.
y . \ : V ..
urns. #Hmunwiﬂ. .
w. 1., hid. “Eva...
#99:“.th s
2... .x.

£32 :3
. tutu-iv! .v
2')» l,
‘ ‘ "i u." .
Ersas.....~..:.€,... .
.. ..
‘avx-Sv s
1"!gd.‘
, Icvvf"i>! d
.I v eithl

. 121.65...
. .v
ta!!! {I
Oil VA).
‘7

t.
.IquiIVI. c.
9.3: x. 9!
.44!

. x. .3364.

J... t...
. al

.1. v.
...I Z 2| . .4
rill: I

:1.

1.5.3....
.. 1 . L. «it: i.
ranging-

 

. .IQ)..n(\.t
$11293!- ‘0

 

 

 

V A. ... .. .1.»
.3372
.411de I

 

 

Vt: V1.7}.
1- ‘

1:5; lit
5.! . . :v‘

.5.“ an .ummmuaxﬁ
.z a -

géggﬁg ..

‘ Q
a .
§ 3“ . I . 1
7-. It. 5—) l . 0 o.
..i i, x t

:11!

#i‘aﬁw‘yn

. .3 V

 

was

goo?

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE IMPACT OF SCHOOL LOCATION ON PRINCIPAL
LEADERSHIP’S ABILITY TO BUILD CAPACITY AT THE
BUILDING LEVEL

presented by

RESCHE DEVONE HINES

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Educational Administration

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature 5/

. ) K
OTC-'4’ Fwd % 1 2 (' d) 6,”)
f 7

L/

 

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

I-.-.-.-.-.-‘-.-'-.-.-O-—n- .-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

 

THE IMPACT OF SCHOOL LOCATION ON PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP’S ABILITY
TO BUILD CAPACITY AT THE BUILDING LEVEL

By

Resche Devone Hines

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
For the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Educational Administration

2006

ABSTRACT

THE IMPACT OF SCHOOL LOCATION ON PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP’S ABILITY
TO BUILD CAPACITY AT THE BUILDING LEVEL

By

Resche Devone Hines

The purpose of the current study was to examine the impact of school location
(context) on the principal’s leadership ability to build capacity at the school building
level. This study was carried out through employment of quantitative methodology and
the implementation of two theoretical models provided by Portz, Stein and Jones (1999)
and Heck (1996). These models were used as the ideological foundation to empirically
test the nature of the theorized relationships between school location and leadership
actions for capacity building. The results indicated that school contexts may help to
determine factors that will best assist principals in their decision-making process to
effectively meet the leadership demands of accountability. These results prove that the
effect of principal decision-making is a more complex matter, that is, that school location
promotes a distinct but potentially complementary approach to understanding the effect

of school context inﬂuence on principal decision-making

C0pyright by
RESCHE DEVONE HINES
2006

Dedication

This document is dedicated to my mother, Bonnie R. Rushing. I thank you for all

your love, support, and sacriﬁce.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to give thinks to God for allowing me to reach this goal. I would
like to express my utmost gratitude to all of the individuals who dedicated their expertise,
time, patience, and support throughout the process that resulted in the completion of my
dissertation. To my mother, stepfather, uncles, aunts, grandparents, godmother and
godfather, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews and entire family, and dear friends (Travaris
Thomas, Morris Martin, Sterling Gibson, Kevin and Rickena Perry, Joe Philon, Misty
Stanton, Keith Redmond, Thaddeus Walker, Jennifer Johnson, Joyce Piert, Shane Brown,
Farrah Serrette, Christina Grange, J akino and Quatoya Tyson, Naja Chikazunga, Faith
Elizabeth Fletcher, Sheree Huxtable, Aisha Ford, Rolanda Pickett, Erica Jordan, Carl
Thomas, Antoine Broxise, Jonathan Livingston and Family, Emanuel and Tamara
Thomas, Jillian Henry, Michelle Rutledge, Council Rudolph, Dack Duncan, Aswad Mack,
Darrell McGee, and Demeris C. Coney), thank you for your love, support, and
encouragement to be the best I could be, and for your grounding when necessary. To my
advisor and mentors, Dr. Karen Patricia William and Dr. Christopher Dunbar, my
dissertation committee (Dr. Raykov and Dr. Mabokela), the entire Michigan State
University Department of Educational Administration, and the Florida A & M
psychology department thank you for training me to do research that I could be proud of
and that would mean something in the community. Thank you for the countless hours of
professional assistance and parental encouragement. Finally, I would like to thank all my
classmates at Michigan State and Florida A&M University for your support and

encouragement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background
Reform Policies Impact on Principal Leadership
What are the effects of principal leadership?
Direct-Effects Model
Moderated-Effects Model
Mediated-Effects Model
Reciprocal-Effects Model
Standards-Based Reform
Effects of Leadership by the Principal
School Culture
School Context

Problem Statement

Study Purpose

Research Questions

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Standards-Based Reform and Principal Leadership

Role of Principal Leadership

Characteristics of Effective Principals

Effects of Leadership by the Principal

School Context, Standard-based Reform, and Principal Leadership

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

Theoretical Model

Research Questions

Sample

Instrumentation

Demographic Variables
Method of Statistical Analysis
Multiple Regressions Models

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics

vi

viii

ix

28
29
34
35
36
42

49
49
54
54
55
59
60
61

63
63

Correlations

Multiple Regressions

Structural Equation Modeling

Criteria for Evaluating Model Fit

SEM Analysis of the Hypothesized Model

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Process of the Study
Discussion

Limitations of the Study
Directions for Future Research
Conclusion

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX

vii

64
65
7O
73
75

78
78
81
88
89
9O

94

101

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study Population ............................................... 63
2. Inter-Correlations Matrix of the Study Population ..................................................... 65
3. Regression Model for Urban Population .................................................................... 66
4. Regression Model for the Suburban Population ......................................................... 67
5. Regression Model for the Rural Population ............................................................... 68
6. Perception of Inﬂuence ............................................................................................... 72
7. Perception of School Progress .................................................................................... 72
8. Perception of Professional Development Importance ................................................ 73
9. Decision-Making Activity .......................................................................................... 73
10. Infra-Class Correlation of the Study Population ....................................................... 75
11. Goodness of Fit Indices ............................................................................................ 75

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Structural Model for Principal Decision-Making Activity ......................................... 71
2. Theoretical Model for Principal Decision-Making Activity .................................... 101

3. Results of SEM analysis for Total Sample Decision-Making Activity Model ........ 102
4. Results of SEM analysis for Urban Sample Decision-Making Activity Model ....... 103
5. Results of SEM analysis for Rural Sample Decision-Making Activity Model ........ 104

6. Results of SEM analysis for Suburban Sample Decision-Making Activity Model.. 105

ix

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Effective leadership is widely accepted as being a key element in achieving
school improvement. Research ﬁndings from a variety of countries and diverse school
contexts have revealed the inﬂuential effect of leadership in securing school development
and change (Hallinger & Heck, 1999; Heck, 1996; West, Jackson, Harris& Hopkins,
2000). For example, early empirical research that accessed leadership practiced by
principals in urban schools found that principals differed greatly in the kind of leadership
they provided (Blank, 1987). Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that existing
leadership theories only partially reﬂect and/or explain the current approaches to
leadership in schools (Blank, 1987; Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998). Research ﬁndings
have highlighted the idea that effective leadership is deﬁned and driven by contextual
value systems (Heck, 1996). Facing challenging contexts, the demands that schools place
upon leaders requires principals to have a broad range of approaches that are underpinned
by a core set of values. Furthermore, research has shown the importance of the principal
in inﬂuencing student achievement through the management of meaning within school
culture, the nurturing of a collaborative work environment with teachers, and the
fostering of a resilient school culture (Deal, 1987; Sergiovanni & Moore, 1989).

This study examines the principal’s ability to build capacity in three different
contextual settings and the causal inﬂuence that a principal’s response to standards-based
accountability has on decision-making. Using cross-sectional survey data and quantitative
methodology, the goal of this study is to provide scholars, practitioners, and policy

makers with empirical data to better inform policy development and implementation

through a richer understanding of the relationship between school context and the

leadership actions of the principal.

Background

Throughout the history of American schooling there have been many government-
sponsored initiatives intended to change school structure. Historically, education reform
legislation has addressed many issues (desegregation, equality, equity, ﬁnance reform,
and so on). Some of the more recent reform policies have centered on school
accountability (e. g., Goals 2000 and No Child Left Behind). Both policies were designed
and implemented to effect change in the leadership of the organization and the
conﬁguration of schools. Each legislation addressed one of the pressing issues of
contemporary education, enhancing the impact of principal leadership on academic
achievement, an issue educational leadership literature has struggled to answer since the
conceptualization of the ﬁeld (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).

Through the decades of the twentieth century the role of the principal in schools
within the United States has greatly evolved and could generally be characterized as
highly transformative. In the 19303, the governing role of school principals was seen as a
scientiﬁc manager. The principal’s role transitioned to a democratic leader in the 19405.
In the 19703 the principal’s role was viewed as a humanistic facilitator (Suskavcevic &
Blake, 2004), and in the 19805 as an instructional leader (Beck & Murphy, 1993). The
continued evolution of the principal as a leader over the span of the twentieth century
raises the questions of how to deﬁne and what is the role of principal leadership, in

particular, instructional leadership.

Though instructional leadership received much attention and pervaded leadership
literature during the 19803, this ideology was actually introduced a few decades earlier
(Suskavcevic & Blake, 2004). Mackenzie and Corey (1954) were among the early writers
who referred to the school principal as an instructional leader of a school. In terms of
deﬁning leadership, Rost (Rost, 1993) writes that leadership “. . .is an inﬂuential
relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reﬂect their
mutual purposes” (p. 102). Culbertson (1974) asserts that one of the more challenging
tasks in educational leadership is to come to an understanding of what is or is not within
the educational climate that positively inﬂuences student achievement. The quest to
understand leadership is endless. We persist in our search because it goes to the heart of
the human condition: our dual human nature as symbolic and physical beings... . Leaders
help us to link these twin dialectics, one deeply individual, the other broadly societal”
(Lipman-Blumen, 1996). De Bevoise (1984) used the term to designate the actions that a

school principal takes or delegates to others to promote growth in student learning.

The focus of the current section will provide a thorough and extensive review of
educational leadership literature to address the question: What impact does reform policy
have on principal leadership for building capacity at the school building level? The
primary objective of the text is to provide a critical analysis of the aforementioned
inquiry through a critique of a series of secondary questions. First, the text will assess the
impact of reform policies on principal leadership. The text will then address the following
question: What are the effects of principal leadership on student academic achievement?

In addition, the text will provide a review of the characteristics of an effective principal,

providing insight to signiﬁcant personal and job-related attributes cited in the literature as

essential to improving student achievement.

Reform Policies Impact on Principal Leadership

A principle of American education is the belief that principal leadership impacts
student learning. Early seminal research in educational administration supported this
ideology (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan& Lee, 1982; Culbertson, 1974; Erickson, 1967;
Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Halpin, 1966; Lipham, 1964; Rost, 1993). Findings from these
research publications identiﬁed various positive effects for principal leadership on school
improvement facilitation and increased student achievement. In the early 19803 an
ideological shiﬁ occurred. The school principal’s role transitioned from a humanistic
facilitator to an instructional leader (Beck & Murphy, 1993). With the redeﬁning of the
principal’s role came a change in public opinion. For the ﬁrst time in US. educational
history, American schools and principal leadership were beginning to be seen as
contaminated (A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, 1983).

Questions were raised about the ability of public schools to educate urban
American students adequately. Various research ﬁndings indicated that insufﬁcient
leadership, mismanagement of funds and poor learning environments, (i.e., high dropout
rates, poor test scores, and low academic achievement) were identiﬁed as problematic
characterizations of American school systems (The Funding Gap: Low-Income and
Minority Students Receive Fewer Dollars, 2002; A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for

Educational Reform, 1983; Porter & Soper, 2003). A national reprimand initiated to

address problematic areas of American school systems ushered in a new era of
educational reform.

To address the need for educational reform local, state, and federal governments
passed into law continuous educational reform policies (e. g., A Nation at Risk, Goals
2000, No Child Left Behind, high stakes testing, local educational bonds and millages).
In recent years there has been heightening of federal demands related to the outcomes of
various educational reforms. Thus, the discourse pertaining to an education reform policy
has centered on increased school accountability (The Funding Gap: Low-Income and
Minority Students Receive Fewer Dollars, 2002; No Child Left Behind, 2001 ). The
driving force behind accountability is the perceived inability of public education to
educate urban students comprehensively and effectively (i.e., disparity gap in academic
achievement between students in urban and suburban school districts). Increased
demands of accountability policies have paralleled increased expectations of principal
leadership. National policy has changed principal leadership from a state of cautious
alarm to suggested voluntary action to federal mandates for accountability.

A chronological review of reform policy traces the foundational shift underlined
in accountability reform to the educational report A Nation at Risk (NAR) (Hallinger &
Heck, 1998, 1999; No Child Left Behind, 2001). The primary ﬁnding of A Nation at Risk
(1983) was that the secondary school curricula was homogenized, diluted and diffused to
the point it longer had a central purpose. Others ﬁndings were: (1) compared to other
nations, American students spend much less time on school work; (2) time spent in the
classroom and on homework is often used ineffectively; and (3) schools were not doing

enough to help students develop either the study skills required to use time well or the

willingness to spend more time on school work (A Nation at Risk, 1983). The A Nation
at Risk report was the ﬁrst time in the history of American education that the federal
government sponsored an account that challenged the effectiveness of American
schooling and in particular the role of the principal.

By the mid- to late-19803 a number of states had put in place a series of steps to
improve the quality of their education. Goals 2000 (1993) was the outgrowth of the
process that initiated state-led educational reform movements following the NAR report.
Prior to the establishment of Goals 2000 the federal government had targeted
improvement in student learning and teaching practices as critical factors for educational
reform (The National Education Goals Report - Summary Guide Building the Best, 1993).
The development of Goals 2000 provided a framework to reauthorize federal education
programs to develop a voluntary national accountability and certiﬁcation system to meet
these critical factors (The National Education Goals Report - Summary Guide Building
the Best, 1993). This legislation placed voluntary accountability benchmarks on principal
leadership practices to initiate change in student achievement. The policy objectives of
Goals 2000 were based on characteristics of state-led reform policies that placed great
emphasis on the principal’s role in increasing academic achievement (A Report on
Improving Student Performance in High-Poverty Schools. Report No. 96-86, 1997). The
turn of the century coincided with the completion of legislation for Goals 2000 and
increased expectations for accountability and improvements at the building level.

The argument for the development of No Child Left Behind (N CLB) was the
perceived historical failure of localized control of the educational system to effectively

educate its students (No Child Left Behind, 2001). Supporters of the legislation cited the

continued historical decline in academic achievement as the primary need for drastic
change in school ideology. Thus, NCLB was developed with three primary objectives for
public schools and principal leadership: (1) accountability and high standards; (2) annual
academic assessments; and (3) consequences for schools that fail to educate
disadvantaged students. The structure of the third objective (consequences for schools
that fail to educate disadvantaged students) had a direct impact on the conceptualization
of the role of principal leadership. NCLB placed mandatory sanctions on principal
leadership that failed to facilitate mandated change.

