrecognized schools in seven of the same or similar school districts. The researcher’s main goal in this study was to determine what similarities and differences, if any, existed among these seven outstanding school leaders compared to the seven leaders from the similar but nonrecognized schools. Egrpgse of the Study The researcher’s purpose in this study was to examine the leadership qualities of seven public elementary school principals whose schools were recognized as outstanding schools in Michigan in 1987-1988, compared to principals from nonrecognized schools in the same or similar districts. The researcher’s major purpose in this study was to determine what similarities and differences existed among these seven outstanding leaders compared to the seven leaders from the nonrecognized schools. N d f e t According to former U.S. Secretary of Education William J. Bennett (1986), "Education is a continuum, lasting a lifetime. Elementary education is its critical beginning.” Children’s education begins with the influence of their elementary school years on their future. These formative years will help establish goals for further study and subsequent livelihoods. Many of America’s children are coming to school from single-parent and divorced-parent homes rather than from two-parent homes. Consequently, it is important to examine the leadership role of the principal and to explore what areas need to be improved. Students’ chances for success in school could likely be enhanced by the results of this effort. The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy’s Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (1986) stated that "the 1980’s will be remembered for two developments: the beginning of a sweeping reassessment of the basis of the nation’s economic strength and an outpouring of concern for the quality of American education. The nationwide effort to improve our schools and student achievement rivals those of any period in American history." The principal of today emerges as a "friendly mentor primarily concerned with classroom matters" (MAESP Communicator, 1989). There is a gradual movement away from being a building manager to more of a focus on student achievement. "Principals of today report that they spend the greatest amount of their work week on student supervision and teacher evaluations" (NA£§P Communicator, 1989). According to a ten-year study entitled "The K-8 Principal in 1988," principals today are more confident, better educated, and have the longest on~the-job experience. This is fortunate for today’s elementary student with his/her multifarious needs. Research dealing with principals of outstanding elementary schools and principals of nonrecognized schools will provide more information about the leadership qualities of principals and how they affect both teachers’ perceptions and their own perceptions of their leadership abilities. 111mm Hypothesis 1: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to display significantly stronger examples of instructional leadership than principals in nonrecognized schools. flyootho§i§_z: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to monitor students significantly more frequently than principals in nonrecognized schools. Hyoothosis 3: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to help their staffs establish a significantly clearer and more focused school mission than principals from nonrecognized schools. Hyoothesjs 4: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to emphasize student attainment of basic skills significantly more than principals in nonrecognized schools. flyootheois 5: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to work at creating a positive school climate for learning significantly more than principals in nonrecognized schools. Hyoothesis §= Principals in recognized schools are perceived to have significantly higher expectations for students and teachers than principals in nonrecognized schools. Hyoothesig Z: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to have a significantly more positive leadership role/style than principals in nonrecognized schools. Dofiojtjoo of [erms Basic skills: Reading and mathematics. f c ive oo : A school in which all of the students learn the intended curriculum (Lezotte, 1985). Exoectotioos: All staff have high expectations for student achievement of at least minimal mastery of a given subject. 16 ll ll lnstructional leadership: Instructional leaders portray learning as the most important reason for being in school. The instructional leader believes that all students can learn. Student learning considerations are the most important criteria used in decision making (Brookover & Brundage, 1979). Leadership: The positive influence of an individual in interaction with other individuals within a group setting (Williams, 1983). Monitor: Staff and student progress are checked frequently using a variety of assessment procedures. The results are used to improve both the individual student’s performance and the instructional program (Lezotte, 1985). Perceptions: The neurophysiological processes, including mem- ory, by which an organism becomes aware of and interprets external stimuli and sensations. School climate: The customs and rules that help foster aca- demic excellence. These include clear goals for academic and social behavior, order and discipline, high expectations, teacher efficacy, pervasive caring, public rewards and incentives, administrative leadership, and community support (Mackenzie, 1983). §ohoo| mission: Clearly articulated instructional goals, pri- orities assessment procedures, and accountability in the school, which are accepted by the staff who assume responsibility for the student’s learning of the school’s curricular goals (Lezotte, 1985). Assumetions l. A highly effective elementary principal is an instructional leader who monitors student progress frequently, has a clear and focused school mission, emphasizes student attainment of basic skills, fosters a positive school climate for learning, holds high expectations for students and teachers, and exhibits a positive leadership role/style. 2. Items from the Leadership Questionnaire measure principal effectiveness in each of the seven hypothesized areas: instruc- tional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, stUdent attainment of basic skills, a positive school climate for learning, high expectations for students and teachers, and a positive leadership role/style. Limitations 1. The study was limited to seven of the ten schools receiving national recognition in 1987-88. The other three recognized schools declined to participate in the study. 2. The study was limited to seven of the more than 3,000 non- recognized elementary schools from over 500 school systems. The seven schools were matched with the recognized schools according to similar numbers of students and teachers and similar socioeconomic backgrounds of the students. 3. The study was limited to principals’ and teachers’ percep- tions. re te 3C 4. The study was limited to those principals and teachers who returned the questionnaire (100% of the principals and 74% of the teachers returned the questionnaire). 5. The data of the study were affected by the sincerity and accuracy of the principals’ and teachers’ responses and perceptions. 6. The limit of ten minutes to respond to the questionnaire may not have been sufficient to reflect thoughtful answers. Design of the Stuoy The population of the study included principals and teachers from seven Michigan elementary schools recognized nationally in 1987-88 and principals and teachers from seven similar but non- recognized Michigan elementary schools. The main procedures used in the study included a Leadership Questionnaire to measure principals’ self-perceptions and teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ leadership. The questionnaire was sent to principals and teachers from the seven recognized elementary schools (in 1987-88) and seven similar but nonrecognized elementary schools in Michigan. The» data. were analyzed to determine what similarities and differences, if any, existed between principals’ leadership in the recognized schools compared to the nonrecognized schools. All information was keyed into the IBM computer at Michigan State University, and the following statistics were compiled: means, standard deviations, mean differences, and p-values. The Leadership Questionnaire included two measures of principal effectiveness: principal self-perceptions and teacher perceptions. Means, standard deviations, mean differences, and p-values were used to interpret the data. Qvorviow of the Study This study is composed of five chapters, appendices, and a bibliography. Chapter 1 contains the purpose and need for the study, definition of terms, assumptions, limitations, research hypotheses, and design of the study. Chapter II includes a review of the literature related to the study. Chapter III describes the methods and procedures used in the study. An analysis of the data is presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes the summary, find- ings and conclusions, discussion, recommendations, suggestions for further study, and reflections. CHAPTER II THE LITERATURE REVIEW Researchers studying effective schools have attempted to identify' what are their characteristics. Sometimes a process- product approach is used to identify and compare schools in many different ways and to provide information about school leadership. The question asked by school researchers is what aspects of this school correlate with exceptional achievement gains? (Behling & Champion, 1984). The conclusion is that the principal’s role is a key factor in bringing about better scores on standardized tests, and therefore higher school achievement (Austin, 1979; Brookover & Lezotte, 1977; Edmonds, 1979; Marcus, 1976; Phi Delta Kappa, 1980; Wellisch, MacQueen, & Duck, 1978). The Principal’s Daily Routine What do successful principals do day in and day out to develop and maintain effective instructional programs? The Instructional Management Program of the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development has been looking for an answer to that question for the past five years. Funded by the National Institute of Education, the researchers talked extensively with 42 principals who were nominated by fellow administrators as successful 10 ll instructional leaders. Daily cycles began with principals roaming their buildings and greeting children and staff. As classes began, they would return to their offices for short planning meetings or to resolve the first round of student problems. This hour of office work would be followed by movement through the building as recess began. They would monitor, communicate, and resolve problems as they went. The period between recess and lunch period provided an opportunity to observe classrooms and talk with teachers and students. Lunch hours and much of the afternoon frequently required attention to discipline, and principals’ time was consumed with students in conferences and phone calls to parents. The end of the student day would again bring these principals to the hallways, where they would admonish or praise, and prompt or prohibit in rapid-fire encounters. The ensuing calm permitted time for reflection and follow-up, parent conferences, teacher conferences, and staff or committee meetings (Dwyer, 1983). A recent study of selected school principals in Arkansas and Oklahoma showed that an average of 32% of a principal’s workday is spent on office responsibilities, 25% on faculty/community rela- tions, 21% on students, 14% on curriculum, and 7% on professional development (McDaniel, I983). The work life of principals is brief, fragmented, and varied. It is composed of many short, unplanned verbal interactions in the course of a day. Elementary principals in one study (Morris, Crowson, Hurwitz, & Porter-Gehrie, 1981) spent 80% of their workday in face-to-face interchanges with staff, faculty, students, and at! de: sel le an ch th rc e) le ll 12 others; an additional 8% of their time on the telephone; and 12% on desk work. A school day could consist of anywhere from 50 to 100 separate events and as many as 400 separate interactions. Instruotjooal Leadorship The principal of an effective school acts as an instructional leader and actively holds that mission out to the staff, parents, and students. The principal understands and applies the characteristics of instructional effectiveness in the management of the instructional program (Lezotte, 1985). How important is the role of the principal as an instructional leader? There are some examples in which a principal is regarded as ”a strong instructional leader, moves to another school, and is reported as a strong instructional leader in the new school. . . . The school was unable to achieve excellence without that principal" (Andrews, 1987). In 1982, a summary of 22 studies was compiled by Robinson and Block, who looked at the effect of the principal on student achievement and instructional leadership in the school. They found that principals who were strong instructional leaders and who emphasized educational goals and high expectations for student achievement had higher achieving students. The effective principal forms a partnership with staff and students to set instructional goals, to coordinate the total program, and to evaluate the program (Howell, 1981). The principal acts as the instructional leader, who effectively communicates the mission of the school to the staff, parents, and stude inst! Pr09 scho inst Inst sch: per mee sti me! TE; PR 13 students and who understands and applies the characteristics of instructional effectiveness in the management of the instructional program of the school. Purkey and Smith (1983), in their effective schools review, found l6 beliefs or behaviors that outstanding instructional leaders employ: Instructional Leaders: 1. Insist LEARNING is the most important reason for being in school. 2. Believe and communicate ALL STUDENTS CAN LEARN. 3. Protect LEARNING TIME from disruption. 4. Check STUDENT PROGRESS frequently, relying on explicit performance data. 5. Convey SCHOOL MISSION in direct, concrete terms. 6. Monitor curriculum and implementation so that all staff meet HIGH INSTRUCTIONAL STANDARDS. 7. Organize STAFF INVOLVEMENT in systematic improvement strategies. 8. Ensure the variety of resources needed for student achieve- ment. 9. Set up INCENTIVES and REWARDS to encourage excellence in TEACHER and STUDENT PERFORMANCE. 10. Focus on instruction. 11. Know and apply RESEARCH, as well as TEACHING and LEARNING PRINCIPLES. 12. Know programs that work: i.e., cooperative learning. 14 13. Model effective teaching practices for staff when approp- riate. 14. Set expectations for* CURRICULUM QUALITY through use of standards and guidelines. 15. Emphasize frequent, two-way communication with parents and the general public. 16. Insist that student learning considerations are the most important criteria used in decision making. Monitoring of Student Progress Student academic progress. is measured frequently and by a variety of assessments in the effective school. The results of the assessments are used to improve individual student performance and also to improve the instructional program (Lezotte, 1985). Evaluation is a necessity because it affords vital information regarding the progress of both the student and the school. The principal of an effective school regularly evaluates student achievement, conveys expectations to students and teachers, and then checks regularly to see if those expectations are being met and recognizes how well one’s own students are doing relative to the achievement levels of other schools (Michigan State Board of Education, 1985). Frequent student-teacher interaction, classroom testing, and criterion-referenced testing are all involved in assessing student progress. Persons in the school monitor student progress with respect to social and personal growth (Lezotte, 1985). 