To engage institutional change, NCLB emphasized the use of data by the
principal to evaluate school progress and to better inform site-based decision-making (No
Child Left Behind, 2001). Additionally NCLB provides grants to state educational
agencies, local educational agencies, state agencies for higher education, and eligible
partnerships in order to accomplish the following (No Child Left Behind, 2001):

1. Increase student academic achievement through a number of strategies, such as
improving teacher and principal quality, increasing the number of highly qualiﬁed
teachers in the classroom, and ensuring highly qualiﬁed principals and assistant
principals in schools; and

2. Hold local educational agencies and schools accountable for improvements in
student academic achievement.

NCLB had a direct impact on the conceptualization of the role of principal
leadership when a school failed to meet standards of accountability. When a school failed
NCLB mandated that a School Improvement Plan (SIP) be developed. The SIP would be

developed in consultation with parents, school staff, local educational agencies and

outside experts and would cover a two-year period. In the requirements for Corrective

Action, the district must have taken one of the following actions:

ﬂ

. Replace school staff relevant to the failure;

2. Institute and implement a new curriculum;

3. Signiﬁcantly decrease management authority in the school;
4. Appoint outside experts to advise the school;

5. Extend school year or school day;

6. Restructure the internal organization of the school. (No Child Left Behind, 2001)

The structure of the sanctions associated with NCLB intensiﬁed the responsibility
placed on the principal. This structure becomes evident when the processes involved with
school restructuring are reviewed. Once a school fails to meet the benchmarks set in
place by corrective action the school is required to develop a restructuring plan. There are
two possible outcomes for a restructuring school plan: (1) the school will be reopened as
a public charter school, or (2) all or most of school staff, including the principal need to
be replaced (No Child Left Behind, 2001). Previous reforms merely heightened the
awareness of principal leadership; NCLB impacted all aspects of principal functioning,
including job maintenance. Though there has been a steady increase in the demands
placed on principals through an accountability policy, research has found varying support
for the impact of federal policies on principal leadership (St. John & Ridenour, 2002).

Rival ideologies concern the impact of the reform policy’s ability to renovate a
struggling school district or school. There is less scholarly agreement concerning the

efﬁciency of reform to initiate and impact substantive change in principal leadership. One

position states that reform without policy guidelines speciﬁcally developed to engage
principals who work in environments of failure would never initiate sustained change.
For example, several researchers found results that indicated the reform policy has a
signiﬁcant effect on the policy the principal implemented at the building level (No Child
Left Behind, 2001). The most conservative perspective from this standpoint theorized that
reforms centered on high stakes accountability are the best methods for increases found
in student achievement (No Child Left Behind, 2001).
i The opposing ideology takes the position that principals are wearied with
continuous ineffective reforms. Thus, change initiated by educational reform policies is
not viable for increased student achievement. Research ﬁndings from this philosophical
camp are divided into two major positions. Primarily, empirically sound studies are
lacking that sustain the argument that continued educational reform policy is effective in
the engagement of principal leadership to improve academic achievement (Hess, 1999;
Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Results from the latter position indicate that constant
implementation of the new reform policy hinders the ability of principals to engage the
institution in meaningful change (Hess, 1999). Disagreement within the literature on
educational leadership concerning the impact of educational reform policy on the
principal indicates a need to establish what effect principal leadership has on student

achievement.

What are the effects of principal leadership?
There are many variations in the implementation of reform polices. In the
literature, a frequently cited factor in implementation is the role of principal leadership

(Hallinger & Heck, 1996). A current debate questions the effect of principal leadership

on educational reform (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998; Witziers, Bosker& Kruger, 2003).
Traditionally, much of the research on school reform argued that strong principal
leadership was predictive of increases in student performance.

Since the conceptualization of educational leadership as a discipline, several
comprehensive literature reviews have been conducted on school administrators and their
roles in schooling. Two of the earliest literature reviews about school leadership were
conducted by Lipham (Lipham, 1964) and Erickson (Erickson, 1967). Lipham focused
his review on the research ﬁndings, whereas Erickson was primarily concerned with
methodological issues. Erickson was able to highlight the methodological weaknesses of
the studies, which were published in educational administration during the 1964-1966
periods. Through their synthesis of the effects of educational leadership both Lipham and
Erickson drew similar conclusions that the majority of studies provided limited amounts
of information because of ﬂaws in the methodology of the studies.

Bridges (1982) reviewed 322 research reports on school administrators published
during 1967-1980 that focused on methodological issues. Bridges organized the body of
empirical research on school administrators based on three components of Halpin’s
classic paradigm for research on administrative behavior (Halpin, 1966): (l) the behavior
of the administrator, (2) the antecedent variables inﬂuencing administrator behavior, and
(3) outcomes attributable directly and indirectly to the administrator. Bridges classified
each study with respect to outcomes by making a distinction between those studies
dealing with the impact that school administrators have on school outcomes and those
studies dealing with ratings of the administrator’s effectiveness. In the administrator

impact studies, researchers attempted to determine whether administrators made

10

measurable differences in schools. As observed by Bridges (1982), when assessing the
impact of a school administrator, researchers are far more likely to focus on

organizational maintenance than organizational achievement.

Currently there is a theoretical split within the literature on education
administration in relation to the effect of principal leadership on student achievement.
One body of research suggests that effective principal leadership is essential to successful
implementation of education reform and improvement in academic achievement (Berends,
Bodilly& Kirby, 2002; Halpin, 1966; Teske & Schneider, 1999; Wang, Haertel&
Walberg, 1993; Witziers, Bosker& Kriiger, 2003). Several studies conducted over the
past thirty years support this ideology, concluding that schools and principals do make a
difference. Speciﬁcally, the principal does inﬂuence the school’s capacity to change as
well as the culture and the direction of the school (Berends, Bodilly & Kirby, 2002; Blase
& Blase, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Halpin, 1966; Teske & Schneider, 1999; Wang,
Haertel& Walberg, 1993; Witziers, Bosker& Kriiger, 2003).

The opposing ideology takes the position that previous research has found a weak
connection between principal leadership and student achievement, therefore the
connection between the two cannot be substantiated (Hess, 1999). Researchers who hold
this theoretical position are critical of the previous perspective because of the positive
bias cited in most of the research. Many investors allude to overlooked areas or
conceptual gaps in the ﬁeld that lead to failures in school performance. For example,
principal mistreatment/abuse of teachers has been cited as an extremely harmful

consequence that inhibits education reform. Blase and Blase (2003) cited poor leadership

11

as a lasting negative impact on the life of reform efforts in schools. To further articulate
this point Hodgkinson (Hodgkinson, 1991) stated:

Undoubtedly, the failure of both academic and professional educators to study

principal mistreatment of teachers, applying the same rigorous research protocols

used to investigate other educational problems, has resulted in incomplete, naive,
and even false understandings of how some, perhaps a noteworthy percentage, of
school leaders and teachers experience their work.

Moreover, this failure allowed principal mistreatment to continue without
challenge and without hope of improvement (Ashforth, 1994; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf &
Cooper, 2003; Keashly, Trott & MacLean, 1994; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). In one
perspective developed to provide a solution to the problem (school reform efforts that
require principals and teachers to work together collaboratively to solve educational
problems), researchers alluded to a need for principals to work toward collective ends
that encompass all individuals and organizations associated with public education (Blase
& Blase, 2003, 2004). In addition, investigators said that participants must be willing to
confront administrative mistreatment that, most assuredly, undermines possibilities of
reform (Blase & Blase, 2003).

Although there is substantive research beyond the examples presented that
support the second ideology, the historical and current legislative climate mandates the
pivotal role of the principal in leadership in school reform and student achievement. A
review of educational administration literature will be pursued from the ﬁrst theoretical
perspective, which assumes that there are positive effects found for principal leadership

on student achievement. The primary purpose of this section is to identify the seminal

and current research studies that established theoretical and practical ﬁndings for the

12

effects of principal leadership. There are two seminal works in the literature of education
administration that frame the theoretical perspective of the current section of the text.

One of the ﬁrst theoretical attempts to address the effects of principal leadership
was developed by Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan and Lee (1982) in their work on principal
leadership entitled, The Instructional management role of the principal. Bossert et al.
(1982) emphasized the perspective that a school principal, through his or her activities,
roles, and behaviors in managing school structures, does not have a direct effect on
student achievement in the manner that the teachers does (Bossert et al., 1982). However,
classroom teaching may be impacted by the principal’s actions, by setting and clearly
communicating high expectations for all students, supervising instructional performance
of the teacher evaluating student progress, and promoting a positive teaching/learning
environment (Suskavcevic & Blake, 2004). Also, Bossert et al. (1982) developed a
framework to test for a two-fold causal relationship between the principal and student
outcomes: the effects of individual and organizational characteristics on principal
behavior and the effect of principal behavior on student outcomes.

The work of Bossert et al. (1982) is used as a foundation for the conceptual
understanding of principal leadership. The research published within the literature of
educational leadership about the effect principal leadership has on student achievement
can be classiﬁed into four categories. They are presented in the work of Hallinger and
Heck (1996) entitled, Reassessing the principal 's role in school eﬂ'ectiveness: A review of
empirical research, [980-1985. In determining investigation classiﬁcations Hallinger and
Heck used Pitner’s (Pitner, 1982) framework of administrator effects as criteria for the

classiﬁcation of 40 studies on instructional leadership and school outcomes published

13

during the period 1980-1995. Pitner identiﬁed four theoretical approaches to represent the
conceptual models that served as a means for categorizing the reviewed studies of the
effects the administrator has on school outcomes. These four models were direct-effects,

moderated-effects, mediated-effects, and reciprocal-effects.

Direct-Effects Model

According to Hallinger and Heck, the ﬁrst classiﬁcation, the direct-effects model,
hypothesized that principals are directly responsible for outcomes related to student
achievement. In addition, the model proposes that the main effect on school outcomes
occurs primarily in the absence of intervening variables. Speciﬁcally, the authors
described gaps in the model with the statement, “researchers who use this model do not
statistically control for the effects of mediating variables” (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998,
1999). Review of research that follow this model reveal several common themes that
may be categorized as: (l) principal impact on student achievement, (2) teacher
improvement, and (3) organizational function.

Principal leadership is a strong predictor of student performance (Andrews &
Soder, 1987; Cheng, 1994; Krug, 1992; Larsen, 1987; K. Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; K. A.
Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Levine, 1982). Several studies found that the school principal
is critical in ensuring academic achievement, especially for Black and low-income
students (Andrews & Soder, 1987; Cheng, 1994; Krug, 1992; Larsen, 1987; Leithwood &
J antzi, 2000; K. A. Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Levine, 1982). Reports from a study by

Florida (1997) suggest that school principals who exhibit strong leadership behaviors and

14

consistently focus on improving student performance makes a positive impact on
academic performance in their schools.

A second theme that emerged suggested that principals have a measurable impact
on student achievement through the selection of teachers and the setting of academically-
oriented school goals (Andrews & Soder, 1987; Cheng, 1994; Krug, 1992; Larsen, 1987;
Leithwood & J antzi, 2000; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Levine, 1982). Leithwood and
J antzi, in a study of 1818 teachers and 6490 students in one large school district, found
results that demonstrated greater academic growth of students who experienced more
frequent engagement with the principal as compared with teacher sources of leadership.
The study found that the effects of principal leadership were signiﬁcant predictors of
academic success, whereas the effects of teacher leadership were not signiﬁcant.

The third theme found a strong relationship between leadership and the
organizational functional process (Cheng, 1991, 1994). Findings from a study (Porter and
Soper, 2003) that focused on classroom size reform initiatives in Tennessee and
California indicated that the development of a clear vision and planning to support that

vision are essential to the success of urban school reform (p. 5).

Moderated-Effects Model
According to Hallinger and Heck (1996) the next classiﬁcation of Pitner (1982) is
the moderated-effects model. This model assumes that some or all of the impact achieved
by administrators on desired school outcomes occurs through manipulation of or
interaction with features of school organization. The moderated-effects model

hypothesizes that the relationship between principal leadership and student achievement

15

outcomes can be explained through a third intervening variable. This classiﬁcation states
that the effects of leadership attained by administrators on desired outcomes occur
through manipulation of or interaction with features of school organization.

The themes that emerged for the moderated-effects model are similar to the
themes that emerged in the direct-effects model. Where this approach differs from the
direct-effects model is that in the design implementation, the direct-effects model does
not account for contextual, personal and organizational characteristics that impact
principal leadership. The overarching theme shows that the effect of principal leadership
occurs indirectly through the principal’s efforts to inﬂuence those who come into more
frequent direct contact with students. Studying the moderated-effects model, Silins
(1994) examined the nature of the relationship between transformational and
transactional leadership and the nature of the relationships between speciﬁed school
outcomes and the constructs of transformational and transactional leadership. The author
applied canonical analysis and partial least-squares analysis to an empirically derived
data set to yield two path models. These results indicated a link between a principal’s use
of transformational and transactional leadership strategies and positive outcomes for

academic achievement (Silins, 1994).

Mediated-Eﬂects Model
The third model cited by Hallinger and Heck (1996) is the mediated-effects model
with antecedent variables. In this model the principal can be measured as both the
dependent and independent variable. When the principal is the dependent variable the

principal’s behavior is subject to the inﬂuence of other variables within the school and its

16

environment. When the principal is the independent variable the principal inﬂuences the
actions of teachers, the school organization and ultimately the learning of the students.
The themes that emerged for the mediated-effects model with antecedent variables are
similar to the emerged themes in the direct-effects and moderated—effects models. One of
the primary themes found in the literature for this approach is the importance of the
relationship between school context and leadership and between personal characteristics

and leadership enactment in enhancing student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).

An example that supports this theme was a study by Eberts and Stone (198 8)
entitled Student achievement in public schools: Do principals make a diﬂerence. Based
on data from a nationally representative sample of 14,000 elementary school children, the
ﬁndings indicated that the behavior of the principal and the principal’s attributes
signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced individual student achievement. In another example, Goldring
and Pastemack (Goldring & Pastemack, 1994) examined the relationship between the
principal’s strategies to coordinate organizational activities and school effectiveness.
Results of this study of elementary school principals suggest that the principal’s role in
framing school goals is more instrumental in establishing school effectiveness than other
speciﬁc leadership behaviors.

A further theme emerged that indicated that school characteristics such as student
social economic status, homogeneity, school size, community type and school level affect
the manner in which principals approach their jobs. Kirby, Berends and Naftel (2001)
found results to support this theme in an analysis of a sample of 71 New American
Schools (NAS) that initiated whole-school reform. Results indicated there are several

factors that need to be aligned for the implementation of an effective reform policy. The

17

factors included strong principal leadership, teachers who support the designs and have a
strong sense of teacher efﬁcacy, district leadership and support, clear communication and
provision of materials, and design team staff support. The ﬁndings of this study suggest
that without strong leadership, the promise of these designs to help schools improve is

unlikely to be met.

Another example is provided by Louis and Marks (Louis & Marks, 1996), who
examined common behaviors of principals in schools with high student achievement.
Controlling for pertinent principal and school background characteristics, such as
race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and gender, Louis and Marks found that leaders in
high achieving schools worked effectively to stimulate professional discussion and to
create the networks of conversation that tied faculty together around common issues of
instruction and teaching (p. 194). A common thread across all the themes is the link

between principal leadership and academic achievement.

Reciprocal-Effects Model
Finally, the fourth type of principal effect model is reciprocal-effects. In these
models principals have displayed leadership through adaptation to the organization in
which they work, changing their thinking and behavior over time. The authors state that
principal leadership has the ability to impact student achievement “to the extent that
leadership is viewed as an adaptive process rather than as a unitary independent force
(Hallinger & Heck, 1996). In the reciprocal process the principal may initiate changes in

the school’s curriculum program or instructional practices. These changes may cause

18

changes in the conditions of the school that subsequently produce feedback causing

reciprocal effects in leadership.