15 Both incidental and formal observations account for a significant amount of’ effective principals’ time in classrooms. Often effective principals visited classrooms with a specific purpose in mind, such as staff evaluation or instructional evaluation. By frequently visiting classrooms principals could determine classroom needs and the types of assistance that would be most greatly valued by teachers. Principals in effective schools promoted staff inservice training targeted toward specific school and program goals. Researchers have found such ongoing inservice training to have a positive effect on staff behavior, classroom practices, and student performance (Robinson, 1985). In effective schools, test results were thoroughly reviewed by teachers and principals. Students were offered prompt feedback regarding their progress toward specific learning objectives. The testing program was an accurate measure of the curriculum, and test results were used to make modifications in the instructional program (Robinson, 1985). A four-year study (l980-l984) in London, England, distinguished effective elementary schools from less effective ones. Purposeful leadership occurs when the principal understands the needs of the school and is actively involved in the school’s work without exerting total control over the staff. In effective schools, principals are involved in influencing the content of curriculum guidelines, influencing teachers’ strategies, and monitoring students’ progress through the years (Mortimore 8 Sammons, 1987). 16 Te r an F us h i i In effective schools, there is a clearly articulated school mission through which the staff shares an understanding of and a commitment to the instructional goals, priorities, assessment procedures, and accountability. Staff members accept responsibility for students’ learning of the school’s essential curricular goals (Lezotte, 1985). Effective leadership is central to a school’s success. What most characterizes effective school leaders is their ability to set and maintain a clear direction for the school while facilitating the work of the staff (Wilson 8 Corcoran, 1988). Principals of effective schools have high expectations for themselves, teachers, students, and parents. Effectiveness results from concrete actions taken in response to the premise that students can and will learn. Successful schools have action plans that involve setting clear goals, devising specific ways to reach the goals, directing school resources toward achieving the goals, and creating a school environment supporting goal attainment (Robinson, 1985). Principals of effective schools set a vision for the entire school. In-house communication was effective, with well-defined and written school policies. Both students and staff knew what was to be achieved, who was responsible, and what was expected from everyone. Principals often interacted with students and showed greater leadership in the area of student guidance and services 17 (Robinson, 1985). Principals had clear and definite ideas about the purpose of their schools. u nt At ’ me ' i I In effective schools, teachers allocate a substantial amount of classroom time to instruction in the essential skills. For a high percentage of this time, students are engaged in whole-class or large-group, teacher-directed, learning activities (Lezotte, 1985). Each student is expected to master skills that are identified as essential in each course. Basic skills are reinforced across the curriculum by all teachers, as are desirable social behaviors (Lezotte, 1985). The power of the principal’s leadership in effective schools is so pervasive that it has a measurable effect on student learning (Andrews, 1987). Researchers found successful principals working to maintain an environment that supported teacher efforts in the classroom and nfinimized outside factors that would disrupt the learning process. They were both supportive of teachers and skilled in providing an environment in which teachers could function effectively (Robinson, 1985). Eositivo Sohool Qlimato Principals of effective schools create a stimulating professional work environment. There is an orderly, purposeful, businesslike atmosphere that is free from the threat of physical harm. The school climate is not oppressive and is conducive to teaching and learning (Lezotte, 1985). In 1986, a questionnaire was administered to a high school staff’ that, was struggling. The 18 following year, after a year of focusing on principles derived from effective-schools research, the questionnaire was administered again. Strong leadership, staff dedication, and positive learning climate had increased more than could be accounted fOr by chance. The most important implication of this study is that implementing a planned process of change based on effective-schools research can have a positive effect on schools in a relatively short period of time (Bambur 8 Andrews, 1988). School climate includes many things, ranging from what an observer can feel during time spent in a school to what an observer can see upon entering a building or a classroom. Schools that can be characterized as orderly, purposeful, and peaceful are those in which achievement is higher (Shoemaker & Fraser, 1983). Principals of effective schools determine the tone, ambiance, and style of the school. They work at creating an orderly environment that is conducive to the academic growth and development of staff and students. As a "center for learning," the atmosphere is pleasant for both students and staff. Where teachers have very positive perceptions of the quality of their workplace, they are more productive, so incremental growth in student achievement is seen (Andrews, 1987). An effective school has a clear set of goals for social behavior and academic achievement. The goals are formulated and emphasized by the entire teaching staff, and there is no ambiguity about school priorities. Students, teachers, parents, and administrators all share an understanding of the goals, and they 19 all agree on basic rules of conduct. The rules are positively stated and have an obvious relationship to fostering learning (Johnston & Markle, 1986). Successful principals establish policies that create an orderly environment and support effective instruction (Bennett, 1986). Behling and Champion (1984) identified six points from the research about the principal and school climate: 1. The principal’s executive leadership has an effect on the morale of the school, teachers’ professional performance, and the student’s learning (Gross & Herriott, 1965). 2. Students view their principal’s effectiveness in terms of human factors (Pederson, 1970). 3. The principal spends great amounts of time on human rela- tionships (Kmetz & Willower, 1982; Wolcott, I973). 4. Human relations is a prime factor in the success of a prin- cipal (McCleary & Thompson, 1979). 5. Both elementary and secondary principals spend more of their day on unscheduled meetings than any other activity (Kmetz & Willower, 1982). 6. A positive school climate, while difficult to describe or measure, has impressed researchers as being present in schools that work well (Dwyer, Lee, Rowan, & Bossert, 1983; McCleary & Thomson, 1979; Rutter, Maughn, Mortimore, Outson, & Smith, 1979; Wynne, 1982). 20 Hi h x ect tion S ents nd Teacher Researchers on effective schools have found that both academic performance and student behavior are best in those schools in which the staffs hold and articulate high standards for these matters (Good, 1982; Purkey & Smith, 1983). The effective school has a climate of expectation in which the staff believe and demonstrate that all students can attain mastery of the essential school skills and believe that they have the capability to help all students attain that mastery (Lezotte, 1985). The Educational Testing Service, in concert with the Michigan State Board of Education, defined principal expectations as one of the variables that researchers have indicated makes a difference in student achievement. Principals who possess high expectations that their students can master basic academic objectives tend to be in schools that are successful or improving in terms of achievement (Brookover et al., 1977; Gigliotti, 1975). Cooperative efforts between the principal and the staff will help convey to teachers that all students can be taught and that none will fall below minimum levels of achievement. Principals convey high expectations for students, for staff, and for their own performance. They emphasize dedication and hard work, and encourage greater professionalism and initiative by staff (Robinson, 1985). Principals of effective schools place a strong emphasis on high standards through the setting of goals and holding to high expecta- tions for both themselves and others. 21 Just as it is important to set high expectations, it is equally important to recognize achievement. The formula for motivating students seems to be something like this: Set high standards, moni- tor progress, recognize effort and success, use the recognition process to build pride in achievement and a commitment to the school’s goals, and maintain a focus on that spirit to stimulate continuing achievement both by the individual student and the school as a whole (Wilson & Corcoran, 1988). P0 itive ead r hi ole S l The principal is ultimately responsible for almost everything that happens in school and out (Behling & Champion, 1984). Princi— pals’ perceptions of their role are important, for these perceptions can govern daily actions (Hall, Hord, & Griffin, 1980). Sergiovanni (1984) found important differences existed in the leaders of incompetent, competent, and excellent schools. Excellent schools go beyond the expectations considered satisfactory. Students in excellent schools accomplish far more and teachers work much harder than can ordinarily be expected. The research showed that exemplary student performance resulted from many policies, behaviors, and attitudes that together shaped the learning environment. Formulas for success tended to differ across studies, yet the research disclosed important similarities among many instructionally effective schools (Robinson, 1985). The principal’s leadership is fundamental to the direction and effectiveness of a school (Lieberman, 1984). The focus of this 22 leadership is teaching and learning. The characteristics and qualities of individual principals may differ, and various school situations may require varying forms of leadership, but it is the principal who leads the staff and school who is considered the effective principal (Goodman, 1985). When leadership is sensed throughout the organization, people feel important and know that what they do has meaning and is important; learning and mastery are valued; there is a team, a family, a unity; and work is stimulating, challenging, fascinating, and fun because people are motivated and identify with the ideals of the organization (Bennis, 1984). The individual in the leadership position conveys attitudes that present themselves throughout the entire organization. The attitude and the degree of involvement of an effective principal are both very important. The two most important characteristics outstanding principals share are being a visible presence in the school and setting a vision (goals) for the school (Andrews, 1987). The ability of the leaders to draw others to them because they have a vision was one of the characteristics that was most apparent in the study of leaders by Bennis. They attract people to them by communicating an extraordinary focus of commitment. The leader is able to communicate the vision to others and to create meaning, and there is also constancy. With 125 teachers rating 61 principals in spring 1984 and again a year later, the test—retest reliability for the strong leader factor was 72, so there were very stable perceptions in the minds of teachers concerning the principal’s leadership (Andrews, 1987). One recent study showed that people 23 would much rather follow individuals they can count on, even when they disagree with their viewpoint, than people with whom they agree but who shift position frequently (Bennis, 1984). mm In this study, which is based on perceptions of principals and teachers, it is important to have some knowledge and understanding about perceptions. Perceptions are one’s own interpretation of reality. They are neither correct nor incorrect. They are based on the feelings, sensations, conceptions, imaginations, judgments, and inferences of the individual who is doing the perceiving. A thorough history of perception would begin by tracing theories of perception that Greek philosophers proposed more than 2,000 years ago. However, for the purposes of this study, it is sufficient to examine the literature covering the most recent years of looking at perceptions. A perception is the neurological process by which an organism becomes aware of and interprets external stimuli and sensations. In order to perceive, a person must apprehend with the mind, to become aware or conscious of, to observe, and to understand. A perception is a transaction between the outer powers that operate on the mind through the senses and the inner powers of the mind itself, which impose their own forms on the things submitted to it (Qytoto_§oolish Diotioooty, 1989). Perceptions reflect previous experiences, and they are based on reality for the person who is perceiving. Perceptions reflect an 24 awareness of ongoing experience: all explaining, imagining, interpreting, guessing, thinking, comparing, planning, remembering the past, and anticipating the future (Stevens, 1971). There are two basic types of perceptions: direct and indirect. Direct perception claims a perceiver perceives his/her environment. Knowledge of the world is thought to be unaided by inference, memories, or representations. Indirect perception conceives of perception as mediated because perception is thought to involve the intervention of memories and representations (Michaels & Carello, 1981). In this study, indirect perception would more likely come to the forefront than would direct perception. Another way of looking at perceptions is through an information-processing approach. In this approach, there is a continuity in the way a person handles information. Sensation (the immediate contact between stimuli and the sensory receptors), perception (adding meaning to these basic sensations), and higher mental processes--such as memory--must all be treated within a single system (Haber, 1974). Thus, one may use strategies that involve memory when he/she perceives (Matlin, 1983). Perceptions can be a powerful force in influencing one’s attitudes and feelings. We see what we wish to see. It is possible to change every situation and condition in life by the simple act of perceiving that we can change our world by changing our thinking, our mental approach. We have absolute control over our mind and its activity. No matter how many things seem wrong, we can correct them 25 by perceiving that we can change our attitude toward them (Bach, 1966). This statement can be taken two different ways: it can be interpreted to mean that perceptions taken by themselves are representative of the individual’s true feelings and, as a result, are valid, or it can be interpreted to mean that perceptions should not be deemed valid because a person’s mind overrules his/her perceptions anyway. In any case, it might be argued that perceptions reflect the attitudes and feelings of the individual, and it is important to examine these perceptions. A Closer Look at Effoctive-Schools Research and The Princi al as an Instructio al ea e Recently, there has been a closer look at the effective-schools research. The school-improvement formula has been widely adopted throughout the United States. As popularized by Edmonds and other researchers, this formula consists of six factors: strong instructional leadership by the principal, high expectations for students and teachers, an emphasis on basic skills, an orderly environment, frequent monitoring and evaluation of students, and increased time-on-task (Edmonds, 1979). Many major cities have established projects based on the effective-schools formula. Many state departments of education have established effective-schools programs, and federal legislation has been proposed to fund projects based on the research. However, the formula cannot be substantiated, according to Stedman (1987). Although some schools have reached grade level, many others remain at relatively low levels of achievement. Many schools and individual grades have 26 shown little or no improvement; schools that have improved math scores sometimes have had little success in reading, and vice versa; some schools