Research designed from the perspective of the reciprocal-effects model
emphasizes the importance of the principal in inﬂuencing student achievement through
the management of meaning within the school culture, the nurturing of a collaborative
work environment with teachers, and the fostering of a resilient school culture (Deal,
1987; Sergiovanni & Moore, 1989). In terms of the principal’s ability to handle building-
level obstacles, research indicate a principal’s response to adversity plays a crucial role in
the development of successful school climates and student achievement (Rosenholtz,
1989; Stoltz, 2000). Cotton (1995), in her article Effective Schooling Practices: A
Research Synthesis 1995 Update, stated that common themes in the literature that span all
the models are those in which administrators and other instructional leaders:

a. Believe that all students can learn and that the school makes the difference
between success and failure

b. Emphasize learning as the most important reason for being in school; public
speeches and writings emphasize the importance and value of high achievement

c. Have a clear understanding of the school's mission and are able to state it in
direct, concrete terms. They establish an instructional focus that uniﬁes staff

(1. Seek, recruit and hire staff members who will support the school's mission and
contribute to its effectiveness

e. Know and can apply validated teaching and learning principles; they model

effective teaching practices for staff as appropriate

19

Know educational research, emphasize its importance, share it and foster its use in
problem solving

Seek out innovative curricular programs, observes these, acquaint staff with them
and participate with staff in discussions about adopting or adapting them

Set expectations for curriculum quality through the use of standards and
guidelines. They periodically check the alignment of curriculum with instruction
and assessment, establish curricular priorities, and monitor the implementation of
curriculum

Check student progress frequently, relying on explicit performance data. They
make results public, work with staff to set standards, use those standards as points
of comparison, and address discrepancies

Expect all staff to meet high instructional standards. They secure staff agreement
on a school-wide instructional model, make classroom visits to observe
instruction, focus supervision activities on instructional improvement, and provide
and monitor staff development activities

Communicate the expectation that instructional programs will improve over time.
They provide well-organized, systematic improvement strategies; give
improvement activities high priority and visibility; and monitor implementation of
new practices

Involve the full staff in planning implementation strategies. They set and enforce
expectations for participation, ensure that others follow through on commitments,
and rally support from the different constituencies in the school community

(Cotton, 2001)

20

Recently, concerning the deﬁnition of the role of principals’ leadership, there has
been a second conceptual shift from research speciﬁcally addressing instructional
leadership to research examining six different theoretical models of leadership: (1)
instructional, (2) transformational, (3) contingent, (4) moral, (5) managerial and (6)
cultural leadership (Liethwood & Duke, 1999). This shift has resulted in a substantial
decrease in the number of studies focused on examining the instructional leadership style
of school principals. The majority of the current empirical studies on instructional
leadership and school effectiveness have been conducted in the context of the dominating
loosely coupled educational system of governance in the U. S. (Suskavcevic & Blake
2002)

Recent changes related to the implementation of the standards-based reform
movement re-emphasized the instructional leadership aspects of school leaders. There is a
current conceptual shift in leadership conceptualization that leaves a theoretical gap in

understanding the characteristics of an effective principal.

Standards-Based Reform
Recently there has been a wave of standards-based reforms initiated to correct
problematic areas of American schools. The central concern of the current reform policy
is the inability of public education to educate students comprehensively and effectively in
urban areas, in particular its inability to decrease the disparity for academic achievement
between students in urban and suburban school districts (The Funding Gap: Low-Income

and Minority Students Receive Fewer Dollars, 2002; Hess, 1999; Porter & Soper, 2003).

21

In addressing the need for education reform, local, state and federal governments have
enacted various educational policies (Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind, high stakes
testing, and local educational). These policies were designed and implemented to change
what schools do and how they do it, that is, educational school reforms were established
on the two main principles of alignment and capacity building:
Alignment means that in order to focus on improving outcomes, schools systems
need to set clear standards and align curriculum and accountability mechanisms
with those standards. Capacity building is developed in a coherent organization,
built around aligned standards and assessment, which can produce increased
capacity to deliver improved education. For example, when teachers know what
to teach and the organization acts to support their efforts to achieve deﬁned

standards, this increases the collective capacity of the school or the district to
deliver education (Camoy & Loeb, 2002).

The most recent standards-based reform is No Child Left behind (N CLB). This
legislation was enacted because of the perceived historical failure of locally controlled
school districts to effectively educate its students (No Child Left Behind, 2001).
Developers of NCLB set three primary objectives to address these apparent failures: (1)
accountability and high standards, (2) annual academic assessments, and (3)
consequences for schools that fail to educate disadvantaged students. Furthermore,
legislation has sought to align locally controlled school districts with federal standards to
build school and district capacity to initiate change.

An important component of standards-based accountability is improving
education through increasing the quality of teachers and educational administrators
(Camoy & Loeb, 2002). This reform ideology demands changes in the way principals
work and suggests that for education to improve, the principal’s ability to build capacity

has to be raised. It advocates that principals must have the ability not only to manage

22

 

schools but also to become instructional leaders of their schools (Camoy & Loeb, 2002).
In successful standards-based accountability the combination of instructional leadership
and management skills constitute what is central to capacity building. In NCLB this
process is displayed when principals make decisions that center on student academic
achievement. Thus, increases in the demands of accountability policies run parallel with
increased expectations of the principal as instructional leader and building manager.
Furthermore, the impact of standards-based accountability has transitioned the role of the
principal in a linear ampliﬁed manner from a state of cautious alarm (A Nation at Risk) to
suggested voluntary action (Goals 2000) to federal mandates for institutional change

(N CLB). Though there has been a steady increase in leadership demands placed on the
principal through standards-based accountability policy, research ﬁndings show varying
support for these policies, producing a direct effect on the impact of principal leadership

for increasing academic achievement (St. John & Ridenour, 2002).

The Effects of Leadership by the Principal
As stated earlier, a principle of American education is the belief that principal

leadership impacts student learning. Early empirical research in educational
administration supports this ideology. Findings from these studies indicate that the
leadership of the principal indirectly facilitates school improvement and increases student
achievement (Bossert et al., 1982; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Rost, 1993). Research shows
three areas in which principal leadership produces indirect effects: (1) how the principal
establishes and monitors the school governance process, (2) how the principal’s

leadership contributes to school climate/culture, and (3) how the principal oversees the

23

instructional organization of the school (Heck, 1996). These areas for principal leadership
effects were empirically derived from various educational settings. Though there is
concurrence in the literature about the impact of principal leadership, there is still

scholarly discourse about the impact of context on principal leadership.

School Culture

School climate and culture are important contextual components cited in the
literature with regard to understanding school context. Research ﬁndings indicate that
culture as a learned process of expectations and norms are important relative to school
improvement (Goldring & Hausman, 2001; Morris, 1994; Savage, 1999; Slater & Boyd,
1999). Within school culture there is a core set of values, beliefs, assumptions, and
perceptions that school community members hold about their work. These cultural
components together comprise a theory of organizational acceptability that guides how
people behave and operate (Sergiovanni, 1996).

Principals typically are the educational leaders of their schools. They inﬂuence
the conditions under which teachers teach and students learn. Research ﬁndings (Bauch,
2001) suggest that effective principals must be knowledgeable about their community
and work environment for successful implementation of standards-based reform. A
principal must be cognitive of how school and community culture affects their ability to
build capacity. Further, this same research suggests that for principals to effectively build
capacity, the underpinning of the school’s values, beliefs, perceptions and assumptions
must be aligned with standards-based reform to permit the school to shift its orientation
and thinking, allowing for development of new paradigms. This process is achieved

through recognition and consideration of school culture and context.

24

School Context

School context includes the location of the school. The contextual understanding
of schools in the United States has been assessed primarily through qualitative analysis.
The research in this area has contributed enormously to the knowledge base of leadership
by principals. It provides insight and voice to the contextual understanding of speciﬁc
characteristics of various contextual settings of schools within the US. Research
describing the contextual settings of schools in rural communities describe societies that
are homogeneous, poorly educated and economically challenged, and who maintain a
strong sense of community (Bauch, 2001). Additionally, this same research indicates that
the ability of principals to build capacity in terms of increased student achievement in
rural areas involves a unique set of norms and values that may differ from urban or
suburban settings.

In comparison, other research (Gardner & Talbert-Johnson, 2000) indicates that
urban school districts are characterized as large and bureaucratic and that bureaucratic
nature contributes to ineffective school organization. Thus, leadership in urban schools
tends to be less stable than in suburban areas. Jelier and Hula (1999) suggest that size and
bureaucracy intensify the contradiction between teaching and learning as person/human
activities and the standardization that is expected to make urban schools efﬁcient, fair and
impartial. In addition, this same research suggests that the inter-relatedness of the
aforementioned components shape ineffective school organization and perpetuate urban
school teaching and administration that is detached from the community and family

resources.

25

Problem Statement

In assessing the impact of principal leadership across cultural settings, contextual
comparisons cannot be made without an appropriate understanding of the leadership
environment (Hess, 1996). Within this literature the majority of the research published
compares American schools to foreign schools, such as in Europe, the Paciﬁc islands and
Southeast Asia (Hess, 1996; Hopkins 2000; West et a1, 2000). Though this body of
research generates important theoretical and practical insight for understanding the
contextual differences in principal leadership, a conceptual gap still persists. There is
little to no research comparing the impact of contextual differences on principal
leadership for schools within the US. There is, however, research about the contextual
realities of schools in speciﬁc environments that shows that there are considerable
differences in how principals deﬁne and implement leadership roles. The research also
shows that the context may act either as a catalyst or a limitation for principal leadership,
enabling or hindering the ability and the resources the principal has to implement

sustained and effective change.

Study Purpose

The purpose of the current study is to examine the impact of school location
(context) on the principal’s leadership ability to build capacity at the school building
' level. This study will be carried out through employment of quantitative methodology

and the implementation of two theoretical models provided by Portz, Stein and Jones

26

(1999) and Heck (1996). These models will be used as the ideological foundation to
empirically test the nature of the theorized relationships between school location and

leadership actions for capacity building.

Research Questions

Speciﬁcally, this research will study the following questions:

1. Does the location of the school (urban, suburban and rural) cause the principal to
predict social demographic factors that differ regarding building capacity used to

sustain and institute an accountability policy?

2. Does the location of a school (urban, suburban and rural) cause principals to have
different predicative models of decisions that they implement to build capacity in

order to sustain and institute an accountability policy?

27

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Throughout the history of American education there have been many govemment-
sponsored initiatives that addressed numerous issues, ﬁom gender equity to
desegregation, to change the structure of schooling. The most recent policies, Goals 2000
and No Child Left Behind, enacted standards-based accountability. The policy makers
mandated that policies implemented in rural Iowa and suburban Boston have the same
outcomes as in inner city Los Angeles. No Child Left Behind was designed and
implemented to effect change in school leadership, organization and conﬁguration, that is,
what schools do and how they do it. This policy also addressed a pressing issue of
contemporary education: how to enhance the role and impact of principal leadership.
Mandates within the legislation were designed to monitor the ability of principal
leadership to build school capacity in terms of academic achievement.

A problem with No Child Left Behind is that it neglects to provide a blueprint for
how the principal is to develop capacity. One possible solution for this problem is to
examine the impact of school context (the school climate, culture and location) on the
mandated outcomes of No Child Left Behind. In support of this perspective research
(Deal, 1987; Sergiovanni & Moore, 1989; Home, 1997) has shown the importance of the
principal’s leadership ability to inﬂuence student achievement through the combination
of effective school management and understanding of school culture. The research
ﬁndings also indicate that those principals who are successful at building capacity

produce a nurturing collaborative work environment that fosters a resilient school culture.

28

The focus of the current review is to provide a thorough and extensive assessment
of the literature of educational leadership. A secondary focus is the examination of school
location and its impact on the principal’s leadership ability to build capacity at the school
building level. The primary objective of this chapter is to provide a critical analysis of the ,
aforementioned inquiry through a series of questions. Initially, I will synthesize
standards-based reform policies and evaluate their impact on principal leadership. Then,
with reference to the cited effects of the principal’s leadership ability to build capacity, I
will conceptualize the role of the principal and assessment of reported effects in terms of
increasing academic achievement. Finally, I will provide a review of contextual
characteristics of distinct school locations (rural, urban, and suburban) and argue that
there is a conceptual gap in the literature with regard to the impact of context on the

ability of principal leadership to build capacity.

Standards-Based Reform and Principal Leadership

To address the need for educational reform local, state and federal governments
have legislated standards-based educational reform policies (such as A Nation at Risk,
Goals 2000 and No Child Left Behind). These policies have increased the demands
related to student academic outcomes, and have established a discourse in educational
policy centered on increased school accountability (The Funding Gap: Low-Income and
Minority Students Receive Fewer Dollars, 2002; No Child Left Behind, 2001). The most
recent standards-based accountability policy, No Child Left Behind, was developed and
implemented with outcomes focused on standardized test scores. The driving force

behind No Child Left Behind is the perceived inability of public education to educate

29

urban students comprehensively and effectively (and to close the gap in academic
achievement between students in urban and suburban school districts).

A chronological review of recent reform policy traced the foundational shift
outlined by standards-based accountability to the educational report: A Nation at Risk
(Hallinger & Heck, 1998, 1999; No Child Left Behind, 2001). The Nation at Risk report
was the ﬁrst federally sponsored account that challenged the effectiveness of American
schooling, in particular the role of school leadership. The years following the release of A
Nation at Risk led to the development of Goals 2000. The passage of Goals 2000
authorized the development of a voluntary standards-based accountability and
certiﬁcation system to initiate change in public schooling (The National Education Goals
Report - Summary Guide Building the Best, 1993). The end of the twentieth century
coincided with the completion of Goals 2000 legislation and a lack of sustained
improvement for public education outcomes. The federal government responded with the
initiation of a punitive standards-based accountability policy, No Child Left behind
(N CLB). To stimulate institutional change, NCLB placed an emphasis on the use of data
and mandated the principal’s use of data to evaluate school progress and to better inform
site-based decision-making (No Child Left Behind, 2001).

Currently there are rival perspectives regarding standards-based accountability
policy to improve struggling districts/schools and to produce substantive change in
principal leadership. One perspective suggests that standards-based accountability has
been effective in the initiation of meaningful change. Also, this perspective articulates
leadership as a critical factor related to the success of these reforms. Findings from this

body of research suggests that effective principal leadership is essential to the successful

30

implementation of education reform and improvement in academic achievement (Berends,
Bodilly & Kirby, 2002; Halpin, 1966; Teske & Schneider, 1999; Wang, Haertel &
Walberg, 1993; Witziers, Bosker & Kriiger, 2003).

Researchers have used quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods methodology
to both study and derive the positive effects on academic achievement for the principal’s
leadership abilities. Studies conducted over the past 30 years that used qualitative
methodology to support the aforementioned perspective have primarily employed two
methodological designs: ethnographic case studies (Slaughter-Defoe, Andrews & Zhang,
2002), and structured/semi-structured qualitative interviews (Bloom et al., 2001; St. John
& Ridenour, 2002; Teske & Schneider, 1999). Themes from the studies that employed
qualitative interviews indicated that reform policy is a successful catalyst for the principal
to build school capacity by allowing principals to focus on areas of school culture and
organizational structure (Deal, 1987; Teske & Schneider, 1999).

Studies that employed quantitative methodological research designs have
produced results that indicated the success of the reform policies in the initiation of
institutional change at the building level. The two types of research design methodologies
employed to assess these ﬁndings were the large-scale survey of school districts (Berends
et al., 2002; Pearson, 2002) and meta-analyses summarizing effect sizes of previous
research (Borman, Hewes, Overman& Brown, 2003). Research ﬁndings using
quantitative methodology identiﬁed themes similar to those identiﬁed by qualitative
methodology. For example, Kirby, Berends and Naftel (2001) initiated a whole-school
reform study of 71 New American Schools. Results indicated that there are several

factors needing to be aligned for effective reform policy implementation. These factors

31

include: (1) strong principal leadership, (2) teachers who support the designs and have a
strong sense of teacher efﬁcacy, (3) district leadership and support, (4) clear
communication and provision of materials, and (5) design team staff support.

The opposing perspective, that there is a negative impact of standards-based
reform policy, suggests that current reform policy has been ineffective in production of
substantive change. This perspective says that the current reform policy has been
ineffective because reform legislation has produced an environment where principals are
wearied by continuous ineffective reforms (Hess, 1999). Sarason and Lorentz (1998)
argue that the language and principles of reform often conﬂict with traditional school
culture, which prohibits the deep change necessary for successful implementation.
Research that supports this perspective has also employed both quantitative and
qualitative methodologies.

Results from quantitative research identify a scarcity of empirically rigorous
studies for the argument that reform policy is an effective lever to improve academic
achievement by way of the principal’s leadership (Hess, 1999; Tyack & Cuban, 1995).
Results from qualitative research identify themes that suggest that the constant
implementation of new reform policies has hindered the ability of principals to engage
schools in meaningful change (Datnow, 2002, 2005; Hess, 1999). Datnow (2005)
reviewed 13 schools that had implemented school reforms and found that only four
schools were successful in maintaining reform efforts. Furthermore the success of those
school that had maintained reform efforts was dependent on pre-existing conditions, such

as strength of leadership, district context and school culture.

32

Researchers are critical of the ﬁrst perspective because a positive bias is apparent
in the literature. Researchers argue that ﬁndings from the ﬁrst perspective (the positive
impact of standards-based reform) over-report the positive effects of the impact on
reforms in order to facilitate substantive change made by way of the principal’s
leadership. To make this point many investigators allude to overlooked areas and/or
conceptual gaps in the literature that lead to failures in the standards-based reform policy.
For example, researchers indicate that principal mistreatment/abuse of teachers by
principals has been cited as an extremely harmful consequence that inhibits education
reform (Blase & Blase, 2003, 2004). To articulate this point further, Blase and Blase
(2003) cited poor leadership as having a lasting negative impact on the life of reform
efforts in schools. Additionally, Hodgkinson (1991) stated the following:

Undoubtedly, the failure of both academic and professional educators to study

principal mistreatment of teachers, applying the same rigorous research protocols

used to investigate other educational problems, has resulted in incomplete, naive,

and even false understandings of how some, perhaps a noteworthy percentage of,
school leaders and teachers experience their work.

Although there is substantive research beyond the examples presented that
support the second perspective (i.e., that current reform policy has been ineffective in
production of substantive change), the current legislative climate mandates the principal
leadership’s pivotal role in school reform and student achievement. Speciﬁcally, NCLB
has set three primary objectives that address failures of previous reform policies and
district/school leadership: (1) accountability and high standards, (2) annual academic
assessments and (3) consequences for schools that fail to educate disadvantaged students.

Thus a review of the literature of educational administration is undertaken from the ﬁrst

33

theoretical perspective, ﬁrst assessing and deﬁning the role of principal leadership, then
synthesizing the effects of principal leadership for improvements in academic

achievement.

The Role of Principal Leadership

Through the decades of the twentieth century, the role of the principal in schools
within the United States has greatly evolved and could generally be characterized as
highly transformative (Suskavcevic & Blake, 2004). In the 19303, the governing role of
school principals was seen as a scientiﬁc manager. In the 19403, the principal’s role
transitioned to a democratic leader. Later, in the 19703, the school principal was viewed
as a humanistic facilitator (Suskavcevic & Blake, 2004). And in the 19803 the school
principal’s role transitioned to that of an instructional leader (Beck & Murphy, 1993).
The continued evolution of the principal as a leader over the span of the twentieth century
raises the questions of how to deﬁne and what is the role of principal leadership, in

particular instructional leadership.

Though the concept of instructional leadership received much attention and
pervaded the leadership literature during the 19803, this ideology was introduced a few
decades prior (Suskavcevic & Blake, 2004). Mackenzie and Corey (1954) were among
the early writers who referred to the school principal as an instructional leader of a
school. In terms of deﬁning leadership Rost (Rost, 1993) deﬁned it as “. .. an inﬂuential
relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reﬂect their
mutual purposes” (p. 102). De Bevoise (1984) used the term to designate the actions that

the school principal takes or delegates to others in order to promote growth in student

34

learning. Culbertson (1974) asserted that one of the more challenging tasks in educational
leadership is to come to an understanding of what is or is not within the educational

climate that positively inﬂuences student achievement. Lipman-Blumen agrees:

The quest to understand leadership is endless. We persist in our search because it
goes to the heart of the human condition: our dual human nature, as symbolic and
physical beings. . .Leaders help us to link these twin dialectics, one deeply
individual, the other broadly societal... (Lipman-Blumen, 1996).

To frame the role of leadership in terms of reform policy implementation Murphy
and Datnow (2003) articulate that principals are crucial to the success of school reform
and that successﬁrl reform policies can be achieved when principals: (I) accept and
support reform efforts, (2) help identify resources that buffer reform efforts from external
distractions and (3) nurture teacher involvement and leadership (Lashway, 2003; Murphy
& Datnow, 2003). Additionally, Barr and Bizar (2001) state that for the change to occur,
it must be supported and sustained through the leadership of the principal. Ultimately,
principals must become directly involved in instructional concerns, developing mutual

trust and respect with teachers, who are essential components for shared decision-making

(Barr & Bizar, 2001).

Characteristics of Eﬂective Principals

Determination of the characteristics of an effective principal is complex. Research
indicates that there is no “one size ﬁts all” ideology to provide insight or to deﬁne an
effective principal (Liethwood & Duke 1999). Leithwood and Riehl (2003) argue that
there must ﬁrst be a conceptualization and deﬁnition of effective leadership before one

can determine what makes an effective principal. They deﬁne effective school leadership

35

in terms of two functions: providing direction and exercising inﬂuence. Other research
indicates that a principal with effective leadership characteristics has the capacity to
mobilize resources and work with others to achieve shared organizational goals.
Moreover, Leithwood and Riehl (2003) indicated that effective leaders do not merely
impose goals on followers, but work to create a shared sense of organizational purpose

and direction.

The Effects of Leadership by the Principal

As stated earlier, a principle of American education is the belief that principal
leadership impacts student learning. Early empirical research in educational
administration supported this perspective. Findings from these mostly qualitative case
studies of exceptional schools show indirect positive effects of principal leadership on
school improvement and increases in student achievement (Bossert et al., 1982; Erickson,
1967; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Rost, 1993). Additionally, research indicates that the
indirect effect of principal leadership falls into three areas: 1) how the principal
establishes and monitors the school governance process; 2) how the principal contributes
to school climate/culture; and 3) how the principal oversees the instructional organization
of the school (Heck, 1996).

One of the ﬁrst conceptualizations of the effects of principal leadership was
constructed by Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan and Lee (1982). The authors emphasized that a
school principal, through his or her activities, roles, and behaviors in managing school
structures, does not have a direct effect on student achievement in the manner the

teachers does (Bossert et al., 1982). However, classroom teaching may be impacted by

36

the principal’s actions in setting and clearly communicating high expectations for all
students, supervising the teacher’s instructional performance, evaluating student progress,
and promoting a positive teaching/learning environment (Suskavcevic & Blake, 2004).
Additionally, Bossert et al. (1982) developed a framework to test causal relationships
between principal behavior and student outcomes in two areas. Research is cited on the
effects of the individual and organizational characteristics of principal behavior on
student outcomes:

A principal’s managerial behavior is shaped by school context (external and

district) and the principal’s personal characteristics. At the same time, a

principal’s managerial behavior directly inﬂuences school climate and

instructional organization, and indirectly inﬂuences outcomes (student learning
and performance) (Suskavcevic & Blake, 2004).

There have been a variety of studies employed to conceptually test the effects of
principal leadership. Research cited from this perspective has employed quantitative,
qualitative and mixed methods methodologies. Most past research used to assess the
effects of leadership by the principal employed qualitative and quantitative methods.
According to Hallinger and Heck (1998), studies used to conceptualize principal effects
studies across all methodological approaches can be synthesized into three types of
models: direct-effects, mediated-effects and reciprocal-effects. The most commonly
employed technique is the direct-effects model. This model hypothesizes that principals
are directly responsible for student achievement outcomes and proposes that the effects of
leadership by the principal occur primarily in the absence of intervening variables. Some

researchers who use the direct-effects model include antecedent factors, but these are not

37

hypothesized to be variables interacting with leadership or mediating its effects on the
selected outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).

According to Hallinger and Heck (1998), the second conceptual model is the
mediated-effects model. This model hypothesizes that some or all of the impact attained
by administrators for desired school outcomes occurs through manipulation of or
interaction with features of school organization (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). In addition,
this model implies that the relationship between principal leadership and student
achievement outcomes can be explained through a third intervening variable. The role of
the teacher, social economic status of the students and environment of the school can all
be used as intervening variables to explain the relationship between leadership and
student achievement outcomes.

The third model is the reciprocal-effects model. In this model the principal
displays leadership through adaptation to the organization, which changes their thinking
and behavior over time. Speciﬁcally, the authors assert that principal leadership has the
ability to impact student achievement “to the extent that leadership is viewed as an
adaptive process rather than as an unitary independent force” (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).

Across all the conceptual models there are three overarching themes cited in the
literature for the effects of leadership by the principal on academic achievement: how the
principal establishes and monitors the school governance process, how the principal
contributes to school climate/culture and how the principal oversees the instructional
organization of the school (Heck, 1996). The methodological approaches used to assess
the various conceptual models in studies of the effects of leadership by the principal

employed both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.

38

As with quantitative studies assessing the impact of standards-based reforms,
there are primarily two types of methodologies employed to assess these ﬁndings, that of
the large-scale survey of successful school districts, and meta-analyses summarizing
effect sizes of previous research. The ﬁndings from quantitative research cite common
themes across all studies that have employed quantitative methodologies. Several studies
reported themes that indicated that principal leadership is a strong predictor of student
performance. Principal leadership is a critical factor in ensuring the successful
implementation of policy to increase academic achievement, and there is a strong
relationship between leadership and the organizational functional process that impacts
academic achievement (Andrews & Soder, 1987; Cheng, 1994; Krug, 1992; Larsen, 1987;
Leithwood & J antzi, 2000; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Levine, 1982).

In a study of 1,818 teachers and 6,490 students in one large school district
Leithwood and J antzi (2000) cited ﬁndings that suggested there were greater student
engagement effects displayed by the principal as leader compared with the teacher as
leader. Speciﬁcally, the authors concluded there was a signiﬁcant effect for principal
leadership on improvement in academic achievement. Another example of quantitative
research is a study by Eberts and Stone (1988) entitled Student achievement in public
schools: Do principals make a difference? Using a sample of 14,000 elementary school
children, the results indicated that the personality attributes and job-related behavior of
the principal signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced student achievement (Eberts & Stone, 1988).

Similar to the ﬁndings associated with quantitative methodology, research that
employed qualitative methodologies cite ﬁndings that support leadership of the principal

as a strong predictor of academic achievement. The methodologies employed in

39

qualitative research were case studies of successful principals, protocol interviews and
focus groups of successful principals in metropolitan areas. The themes that emerged
across qualitative studies can be categorized into the aforementioned cited indirect effects
for principal leadership (Goldring & Pastemack, 1994; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Teske &
Schneider, 1999). Goldring and Pastemack (1994) examined the relationship between
principals' strategies to coordinate organizational activities and school effectiveness. The
authors interviewed a sample of elementary school principals. Results suggested that the
principal’s role in establishing school goals is instrumental in implementing effective

. school policy. In a qualitative study of eight successful principals, Teske and Scheider
(1999) examined the role of leadership as a factor in the creation of high achieving
schools in New York City. Results indicated that the ability of the principal to achieve
autonomy and to display strong leadership are essential components of academic
achievement.

Though there have been many studies that cite the positive effectives of
leadership by the principal, many investigators argue that the research ﬁndings based on
direct-effectd models (the most commonly used model) have produced inconclusive
results (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998; Witziers et al., 2003). These inconclusive results
apply to studies that have been empirically derived and that use both quantitative and
qualitative methods. To articulate this perspective Witziers et al. (2003) states the
following:

Is educational leadership related to student achievement? In answering this

question, ﬁrst of all the results of a rigorous statistical meta-analysis of studies

that sought evidence for the direct effects of educational leadership on student
achievement were presented... These suggest that in general, effect sizes are

small... More reﬁned analyses show that there is no evidence for a direct effect of
educational leadership on student achievement in secondary schools. . .A variety

4O

of explanations account for why our further test of the direct effects model has
been inconclusive. Most studies consist of surveys that depend on naturally
occurring variation. This leads by deﬁnition to small effects. Given the
restrictions in variability in leadership behaviors and the fact that school effects
are by deﬁnition small (achievement differences are best explained by student
characteristics), samples of schools tend to be too small to detect signiﬁcant
effects.

Due to inconclusive associations of principal leadership with academic
achievement, investigators argue that in educational leadership there is the need to work
towards better conceptualization of the phenomenon of principal leadership (Hallinger &
Heck, 1996, 1998; Witziers et al., 2003). The lack of complexity in research designs and
methodological conceptualization continues to hinder the ability of educational
leadership literature to produce conclusive results. Additionally, with the recent changes
associated with standards-based reform policy, there has been greater emphasis on the
ability of the principal to build capacity in terms of academic achievement. Due to the
aforementioned re-emphasis and the lack of conclusive results for leadership effects, a
conceptual gap exists with regard to conceptualization of effective principal leadership.

To address this conceptual gap researchers state that future research must employ
complex methodological approaches that integrate contextual factors and instructional
leadership to determine more conclusive results for the impact of leadership (Hallinger &
Heck, 1996, 1998; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). Schorr (Schorr, 1997) suggests that if we
are to understand the impact of standards-based reform, then we must also understand the
people and places that create the context for reform. Thus, the purpose of the next section
is to recapitulate the association of context deﬁned in terms of school location and

principal leadership, speciﬁcally, to evaluate the effect of context and culture (both

41

societal and organizational) as vital elements for the successful implementation of

standards-based reforms.

School Context, Standard-based Reform, and Principal Leadership

The impact of standards-based reforms on the ability of principal leadership to
improve academic achievement is often discussed free of context. In the initiation of
standards-based reform policies, policy makers mandated that policies implemented in
rural Iowa and suburban Boston have the same outcomes as in inner city Los Angeles.
Elmore (2000) writes that standards-based policies have had drastic impacts on school
leadership conceptualization, and that these policies demand a redeﬁnition of principal
leadership in terms of restructuring both leadership roles and decision-making for
improvement in instructional leadership. Speciﬁcally Elmore articulates:

Schools are being asked by elected ofﬁcials, policy leaders, if you will, to do

things they are largely unequipped to do. School leaders are being asked to

assume responsibilities they are largely unequipped to assume, and the risks and

consequences of failure are high for everyone, but especially high for children.

Many believe that a new structure for educational leadership is critical, with a

renewed focus on the management of instruction, rather than on the management
of the structures and processes of instruction (Elmore, 2000).

One way to potentially meet the demands of standards-based reforms that were
articulated by Elmore (2000) is to assess how context, policy, and leadership intersect.

In terms of evaluating how context and leadership intersect, Heck (1996)
theorizes that principals must be knowledgeable of contextual factors (the community,
culture and school climate) that impact educational reforms. Heck (1996) developed a

model to test conceptual and methodological issues in a comparative analysis of principal

42

leadership across cultural settings. Speciﬁcally, Heck (1996) theorizes that leadership
comparisons across cultural context (American schools vs. foreign schools) cannot be
understood without a contextual understanding of the leadership environment. Using
Heck’s theory as the theoretical foundation for the assessment of how context, standards-
based reform policy and leadership intersect reveals a strong tension for the practical
implementation of standards-based reform by school leaders; that is, schooling and
leadership are trapped between two theoretical arguments for how to effectively
implement standardized reform, according to Crowson and Boyd (2001):

Arguments on one side of the issue are that to be effective, schools must ﬁnd an

outreach way to inﬂuence parenting and the social-capital environment of their

pupils. The argument on the other side is that the schools cannot do it all and

should focus on that which they can accomplish well: learning in classrooms and
teaching the 3 Rs.