have gained relative to their city’s average but still lag well behind national norms; in nearly all schools, a large percentage of students remain several years below grade level (Stedman, 1987). By 1983, many problems with the research on effective schools were evident. No one really knows how to create effective schools-- there is no blueprint for a principal to use. Effective-schools language is fuzzy. For example, "effectiveness," "climate," and even "leadership" are ambiguous terms. School effectiveness, tied narrowly to test results in math and reading, ignores many skills, habits, and attitudes beyond the reach of paper-pencil tests. How can the broader, more complex, and less easily measured goals of schooling be achieved as test results improve? School officials still need to use all the tools available to improve schooling, not simply test scores (Cuban, 1983). So many other factors besides the major characteristics of effective schools come into play in developing an outstanding school program. Much of the effective- schools research is subjective and is not measurable or even observable. It is important to keep in mind while reading this dissertation that perceptions are based on attitudes and feelings and, as such, are subjective. The) most recent research by Cuban (l985), Stedman (l987), Elmore (1986), and others has pointed out the deficiencies in 27 effective-schools research. It is one of many fairly new ideas or concepts that may come and go with the swinging of the pendulum in education. It has not yet withstood the test of time. The reader should take the results of this study with a cautionary note because of the realistic challenge to effective-schools research by many of today’s education experts. Instructional leadership focuses on learning as the most important reason for being in school. The instructional leader believes that all students can learn and that student learning considerations are the most important criteria to use in decision making (Brookover & Brundage, 1979). Yet researchers have raised a number of problems, not the least of which is the persistent finding that a relatively small proportion of all principals play the role of instructional leader and that most principals, although they accept instructional leadership as an ideal, direct their attention to tasks unrelated to instruction and student performance (Crowson & Porter—Gehrie, 1980; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982; Martin & Willower, 1981). Principals must respond to many problems and isolated incidents every day that have little or nothing to do with the improvement of instruction. Instructional leadership, although it has considerable appeal as a political slogan, does not provide a basis for improving the performance of schools. It fails to account for school-level factors that make most principals behave more like building managers than instructional leaders. It fails to account for the equally 28 plausible hypothesis that good instruction causes instructional leadership, rather than vice versa (Elmore, 1986). Emma The research conducted in identifying the characteristics of effective schools and determining how thy relate to the effective leadership of elementary principals was reviewed in this chapter. Today’s principal has a job that is fragmented and varied, and contains many short, unplanned verbal interactions each day. A school day could consist of as many as 400 separate interactions during the course of a principal’s communicating, monitoring, and resolving problems. Instructional Leadership The effective principal insists that learning is the most important reason for being in school and believes and communicates that all students can learn. High instructional standards, curriculum quality, and high expectations are met through the use of goals, guidelines, and improvement strategies. The instructional leader insists that student learning considerations are the most important criteria used in decision making. Monitoring of Student Progress Student academic progress is measured frequently and by a variety of assessments in the effective principal’s school. Results of the monitoring are used to improve both student and teacher performance. 29 r nd cused S hool ' sio A clearly articulated and shared school mission includes a commitment to goals, priorities, and accountability in the effective principal’s school. A clear direction for the daily operation of the school coupled with a vision for the future is central to a staff’s success in determining the purpose of their school. den Att inmen f Bas k' The effective principal protects the amount of time on task given to reading, math, and other basic subjects. Teachers’ efforts in the classroom are supported, and disruptions to teaching/learning are kept to a minimum. Eosjtjve School Climato There is an orderly, purposeful, and businesslike atmosphere conducive to teaching and learning in the effective principal’s school. As a "center for learning,” the environment is pleasant for both students and staff. High Expectations for Studonts ano looohers Effective principals place a strong emphasis on high standards by setting goals and holding to high expectations for both themselves. and others. Academic performance and student behavior are best in schools in which the staffs hold and communicate high expectations and standards. 30 t v a e i ole S A principal’s leadership is fundamental to the direction and effectiveness of a school. Visionary leaders draw others to themselves by communicating an extraordinary focus of commitment to the students and staff. The focus of an effective principal’s leadership role/style is on teaching and learning. r tio Perceptions can be a powerful force in influencing one’s attitudes and feelings. They reflect an awareness of ongoing experience. Perceptions are one’s own interpretation of reality. They are neither correct nor incorrect. However, because perceptions have a powerful influence on people’s lives, it is important to examine them. r ook at Effe ive-S 5 Research and the Principal as an Instructional Leader No one really knows how to create effective schools. There is no blueprint for a principal to use. School effectiveness ignores many skills, habits, and attitudes beyond the reach of just testing in reading and math. In reality, a relatively small proportion of all principals play the role of instructional leader. Principals must respond to many problems and isolated incidents every day that have little or nothing to do with improving instruction. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Bum The researcher’s purpose in this study was to determine what similarities and differences, if any, existed among the seven elementary principals chosen for national recognition in 1987-88 compared to seven similar but nonrecognized principals from similar but nonrecognized schools. The effectiveness of the principals’ leadership based on their self-perceptions and their teachers’ perceptions of their leadership 'was examined in all 14 of 'the elementary schools. The researcher matched up seven recognized elementary schools with seven similar but nonrecognized elementary schools. One nonrecognized school was from the same district as the recognized school. This was the only school the researcher contacted that was willing to be compared to another school in its district. The researcher looked at comparing schools with similar numbers of students, similar numbers of teachers, and similar socioeconomic backgrounds of the schools’ communities. The collective numbers and statistics of the recognized schools versus the similar but non- recognized schools were analyzed. 31 32 Baokoroonds of Rooogoizod ono Nonrocognizod Sohools Socio- Recognized Elementary Teachers Students Economic Schools Level School 1 18 409 Average School 2 28 613 Average School 3 22 536 High School 4 16 317 High School 5 23 543 High School 6 19 460 High School 7 21 535 Average Average = The majority of families are middle-class, blue-collar workers, and many are from rural areas. High = The majority of families are upper-class professionals, and many are from suburban areas. Socio- Similar/Nonrecognized Teachers Students Economic Elementary Schools Level School I 17 415 High School 2 23 557 Average School 3 19 442 High School 4 15 326 Average School 5 21 517 High School 6 18 438 High School 7 20 523 Average Note: The nonrecognized schools were selected according to a close match of teacher and student numbers, socioeconomic levels, and the researcher’s acquaintance with the principals of those schools. Population The total population of the elementary schools involved in this study comprised 14 principals and 280 teachers. All 14 principals returned the questionnaire, and 218 of the 280 teachers responded (74%). There were 104 responses from teachers in recognized schools and 114 responses from teachers in nonrecognized schools. All principals and teachers from all 14 schools were asked to 33 participate in the study. There was a total of 232 participants in the study or 80% of the total population. 0 r t' i n r The instrument was adapted from the Profile of a School (P05) Staff Questionnaire (Rensis Likert Associates, Inc.). The questionnaire consists of five demographic questions and 30 leadership questions. Because the study was of principal and' teacher perceptions, the questions were answered by an "extent scale guide" ranging from "very little extent" (1) to "very great extent" (5)- The researcher selected and adapted 30 questions from the 50 Likert questions included in his aforementioned questionnaire. Chosen were Items 9, 11, 18, 20, 21, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 37, and 41 because they all fell under the heading of instructional leadership. Selected also were Items 1, 23, and 24 because they addressed the issue of a clear and focused school mission. Items 16, 19, 22, 44, and 45 covered emphasizing student attainment of basic skills. Likert’s questions 3, 8, 12, 15, 17, 35, 36, 38, 39, and 40 all were incorporated into the section concerning a positive school climate for learning. The high expectations for students and teachers’ section used Items 7, 26, 28, 30, and 43. Items 10, 33, and 34 under the heading of a positive leadership role/style were used. Questions 48, 49, and 50 were used in the opening section covering demographics. 34 The following items of the Likert questionnaire were not used: 2. To what extent are decision makers aware of problems, par- ticularly problems at lower levels? (This item did not fit under any of the seven headings used in the study.) 4. To what extent is information given to your work group, about what is going on in other departments, adequate? (Elementary schools do not use departments in their organi- zational structures.) 5. To what extent does this organization tell your work group what it needs to know to do the best possible job? (This study concerned the interaction between principals and teachers rather than the larger organization as a whole.) 6. To what extent does the school board set high performance goals for educational excellence? (This study did not include any items addressed to school board members.) To what extent does each of the following groups of people influence what goes on in this organization? (Item 13) central office staff and (Item 14) students. (Members of the central office staff or students were not included as part of this study.) 42. When solutions are reached, to what extent do the opposing parties accept and implement them? (This question would be more appropriate to ask of a collective organization than of individual principals and teachers within an organization.) 46. To what extent do you look forward to your working day? (This question was thought to have little bearing on studying the principal’s role in educational leadership. 47. Overall, to what extent is your work satisfactory? (This question did not fit under any of the seven sections of the study.) The questionnaire is composed of seven sections covering the seven hypotheses used in the study. The seven areas of effective leadership include instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, establishing a clear and focused school mission, emphasiz- ing student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school i; j 35 climate for learning, holding high expectations for students and teachers, and exhibiting a positive leadership role/style. Respond- ents also answered the demographic questions, which included sex, age, and the number of years working in the school with the prin- cipal. Vglioity To ensure the validity of the principal and teacher question- naire, the researcher had it reviewed by members of his doctoral committee, his advisor, two principals, and four teachers. The questionnaire was revised based on all of their comments. Reliability Anolysis A group of 26 teachers and the principals from two different elementary schools not included in the study completed the question- naires and critiques of the questionnaires. Revisions were made based on these critiques. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, which include Pearson product- moment correlation coefficients, were used to examine the reliabil- ity of each item on the questionnaire. Reliability of the question- naire indicates the degree of consistency of the responses. A cutoff point of .65 was set as a level of reliability. Using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, the closer to 1.0, the more reliable was the item on the questionnaire. 36 Alpha If Item Dolotod Hypothesis 1. Instructional Leadership Item 1. Materials provided to teachers by principal .6829 Item 2. School influenced by principal .7490 Item 3. Principal seeks ideas regarding academics .6574 Item 4. Staff development activities .7128 Overall reliability coefficient alpha level - .7598 Hypothesis 2. Monitor Students Frequently Item 5. Principal feels responsible for educational excellence .8148 Item 6. Principal encourages teamwork .6992 Item 7. Principal is aware of learning problems .6787 Item 8. Principal is aware of instruc- tional problems .6566 Overall reliability coefficient alpha level . .7731 Hypothesis 3. Clear and Focused School Mission Item 9. Principal is Instrumental in Setting Priorities .7803 Item 10. Principal Involves Teachers in Decision Making .7979 Item ll. Principal Encourages Teamwork .7861 Item l2. Principal Sets High Standards and .8l42 Goals Overall reliability coefficient alpha level - .8382 37 Alpha If ltom Qolotoo Hypothesis 4. Emphasize Student Attainment of Basic Skills Item l3. Principal Supports Development of Innovation .6794 Item 14. Principal Has High Goals for Educational Achievement .7010 Item l5. Students Are Recognized for Basic Skills .6749 Item l6. Principal Is Concerned About Instructional Success .6359 Overall reliability coefficient alpha level - .7342 Hypothesis 5. Positive School Climate for Learning Item l7. Teachers Communicate Openly and Honestly .5003 Item 18. Principal Interacts on a Friendly Basis .7165 Item l9. Teachers Support One Another .6067 Item 20. Teachers Cooperatively Plan and Coordinate .6048 Overall reliability coefficient alpha level - .6769 Hypothesis 6. High Expectations for Students and Teachers Item 2l. Principal Determines High Goals for Excellence .6767 Item 22. Principal Seeks Ideas Regarding Academics . .6345 Item 23. Principal Handles Technical and Educational Matters Well .6291 Item 24. 38 Teachers Feel Responsible for Excellence Overall reliability coefficient alpha level = .7478 Hypothesis 7. Item Item Item Item Item Item Item 25. 26. 27a. 27b. 28. 29. 30. Positive Leadership Role/Style Principal Resolves Conflict Between Teachers Principal Guides and Inspires Goal Meeting Principal Is Task-Centered Principal Is People-Centered Principal’s Style Is Visionary Principal’s Style Is That of a Troubleshooter Principal’s Style Is That of a Catalyst Overall reliability coefficient alpha level = .8374 Alpha If I em De e ed .7810 .8033 .7973 .8615 .8188 .8104 .8228 .7822 The overall average of all seven reliability coefficient alpha levels was .7667. Data Colleotion Letters were sent to each of the superintendents of the seven districts of the elementary schools as well as the principals of the schools that received national recognition (plus the seven non- recognized schools) requesting permission to administer the questionnaire. Follow-up was done by telephone to discuss the procedures to be followed in administering the questionnaire. 