To further frame this tension it must be noted that historically, principals have
been viewed as the educational leaders of their schools. According to Goldring and
Hausman (2001), principals inﬂuence the conditions under which teachers teach and
students learn, and they are most effective when they are knowledgeable about the
intersections of their community and work environment. If principals are to effectively
build capacity, they must be cognitive of the underpinning of their environment (the
values, beliefs and perceptions), and that these processes are achieved through
recognition and consideration of school culture and context. Though many researchers
agree with the assessment of context as a critical factor for building capacity, there is a
lack of depth in educational leadership literature for how to deﬁne and assess context. For

the most part, research only examines context in terms of within-school variables,

43

ignoring the effect of contextual factors outside the control of the school, such as school
location.

School climate and culture are often cited as important contextual components
critical to successful implementation of reform policy designed for building school
capacity. Various researchers deﬁne culture as a learned process of expectations and
norms that are important factors relative to school improvement (Goldring & Hausman,
2001; Morris, 1994; Savage, 1999; Slater & Boyd, 1999). Researchers have limited their
deﬁnition of cultural components of school context to processes related to the daily
functioning within schools, disregarding the external environment. For example,
Goldring and Hausman (2001) articulated that, for the purpose of capacity building
within school culture, there is a core set of values, beliefs, assumptions and perceptions
that school community members (principal, teachers and staff) hold about their work.
And these cultural components collectively comprise a theory of organizational
acceptability that guides how people behave and operate (Sergiovanni, 1996). This
limited deﬁnition can be seen in terms of how the ﬁeld has deﬁned the core set of norms,
values and critical factors related to context. For example, researchers articulate the
importance of the principal’s ability to inﬂuence student achievement through the
management of school culture, the nurturing of a collaborative work environment with
teachers, and the fostering of a resilient school culture (Deal, 1987; Sergiovanni & Moore,
1989). Although there is an important component of school functioning that is attained
from evaluation within school processes, again it is noted that it limits the assessment of

school context.

44

Although research assessing school context has generated important theoretical
and practical insight, a conceptual gap still persists. The majority of the ﬁndings cite
evidence about speciﬁc contextual realities of schools that are derived from research
assessing the within-school contextual environments. Research has indicated that
effective leadership is deﬁned and driven by contextual value systems (Crowson & Boyd,
2001; Schorr, 1997) and that communities are complex, diverse places, and schools
reﬂect these complexities (Coleman, 1988, 1999; Driscoll & Kerchner, 1999). Analysis
of within-context ﬁndings indicates that there are considerable differences in how
principals deﬁne and implement leadership roles. However, there is little to no research
that compares the impact of the similarities and differences of community contextual
factors (i.e., school location) and how the leadership of the principal impacts schools
within the US.

In the literature of education there is a limited amount of research that has
assessed school context in terms of school location. The majority of the studies have
utilized qualitative case study analysis of successful schools in various settings (Comer,
Haynes, Joyner& Ben-Avie, 1996; Gardner & Talbert-Johnson, 2000; Morris, 1994;
Savage, 1999; Schorr, 1997; Slater & Boyd, 1999). Though the research in this area is
limited, it has the potential to contribute enormously to the knowledge base of principal
leadership. It has provided insight and voice to the understanding of speciﬁc
characteristics of various contextual setting of schools within the US.

For example, research regarding rural communities illustrates the contextual
settings of schools in rural communities that are homogeneous, poorly educated and in

economically challenged areas that maintain a strong sense of community (Bauch, 2001).

45

Research also described communities that are closed societies and distrustful of
educational input from individuals that the community deems as outsiders, such as
teachers, principals, and school board members, state and federal policy makers and non-
residential business leaders who do not live or were not reared in the community. The
ability of principals to build capacity in terms of increased student achievement in rural
areas involves a unique set of norms and values that may differ from urban or suburban
settings (Bauch, 2001). In rural areas principals must be cognitive of societal economic
structures and how the impact of increased educational attainment by students may be
seen as a violation of community trust and a hindrance of community structural norms.
In comparison, urban schools are often faced with challenges beyond basic
learning. (Gardner & Talbert-Johnson, 2000) Urban school districts are characterized as
large and bureaucratic, with an inert bureaucratic nature that contributes to ineffective
school organization. Leadership in urban schools tends to be less stable than in suburban
areas. The size of the bureaucracy intensiﬁes and creates detachment, which often
prevents school personnel from understanding the lives, needs and interests of their
students (Weiner, 1999). That, in turn, creates an impersonal educational experience.
Though research describes a challenging contextual setting for urban schools, it also
provides insight about urban schools that has helped them succeed in educating their
students. Qualitative case studies of high achieving urban schools have described orderly
and structured environments that are conducive to learning, as generally characterized by
effective urban schools. Within these schools there are systems for regular assessment of
student progress that are aligned with policy, structured curricula and achievement-

focused goals.

46

In conclusion, leadership of the principal is widely debated as being a key element
in acquiring school improvement and increasing academic achievement. The three broad
categories of school practices that have been found critical for school leadership success
are: (1) setting directions, (2) developing people (3) and developing the organization
(Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). To support this ideology, Leithwood and Riehl articulated
that within each category of successful leadership are speciﬁc competencies, orientations
and considerations that a principal must achieve to successfully lead her/his school. The
authors suggest that effective principals must ﬁrst identify and articulate a vision for their
school in order to establish a successﬁrl direction. “Effective educational leaders help
their schools to develop or endorse visions that embody the best thinking about teaching
and learning” (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003).

There is limited evidence of a direct effect for principal leadership and increased
achievement. The methods employed to test hypothesized effects are inadequate. The
evidence in support of the effects of leadership by the principal have cited that there are
indirect positive effects for principal leadership on school improvement facilitation and
increases in student achievement (Bossert et al., 1982; Culbertson, 1974; Erickson, 1967;
Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Halpin, 1966; Lipham, 1964; Rost, 1993). Speciﬁcally, there is
research on the effects of leadership by the principal on academic achievement: how the
principal establishes and monitors the school governance process, how the principal
contributes to school climate/culture, and how the principal oversees the instructional
organization of the school (Heck, 1996).

Research ﬁndings from case studies in diverse contexts of highly effective

schools indicate that in those environments effective leadership is deﬁned and driven by

47

an understanding of the within-school contextual value systems. Though this body of
research has generated important theoretical and practical insight for understanding the
contextual differences of principal leadership, it still leaves a conceptual gap. Speciﬁcally,
there is little to no research that utilizes quantitative analysis to rigorously assess and
evaluate the generalizibility of cited contextual effects for successful schools, and a lack
of research that compares the effect that school location has on principal leadership of

schools within the US.

48

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

This chapter provides the empirical framework for the investigation of the impact
of school location on a principal’s ability to build capacity at the building level, the
subject of this dissertation. Based on the theoretical model presented in this chapter,
research questions are introduced that illuminate the links between the principal, the
school location, the site-based decisions and the perceptions of the policy of
accountability, that is, principals’ decision-making actions and their perceptions as
related their decision-making actions. After describing the Student and Stafﬁng Survey
(SASS, 1999-2000), the database from which this study will draw its sample,
demographic characteristics of principals will be detailed and used in the study. An
explanation follows of the proposed empirical measures to be employed in the
investigation. The chapter concludes with a review of the methodology and analytic

approach for the study.

Theoretical Model

Previous research on the effects of leadership by the principal has argued that
there are indirect positive effects of principal leadership through the facilitation of school
improvement, that in turn increases student achievement (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan& G.,
1982; Hallinger & Heck, 1996), speciﬁcally, how the principal establishes and monitors
the school governance process, contributes to school climate/culture and oversees the
instructional organization of the school (Heck, 1996). Case study research of highly

effective schools from diverse contexts suggests that effective leadership is driven by

49

principals having an understanding of their school context and value systems. The
majority of this research deﬁnes context in term of processes happening within the
structure of the school, such as professional learning communities, teacher-principal
relationships, working atmosphere and others. Though this body of research has
generated important theoretical and practical knowledge, its claims have yet to be
subjected to rigorous testing. It has relied on a narrow deﬁnition of context.

The current study deﬁnes school context in terms of the geographic locations of
the school’s urban, suburban and rural areas. Using quantitative methodology
implementing two theoretical models, the current study explores the relationships
between school location and principals’ ability to build capacity at the building level. The
theoretical foundation for the relationship between principal leadership and school level
capacity building is adapted from Portz, Stein and Jones (1999). Heck’s (1996)
methodology is utilized to test empirically the nature of hypothesized relationships that
exist between the school location and leadership actions for capacity building.

The theoretical model guiding this study integrates two stages of analysis. The
ﬁrst stage frames an exploration of how the location of schools inﬂuences the actions of
principals regarding building capacity. The theoretical understanding of capacity building
is adapted from Portz, et al. (1999) who deﬁned capacity in terms of civic capacity. Civic
capacity is the ability to build and maintain effective alliances among representatives
ﬁ'om governmental, business, nonproﬁt and community sectors to work toward a
collective problem-solving goal (Stone, 1993). According to Portz, et al. (1999), civic
capacity in education is deﬁned as a purposeful effort, starting in either the school system

or the community, to build a collaborative constituency for change and improvement in

50

schools. The researchers assert that educational capacity is developed through a
reciprocal relationship where institutions shape and constrain the interests, strategies and
actions of leaders, and the leaders build and transform institutions (Portz, Stein& Jones,
1999). The authors assert that institutions provide the empirical context in which
collective actions are conceived and implemented. In addition, institutions provide the
foundation for building capacity through formal structures, rules and procedures that
shape the strategies as well as the actions of individuals (Portz et al., 1999). The authors
note that leadership is the critical element to building capacity.
If institutions represent the building blocks for civic capacity, leadership provides
the catalyst for creating civic alliances and infusing institutions with the resources
and purpose to address major policy concerns. Leaders play a critical role
developing common interest and building an institutional platform to realize those
interests. Leaders bring together individual and organizations around common

purposes, even as they strive to raise to a higher level those very goals and
aspirations (Portz et al., 1999).

The current study evaluates institutions in terms of an accountability policy
implemented to shape and constrain the interests, strategies and actions of leaders.
Speciﬁcally, institutions will be deﬁned according to the principal’s perceptions of
various aspects of accountability policies at the building level. Accountability will be
assessed using empirical measures of the principal’s perception of school progress,
professional development perception and perception of principal inﬂuence. In the
current study, leadership is deﬁned as the actions of the principal toward building
capacity to sustain and institute an accountability policy. Leadership will be assessed
through the empirical assessment of the types of decisions made by the principal to

implement an accountability policy. The hypothesis of the study is that, because of

51

school location (urban, suburban and rural), the school principal will make differing
decisions regarding capacity building. This will identify differing reciprocal
relationships for capacity building in each school location.

The second stage of analysis theorizes that, because of the location of the school,
principals will institute and sustain an accountability policy by pursuing different models
of actions regarding building capacity. The location of the school will lead the principals
to make different decisions and endorse different types of predictive factors determining
how best to build capacity. Heck’s (1996) model of comparative contextual analysis is
the theoretical model utilized to empirically assess these theorized relationships. Heck
developed this model to test conceptual and methodological issues in a comparative
analysis of principal leadership across cultural settings. Speciﬁcally, Heck theorizes that
leadership comparisons across cultural context (U.S. schools vs. foreign schools) cannot
be understood without a contextual understanding of the leadership environment. To
articulate the importance and possible problematic areas of this research perspective,
Heck suggests the following:

The investigation of leadership models and the methods through which they are

researched across settings is potentially a rich area for empirical exploration, in

that it may both broaden and deepen our understanding of how cultural context
may impact the theory and practice of school administration. Conducting such
studies, however, will not be without considerable problems in terms of
understanding the assumptions about knowledge embedded in this type of
research, describing conceptualizations of leadership that might be useful in

comparing practices between cultures, and using methods of investigation that can
provide answers to the types of research questions implied in such comparisons.

52

The current study addresses the problematic areas suggested by Heck (1996)
when making leadership comparison for schools within the US. (e.g., the school being
located in urban, suburban and rural geographic locations).

Heck (1996) employed his model to test the interactions between principals and
teachers in three domains cited in the literature on the effects of leadership by the
principal: (1) how a principal establishes and monitors the school governance process
(making decisions, solving problems and implementing policies), (2) contributes to
school climate/culture (setting schools mission, expectations for students, support and
communication), and (3) oversees instructional leadership (coordination of curriculum,
resource allocation, supervision of teaching and staff development activities). To provide
a foundation for this assertion Heck states the following:

It is important to recognize the necessarily incomplete nature of any model that

attempts to reduce the complexity of organizational life to a series of measured

variables focusing on principal behavior. These constructs are not the ones that

could be measured, but they are three that have been found to affect school
effectiveness.

The current study proposes to employ Heck’s model to assess how a principal’s
ability to build capacity as deﬁned in the three domains above is conditional on school
location (urban, suburban and rural geographic location). The comparative conceptual
analysis model developed by Heck (1996) is used as the framework for the empirical
testing of measures that will be developed to assess the theoretical relationship between
leadership and institutions as proposed by Portz, et al. (1999). The current study theorizes
that school principals make different decisions regarding capacity building because of

school location (urban, suburban and rural), and that, due to these different decisions,

53

there will be different predicative models for capacity building used to sustain and
institute an accountability policy. The utilization of these models is theorized to provide

empirical rigor and clarity through the assessment of the following research questions:

Research Questions

1. Does the location of the school (urban, suburban and rural) cause the principal to
predict social demographic factors that differ regarding building capacity used to

sustain and institute an accountability policy?

2. Does the location of a school (urban, suburban and rural) cause principals to have
different predicative models of decisions that they implement to build capacity in

order to sustain and institute an accountability policy?

Sample

The sample used in this study is derived from the Schools and Stafﬁng Survey
(SASS). SASS is the nation’s largest sample survey of American K-12 public and
private schools and is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (N CES).
The SASS survey collects information about the principal’s demographic characteristics,
training, experience, salary and perceptions about school decision-making and school
climate. The current sample will be drawn from the public school principal survey
collected from August 1999 to June 2000 and will use the public use dataset. This is a
restricted data set where the respondents’ identifying information is removed from the

data ﬁles; a school identiﬁcation number is used to connect principal data to data from

54

the schools in which they work. The researcher will be restricted in the range and

information available for data analyses.

Instrumentation

The researcher in this current study developed four empirical measures that
represent the three SASS domains of the effects of principal leadership. The four
measures are: (1) perception of principal inﬂuence, (2) perception of school progress,
(3) perception of professional development, and (4) the principal’s decisions to build
capacity. The independent variables are: (l) perception of principal inﬂuence, (2)
perception of school progress, (3) perception of professional development, and (4)
school location. The dependent variable is the principal’s decisions to build capacity.
All the variables are described below.

Principal’s Decisions to Build Capacity — The principal’s decision to build
capacity will be developed as a construct because the educational leadership literature
identiﬁes the site-based decisions of the principal as a critical factor in the success of a
standards-based reform policy. Barr and Bizar (2001) state that the principal plays a
pivotal role in capacity building, and, for change to be effectively implemented, it must
be supported and sustained through the leadership of the principal. Ultimately, principals
must become directly involved in instructional concerns, developing the mutual trust and
respect with teachers who are essential components of capacity development (Barr &
Bizar, 2001). The construct of the Principal’s Decisions to Build Capacity will be
developed from the question: “In the last month, approximately how often did you

engage in the following activities in your role as principal of this school ”.7 Principals

55

were asked to rate the frequency of their actions (l= never, 2=once or twice a month, 3=

once or twice a week, and 4=daily) on the following sub-items:

. Facilitate achievement of the school’s mission through such activities as

consensus building, planning, obtaining resources, monitoring progress, etc.

Supervise and evaluate faculty and other staff

3. Provide and engage staff in professional development activities

Facilitate student learning (e. g., eliminate barriers to student learning, establish
high expectations for students)

5. Guide the development and evaluation of curriculum and instruction

Build professional community among faculty and other staff

Perception of Principal Inﬂuence — Murphy and Datnow (2003) and Porter and

Soper (2003) indicate that the attention paid by the principal to inﬂuences on policy

implementation often determines the success of the policy. Therefore, the construct of

Perception of Principal Inﬂuence is developed from the question, “ Using the scale 1-5.

where I is "No influence" and 5 is "A great deal of inﬂuence, " how much ACTUAL

inﬂuence do you think each group or person has on decisions concerning the following

activities? ” The principals were asked to rate the strength of their perceptions on the

following sub-items at their school:

1.

2.

Setting performance standards for students

Establishing curriculum

Determining the content of in-service professional development for teachers
Evaluating teachers in this school

Hiring new full-time teachers at this school

Setting discipline policy at the school

Deciding how your school budget will be spent

56

Perception of School Progress — This construct is developed from the question:
“Please indicate howfar along you think your school is in: "
1. Implementing educational goals
2. Implementing organizational/govemance goals
3. Developing a student assessment system

4. Involving parents in the school

Principals were asked to rate their perceptions according to the scale: l=just
beginning, 2=long way to go, 3=almost there, 4=we’ve reached our goal, 5=not
applicable. For the purpose of reliability analysis, the “not applicable response” is
recoded to zero. Principal Perception of School Progress will be developed as a construct
{because within the educational leadership literature there is an abundance of qualitative
information that indicates that schools successful in various environments are led by
leaders with established goals and a positive perception of the school’s progress.

Perception of Professional Development Importance — This is developed as a
construct because the educational leadership literature cites principal leadership as a
critical factor in the successful development of capacity. Youngs and Bruce (2002)
indicate that effective principals can sustain high levels of capacity by establishing trust
and creating structures that promote teacher learning. Additionally, the literature indicates
that leadership for the successful development of capacity schools must be supportive of
the professional development of teachers. Thus, the Perception of Professional
Development Importance construct will be developed from the question: “Using the scale

1-5, where 1 is ‘Not important at all’ and 5 is ’Very important’, how important is each of

57

the following in determining the in-service professional development activities of
teachers in this school? ” The principals were asked to rate the strength of their
perceptions on the following sub-items:

1. Special state-level initiatives

2. District-level initiatives or district improvement plans

3. School improvement plan

4. Implementation of state or local academic standards

5. Implementation of state or local skill standards

The current study uses an empirical assessment of the measures to evaluate
each construct through psychometrical procedures. Each empirical measurement will
be tested to determine Cronbach's Alpha (testing the measures for internal consistency
and reliability) and factor analyses (computing the factor loading of each measure).

Cronbach's Alpha is a measure of internal consistency and is generally used for
measures where participants respond to questions on a scale (1 to 3, l to 4, l to 5, etc.).
The internal consistency of a scale may refer to the consistency of answers to all
questions within a scale, or it may refer to the consistency of answers at two different
points in time when no change in the construct has occurred during the time interval. The
current study will assess internal consistency from the ﬁrst perspective. Reliability
coefﬁcients are the product of internal consistency analysis and its scores (alphas) may
range from zero to one, with zero meaning that the answers to the questions are unrelated
to one another, usually because they measure different traits. A coefﬁcient of one

indicates that all answers are perfectly intercorrelated, a condition that occurs if answers

58

to all questions are identical or nearly identical. If a scale has an alpha coefﬁcient
above .60, it is usually considered to be reliable/intemally consistent.

Factor analysis is used to uncover the latent structure (dimensions) of a set of
variables. It reduces attribute space from a larger number of variables to a smaller
number of factors and as such is a "non-dependent" procedure and is employed in a
variety of manners (Factor). The SASS 1999-2000 questions will be tested for their factor
loading, that is, the degree to which an item appears to be correlated with a factor. For
example, if a test is supposed to measure two independent factors, half the items should
load heavily (+.40-.80) on the ﬁrst factor, but have near zero negative loadings on the
second factor. The other items should not load on the ﬁrst factor, but load highly on the
second factor. Generally, it is expected that items measuring a certain factor to have a
loading of at least +.30 with factor. In the current study factor analysis is employed to
validate the empirical measures by demonstrating singular factor loading for the

questions used to construct each question.
Demographic Variables

Age, salary, education, sex and race will be assessed to obtain demographic
information for each participant. Each variable will be measured categorically. Frequency
analysis will be assessed for all the variables to ensure a normal distribution across all
categories of each variable. Age is a created variable in the public use 1999-2000 SASS
data set. The SASS survey includes a categorical variable with ﬁve intervals where

principals identiﬁed their age by providing their year of birth. The current study proposes

59

to collapse the age into a variable with four categories (44 or younger, 45 to 49, 50 to 54,
and 55 and older). Survey respondents were asked to report their current annual salary
before taxes and deductions to determine the salary variable. Salary is a created variable
in the public use 1999-2000 SASS data set and is assessed with ﬁve categories that range
from less than $49,000 to $90,000 or more.

To determine educational level principals were asked to report the highest degree
they had earned. Principals were provided with six choices ranging from no degree to
professional/doctoral degree. The current study proposes to collapse education into a
variable with three categories (Masters Degree or lower, Educational Specialist, and PhD)
to assure equal group variance. The sex variable will be created from participants
answering the question: “Are you male or female”? Finally, in the formation of the race
variable participants were asked to answer the question: “What is your race”? Initially,
the race variable had four categories. The current study proposes to collapse race into
three categories (Black-non-Hispanic, White-non-Hispanic and Other) to assure equal

group variance.

Method of Statistical Analysis

Initial data analysis was conducted using SPSS 14.0. Frequencies, descriptive
statistics and distributions were examined for all variables, both at the aggregate level and
then by school location: urban, suburban and rural. Item level data analysis was carried
out before creating the composites, and reliability estimates for each composite were
calculated. Next, multiple regressions for comparisons based on race, gender, sex, salary

and school improvement plan were conducted on the dependent variable (principal’s

60

decisions to build capacity) in the model. Next, structural equation models were

estimated using the EQS 6.1 program (described later).

Multiple Regressions Models

Multiple regression analyses were performed to assess the relationships between
the principal’s decision-making activity and social demographic variables (age, salary,
gender, education, race and school improvement plan) by school location (urban,
suburban and rural). Multiple regression analyses were performed using SUDAAN.
Unstandardized partial regression coefﬁcients and p-values are provided for each
independent variable, in addition to R2. The theorized model employed in the current
study is displayed below.

Y = b1x1+ b2X2 + “I" bnxn + e

Decision Making = intercept + b [age + bzsalary + b3 gender + b4education +b5 race +

b6school improvement plan +... + bp *Xp + 8

Structural Equation Modeling
The current study proceeded through ﬁve sequential stages: (1) development of a
theoretical model, (2) classiﬁcation of data, (3) testing ﬁt of data to the theoretical model,
(4) specifying and testing a measurement model, and (5) specifying and testing a
structural model.
By means of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) the current study examined the
level of overall prediction of each of the measured variables in the model and the

exclusive, separate contribution of each predictor variable to each dimension of the

61

principals’ capacity building ability. This model makes possible the examination of
simultaneous relationships between independent and dependent variables. Additionally,
SEM was used because it provided the opportunity for simultaneous estimation of the
hypothesized regressions using the covariance matrix of the observed variables.

Before examining the direct and indirect effects in the model, the overall ﬁt of the
model to the data was assessed. The EQS program provides several indices of the model
ﬁt. The most common index of ﬁt is X 2 values, which indicates the overall ﬁt of the
model to the data by assessing the discrepancy between the observed covariance matrix
and the reproduced covariance matrix. Other ﬁt indices were examined, including
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), and CFI (Comparative Fit Index).
Finally, the ﬁt of the structural model was compared using separate samples of principals
from different school locations. Thus, SEM was employed to evaluate whether observed
interrelationship patterns in the data are consistent with a speciﬁed causal model.
Additionally, SEM was utilized to evaluate whether one model ﬁt the observed relations

among the variables better than another model.

62

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 displays the distribution of principals in the 1999-2000 SASS samples by

social demographic characteristics.

 

 

Demographics Urban Suburban Rural
N % N % N %

Age

44 and under 307 16.4 664 20.1 934 27.9
45—49 434 23.2 821 24.9 788 23.5
50-54 661 35.3 1147 34.7 976 29.1
55 and older 468 25.0 669 20.3 655 19.5
Salary

less than 60,000 335 17.9 702 21.3 2062 61.5

60,000 to 69,999 553 29.6 823 24.9 863 26.6

70,000 to 79,000 592 17.9 801 24.3 322 9.6

80,000 or greater 390 20.9 975 29.5 76 2.3

Gender

Male 976 52.2 2077 62.9 2428 72.4
Female 894 47.8 1224 37.1 925 27.6
Education

Masters or lower 1018 54.4 1702 51.6 2084 62.2
Educational Specialist 585 31.3 1 186 35.9 1082 32.2

PhD 267 14.3 413 12.5 187 5.6
Race

Other 194 10.4 200 6.1 197 5.9
Black, Non-Hispanic 423 22.6 234 7.1 169 5.0
White, Non-Hispanic 1253 67.0 2867 86.9 2987 89.1
School Improvement Plan

No 110 5.9 410 12.4 456 13.6
Yes 1760 94.1 2891 87.9 2897 86.4
Total N 1870 3301 3353

 

Note: Total N = sample size for number of principals surveyed at each school location

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Study Population (Total Sample Size = 8,524)

63

An examination of the descriptive statistics for the social demographic variables
shown in Table 1 reveals several insights. Across all school locations, the largest
categories of participants were between 50 and 54 years of age. For salary in rural school,
62% of the principals earned less than $60,000 a year, the lowest salary category,
compared to suburban principals, whose largest percentage of participants earned
$80,000 or more per year. In terms of education, across all school locations, over 50% of
the participants earned a Masters Degree or lower.

When assessing the demographic characteristics for school improvement plans,
over 86% of the principals in each school location reported that their school had a school
improvement plan. Additionally, 26.7% (n = 2,017) of the participants who reported that
their schools had a school improvement plan also reported that their schools were
actively engaged in a comprehensive school reform plan. In the analysis of gender, 64.3%
of the participants were males (n = 5,481), and 43.6% of the participants were female (n
= 3,043). Finally, for the assessment of racial composition, 6.9% of the participants were
categorized as Others (11 = 591), 9.7% of the participants reported their racial composition
as Black, non-Hispanic (n = 826), and 83.4% of the participants identiﬁed their racial

composition as White, non-Hispanic (n = 7,107).

Correlations

Table 2 shows the inter-correlations matrix for the study variables.

64

 

Prog Dec DevPrep DevAct Inﬂu

 

Prog ...................................................... 1 .113** .0774"? .191** .1464"?
Dec .................................................................... 1 .203** .299** .1934”!
[)6er ............................................................................. 1 .406** .237**
DCVACt ............................................................................................ 1 .2714"?
Inﬂu ................................................................................................................ 1

 

Note: N = 8524 "p < .0] Prog = School Progress, Dec = Decision-Making Activity, DePrep =
Professional Development Perception, DevAct = Professional Development Activity, Influ = Perception of
Inﬂuences

Table 2. Inter-Correlations Matrix of the Study Population (N=8,524)

An examination of the inter-correlations displayed in Table 2 revealed several
insights. First, signiﬁcant positive correlations were found between all study variables.
Speciﬁcally, a positive and signiﬁcant correlation was found between Principal’s
Perception of Inﬂuence (Inﬂu) and Decision-Making Activity (Dec) (r = .193, p < .001 ).
This result indicated that there was a positive relationship between the principals’
perception of their ability to lead and the decisions made by the principal for

implementation of an accountability policy.

Multiple Regressions

Tables 3 through 6 display the results of multiple regression analyses for the
relationships between principals’ decision-making activity and sociodemographic
variables (age, salary, gender, education, race and school improvement plan) by school

location (urban, suburban and rural). Multiple regression analyses were performed using

65

The First Fitted Model is:
DM = intercept + b [age + bzsalary + b3 gender + b4education +b 5 race + b6school

improvement plan +... + prp + e

Table 3 displays the regression results for principals who worked in urban areas.

 

Source DF F B P R2
Overall 12 1.7 .00*** .016
Gender .1 1 1 .05*

School improvement plan .139 .07
Education -.014 .34

Race -.O38 .42

Salary .008 .52

Age -.009 .97

Intercept 2.96 .00***

 

Note: "p<0.05, **p<0.01, "*p<0.001
DF = Degrees of Freedom, B = Beta, R2 = R-Squared

Table 3. Regression Model for Urban Population (N=1,870)

The results of the regression analyses for principals in urban areas indicated that
the R2 of the model was signiﬁcant in the population. Thus, there was a discemable linear
relationship between predictor variables and dependent variable: F (12, 88) = 1.17, p
= .00, R2 = .016. In an effort to obtain a parsimonious model, the number of predictors in
the original model was reduced according to signiﬁcance. A new model was developed
where the predictor variable with the highest non-signiﬁcant p-value was removed from
the original model. This process was repeated until the ﬁnal model included only

predictor variables with p-values lower than .05. The results for the so-obtained reduced

66

predictor variables with p-values lower than .05. The results for the so-obtained reduced
model indicated an overall model signiﬁcance: F (2, 88) = 5.69, p < .05, R2 = .02.
Speciﬁcally, a signiﬁcant effect was found for school improvement plan: F (1, 88) = 3.64,
p< .05; principals whose school had an improvement plan had a higher rate of
accountability decision-making frequencies. In addition, a signiﬁcant effect was found
for gender: F (l, 88) = 8.53, p< .05; that is, female principals had a higher decision-
making frequency score compared to their male counterparts.

Table 4 displays regression analysis results for principals who worked in

suburban areas.

 

Source DF F B P R2
Overall 2 7.18 .000*** .042
Race -.022 .000***
Salary .037 .015*

Gender .138 .032*
Education .028 .048*

Age .001 .728

School Improvement Plan .027 .024*
Intercept 2.62 .000***

 

Note *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ”*p<0.001
DF = Degrees of Freedom, B = Beta, R2 = R-Squared

Table 4. Regression Model for the Suburban Population (N=3,301)

These results for principals in suburban areas indicate that the R2 of the model
was signiﬁcant in the population. Thus, there was a discemable linear relationship
between predictor variables and dependent variable: F (12, 88) = 7.18, p < .001, R2
= .042. In an effort to obtain a parsimonious model, the original model was reduced. A
new model was developed where the predictor variable with the highest non-signiﬁcant

p-value was removed from the original model. This process was repeated until the ﬁnal

67

model included only predictor variables with p-values lower than .05. The results for the
so-obtained reduced model indicated an overall model signiﬁcance: F (9, 88) = 9.21, p
< .001, R2 = .053. Speciﬁcally, a signiﬁcant effect was found for school improvement
plan: F (1, 88) = 5.22, p< .05; those principals whose school had an improvement plan
had a higher rate of accountability decision-making frequencies compared with schools
without a school improvement plan.