39 The questionnaire was sent to each principal with a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and directions. The principal was asked to fill out the questionnaire and give directions to his/her teachers to fill out their questionnaires through a nonpartisan representative on the staff. This nonpartisan staff member was also asked to collect and return the questionnaires directly to the researcher. Procedures for a in he a Information from the returned questionnaires was keyed into the IBM computer at Michigan State University. Means, standard deviations, mean differences, and p-values were used for principals’ and teachers’ responses in each of the areas being studied. A one- tailed test of significance was used to determine whether means of responses from the recognized schools were larger than means of responses from similar but nonrecognized schools. Interpretations of Means The survey questionnaires focused on two measures of principal behaviors: principal self-perceptions and teacher perceptions. The scores measured principal instructional leadership, principal monitoring of student progress, principal establishing a clear and focused school mission, principal emphasizing student attainment of basic skills, principal creating a positive school climate for learning, principal holding high expectations for students and teachers, and principal exhibiting a positive leadership role/style. P-values of less than .05 were considered statistically significant. 40 Resgohch Hypothosos The major goal in this study was to determine what, if any, similarities and differences existed among the seven principals from nationally recognized Michigan elementary schools compared to principals from nonrecognized elementary schools. An alpha level of .05 was set to determine the level of statistical significance. The specific hypotheses formulated were as follows: Hypothesis 1: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to display significantly stronger examples of instructional leadership than principals in nonrecognized schools. Hypothesis 2: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to monitor students significantly more frequently than principals in nonrecognized schools. Hypothesis 3: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to help their staffs establish a significantly clearer and more focused school mission than principals from nonrecognized schools. Hypothesis 4: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to emphasize student attainment of basic skills significantly more than principals in nonrecognized schools. Hypothesis 5: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to work at creating a positive school climate for learning significantly more than principals in nonrecognized schools. Hypothesis 6: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to have significantly higher expectations for students and teachers than principals in nonrecognized schools. Hypothosis Z: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to have a significantly more positive leadership role/style than principals in nonrecognized schools. umma This study focused (Hi the leadership effectiveness of elementary principals from nationally recognized schools in Michigan 41 in 1987-88 compared to seven elementary principals from non- recognized elementary schools. Fourteen principals and 218 teachers participated in the study. A Leadership Questionnaire was completed by both principals and teachers from all 14 schools to determine their perceptions of the leadership effectiveness of the principals in recognized schools compared to principals from nonrecognized schools. Means, standard deviations, mean differences, and p-values using a one-tailed test of probability were used to measure principal instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, establishing a clear and focused school mission, emphasizing student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive climate for learning, holding high expectations for students and teachers, and exhibiting a positive leadership role/style. Demographic questions included sex, age, and the number of years working in the school with the principal. All information from the returned questionnaires was keyed into the IBM computer at Michigan State University, and means, standard deviations, mean differences, and p-values were compiled. CHAPTER 1V ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The data related to the major goal of this study are presented in this chapter. The researcher’s purpose in this study was to determine what similarities and differences existed among the seven leaders of recognized Michigan elementary principals from 1987-88 compared to the seven leaders from the nonrecognized elementary schools. The gathering of demographic and related information including sex, age, number of years working with the principal, and whether employed in 1987-88 introduced the main portion of the instrument. A Leadership Questionnaire, largely adapted from Rensis Likert’s Profile of a School Staff Questionnaire, was completed by all principals and teachers. This instrument provided data based on each of the seven hypotheses related to instructional leadership, the monitoring of student progress, developing a clear and focused school mission, student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive climate for learning, holding high expectations for students and teachers, and exhibiting a positive leadership role/style. A comparison of principals and teachers from recognized schools with principals and teachers from nonrecognized schools included 42 43 showing the means, difference of means, standard deviations, and 'p-values of all the questions on the Leadership Questionnaire. A comparison of principals from recognized schools with teachers from recognized schools and a comparison of principals from non- recognized schools with teachers from nonrecognized schools was also related to each of the seven hypotheses. em r i Principals from the seven recognized elementaries included four males and three females. Principals from the nonrecognized elementaries also numbered four males and three females. Teachers from recognized schools included a total of 107 respondents--82 or 77% were female, and 25 or 23% were male. Teachers from non- recognized schools included a total of 114 returns--9l or 79% were female, and 23 or 21% were male. The mean age of recognized principals was 44.0, whereas the mean age of nonrecognized principals was 41.8. The mean age of recognized teachers was 42.6, and the mean age of nonrecognized teachers was 40.4. When the seven elementary schools were recognized in 1987-88, six of the teachers had been working with their principal less than one year, 66 between 1 and 5 years, 31 between 6 and 10 years, 2 between 11 and 20 years, and 4 for 21 years or more. The nonrecognized schools had 18 of their teachers working with their principal less than 1 year, 51 between 1 and 5 years, 6 between 6 and 10 years, 7 between 11 and 20 years, and 3 for 21 years or more. 44 All of the principals who responded to the Leadership Questionnaire were employed at the same building during 1987-88. All but three of the teachers from the recognized schools were working at that building during 1987-88. All but eight of the non- recognized teachers were employed at the same school during the 1987-88 school year. Re lts o nal r e c H 5 An alpha level of .05 was set to determine the level of statistical significance for each hypothesis. In the following discussion, "R" denotes the means of the recognized principals’ and the means of the recognized teachers’ responses averaged together; "N" denotes the means of the nonrecognized principals’ and the means of the nonrecognized teachers’ responses averaged together. In the following pages, each hypothesis is restated, followed by the results for that hypothesis. lnstroctional Leadership Hypothesis 1: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to display significantly stronger examples of instructional leadership than principals in nonrecognized schools. 1. Materials Provided to Teachers by Principal. Principals from recognized schools provided materials that enhanced job performance more than principals from nonrecognized schools (R = 3.85 vs. N - .50). 2. School Influenced by the Principal. Principals from recog- nized schools influenced their schools more than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.53 vs. N a 3.90). 3. Principal Seeks Ideas Regarding Nonacademics. Principals from recognized schools sought and implemented ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics more than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.12 vs. N - 3.84). 4. Principal Provides Staff Development Activities. Princi- pals from recognized schools provided more staff development activities than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.22 vs. N - 3.52). Table l.--Means of principals’ responses to principals as instruc- tional leaders. Principals Instructional Non- Mean - Leadership Recognized recognized Diff. Value Mean 5.0. Mean 5.0. 1. Materials provided to teachers 3.85 .65 3.50 .72 .35 .05 2. School influenced by principal 4.7l .48 4.22 .66 .49 .05 3. Principal seeks ideas regarding 4.57 .53 4.ll .33 .48 .05 nonacademics 4. Provides staff development 4.28 .75 3.55 .52 .73 .05 activities Overall Means 4.35 .62 3.84 .55 .46 .05 The hypothesis was retained at an alpha level of .05. 46 Table 2.--Means of teachers’ responses to principals as instructional leaders. Teachers Instructional Non- Mean p- Leadership Recognized recognized Diff. Value Mean S.D. Mean S.D. l. Materials provided to teachers by 4.00 .83 3.57 .83 .33 .002 principal 2. School influenced by principal 4.35 .7l 3.95 .7l .40 .000 3. Principal seeks ideas regarding 3.97 .77 3.57 .97 .40 .00l nonacademics 4. Principal provides staff development 4.16 .77 .350 .93 .66 .000 activities Overall Mean 4.l2 .77 3.64 .86 .44 .002 The hypothesis was retained at an alpha level of less than .05. Monitor Students More Freouently Hypothesis 2: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to monitor students significantly more frequently than principals in nonrecognized schools. 5. Principal Feels Responsible for Educational Excellence. Principals from recognized schools felt more responsible for the achievement of educational excellence than principals from non- recognized schools (R - 4.14 vs. N . 3.87). 6. Principal Encourages Teamwork. Principals from recognized schools encouraged teachers and students to work with him/her as a 47 team more than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.21 vs. N - 3.84). 7. Principal Is Aware of Learning Problems. Principals from recognized schools were more aware of learning problems that students face than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.43 vs. N - 4.07). 8. Principal Is Aware of Instructional Problems. Principals from recognized schools were more aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students than principals from nonrecognized schools (R = 4.37 vs. N - 4.13). Table 3.--Means of principals’ responses to principals’ monitoring of students. Principals Monitoring of Non- Mean p- Students Recognized recognized Diff. Value Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 5. Principal feels responsible for educational 4.34 .82 3.75 .81 .59 .05 excellence 6. Principal encour- ages teamwork 4.25 .82 3.78 .91 .47 .05 7. Principal is aware of learning problems 4.71 .48 4.22 .44 .49 .026 8. Principal is aware of instructional 4.71 .48 4.44 .52 .27 .156 problems Overall Means 4.50 .65 4.04 .67 .45 .071 The hypothesis was rejected due to an alpha level of .071. 48 Table 4.--Means of teachers’ responses to principals’ monitoring of students. Teachers Monitoring of Non- Mean - Students Recognized recognized Diff. Value Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 5. Principal feels responsible for educational 4.24 .80 4.04 .75 .20 .029 excellence 6. Principal encour- ages teamwork 4.17 .93 3.91 1.00 .26 .024 7. Principal is aware of learning problems 4.16 .83 3.93 .80 .23 .021 8. Principal is aware of instructional 4.04 .85 3.83 .91 .21 .037 problems Overall Means 4.15 .85 3.92 .86 .22 .028 The hypothesis was retained at an alpha level of .028. 49 Cloar ond Focosed School Hission Hypothesis 3: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to help their staffs establish a significantly clearer and more focused school mission than principals from nonrecognized schools. 9. Principal Is Instrumental in Setting Priorities. Princi- pals from recognized schools were more instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities were done well than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.23 vs. N a 3.56). 10. Principal Involves Teachers in Decision Making. Princi- pals from recognized schools involved teachers and students more in decision making as it relates to achieving effective performance goals of the school than principals from nonrecognized schools (R = 4.12 vs. N - 3.72). 11. Principal Encourages Teamwork. Principals from recognized schools encouraged and initiated teamwork by teachers more than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.55 vs. N - 4.0). 12. Principal Sets High Standards and Goals. Principals from recognized schools set higher standards and goals for educational performance in their schools than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.47 vs. N - 4.01). 50 Table 5.--Means of principals’ responses to a clear and focused school mission. Principals Clear and Focused Non- Mean - School Mission Recognized recognized Diff. Value Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 9. Principal is instrumental in 4.42 .78 3.44 .52 .98 .005 setting priorities 10. Principal involves teachers in 4.14 .69 3.77 .83 .37 .083 decision making 11. Principal encour- ages teamwork 4.85 .37 4.22 .66 .63 .021 12. Principal sets high standards 4.42 .78 4.00 .70 .42 .035 and goals Overall Means 4.45 .65 3.85 .67 .60 .036 The hypothesis was retained at an alpha level of .036. 51 Table 6.--Means of teachers’ responses to a clear and focused school mission. Teachers Clear and Focused Non- Mean - School Mission Recognized recognized Diff. Value Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 9. Principal is instrumental in 4.04 .85 3.69 .89 .35 .002 setting priorities 10. Principal involves teachers in 4.11 .77 3.67 .91 .44 .000 decision making 11. Principal encour- ages teamwork 4.25 .82 3.78 .91 .47 .000 12. Principal sets high standards 4.53 .63 4.02 .80 .51 .000 and goals Overall Means 4.23 .76 3.79 .87 .44 .001 The hypothesis was retained at an alpha level of .001. Emphasize Student Attoinmeht of Basic Skills Hypothesis 4: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to emphasize student attainment of basic skills significantly more than principals in nonrecognized schools. 13w Principal Supports Development of Innovation. Principals from recognized schools supported teachers more in the development of innovative and more effective and efficient practices in the 52 classroom than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.42 vs. ll- 4.10). 14. Students Support High Goals for Educational Achievement. Students from recognized schools supported higher performance goals set for educational achievement than students from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.01 vs. N - 3.40). 15. Students Recognized for Basic Skills. Students from recognized schools were recognized more for their attainment of basic skills than students from nonrecognized schools (R - 3.89 vs. N - 3.55). 16. Principal Is Concerned About Instructional Success. Prin- cipals from recognized schools were more concerned about the instructional success of teachers than principals from non- recognized schools (R a 4.51 vs. N - 4.27). 53 Table 7.--Means of principals’ responses emphasizing student attain- ment of basic skills. Principals Emphasize Student Non- Mean - Attainment of Recognized recognized Diff. Value Basic Skills Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 13. Principal supports development of 4.57 .53 4.11 .33 .46 .027 innovation 14. Students support high goals for educational 4.14 .37 3.44 .52 .70 .005 achievement 15. Students recog- nized for basic 3.85 .37 3.44 .52 .41 .052 skills 16. Principal is con- cerned about 4.71 .48 4.55 .52 .16 .074 instructional success Overall Means 4.31 .43 3.88 .47 .43 .038 Item 16 was rejected due to an alpha level of .07. The hypoth- esis was retained at an alpha level of .03. LJ 54 Table 8.