There was also a signiﬁcant effect for salary: F (3, 88) = 3.66, p< .05; principals
who earned $60,000 to $69,999 had lower decision-making frequencies compared to
principals who earned $70,000 or above. There was a signiﬁcant effect for education: F
(2, 88) = 5.69, p < .05; principals with PhD degrees had higher decision-making
frequencies compared to principals with Specialist degrees or lower. There was a
signiﬁcant effect for race: F (2, 88) = 5.69, p< .05; White, non-Hispanic principals had
higher decision-making frequencies compared to principals for the Other racial group but
lower decision-making frequencies compared to Black, non-Hispanic principals. Finally,
there was a signiﬁcant effect for gender: F (1, 88) = 38.61, p< .05; that is, female
principals had a higher decision-making frequency score compared to their male
counterparts.

Table 5 displays regression analysis results for principals who work in rural areas.

 

Source DF F B P R2
Overall 12 5.72 .000*** .027
Race .060 .000***
Gender .091 .017*

Salary .049 .083

Age -.005 .517
Education .05 1 .1 35

School Improvement Plan .153 .001***
Intercept 2.69 .000***

 

68

Note: *p<0.05; "*p<0.01; ***p<0.001
DF = Degrees of Freedom, B = Beta, R2 = R-Squared

Table 5. Regression Model for the Rural Population (N=3,353)

These results for principals in rural areas indicate that the R2 of the model was
signiﬁcant in the population. Thus, there was a discernible linear relationship between
predictor variables and dependent variable: F (12, 88) = 7.18, p < .01, R2 = .027. In an
effort to obtain a parsimonious model, the original model was reduced. A new model was
developed whereby the predictor variable with the highest non-signiﬁcant p-value was
removed from the original model. This process was repeated until the ﬁnal model
included only variables with p-values of .05 or lower. The results for the so-obtained
reduced model indicated an overall model signiﬁcance: F (7, 88) = 8.85, p < .01, R2
= .030. A signiﬁcant effect was found for school improvement plan: F (1, 88) = 12.43,
p< .05; principals whose school had an improvement plan had a higher rate of
accountability decision-making frequencies compared to principals from rural areas
whose schools did not have a school improvement plan.

Additionally, there was a signiﬁcant effect for salary: F (3, 88) = 3.28, p< .05;
principals who earned $60,000 to $69,999 had a lower decision-making frequency
compared to principals who earned $80,000 or higher. There was also a signiﬁcant effect
for race: F (2, 88) = 19.91, p< .05; White, non-Hispanic principals had lower decision-
making frequencies compared to Black, non-Hispanic and Other principals. Finally, there
was a signiﬁcant effect for gender: F (1, 88) = 7.46, p< .05; that is, female principals had

a higher decision-making frequency score compared to their male counterparts.

69

Structural Equation Modeling

To examine further the study research questions, structural equation modeling
(SEM) was conducted using the EQS 6.1 computer program (Bentler, 2004). By means of
SEM, the level of overall prediction of each of the measured variables in the model and
the exclusive, separate contribution of each predictor variable to each dimension of
Principals’ Capacity Building Ability was examined. This model makes possible the
examination of simultaneous relationships between independent and dependent variables.
Additionally, SEM was used because it provided the opportunity of simultaneous
estimation of the hypothesized regressions using the covariance matrix of the observed
variables. Thus, SEM was employed to evaluate whether observed interrelationship
patterns in the data are consistent with a speciﬁed causal model. Additionally, SEM was
used to evaluate whether one model ﬁt the observed relations among the variables better
than another model.

The overall model described relationships between principals’ decision-making
activities and principals’ perception of their personal inﬂuences, school’s progress and
professional development ideologies, and is presented in Figure l. The model contains
four latent variables of main intent: principals’ decision-making activities and principals’
perception of their personal inﬂuences, school progress and professional development
ideologies (Each of the latent variables had two indicators. Randomly splitting

questionnaire items in half determined each indicator.

70

Perception of Inﬂuence

 
     
 

Professional
Development Perception

Decision-Making

Activity

     

 
     

Perception of School
Progress

Figure 1. Structural Model for Principal Decision-Making Activity

Tables 6 through 9 display the Cronbach’s Alpha and questions used to develop
each latent variable). All measured variables are based on principal-level data. Decisions
about the inclusion of variables and paths within the model were guided by theoretical
considerations. As noted in the literature review and early in the current section, many
factors are related to principals’ decision-making processes.

Two exogenous (i.e., predictor) latent variables in the model—perception of
inﬂuence and perception of school progress—represented the principal attributes thought
to impact capacity building to increase student achievement. (Each of the latent variables
had two indicators. Randomly splitting questionnaire items in half determined each
indicator). Because of the strong positive relations between perception of inﬂuence and
perception of school progress, covariances between these variables were estimated in the
model. The structural model also contained an endogenous (outcome) variable: decision-

making activity. Both exogenous variables were predicted to have direct and positive

71

relationships with environmental factors. In addition, a direct positive pathway between
perception of inﬂuence and the two endogenous variables was speciﬁed.
Tables 6-9 show the Indicator Cronbach’s Alpha for Perception of Inﬂuence,

Perception of School Progress, Professional Development Importance and Decision-

 

Making Activity.
Source Questions (Items) Alpha
Indicator I .703

Setting performance standards for students of this school
Establishing curriculum at this school
Setting discipline policy at the school

Indicator II .616
Determining the content of in—service professional development
for teachers in this school
Evaluating teachers in this school
Hiring new full-time teachers at this school
Deciding how your school budget will be spent

Total .768

 

Note: Total= Total Alpha of Construct

Table 6. Perception of Inﬂuence

 

Source Questions (Items) Alpha

Indicator I .669
Implementing educational goals
Implementing organizational/govemance goals
Developing a student assessment system

Indicator II .563
Establishing a secure ﬁnancial base
Attracting and retaining students
Involving parents

Total .740

 

Note: Total: Total Cronbach’s Alpha of Construct

Table 7. Perception of School Progress

72

 

Source Questions (Items) Alpha

Indicator I .824
Implementation of state or local academic standards
Implementation of state or local skill standards

Indicator II .628
District-level initiatives or district improvement plan
School improvement plan
Special state-level initiatives

Total .771

 

Note: Total= Total Cronbach’s Alpha of Construct

Table 8. Perception of Professional Development Importance

 

Source Questions (Items) Alpha

Indicator I .683
Facilitate achievement of the school’s mission through such activities such as
consensus building, planning, obtaining resources, monitoring progress, etc.
Guide the development and evaluation of curriculum and instruction
Facilitate student learning (e.g., eliminate barriers to student learning, establish
high expectations for students)

Indicator II ’ .613
Supervise and evaluate faculty and other staff
Provide and engage staff in professional development activities
Build professional community among faculty and other staff

Total .789

 

Note: Total: Total Cronbach’s Alpha of Construct

Table 9. Decision-Making Activity

Criteria for Evaluating Model Fit

Evaluating causal models involves ascertaining how well the proposed model
“ﬁts” or adequately replicates the observed patterns between variables (Byme, 1994). In

the current study, the guidelines suggested by Raykov, Tomer and Nesselroade Raykov,

73

Tomer& Nesselroade (1991) were followed for reporting the results of the structural
models. Model ﬁt tests include the chi-square statistic, comparative ﬁt index (CF I;
Bentler, 1990), and root mean square residual error of approximation (RMSEA).

Chi-square is a statistic that tests the degree of misﬁt between the hypothesized
model and a saturated model. With large samples, the saturated model provides a good
baseline for comparing alternative models for an improvement in model ﬁt. Signiﬁcant
values suggest that the covariance matrix associated with the hypothesized model does
not resemble well the underlying population or observed covariance matrix structure. One
issue with chi-square is that it tends to be overly sensitive to sample size.

In difference to chi-square, the comparative ﬁt index (CF 1) relates the lack of ﬁt
of a speciﬁed model to that of the null model (Byme, 1994). CF I values range from 0.0 to
1.0 with values of .90 or higher, suggestive of a good ﬁt (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Finally,
RMSEA indicates the lack of ﬁt per degree of freedom in a model. RMSEA is zero when
a model perfectly ﬁts the population covariance matrix, and increases with greater model
misspeciﬁcation. Additionally the RMSEA is the only ﬁt index that is not affected by the
sample sizes used to evaluate the goodness of ﬁt of a model. Values of .06 or less
indicate a good ﬁt (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Prior to conducting SEM analysis the intra-class correlations values were computed
for each of the observed variables entered into a SEM structural model. The results of this
intra-class correlation analysis are displayed in Table 10 and indicate that all observed
variables were associated with intra—class correlation values less than .05, which can be

considered indicative of negligible nesting effect.

74

 

Source ICC
Decision-making activities

DMl .04

DM2 .02
Perception inﬂuences

PI 1 .01

PI 2 .03
School progress

SP 1 .02

SP 2 .01
Professional development perception

PD 1 .03

PD 2 .02

 

Note: ICC = Intra-class correlation

Table 10. Intra-Class Correlation of the Study Population (N=8,524)

SEM Analysis of the Hypothesized Model
Table 11 presents the theorized models for predicting capacity building in the

total sample and in each school location for the study variables illustrated in Figure 1.

 

Model DF N 12 NFI CFI RMSEA RMSEA CI
Overall 15 8524 112.67 .999 .998 .028 (.023, .032)
Urban 15 1870 34.21 .999 .999 .026 (.014, .036)
Suburban 15 3301 52.05 .998 .999 .031 (.022, .041)
Rural 15 3353 39.07 .999 .999 .026 (.015, .034)

 

Note: DF= Degrees of Freedom, N = Sample Size, x2= Chi-Square, P = Chi-Square Statistic , NFI =
Normed Fit Index

CFI = Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Residual Error of Approximation, CI =
Conﬁdence interval

Table 11. Goodness of Fit Indices

For the total sample (n = 8,524), the overall hypothesized model was found to
have a good ﬁt to the data as indicated by a RMSEA = .028, CI = (.023, .032). For the
urban sample (n = 1,870), the overall hypothesized model was found to have a good ﬁt to

the data as indicated by a RMSEA = .026 CI = (.014, .036). For the suburban sample (n =

75

3,301), the overall hypothesized model was found to have a good ﬁt to the data as
indicated by a RMSEA = .031, CI = (.022, .041). For the rural sample (n = 3,353), the
overall hypothesized model was found to have a good ﬁt to the data as indicated by a
RMSEA = .026, CI = (.015, .034).

The standardized parameter estimates for the structured paths among the observed
variables in the four models are presented in Figures 2 through 5, which are displayed in
the Appendix.

Paths between the exogenous variables and the endogenous variable were all
signiﬁcant and positive in the total sample and in the rural sample (see Figures 2 and 4).
Speciﬁcally, principal perception of inﬂuence, school progress and professional
development policy importance were signiﬁcant and positive in the rural sample and in
the total sample. These variables also accounted for 12% of the variance for decision-
making activity in the rural sample, and 11 % of the variance of decision-making activity
in the total sample. In addition, there was a signiﬁcant and positive pathway from
principal perception of inﬂuence to principal decision-making activity for principals in all
locations.

A positive and signiﬁcant path was identiﬁed from principal perceptions of
inﬂuence to principal perceptions of professional development policy importance for
principals in each school location (total sample B = .342, P s .001). In contrast, the path
from school progress to principal perception of professional development policy
importance was positive but not signiﬁcant for the suburban sample (B = .008 P > .05),
while it was negative and not signiﬁcant for the urban sample (B = -.002 P > .05). It is

also interesting to note that the direct path from perception of principal inﬂuence to

76

decision-making activity scores was signiﬁcant in the urban sample (B= .178, P < .001).
There was a direct path from perception of principal inﬂuence to decision-making
activity that was signiﬁcant in the suburban sample. However, the path from perception

of professional development policy importance was the strongest path in the rural sample

(B= .251, P < .01).

77

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of school location (context)
on the principal’s leadership ability to build capacity at the school building level.
Speciﬁcally, to explore a model how school location impacts the relationships between
the principal’s decision-making activities and the principal’s perception of their inﬂuence
on job functions, the school’s progress and professional development ideologies. This
chapter presents a summary and discussion of the ﬁndings as well as their implications
for educators. The contributions of the study to the conceptualization, measurement and
methodology of educational leadership research in education are discussed, as well as the

study’s limitations and suggestions for future research.

Process of the Study

This study evolved through a process that is somewhat obscured by the traditional
organization of the dissertation. The objective at the outset of this study was to examine
the impact of school location on principal’s leadership ability to build capacity at the
school building level. This began with an exploration of the relationship between
standards-based reform and principal leadership in current educational literature.

Carnoy and Loch (2002) provided the framework for the initial theoretical
evaluation of these concepts. The authors framed the conceptualization of these concepts
by suggesting that standards-based accountability policies were designed and

implemented to change what schools do and how they do it. Thus, they concluded that

78

educational school reforms were established on the main principles of alignment and

capacity building.
“Alignment means that in order to focus on improving outcomes, schools systems
need to set clear standards and align curriculum and accountability mechanisms
with those standards. Capacity building is developed in a coherent organization,
built around aligned standards and assessment, which can produce increased
capacity to deliver improved education. Furthermore, the authors articulate that
standards based reform ideology demands changes in the way principals work;
these policies suggest that for education to improve the principals’ ability to build
capacity has to be raised. It advocates that principals must have the ability to not

only manage schools, but also become instructional leaders of their schools
(Carnoy & Loeb, 2002).

The study next ﬁamed the relationship between leadership, achievement and
context. Initially, the review of literature indicated that three broad categories of school
practices have been found critical for school leadership success: setting directions,
developing people, and developing the organization (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). In the
conceptualization of leadership, a review of current educational inquiry literature found
that there are indirect effects for the relationship of principal leadership on student
achievement. Research shows three areas in which principal leadership produces indirect
effects: (1) how the principal establishes and monitors the school governance process, (2)
how the principal’s leadership contributes to school climate/culture, and (3) how the
principal oversees the instructional organization of the school (Heck, 1996).

The central argument of the study is built upon the idea that while there is
concurrence in the literature regarding the impact of principal leadership, there is
ambiguity in scholarly discourse regarding the relationship between school context and
principal leadership. Additionally, various researchers have called for greater clarity in

the conceptualization of leadership effects.

79

A signiﬁcant amount of research frames the relationship between context and
leadership in terms of school culture. Various researchers deﬁne culture as a learned
process of expectations and norms, and the cultural components of school culture are
important factors in implementing school improvement (Goldring & Hausman, 2001;
Monis, 1994; Savage, 1999; Slater & Boyd, 1999). They articulate that within school
culture there is a core set of values, beliefs, assumptions and perceptions that school
community members hold about their work. Those cultural components together
comprise a theory of organizational acceptability that guides how people behave and
operate (Sergiovanni, 1996).

The ideology for this study was developed on the premise that principals are
typically the educational leaders of their schools. They inﬂuence the conditions under
which teachers teach and students learn. Effective principals must be knowledgeable
about their community and work environment for the successful implementation of
standards-based reform, and they must be cognitive of how the school and community
culture affect the ability to build capacity. The study theorized that because of school
location (urban, suburban and rural), school principals make different decisions regarding
capacity building (cultural contextual development) and that due to these different
decisions there will be different predicative models of capacity building to sustain and
institute accountability policy. Thus, the aim of the study was to to examine the impact of
school location (context) on the principal’s leadership ability to build capacity at the
school building level in doing so develop theoretical conceptual models showing the
relationship between context and culture that captures aspects of the relationship between

school context and leadership.

80

This study was guided by two basic research questions: a) Are there differences in
how and from whom the principal makes decisions related to instructional leadership and
an accountability policy? b) Does the location of the school inﬂuence how principals
present, describe and adhere to an accountability policy?

In addition, the speciﬁc aims of this study were to: I) analyze decisions made by
the principal to effectively develop instructional leadership in various school locations; 2)
assess how differences in decisions made by principals differ by school locations; 3)
ascertain how principal demographic characteristics, training, experience, salary and
perceptions of school climate intersect within and between urban, suburban and rural
school settings for principals to build capacity in terms of instructional leadership; and 4)
provide clarity for educational leadership’s conceptualization of how instructional
leadership and school context intersect though illuminating contextual differences and
similarities for principal decision-making actions in a cross-sectional population of public

school principals.