--Means of teachers’ responses emphasizing student attain- ment of basic skills. Teachers Emphasize Student Non- Mean p- Attainment of Recognized recognized Diff. Value Basic Skills Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 13. Principal supports development of 4.28 .83 4.10 .92 .18 .070 innovation 14. Students support high goals for educational 3.88 .72 .000 achievement 3.37 .73 .51 15. Students recog- nized for 3.93 .80 3.66 .74 .27 .007 basic skills 16. Principal is con- cerned about 4.32 .74 4.00 .72 .32 .001 instructional success Overall Means 4.10 .77 3.78 .77 .32 .020 Item 13 was rejected due to an alpha level of .07. The hypoth- esis was retained at an alpha level of .01. P 1' iv 5 h 01 ima Principals in recognized schools are perceived Hypothesis S: to work at creating a positive school climate for learning significantly more than principals in nonrecognized schools. Teachers from 17. Teachers Communicate Openly and Honestly. recognized schools communicated more openly and honestly with the and other teachers than teachers from non- pri nci pal , students, recognized schools (R = 4.37 vs. N .. 4.04). J 55 18. Principal Interacts on a Friendly Basis. Principals from recognized schools interacted on a more friendly and supportive basis with teachers and students than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.39 vs. N - 4.29). 19. Teachers Support Each Other. Teachers from recognized schools supported each other in striving to do their best more than teachers from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.54 vs. N = 4.07). 20. Teachers Cooperatively Plan and Coordinate. Teachers from recognized schools cooperatively planned and coordinated their instructional efforts more than teachers from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.34 vs. N - 4.00). Table 9.--Means of principals’ responses regarding creating a positive school climate for learning. Principals Creating a Positive Non- Mean - School Climate Recognized recognized Diff. Value for Learning Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 17. Teachers communi- cate openly and 4.71 .48 4.22 .66 .49 .062 honestly 18. Principal inter- acts on friendly 4.57 .53 4.44 .52 .13 .021 basis l9. Teachers support each other 5.00 .00 4.33 .70 .67 .014 20. Teachers coopera- tively plan and 4.71 .48 4.55 .52 .16 .074 coordinate Overall Means 4.74 .37 4.38 .60 .36 .040 56 .Hmn17 and 20 were rejected due to alpha levels of .06 and .07, respectively. .04 The hypothesis was retained at an alpha level of TuflelouuMeans of teachers’ responses regarding creating a positive school climate for learning. Creating a Positive School Climate for Learning 17. Teachers communi— cate openly and honestly 18. Principal inter- acts on friendly basis 19. Teachers support each other 20. Teachers coopera- tively plan and coordinate Overall Means Teachers Non— Mean - Recognized recognized Diff. Value Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 4.05 .86 3.87 .75 .18 .05 4.21 .95 4.15 .95 .06 .031 4.08 .77 3.81 .83 .17 .007 3.97 80 3.46 83 .51 .000 4.07 .84 3.82 .84 .23 .022 The hypothesis was retained at an alpha level of .02. 57 High Expectations for Students and loachors Hypothosis S: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to have significantly higher expectations for students and teachers than principals in nonrecognized schools. 21. Principal Determines High Goals for Excellence. Princi- pals from recognized schools determined higher performance goals for achieving excellence in their schools than principals from non- recognized schools (R - 4.18 vs. N - 3.66). 22. Principal Seeks Ideas Regarding Academics. Principals from recognized schools sought and implemented ideas from teachers regarding academics more than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.16 vs. N - 3.59). 23. Principal Handles Technical Educational Matters Well. Principals from recognized schools handled the technical or educational side of the job (i.e., motivation of staff to maximum performance, continuous study of curricula and instructional innovation, formulating with staff plans for evaluating, and reporting student progress) better than principals from non- recognized schools (R = 4.16 vs. N - 3.70). 24. Teachers Feel Responsible for Excellence. Teachers from recognized schools felt more responsible for the achievement of educational excellence than teachers from nonrecognized schools (R = 4.43 vs. N - 3.99). 58 Table 11.--Means of principals’ responses concerning high expecta- tions for students and teachers. Principals High Expectations Non- Mean - for Students Recognized recognized Diff. Value and Teachers Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 21. Principal deter- mines high goals 4.14 1.21 3.55 .52 .59 .034 for excellence 22. Principal seeks ideas regarding 4.28 .48 3.66 .50 .62 .013 academics 23. Principal handles technical educa- 4.28 .48 3.65 .51 .63 .013 tional matters well 24. Teachers feel responsible for 4.42 .53 4.00 .70 .42 .102 excellence Overall Means 4.28 67 3.71 .55 .56 .038 The hypothesis was retained at an alpha level of .03. 59 Table 12.--Means of teachers’ responses concerning high expecta- tions for students and teachers. Teachers High Expectations Non- Mean - for Students Recognized recognized Diff. Value and Teachers Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 21. Principal deter- mines high goals 4.23 .77 3.77 .73 .46 .000 for excellence 22. Principal seeks ideas regarding 4.05 .82 3.63 .90 .42 .000 academics 23. Principal handles technical educa- 4.04 .82 3.75 .81 .29 .005 tional matters well 24. Teachers feel responsible for 4.44 .57 4.21 .64 .23 .003 excellence Overall Means 4.19 .74 3.84 .77 .35 .002 The hypothesis was retained at an alpha level of .002. Leadehship RoleZStylo H othesi 7: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to have a significantly more positive leadership role/style than principals in nonrecognized schools. 25. Principal Resolves Conflict Between Teachers and the School. Principals from recognized schools resolved conflict between the teachers’ welfare and the efficient operation of the school better than principals from nonrecognized schools (R = 4.20 vs. N - 3.78). 60 26. Principal Guides and Inspires Goal Meeting. Principals from recognized schools guided and inspired teachers to meet the school’s goals more than principals from nonrecognized schools (R . 4.12 vs. N - 3.62). 27.a. Principal as a Task-centered Leader. Principals from recognized schools were more task-centered leaders than principals from nonrecognized schools (R . 3.86 vs. N - 3.45). 27.b. Principal as a People-centered Leader. Principals from recognized schools were more people-centered leaders than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.42 vs. N - 3.99). 28. Principal’s Managerial Style Is Visionary. Principals from recognized schools had a more visionary managerial style (i.e., the architect of progress and ideas) than principals from nonrecog- nized schools (R a 4.05 vs. N - 3.43). 29. Principal’s Managerial Style Is a Troubleshooter. Princi— pals from recognized schools had a more troubleshooter managerial style (i.e., a practical pragmatist dealing with concrete problems in a spontaneous fashion) than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.06 vs. N . 3.56). 30. Principal’s Managerial Style Is a Catalyst. Principals from recognized schools had a more catalyst managerial style (i.e., marked by personal charisma and commitment to the people he/she leads) than principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.05 vs. N - 3.66). 61 Table 13.--Means of principals’ responses to principals’ leadership role/style. Principal’s Leadership Role/Style Principals Non- Recognized recognized Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean Diff. Value 25. Principal resolves conflict between the teachers and school 26. Principal guides and inspires goal meeting 27a. Principal as a task-centered leader 27b. Principal as a people-centered leader 28. Principal’s mana- gerial style is visionary 29. Principal’s mana- gerial style is a troubleshooter 30. Principal’s mana- gerial style is a catalyst Overall Means 4.50 .54 3.77 .83 4.14 .69 3.55 .52 3.71 .75 3.44 .72 4.85 .37 4.11 .78 4.00 .57 3.44 .52 4.28 .75 3.55 .52 4.14 1.06 3.77 .66 4.23 .67 3.66 .65 .73 .59 .27 .74 .56 .73 .37 .57 .043 .037 .141 .019 .032 .020 .073 .054 Items 27a and 30 were rejected due to alpha levels of .14 and .07, respectively. The hypothesis was retained at an alpha level of .05. Table 14.--Means of teachers’ responses to leadership role/style. Teachers Principal’s Non- Mean - Leadership Recognized recognized Diff. Value Role/Style Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 25. Principal resolves conflict between teachers and 3.90 .88 3.79 .80 .11 .043 the school 26. Principal guides and inspires 4.10 .79 3.69 .81 .41 .037 goal meeting 27a. Principal as a task-centered 4.02 .88 3.47 .78 .55 .041 leader 27b. Principal as a people-centered 4.00 .11 3.88 .98 .12 .019 leader 28. Principal’s mana— gerial style is 4.11 .69 3.42 .88 .69 .032 visionary 29. Principal’s mana- gerial style is a 3.85 .97 3.57 .83 .28 .020 troubleshooter 30. Principal’s mana- gerial style is a 3.96 .05 3.56 .00 .40 .108 catalyst Overall Means 3.99 .91 3.62 .86 .36 .043 Item 30 was rejected due to an alpha level of .10. The hypoth- esis was retained at an alpha level of .043. 63 Table 15.--Overall means of recognized and nonrecognized principals’ responses. Principals Non- Mean - Hypothesis Recognized recognized Diff. Value Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Hypothesis 1 4.31 .62 3.83 .55 .49 .050 Hypothesis 2 4.42 .65 4.04 .67 .38 .071 Hypothesis 3 4.45 .65 3.85 .67 .60 .036 Hypothesis 4 4.31 .43 3.88 .47 .43 .038 Hypothesis 5 4.74 .37 4.38 .60 .36 .040 Hypothesis 6 4.28 .67 3.71 .55 .56 .038 Hypothesis 7 4.23 .67 3.66 .65 .57 .054 Overall Means 4.39 .58 3.90 .59 .48 .047 Hypothesis 2 was rejected due to an alpha level of .07. The overall hypotheses were retained at an alpha level of .04. 64 Table 16.--0verall means of recognized and nonrecognized teachers’ responses. Teachers Hypothesis Non- Mean - Recognized recognized Diff. Value Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Hypothesis 1 4.12 .77 3.64 .86 .44 .002 Hypothesis 2 4.15 .85 3.92 .86 .22 .028 Hypothesis 3 4.23 .76 3.79 .87 .44 .001 Hypothesis 4 4.10 .77 3.78 .77 .32 .020 Hypothesis 5 4.07 .84 3.82 .84 .23 .022 Hypothesis 6 4.19 .74 3.84 .77 .35 .002 Hypothesis 7 3.99 .91 3.62 .86 .36 .043 Overall Means 4.12 .80 3.77 .83 .33 .013 The overall hypotheses were retained at an alpha level of .013. On every item covering all seven hypotheses, the recognized principals rated themselves higher than the nonrecognized princi- pals. The recognized teachers also rated their principals higher than the nonrecognized teachers on each hypothesis areas. item across all seven Both recognized and nonrecognized principals rated themselves higher than recognized and nonrecognized teachers rated them (R = 4.39 vs. N = 4.12 and R = 3.90 vs. N = 3.77). 65 Table 17.--Overall means of responses of recognized and nonrecognized principals and teachers collectively. Recognized Nonrecognized Hypothesis Principals Principals Mean Overall & Teachers & Teachers Diff. p-Value Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Hypothesis 1 4.21 .69 3.73 .70 .48 .026 Hypothesis 2 4.28 .75 3.82 .76 .46 .049 Hypothesis 3 4.34 .70 3.82 .77 .52 .018 Hypothesis 4 4.20 .60 3.83 .62 .37 .029 Hypothesis 5 4.40 .60 4.10 .72 .30 .031 Hypothesis 6 4.23 .70 4.01 .93 .22 .020 Hypothesis 7 4.11 .79 3.64 .75 .47 .048 Overall Means 4.25 .69 3.85 .75 .40 .032 Principals and teachers collectively from recognized schools rated their principals higher than principals and teachers collectively from similar but nonrecognized schools. W The major goal of the researcher in this study was to determine what similarities and differences, if any, in leadership existed among seven elementary principals chosen for national recognition in 1987-88 compared to seven elementary principals from nonrecognized schools. Both principals and teachers from all 14 schools included 66 in the study completed a Leadership Questionnaire, which measured their perceptions of the principal’s leadership. Means, standard deviations, mean differences, and p-values using a one-tailed test of probability were used to measure participants’ responses. A one-tailed test of significance shows that one group’s mean is larger than the other group’s mean. A two- tailed test of significance shows only that there is a difference between the two groups’ means (it does not show greater than or less than, as a one-tailed test shows). Principals from recognized schools rated themselves as highly effective leaders in all items on the questionnaire covering all seven hypothesis areas. Teachers from recognized schools also rated their principals as highly effective in all items on the questionnaire. Recognized principals rated themselves higher than recognized teachers rated them in all seven hypothesis areas. Principals from nonrecognized schools rated themselves as highly effective leaders in all areas except the positive leadership role/style section. Teachers from nonrecognized schools rated their principals as highly effective leaders in all areas except instructional leadership and also the positive leadership role/style section. Nonrecognized principals rated themselves higher than their teachers rated them in all areas but one--high expectations for students and teachers. The combined means of recognized principals and teachers showed a rating of 'their principals as highly effective in all seven 67 hypothesis areas. The combined means of nonrecognized principals and teachers showed a rating of their principals and teachers as highly effective in all areas except positive leadership role/style. Both the principals and teachers from recognized and non- recognized schools perceived the principals’ leadership as highly effective or effective in all seven hypothesis areas. None of the principals was rated noneffective in either the recognized or non- recognized schools. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS This last chapter contains a summary of the study, findings and conclusions from the analysis of data, discussion, recommendations, suggestions for further research, and reflections. §Qllllllar1 The researcher’s purpose in this study was to determine what, if any, similarities and differences exist in the perceptions of leadershipl among principals in seven nationally recognized (in 1987-88) elementary schools and seven principals ‘Hl nonrecognized schools. Examined were principals’ self-perceptions and teachers’ perceptions of ‘their principals’ leadership in each of the 14 schools as measured by the Leadership Questionnaire adapted from The Profile of a School (P05) Staff Questionnaire (Rensis Likert Associates, Inc.). A review' of the literature was conducted to identify the characteristics of effective schools and to determine how those characteristics relate to principals. A closer look at research on effective schools and instructional leadership was also included in the review. 68 69 The limitations of the study were found in six areas. The study was limited to seven of the ten schools receiving national recognition in 1987-88. More comprehensive results could have been extracted if all ten recognized schools had participated in the study. The study was limited to seven of the more than 3,000 non- recognized elementary schools from over 500 school systems. By limiting the number of nonrecognized schools to just seven, it was not a proportionately representative sample of nonrecognized schools. Also, these seven schools did not apply for the recognition. The study was limited to the perceptions of principals and teachers who returned the questionnaire. The data of the study were affected by the sincerity and accuracy of the principals’ and teachers’ responses and perceptions. If the respondent was having a bad day or a great day when the questionnaire was being completed, the responses may not have reflected the overall feelings of the principal/teacher. The limit of ten minutes to respond to the questionnaire may not have been sufficient to reflect thoughtful answers. If someone felt pressed for time, he/she was likely simply to react to a question rather than think it over carefully before answering. esi e The sample of the study included principals and teachers from seven Michigan elementary schools recognized nationally in 1987-88 and principals and teachers from seven nonrecognized Michigan elementary schools. A Leadership Questionnaire was sent to each of 70 the 14 elementary principals and all of the teachers in each of the seven recognized and seven nonrecognized schools. Einoings ono Conclusions The findings should be interpreted with caution because they were based on respondents’ perceptions or ”feelings of the moment" during a ten-minute exercise with the questionnaire. Depending on the mood of the participant, the questions reflected an accurate appraisal of the respondent’s thinking or simply an initial reaction with very little thought. All findings clustered in the "some extent" to "great extent" range on the questionnaire. For the recognized schools this could be because the principals and teachers were still glowing from being honored just one year ago. This possible "halo effect" could have caused recognized principals and teachers to give the respective principals an even higher rating than they otherwise might have done. Nonrecognized principals and teachers may have viewed themselves and ‘their' principals in the ”some extent" to "great extent" range in all areas because they felt good about what they were doing and how they were performing. As the nonrecognized schools had not applied for recognition, the fact that they were not recognized in no way reflects on the leadership of their principals. Nonrecognized principals and teachers might have been unlikely to rate their principal or school as average or below average because it would also reflect on them as principals and teachers. 71 In this study, the findings in three major areas--instructional leadership, creating a positive school climate, and holding high expectations for students and teachers--are» meaningful for educators. Principals in both recognized and nonrecognized schools were perceived to be doing many of the same positive things to exhibit educational leadership. 'These positive actions result in better schools for both groups. Principals from both recognized and nonrecognized schools were perceived to set a conducive tone for teaching and learning (R = 4.40 and N - 4.10). Principals from both groups of schools were perceived to be setting a positive tone, ambiance, and ethos in the school. In addition, principals from both recognized and nonrecognized schools held high expectations for students and teachers (R = 4.23 and N = 4.01). Both groups of principals were perceived to have the desire and energy to inspire excellence in their teachers and students. In the following pages, each research hypothesis is restated, followed by the findings and conclusions for that hypothesis. Hypothosis 1: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to display significantly stronger examples of instructional leadership than principals in nonrecognized schools. Eindings: Principals from recognized schools rated themselves higher as effective instructional leaders than did principals from nonrecognized schools (R = 4.35 vs. N . 3.84). Teachers from recognized schools rated their principals higher as effective instructional leaders than did teachers from nonrecognized schools 72 (R - 4.12 vs. N = 3.64). Principals from both recognized and nonrecognized schools were rated by themselves and their teachers (averaged together) as highly effective instructional leaders (Means . 4.21 and 3.73, respectively). Hypothesis 1 was retained at the .03 alpha level. Conclusions: Effective instructional leaders ensure a wide variety of the resources necessary for student achievement (Lezotte, 1985). In this study, principals in recognized schools were perceived to organize staff-development activities and encourage staff involvement in systematic improvement strategies. Principals in recognized schools seemed to emphasize leading their staffs and students in instructional improvement. It may be inferred that constantly striving and planning for improvement was a high priority for them. It also might be inferred that recognized principals were rated as outstanding instructional leaders because they were confident enough to apply for recognition in the first place. It is doubtful that principals would apply for recognition unless they thought they had a reasonably good chance of being selected. Hypothesis 2: Principals from recognized schools are perceived to monitor academic performance of students (based on achievement testing in math and reading) significantly more frequently than principals in nonrecognized schools. findings: Principals from recognized schools rated themselves higher in the area of monitoring students more frequently than did principals from nonrecognized schools (R = 4.42 vs. N - 3.92). Teachers from recognized schools also rated their principals higher in the area of monitoring students’ academic progress than did 73 teachers from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.15 vs. N . 3.92). Principals from recognized schools were rated by themselves and their teachers (averaged together) as highly effective in monitoring students (4.28). Principals from nonrecognized schools were also rated as highly effective in this area (3.82). Hypothesis 2 was retained at the .05 alpha level. n s' 5: Effective principals frequently measure stu- dents’ academic progress (based on standardized, norm-referenced test results), using a variety of assessments. The results of the assessments are used to improve students’ performance and also to improve the instructional program (Lezotte, 1985). It could be argued, however, that these assessments in many cases look only at test results rather than other measures of progress, such as self- concept and, overall, the affective domain. Both incidental (times when the principal comes in informally and unannounced to spend a few minutes observing what is happening or to work with a few students individually) and formal (planned and previously announced times when the principal comes in to observe a specific lesson for at least a 30- to 45-minute period followed later by a written evaluation) observations account for a large amount of effective principals’ time in classrooms. In effective schools, principals are involved with influencing the content of the curriculum guidelines, influencing teachers’ strategies, and monitoring students’ progress through the years (Mortimore 8 Sammons, 1987). Principals from recognized schools often create a long-range plan 74 for the academic growth of their students. In this study, principals from recognized schools were perceived to feel responsible for the achievement of academic excellence in their schools, especially because it had been their idea to apply for recognition. Hypothesis 3: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to help their staffs establish a significantly clearer and more focused school mission (clearly articulated goals, priorities, assessment procedures, and accountability accepted by the staff) than principals in nonrecognized schools. Findings: Principals from recognized schools rated themselves higher in the area of establishing a clear and focused school mission than did principals from nonrecognized schools (R = 4.45 vs. N = 3.85). Teachers from recognized schools also rated their principals as more effective in this area than did teachers in nonrecognized schools (R - 4.23 vs. N = 3.79). One part of the school mission, from the standpoint of the recognized schools, might have been to focus on the criteria for being recognized. This focus could account for the difference in means between principals from recognized and nonrecognized schools in the area of school mission because, to be considered for recognition, a school is required to have a mission statement. Principals were rated by themselves and their teachers together as more highly effective than nonrecognized principals in establishing a clear and focused school mission (R - 4.34 vs. N = 3.82). Nonrecognized principals rated themselves as highly 75 effective in all areas, but nonrecognized teachers rated them as effective in the area of planning and setting priorities (3.67). Hypothesis 3 was retained at the .02 alpha level. Cohclosions: Highly effective schools have a clearly articulated school mission through which the staff share an understanding of and commitment to the instructional goals, priorities, assessment procedures, and accountability (Lezotte, 1985). Effective leadership is central to a school’s success. What most characterizes effective school leaders is their ability to set and maintain a clear direction for the school while facilitating the work of the staff (Wilson 8 Corcoran, 1988). It may be inferred that principals from recognized schools determined their vision for the school to achieve certain goals. Principals from recognized schools seemed to realize that they could not produce outstanding schools by 'themselves, so they initiated teamwork and set high expectations for their teachers and students. Principals from nonrecognized schools viewed themselves as effective in the area of guiding and inspiring the meeting of goals. This confidence in themselves could spill over to the teachers and help them also focus on their goals. Hypothosis 4: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to emphasize student achievement of basic skills significantly more than principals in nonrecognized schools. Einoihos: Principals from recognized schools rated themselves higher in emphasizing student attainment of basic skills (reading and math) than did principals from nonrecognized schools (R = 4.31 76 vs. N . 3.88). Teachers from recognized schools rated their principals as more effective than did teachers from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.10 vs. N - 3.78). Recognized principals were rated by themselves and their teachers together as more successful in getting the desired results in student achievement in reading and math than were nonrecognized principals (R - 4.20 vs. N - 3.83). It should be noted, however, that recognized schools were perceived to place a great deal of emphasis on reading and math because improved test scores are a major criterion for being recognized. Specifically, to be recognized, it must be demonstrated that "during each of the last three years, 75% or more of the students must have achieved at or above grade level in reading and math or during each of the last three years, the number of students who achieved at or above grade level in reading and math must have increased by an average of 5% annually and in the last year 50% or more of them must have achieved at or above grade level in both areas" (application for the National Recognition Program, 1986). Nonrecognized principals rated themselves as effective in the areas of having students support higher performance goals (3.44) and recognizing students more for their attainment of basic skills (3.44). Teachers from nonrecognized schools rated their principals as effective in the area of recognizing students more for their attainment of basic skills (3.67). Hypothesis 4 was retained at the .03 alpha level. Conclusions: Teachers in effective schools can allocate a large amount of classroom time to instruction because principals 1_ 77 keep daily interruptions to a minimum. It would seem that these principals protect the essential core of the school’s activities-- teaching and learning in the classroom. For a high percentage of this time, students are engaged in whole-class or large-group, teacher-directed learning activities (Lezotte, 1985). This does not, however, address or respond to the fact that many Chapter I reading/math classes are held in small groups in a pull-out program instructed by a paraprofessional. In effective schools, each student is expected to master skills identified as essential in each course. Basic skills are reinforced across the curriculum by all teachers, as are desirable social behaviors (Lezotte, 1985). In this study, principals from recognized schools were perceived not to allow basic skills to be neglected in students’ daily classwork. It might be inferred that these principals assigned importance to testing and the accomplishment of minimal standards before going beyond basic reading and math skills. Because of the emphasis on test scores in effective schools research and in the criteria for being recognized, students’ other needs might be largely ignored. Hypothosis 5: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to work at creating a positive school climate for learning significantly more than principals in nonrecognized schools. Eihoioos: Principals from recognized schools rated themselves higher in creating a positive school climate (an orderly, purposeful, businesslike, and pleasant atmosphere that is conducive to teaching and learning) than did principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.74 vs. N = 4.38). Teachers from recognized schools 78 rated their principals higher in this area than did teachers from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.07 vs. N - 3.82). Recognized principals were rated by themselves and their teachers together as more highly effective in creating a positive school climate than were nonrecognized principals (R - 4.40 vs. N = 4.10). Thus, both recognized and nonrecognized principals set a conducive tone for teaching and learning. A friendly, orderly, and peaceful atmosphere that is free from interruptions offers the type of environment in which desired learning can prosper. Both types of schools are similar when it comes to creating a positive school climate because both recognized and nonrecognized principals and teachers want to establish productive and pleasant working conditions for themselves and their students. Nonrecognized teachers rated their principals as effective in the area of cooperatively planning and coordinating teachers’ instructional efforts (3.46). Hypothesis 5 was retained at the .03 alpha level. Qonolosions: Principals of effective schools create a stimulating professional work. environment-~one that is not oppressive and is conducive to teaching and learning (Lezotte, 1985). Such principals determine the tone, ambiance, and style of the school. When teachers have positive perceptions of the quality of their workplace, they are more productive, so student achievement increases (Andrews, 1987). In this study, principals from recog- nized and nonrecognized schools were perceived by their teachers and 79 themselves to be friendly and supportive and to involve teachers directly in decision making through cooperative planning. Hypothosis S: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to have significantly higher expectations for students and teachers than principals in nonrecognized schools. Eindings: Principals from recognized schools perceived them- selves to hold higher expectations for students and teachers than did principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.28 vs. N - 3.71). Teachers from recognized schools rated their principals higher in this area than did teachers from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.19 vs. N = 3.84). Recognized principals were perceived by themselves and their teachers together as more effective in holding higher expectations than were nonrecognized principals (R - 4.23 vs. N == 4.01). Both recognized and nonrecognized principals had high expectations for students and teachers. Principals from nonrecognized schools rated themselves as effective in three areas: determining high goals for excellence (3.55), seeking ideas regarding academics (3.66), and handling technical, educational matters well (3.66). Teachers from nonrecognized schools rated their principals as effective in one area--seeking ideas regarding academics (3.63). Hypothesis 6 was retained at the .04 alpha level. one i ns: Researchers on effective schools have found that both academic performance and student behavior are best in those schools in which staff members hold and articulate high standards for performance and behavior (Good, 1982; Purkey 8 Smith, 1983). 80 Principals convey high expectations for students, for staff, and for their own performance. They emphasize dedication and hard work, and encourage professionalism and initiative by staff (Robinson, 1985). One might infer that principals are the ones who decide to seek national recognition in the first place. Their high expectations spur them on, and their initiative spills over to the teaching staff. Principals from recognized schools were perceived to have higher expectations for themselves and to place greater work demands on themselves, which carries over to the staff and students. These higher expectations could have a contagious effect on both the staff and the students and could lead to continued improvement for the school. Hypothosis 7: Principals in recognized schools are perceived to have a significantly more positive leadership role/style than principals in nonrecognized schools. Einoings: Principals from recognized schools were perceived by themselves and their teachers to have a more effective leadership role/style than were principals from nonrecognized schools (R = 4.23 vs. N = 3.66). Teachers from recognized schools perceived their principals as more effective in this area than did teachers from nonrecognized schools (R - 3.99 vs. N . 3.62). Recognized principals were perceived by themselves and their teachers together as more effective in positive leadership roles/styles than were principals from nonrecognized schools (R - 4.25 vs. N . 3.85). Nonrecognized principals perceived themselves as effective overall concerning a positive leadership role/style (3.66). They perceived 81 themselves as effective in four specific areas: principal guides and inspires goal meeting (3.55), principal as a task-centered leader (3.44), having visionary' managerial style (3.44), and a troubleshooter managerial style (3.55). Teachers from nonrecognized schools also perceived their principals as effective overall (3.62). They perceived them as effective in four specific areas: principal acts as a task-centered leader (3.47), principal’s managerial style is visionary (3.42), principal acts as a troubleshooter (3.57), and principal’s managerial style is that of a catalyst (3.56). Both nonrecognized principals and their teachers perceived the principal as effective in the areas of being task-centered, visionary, and a troubleshooter. Hypothesis 7 was retained at the .05 alpha level. Eonclosions: Principals’ perceptions of their role are important, for these perceptions can govern daily actions (Hall, Hord, Griffin, 1980). The two most important characteristics effective principals share are being a visible presence and setting a vision (goals) for the school (Andrews, 1987). Recognized principals were perceived to have a clear-cut vision for the future of their schools. Principals from recognized schools perceived themselves as being the ones who must constantly focus and help others focus on the goals of the school. They perceived themselves to be the ones to guide and inspire teachers to follow their lead. 82 Qvoholl tholusjohs 1. Principals from recognized schools perceived themselves to be highly effective leaders in each of the seven areas addressed in the hypotheses. 2. Principals from nonrecognized schools rated themselves highly effective in all areas except exhibiting a positive leadership role/style. They rated themselves as effective in that area. 3. Principals from recognized schools rated themselves slightly higher than did those from nonrecognized schools in each of the seven areas. 4. Teachers from recognized schools rated their principals higher in all areas than did those from nonrecognized schools (Recognized = 4.12 vs. Nonrecognized = 3.77). 5. Principals from both recognized and nonrecognized schools rated themselves higher than did teachers from those schools (Recognized principals = 4.39 vs. Nonrecognized principals - 3.90; Recognized teachers - 4.12 vs. Nonrecognized teachers - 3.77). 6. Principals and teachers from recognized schools collectively rated the principals as more highly effective than did principals and teachers from nonrecognized schools. 7. Teachers from recognized schools rated their principals as highly effective in all areas. 8. Teachers from nonrecognized schools rated their principals as highly effective in all but one area (exhibiting a positive leadership role/style). 83 9. Both principals and teachers from nonrecognized schools rated principals as effective in the area of exhibiting a positive leadership role/style. Upon examining the major findings of this study, the researcher found that recognized principals perceived themselves to be highly effective leaders in each of the seven hypothesized areas. However, both recognized and nonrecognized principals rated themselves higher than their teachers rated them (Recognized principals - 4.39 vs. Nonrecognized principals - 3.90; Recognized teachers - 4.12 vs. Nonrecognized teachers . 3.77) in overall means on all seven hypotheses averaged together. The difference of .49 between the mean responses for recognized versus nonrecognized principals is fairly large compared to the difference of .35 between the mean responses for recognized versus nonrecognized teachers. One might infer that principals from recognized schools perceived themselves to be more effective instructional leaders because of the necessity to "aim high" in order to meet the criteria for recognition. The finding that principals saw themselves as better instructional leaders than their teachers saw them could be educationally significant to today’s practicing principal because it points out that both recognized and nonrecognized principals really were not perceived to be the strong instructional leaders that they believe they are in elementary schools today. Realistically, it is an insurmountable task to be expected to manage the daily operation of the school as well as provide 84 instructional leadership to a large group of teachers with individual agendas of their own. Principals are typically unprepared by education or experience to wield instructional authority over teachers who possess greater knowledge about teaching and learning (Sykes 8 Elmore, 1988). One of the keys to achieving excellence in schools is the concept of collegiality or teachers working together toward a common set of goals. The finding on page 57 of this study under the heading of High Expectations for Students and Teachers supports this contention. Both recognized and nonrecognized teachers perceived themselves to be more responsible for academic excellence than principals perceived themselves to be (recognized teachers - 4.44 compared to 4.12 on overall means and nonrecognized teachers a 4.21 compared to 3.77 on overall means, while recognized principals = 4.42 compared to 4.12 on overall means and nonrecognized principals . 4.00 compared to 3.90 on overall means). The difference between means of recognized teachers of .49 and nonrecognized teachers of .35 is fairly large especially when compared to the difference of only .03 and .10 between means of recognized and nonrecognized principals on this item compared to the overall means of all seven hypotheses. Teachers’ support for each other could be perceived to be more important than the principal’s instructional leadership. Recognized principals rated teachers’ support for each other a perfect 5.00 (see page 55 under the heading of Creating a Positive School Climate for Learning). This was the only 5.00 rating in the entire study. Even principals who have been recognized for academic 85 achievement in their schools realize that teachers working together are important to the development of academic excellence in schools. Administrators respond to the demands of their work by focusing on certain parts of the job and delegating or disregarding others. The most common pattern of adaptation to the demands of impossible work is for administrators to disengage from the core activities of schools--teaching, learning, and student performance--and to focus on peripheral matters (Sykes 8 Elmore, 1988). Recognized principals perceived themselves as doing better in each of the seven hypotheses areas than teachers perceived them to be doing. Teachers rated principals lower than principals rated themselves. This might suggest that principals tend to overrate their importance and that they probably would not do so if they had more hands-on experience in teaching as part of their job. Principals may not see a need to do better because they already perceive themselves as doing very well. It is hoped that, because teachers see a need for principals to improve in these areas, it will cause principals to take a closer look at how they perceive of themselves as instructional leaders. Because of the demands placed on the principal, it becomes necessary for instructional leadership to come from teachers even more than from the principal. A bottom-up school-improvement reform strategy encourages, and even requires, that leadership emerge at all levels of the school organization; both teachers and administrators need to develop these skills (Purkey 8 Smith, 1985). 86 Improving schools are organizations that have individuals working in a. concerted effort toward the goal of educating all students. Effective school learning requires good teaching, and good teaching requires professionals who exercise judgments in constructing the education of their students (Porter 8 Brophy, 1988). The principal typically knows very little about what is actually happening in a teacher’s classroom. Teachers learn most of what they know about teaching from discourse with colleagues, not from formal instruction or supervision. Being an instructional leader is difficult, at best, in the absence of able teachers; in their presence, leadership may consist largely of getting out of their way or enabling them to do better teaching. The presence of teachers who engage in effective instruction (and students who engage in effective learning) is what causes some principals to look and act like instructional leaders, rather than vice versa. It is teacher competence, the basic structure of teachers’ work, and how teachers cope with that structure that are the chief determinants of instructional effectiveness, not the principal’s ability to manage the margins of these factors (Elmore, 1986). It is too much to expect that a principal can be an effective instructional leader and an accountable building manager simultaneously. Roe and Drake observed that it is virtually impossible to assume that the principal can be a real instructional leader and at the same time be held strictly accountable for the general operational and management details required by the central office. The educational leadership emphasis is the one that most 87 principals profess they dream about but cannot achieve. The principal is expected to wear both hats at once, but most principals’ jobs are dominated by the administrative-managerial emphasis (Blumberg 8 Greenfield, 1980). In looking at the major finding that both recognized and nonrecognized principals rated themselves higher ‘than ‘their"teachers rated 'them, perhaps these principals (not unlike many others) were dreaming about how they would like to be perceived. Principals would probably like to act more like instructional leaders but they are snapped back to reality because of yet another situation needing their immediate attention. As a result (and out of necessity), it could be argued that teachers are the ones who are the true instructional leaders in schools, not principals. However, principals have the capacity to enable teachers to enhance their position as instructional leaders by offering support, minimizing disruptions, getting teachers the materials they need, and serving as the link between students and teachers and parents and teachers. Consequently, it could also be argued that principals play an important role as instructional leaders in schools. isc io One cannot assume that recognized schools are more effective than nonrecognized schools. Principals and teachers from recognized schools may be more attuned to what to say and think because the principal’s goal is for the school to be recognized. Variances in values between the principals and teachers from the recognized and 88 the nonrecognized schools may affect their perceptions. Principals and teachers in the recognized schools may exhibit more of a drive for excellence because of the goal to have the school be recognized. There was not much difference between the means of recognized and nonrecognized schools. The differences in means were statistically significant, but there may not have been great difference between a "great extent" and a "very great extent," depending on the respondent’s feelings of the moment. In addition, the response categories were not designed to denote small differences, and the sample was small. Small but statistically significant differences were found between the perceptions of principals and teachers from recognized schools and those of principals and teachers from nonrecognized schools. Overall, the mean of respondents from recognized schools averaged 4.25, compared to 3.85 for those from nonrecognized schools. The fact that there was little difference between the perceptions of principals and teachers from recognized schools and those of principals and teachers from nonrecognized schools is meaningful. Both sets of schools were perceived to be doing well; responses of principals and teachers from the recognized schools averaged consistently in the 4.0 range, whereas those of respondents from nonrecognized schools averaged consistently in the 3.0 range. This patterning effect seems important because of its consistency throughout the responses to questionnaire items. I'm 89 Principals from nonrecognized schools were consistently rated in the high 3’s, which shows that teachers thought highly of their principals’ efforts. Principals from both recognized and nonrecognized schools were perceived as doing well. Only 3.9% of all elementary schools were nominated as outstanding schools in 1986. For many principals, meeting several times and filling out the many application forms for recognition is simply not worth taking time away from focusing on current needs. A pattern of 4 ratings for recognized principals was seen consistently in the responses. This could have resulted from a "halo effect" or an, afterglow that was still present from recently being recognized. This "halo effect” is an aura of good feelings that helps keep principals and teachers who have been recognized thinking positively and rating themselves highly long after the recognition has been received. There is more pressure to perform at a recognized school because of the media "hype." Also a precedent for excellence has been set, and once the school has been recognized, the staff is expected to maintain at least the same level of excellence. R m 'ns 1. As the research indicated, both nonrecognized principals and nonrecognized teachers perceived principals to exhibit a positive leadership role/style. However, a major difference was found between principals from recognized and nonrecognized schools as being troubleshooters. There was also a difference in 90 perceptions of these two groups of principals as being people- centered, but hardly' any' difference concerning their role as a catalyst. It would be interesting to see if principals from other recognized schools throughout the nation were rated higher as troubleshooters than their counterparts in nonrecognized schools. 2. The Leadership Questionnaire could be used by both teachers and principals as part of the principal’s yearly self-evaluation and as an evaluation from his/her staff. It is important to examine principals’ self-perceptions in reviewing the school program and the gains and losses for the past year. Teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ leadership (which includes the principals’ articulation of goals for the year and beyond) are another way of examining the performance of the principal and the accomplishments of the school. 3. It is recommended that principals from both recognized and nonrecognized schools consider carefully what they are doing because, in this study, principals perceived themselves to be more effective than their teachers perceived them to be. Principals may need to take a more critical look at how their teachers perceive them, in order to improve their performance as instructional leaders. 4. Principals from recognized schools were rated higher by themselves and their teachers in all seven areas of effective leadership than were principals from nonrecognized schools. Even though principals from recognized schools were rated only slightly higher on the average, they were consistently rated higher on each section of the questionnaire. Their expertise in looking at their school program and going through the recognition process could be 91 used to help other principals examine their strengths and weaknesses. MW 1. A study could be done immediately after a school is recognized as outstanding and one year thereafter to determine whether principals are perceived as more effective leaders immediately after recognition than one year later. 2. A study could be conducted comparing the perceived leadership effectiveness of male versus female principals in recognized versus nonrecognized schools. 3. A comparison study looking at the leadership effectiveness of principals from recognized and nonrecognized schools in other states could be undertaken to determine whether the findings of the two studies were similar. 4. An ethnographic study could be conducted to determine whether principals’ perceptions of effective leadership match their actions/behaviors. 5. Interviews with principals and teachers from the seven recognized and nonrecognized schools in this study might reveal how they account for the findings of this study. 6. A number of other participants are vital to effective school performance: the students, staff members, central office staff, school board members, and the legislature. Their perceptions might offer other enlightening perspectives on effective leadership and outstanding schools. 92 7. It would be interesting to do a follow-up study of the principals from recognized schools within the next five years to see if they have stayed with the school that was recognized or if they have moved on to another challenge at another school. Hoflections Researchers on effective schools have dealt very little with the affective domain of students. Test results are the primary measure of student achievement. This single criterion for measuring achievement might be viewed as too narrow an approach to measuring progress. Many educators might argue that a student’s affective needs must be met before he/she is able to master even minimal objectives. Maslow’s pyramid of hierarchical needs could be employed to help substantiate this contention. A student’s social and emotional development is important in concert with academic growth. Principals’ perceptions of their role and teachers’ perceptions of their principal’s role are important because these perceptions govern daily actions. Researchers might mistrust perceptions, but 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). A principal and a teacher start out with perceptions, which eventually become attitudes. Attitudes often dictate how one thinks and ultimately acts. Although questionnaires rely on the perceptions of principals and teachers rather than on observed behavior, numerous researchers have found that these 93 instruments can provide reliable, valid data on managerial behavior (Latham 8 Wexley, 1981). As a result, perceptions can be said to lead to actual behaviors over time. This study of perceptions could be used as a starting point for examining the underlying reasons for certain behaviors of principals in regard to their leadership effectiveness. After assessing their own approach to teachers, principals need to make sure that how they perceive themselves is consistent with how others perceive them. This researcher found that principals perceived themselves to be better in all categories of the questionnaire than teachers perceived them to be. Principals cannot afford to be blind to their own behaviors and the effect of those behaviors on others. They can improve only what they know; to believe only their self-perceptions is to court disaster (Glickman, 1985). Principals need to check the validity of their own perceptions. Invalidity of perceptions creates cognitive dissonance, according to Festinger’s (1957) theory of motivation. This theory is based on the premise that a person cannot live with contradictory psychological evidence--that is, thinking of oneself in one way while other sources of information indicate that one is different. Principals must wrestle with disparate perceptions and reconcile them. An alternative to be used in resolving cognitive dissonance is creating behavioral change. Whenever principals have an idea of how they desire to be matched against the reality of how others see 94 them, conditions exist for individual change. The acknowledged gap between what is and what should be becomes a powerful stimulus to change. Principals change their behaviors and gather feedback from others to determine whether others are forming new perceptions of them and more positive results are forthcoming (Glickman, 1985). Principals need to see which of their supervisory beliefs and practices are consistent and which are inconsistent between their own perceptions and teachers’ perceptions of them. With such information the principals can attempt to move from invalid to valid perceptions of their behavior. This will enable them to change their negative behaviors to positive behaviors and, as a result, increase their effectiveness as instructional leaders. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE 95 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mmoumarmvowmc usrunsme . marrow . «cu-1m mm was (UCIIHS) no em mm. (5171 353-973: May 15, 1989 # 89-217 Christopher Warren Southeastern Elementary 1300 S. East St. Hastings, MI 49058 Dear Mr. Warren: Re: "A Study of the Similarities and Differences Which Exist Among Principals from Outstandin Elementary Schools in Michi an Selected for National Reco 'tion in 1987-88 omBared to Principals from on-Recogm'zed Schools in the ame or Similar School istricts” # 89-217 The above project is exempt from full UCRII-IS review. I have reviewed the proposed research dprotocol and find that the rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protecte . You have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRII-IS approval is valid for one calendar ear. Ifyou plan to continue this project beyond one year, lease make rovisions for o raining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month pnor to ay 15, 199 . Any changes in procedures involvin human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRII-IS prior to initiation of the chan e. U S must also be notified promptly of any problems unexpected side e eels, complaints, etc.) involving human subjeCts during the course of e work. Thank you for bringing this proj‘enct to our attention. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us ow. Sincerely, JKH/mm cc: Dr. Sam Moore 96 "I.“ Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. Consultants in Organization Diagnosis and Human Resource Development April 6, 1989 Christopher Warren, Principal Southeastern Elementary School 1300 South East Street Hastings, Michigan 49058 Dear Mr. Warren: Rensis Likert Associates, Inca, is pleased to grant you permission to use the adapted version of the Profile of a School in your research. We would appreciate receiving a copy of your final report (or at least an abstract). It need NOT be a bound copy. erely, 9 E: .a nd C. eghers Senior Associate 97 SOUTHEASTERN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1300 SOUTH EAST STREET HASTINGS. MICHIGAN 49058 mow: 616-945-9531 CJ‘H SC-‘OISSI'. '.u-Io-~-t~ot~' or sc-oou c-sis Was-(u D..§ 65.®_©@.©©; eo.®®®®.® 66. GHQ) (Dy-(9,6). e1. 6) ®y® © © 67.-.®-,@r.@-..@1_.©- 82.0 ® ® -©.-© 613-GIG) Q‘QMQ. as. 6) ® G) 6) ® 69.__G)-..@,,@1®,,-©: a4. .0 ® 6) G) G) 60.V®.®®,©©_ es.®®®®® 61.®®@®©3 as.®®®.®.® 62.®®®©@“ e7.®®®©© 63-®®®.©©; ea.®®@©© 64-06 ©._® <9 89. 6) ® (D (9 6) 65.®.@ ® 0 (95 90.30616) © 6) 66- ®7® @..@..® 91. 66> G) G) G) 67. .6)..@ ®-@ @‘2 92. GLO, 6) 9.6) as. CDW® ® (9 Q, 93. _6) (23 ® 6) 6) 69.06) ®-®..©3 94. G) 6.6) G) (D 7o.‘®‘@ @106)“ 95.6) ®.® G) G) 71. (9.6 9.6) (9.; 95. G) .0 ®.®.® 72. ®-® @ GHQ 97. ,®_.® @ 6) © 73. G) ®A@,®”©l 99. .6) 6) ©~© ‘6) 74.®®@©© 99 ®®®®® 75-®.®®©©_1 100.QQQQQ BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A Netion Prepered: Teechers fer the 21st Ceptgrr. New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986. Andrews, R. ”0n Leadership and Student Achievement.“ Edueatippel Leadership (September 1987). Austin, G. ”Exemplary Schools and the Search for Effectiveness." Educ i0 1 ea r ’ (October 1979). Bach, M. The Power r e ' . Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966. Bambur, J., and Andrews, R. "Implementing Change in Secondary Schools Using Effective Schools Research." Effective Schools Research Abstreets (April 1988). Bates, M., and Kiersey, D. U. ”Meyers-Briggs Types Of Managerial Styles." In Elease Understepd Me: Character end Temperament Types. Upland, Calif.: B & D Book Co., 1974. Behling, H., Jr., and Champion, R. (he Principel as an Instruc- tjpnel Leader. Maryland: Instructional Improvement Institute, 1984. Bennis, H., and Nanus, B. Leagers: The Strategies fer Taking Qua ge. New York: Harper and Row, 1985. Bossert, S. "Effective Elementary Schools." Reaehjng fer Ereel- lence: ffect' S h 3 our . Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, May 1985. Blumberg, A., and Greenfield, H. v ' ' -- ers ective on S 0 er i . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980. Brookover, H., and Lezotte, L. "Changes in School Characteristics Coincident With Changes in Student Achievement." East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Urban Development, 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181 005) Commgpjeetpr (NAESP publication) 12 (March 1989). 120 121 Cuban, L. "Effective Schools: A Friendly but Cautionary Note." Ehi Delte Kappan (June 1983). . ”Transforming the Frog Into a Prince: Effective Schools Research, Policy, and Practice at the District Leve1." Hervard We! (May 1985) . Deal, T. "The Symbolism of Effective Schools." ' nt r Sehool Joprpel (May 1985). Duke, D. "Leadership Functions for Instructional Effectiveness." Portland, Dre.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, February 1982. Dwyer, D. "The Search for Instructional Leadership: Routines and Subtleties in the Principal’s Role." Ereeptjve Educator (1983). ; Lee, F.; Rowan, 8.; and Bossert, 5. five Principals in Action: e s 'v o n M em nt. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory, March 1983. Edmonds, R. "A Discussion of the Literature and Issues Related to Effective Schooling." Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, 1979. Effeetive Schppl Report; Frem Reseereh end Praetise 1 (November 1983). Elmore, Richard. "Leadership and Policy in Education." Unpublished manuscript, 1986. Eubanks, E., and Parish, R. "An Inside View of Change in Schools." Phi Delte Kappan (April 1987). First Le sons: Re rt n men no i n Amer c . By William J. Bennett, Chairman. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1986. Gersten, R.; Carnine, D.; and Green, S. ”The Principal as Instruc- tional Leader" A Second Look.” £dpee119pel_Leeeership (March 1982). Glickman, C. S vi n n ti : A eve o m n al A r ch. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1985. Haber, M. A. 1pferme119p_£rpeess1pg. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1974. Hall, G.; Hard, 5.; and Griffin, T. "Implementation at the School Building Leve1.” Boston: AERA, 1980. 122 Hemphill, J.; Griffiths, D.; and Frederikson, N. "Administrative Performance and Personality.” Cited in Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, and Lee. "The Instructional Management Role of the Principal.“ MW (Summer 1982)- ‘Howell, 8. "Profile of the Principalship.‘l Edpeetjppel Leadership (1981). Johnston, J., and Markle, G. "What Research Says to the Middle Level Practitioner." Columbus, Ohio: National Middle Schoo1 Association, 1986. Kihai, J. ”Discriminating Ability of the School Effectiveness Correlates.” Wm (April 1988). Kmetz, J., and Willower, D. "Elementary School Principals’ Work Behavior." ' n 1 i istr tion ar (Fall 1982). Larsen, T. "Identification of Instructional Leadership Behaviors and the Impact of Their Implementation on Academic Achieve- ment." AERA presentation, Washington, D.C., 1987. Latham, G., and Wexley, R. r ivi . Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1981. Lezotte, L. "Characteristics of Effective Schools.” East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching, 1985. . "Climate Characteristics in Instructionally Effective Schools." Impaet (Summer 1981). . "School Mission and Goals." Edueetion Forward (February 1985). , and Bancroft, 8. "Growing Use of the Effective Schools Model for Schoo1 Improvement." Edgeetipnel Leegershjp (March 1985). Mackenzie, D. ”Research for School Improvement: An Appraisal of Some Recent Trends.” Edgeetiopel Researeher (April 1983). Manasse, L. ”Improving Conditions for Principal Effectiveness: Policy Implications of Research.” m nt S hool gpprpel (January 1985). Marcus, A. ”Administrative Leadership in a Sample of Successful Schools for the National Evaluation of the Emergency School Aid Act." AERA Presentation, San Francisco, 1976. 123 Matlin, M. Eereepriep. Boston: A11yn and Bacon, 1983. McCormack-Larkin, M. "Ingredients of a Successful School Effec- tiveness Project." Educational_Leader§hin (March 1985). McKee, P.; Wilson, 8.; and Corcoran, T. 'A Salute to Success: The Elementary School Recognition Program.” Eripeipel (September 986). Michaels, C., and Carello, C. Qireet_£ereep11pp. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981. Michigan State Board of Education and Educational Testing Service. or . ' . I fer nce. Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education, 1985. Morris, E. "Principal Effectiveness." h 1 r 01 Jpgrpel (January 1985). Mortimore, P., and Sammons, P. "New Evidence on Effective Elemen- tary Schools." £Qpee119pe1_Leeeersh1p (September 1987). Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. anarg Le Ereellenee: Mek1pg_§ehppls_flpre_£ffeetire. Portland, Dre.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1982. ford 1 Di ti r . Vol. 11. 1989. Peters, T., and Waterman, R., Jr. 1n_§eerep_pf_£ree11epee. New York: Harper and Row, 1982. Phi Delta Kappa. 86W Bloomington. Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa, 1980. Purkey, S., and Smith, M. ”School Reform: The District Policy Implications of the Effective Schools Literature." Ihfi W391 (January 1985)- Ratajik, D. ”The Exemplary Elementary School: A Different Perspective." Erjpsjpe1_(Winter 1989). Robinson, G. ”Effective Schools Research: A Guide to School Improvement." Qppeerps_1p_£gpeetiep (Educational Research Service) (February 1985). , and Block, A. ”The Principal and Achievement: A Summary of 22 Studies. Prjnsjpe! (November 1982). Rowan, B.; Dwyer, D.; and Bossert, S. "Methodological Consideration in Studies of Effective Principals.” AERA Presentation, New York, March 1982. 124 Sergiovanni, T. "Leadership and Excellence in Schooling." Edpce- tienaLLeadeLshje (February 1984). Shoemaker, J., and Fraser, H. "What Principals Can Do: Some Implications From Studies of Effective Schooling.” Phi Delta Keppen (November 1983). Snyder, K. "Preparing Principals to Manage Productive Schools." Journal pf leeeher Edpeatjpn (March/April 1984). Stedman, Lawrence. "It’s Time We Changed the Effective Schools Formula." Eh1_nelre_Keppen (November 1987). Stevens, J. "Administrative Techniques: The Principal’s Time." NASSB (January 1984). . "Awareness: Exploring, Experimenting, Experiencing." Unpublished manuscript, 1971. U.S. Department of Education. "1987-1988 Elementary School Recog- nition Program Selection Criteria." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1987. Wellisch, J.; MacQueen, A.; and Duck, G. "School Management and Organization in Successful Schools.” c on (July 1978). Williams. S. mummnmgmmflmmflm New York: Irvington Publishers, 1983. Wilson, 8., and Corcoran, T. "A Look at 212 Successful Schools." NAESP Streamljper (September 1988). "111111111111111111“