Discussion

The major ﬁndings of this study are the results of the tests that were performed.
Before interpreting these ﬁndings, it is important to note shortcomings of the present
study. Data are cross—sectional and indicate that no information is known about the causal
direction of the results.

Descriptive analysis was used to provide a statistical identity for the social
demographic characteristics of the sample. These results also provide insight about the

inequitable conditions that remain in the public school system. One glaring instance can

81

be found when the demographic characteristics of principal salary are examined across
school location. As noted in Table 1 there is considerable difference in pay for principals
in suburban areas and principals in rural and urban areas. These ﬁndings may suggest that
there is still great disparity in district capital, because previous research indicates that in
most areas principal salary is related to the economic capital of a district.

Analysis and results from multiple regression models were interesting results as
well. Demographic variables employed in the descriptive analyses were utilized in the
multiple regression analyses as predictor variables. First, there were discemable linear
relationships between predictor variables and the dependent variable for principals in all
school locations. The results of the regression analysis for urban principals indicated that
only two demographic characteristics—gender and school improvement plan—were
predictive of decision-making activity. These results indicate that differences for the
decision-making activity of urban principals can only be found when gender and school
improvement plan are assessed. Urban principals are almost a homogeneous sample in
their decision-making activity.

In comparison, for suburban principals, ﬁve out of the six demographic
characteristics were signiﬁcant predictors of decision-making. These variables were
school improvement plan, salary, education level, race and gender. These results suggest
that a complex combination of demographic characteristics is needed to explain the
actions of suburban principals in the assessment of decision-making activity, that is, that
in the assessment of decision-making activity in suburban principals, the combination of
a principal’s age, race, salary, educational level and school’s improvement plan must be

identiﬁed to best evaluate differences in decision-making for principals in suburban areas.

82

Finally, for rural principals, four out of the six demographic characteristics were
signiﬁcant predictors of decision-making. These variables were school improvement plan,
salary, race and gender of the principal. These results are similar to the suburban sample:
in the assessment of decision-making activity in rural samples, the combination of a
principal’s age, race, salary and school’s improvement plan must be identiﬁed to best
evaluate differences in decision-making for principals in rural areas.

The discussion of speciﬁc predictive factors for the multiple regression analysis
across and within school locations revealed several interesting insights. First, when
gender is closely examined, women endorsed higher decision-making activity compared
to their male counterparts across all school locations. This is an interesting ﬁnding
because across the sample this pattern was consistent despite the fact that males were the
majority population in each school location. This may suggest that women principals are
more willing to and cognitive of implementing building-level policy that is aligned with
accountability. Additionally, this ﬁnding supports previous research that indicates that
personal characteristics are not a factor in effective leadership. Speciﬁcally, Leithwood
and J antzi (1997) found that positive perceptions of effective leadership are based on
what has been done, such as principal actions and their perceived effects, not on their
personal characteristics, such as age or gender of the principal.

The results from using the principal’s salary as a predictive variable were
interesting. Signiﬁcant and positive effects were reﬂected for suburban and rural
principals, but little to no relationship was shown for principals in urban areas. Principals
who earned higher salaries in suburban and rural areas did more frequent decision-

making activities. This may suggest that higher salaries as a motivation factor for

83

principals to implement accountability policy may be context-speciﬁc. In suburban and
rural areas salary may be a critical motivational factor for the principal’s decision-making
in terms of accountability. This is supported by the fact that in rural and suburban areas
principals with higher salaries made more decisions related to the implementation of an
accountability policy. Thus, it can be theorized that a positive relationship exists between
higher salaries and informed decision-making.

The results of the ﬁrst two stages of analysis, when reviewed holistically, may
suggest the need for a context-speciﬁc approach in order to effectively conceptualize
leadership. The importance of these analyses is best understood in relationship to Heck’s
(1996) theoretical model. Heck theorized that leadership comparisons across cultural
contexts could not be understood without a contextual understanding culture and
environment of the leader. The current study began with the empirical exploration of
Heck’s theoretical framework. The study’s extensive evaluation of predictive factors
within and between varying school contexts may begin to inform educational inquiry and
may assist in the determination of factors that will best assist principals in their decision-
making process to effectively meet the leadership demands of accountability.

Though the results of the regression analysis displayed several interesting results,
the social demographic variables only accounted for less than 8% of the variances in
decision-making actions in each of the samples. The various patterns found from the
results of the regression analyses provide the empirical foundation for further exploration
of decision-making actions through implementation of structural equation modeling.

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was a third series of analyses and was

employed to assess the theoretical model developed for the current study (see Figure 1).

84

The four measured variables used were: (1) the principal’s decision-making activities, (2)
the principal’s perception of his/her personal inﬂuences, (3) the school progress and (4)
the professional development ideologies.

Results of the SEM analysis indicate that all theorized relationships were positive
and signiﬁcant for the structural model, both for the total and the rural samples. When
these results are examined within each school location the results indicate that, for urban
and suburban principals, perception of inﬂuence was the strongest predictor of decision-
making. These results seem to suggest that the more principals believe in their ability to
perform their job, the more they will take decision-making actions to implement an
accountability policy. An additional explanation regarding the strength of the relationship
between the perception of inﬂuence and decision-making is provided by Mischel’s (1977)
theory of strong/weak situations. “According to Mischel, strong situations convey strong
cues for the desired behaviors, whereas weak situations do not provide clear incentive,
support or normative expectations of what behaviors are desired. At the same time, strong
situations constrain the expression of personality, so behavior is more a function of the
situation than of personality” (Baker & Cooper, 2005). Thus, it is theorized that the
impact of working in various school environments is a factor that contributes to the
perception of the principal’s ability to make decisions; that is, strong environments where
a contextual culture is established assist the principal in making decisions for the
implementation of accountability.

In the assessment of rural principals the predictor with the highest coefﬁcient for
decision-making was the indirect relationship between the principal’s perception of

inﬂuence and school progress regarding decision-making activities that was explained

85

through the relationship with the importance of professional development policies. These
results suggest that there is a more complex relationship involved in the decision-making
process of the rural school principal. This ﬁnding supports the argument made by Bauch
(2001), who articulates that the ability of principals to build capacity in terms of
increased student achievement in rural areas involves a unique set of norms and values
that may differ from urban or suburban settings. In rural areas principals must be
cognitive of societal economic structures and how the impact of increased educational
attainment by students may be seen as a violation of community trust and a hindrance of

community structural norms (Bauch, 2001).

Policy Impact

From a policy perspective these ﬁndings suggest a potential strength and a
potential weakness of standards-based accountability and NCLB’s mandates to close the
racial achievement gap through increasing the consequences for principals. The primary
goal of NCLB is to close the academic achievement gap between urban and suburban
schools. This seems eminently feasible with support types of interventions and
accountability structure put into place and a thorough understanding of school context. In
doing so NCLB policy must support signiﬁcant professional development in reading,
mathematics and science, which are context speciﬁc. If these goals are realized,
principals should have at their disposal a corps of teachers that can not only raise
achievement for all students at their schools, but can also provide the special attention
their speciﬁc school needs. An understanding of how the principal makes decisions may

be a key component in understanding other factors related to the elimination of

86

achievement gaps. The assessment of decision related to implementation of the
accountability structure, by being primarily school-context-based, reinforces this
component.

Principals thus have a strong incentive to institute instructional practices that will
close the gap. Recent research has revealed that most school administrators do not believe
it is possible to achieve the NCLB mandate (Farkas et al., 2003). However, rather than
looking at the goal of school-wide proﬁciency by 2013 as a non-starter, principals should
be given empirical evidence of how best to make choices relevant to improvements in
their school. Greater assessment of the contextual components of schooling provide
principals with a further understanding of the ways in which they have been previously
powerless in reducing inequality between their schools.

The policy instruments of increased professional development and accountability
do not speak to issues of contextual issues that exist between schools; other policies are
required. Perhaps equalizing resources between urban, suburban and rural schools would
begin to facilitate change. The Federal Government or the states should begin to
understand that there are similar contextual issues that effect urban, suburban and rural
schools in different manners. Recently, since the resegregation of many schools districts,
residential patterns have become increasingly segregated, thus a thorough understanding
of school context is becoming critical, if not necessary, for the successful implementation
of federal policy.

Many options are possible, but research is required to learn the most effective
method for reducing the academic achievement gap. Political support is needed for what

may amount to an extremely expensive policy. As this study indicates, if policymakers

87

want to attain the dream of NCLB, they are going to have to move beyond the current

range of policy instruments contained in the current version of schooling.

Limitations of the Study

While the study provides several contributions to existing research on principal
leadership in education, the application of the ﬁndings is necessarily limited due to the
nature of the data, the sample, and the theoretical base for the model. The cross-sectional
nature of the data creates a serious limitation in our understanding of the impact of school
location on principal decision-making. The factors in the model were measured at the
same point in time, and while they may coexist and covary, the relationships among them
are tentative rather than conﬁrmatory. Longitudinal research is necessary to infer a more
causal model of this process. The sample of principals in the study represents various
regions of and states in the nation. The ﬁndings of the study are based on self-reported
data. Therefore, this model should be cross-validated using other samples of teachers
working with the principal as a cross-reference for principal ﬁndings.

The theoretical base for the study left several questions unanswered when the
model did not explain the experiences of principals. Because the study did not assume
any difference in the measurement models for principals from the same geographic
location, separate measurement models were not speciﬁed. While the comparison of
principals from the same geographic location was somewhat beyond the scope of this
study, the ﬁndings of similarities in the model ﬁt for suburban and urban principals

indicates that further development of a ﬁnal structural model must be theorized to better

88

generalize the experiences of these principals. This study merely offers a starting point

for future research into the mediating effects of the impact of contextual differences.

Directions for Future Research

In many ways, this study raises more questions than it answers. As much as the
study sought to make a serious contribution to the existing research on principal
leadership in education, the results reveal that the assumption about a single explanatory
model of the impact of school location on the relationships between principals’ decision-
making activities and principals’ perception of their inﬂuence on their job functions,
schools progress and professional development ideologies was an uninformed one. In this
way, perhaps the limitation can be seen as a contribution:; it points to several directions
for ﬁrture research that would have remained obscured without an investigation of this
type:

a) Are there differences in how and from whom principals make decisions related to
instructional leadership and accountability policy

b) Does the location of the school inﬂuence how principals present, describe, and adhere
to accountability policy?

c) What do principals perceive about their decision-making authority and does it
inﬂuence the patterns of decision made?

(1) Is there an interrelationship between how principal demographic characteristics,
training, experience, salary and perceptions of school climate intersect within and
between urban, suburban and rural school settings for principals to build capacity in

terms of instructional leadership?

89’

To understand the relationship between school context and principal leadership,
longitudinal research is necessary.

Qualitative research has contributed much of what we know about the inequality
of school context and leadership, and there is need for further qualitative and mixed
methods research. These methods offer the most promise for further understanding the
differential effects and mechanisms of principal leadership based on school context,
gender, class and ethnicity. Theory-building work, especially to understand the
experiences of urban school leaders, is essential to move the concept of principal

leadership forward as a valuable construct in the study of educational inquiry.

Conclusion

The importance of the current ﬁndings may be best understood in relation to
Heck’s (1996) study. He theorizes that leadership comparisons across cultural context
cannot be understood without a contextual understanding of the leadership culture and
environment. Heck articulates:

It is important to recognize the necessarily incomplete nature of any model that

attempts to reduce the complexity of organizational life to a series of measured

variables focusing on principal behavior. These constructs are not the ones that

could be measured, but they are three that have been found to affect school
effectiveness.

Thus, an extensive evaluation of predictive factors within and between varying

school contexts may help to determine factors that will best assist principals in their

90

decision-making process to effectively meet the leadership demands of accountability.
These results support previous research by Hannaway and Talbert (1993), who found that
distinct and differential patterns for schools in urban and suburban settings lead to
different leadership decisions by principals. Furthermore, the authors make the argument
that contextual factors, speciﬁcally school location, need to be taken into account in
assessment of leadership in American schools.

Additionally, these results suggest that examining the effect of principals’
decision-making activities and perception of their personal inﬂuences, their school’s
progress and professional development ideologies with a contextual analysis falls short of
fully capturing the leadership phenomenon. These results prove that the effect of
principal decision-making is a more complex matter, that is, that school location
promotes a distinct but potentially complementary approach to understanding the effect
of school context inﬂuence on principal decision-making.

This study offers a basis for ongoing conceptual development by helping
researchers and practitioners to move either/or toward approaches to thinking and
working (Lewis et al., 2002). It makes several additions to our knowledge in the realm of
school leadership. First, context and intermediate factors should be taken into account in
future research because they can provide needed insight into the role of school leaders in
developing and sustaining these cultures as deﬁned by their decision-making. Secondly,
this study attempts to address the ideological concerns of Leithwood and Riehl (2003),
who suggest that educational administration inquiry must begin to address complex

questions to better inform policy development and begin by asking the question: “How

91

can educational leaders balance their leadership and managerial responsibilities to move
their schools forward?”

Thirdly, it addresses issues raised by Hallinger and Heck (1996, 1998) and
additional researchers who have called for complex methodological analyses, such as the
reciprocal theoretical models and the structural equation modeling techniques, to
continue to move educational leadership forward to better inform policy development.
This notion is embedded in a framework within the study that assumes an association
between particular leadership values and behaviors on one hand and the existence of a
speciﬁc culture on the other.

Finally, the study provides a foundational methodology for how to derive and test
clear hypotheses of complex relationships related to leadership. Leadership research
suggests that leaders not only shape cultures but also adapt to them. Successful
instructional leadership, based on Heck's (1996) work, depends on the principal's own
beliefs and value preferences, organizational and political variables associated with the
school, and community context such as level of schooling, students, socioeconomic and
language backgrounds, and pressure from the local education ofﬁce, community and staff.

Therefore, to promote the instructional leadership role, the principal should strive
to be knowledgeable about teaching and learning, be skillﬁrl in working with and through
people, be committed to academic goals, have a strong sense of vision, and have a
thorough understanding of the contextual factors of their school. Research indicates that
these qualities will pay dividends to the school as a working environment, in teacher

morale and professional growth, in students' academic achievement, and in parent and

92

community satisfaction and support. The current study provides windows into how the

principal is to achieve these processes.

93

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, R. L. & Soder, R. (1987). Principal Leadership and Student Achievement.
Educational Leadership, 44(6), 9-11.

Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1 182.

Barr, R. & Bizar, M. (2001). Insights into leadership during times of school reform. In R.
Barr & M. Bizar (Eds), School leadership in times of urban reform (pp. 229 —
252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bauch, P. A. (2001). School-Community Partnerships in Rural Schools: Leadership,
Renewal, and a Sense of Place. Peabody Educational Journal, 76(2), 204-221.

Beck, L. G. & Murphy, .1. (1993). Understanding the Principalship: Metaphorical Themes
19203-19903. Teachers College, Columbia University New York and London.

Berends, M., Bodilly & Kirby, S. N. (2002). Looking back over a decade of school
reform: The experience of New American Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2), 168-
175.

Blank, R. K. (1987). The role of principal as leader: analysis of variation in leadership of
urban high schools. Journal of Educational Research, 81(2), 69-80.

Blase, J .& Blase, J. (2003). Breaking the silence: Overcoming the problem of principal
mistreatment of teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Blase, J.& Blase, J. (2004). Implications of the Dark Side of School Leadership for
Administrator Preparation and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Bloom, H., Rock, J ., Ham, S., Melton, L., O’Brien, 1., Doolittle, F ., et al. (2001).
Evaluating the accelerated school approach: A look at early implementation and
impacts on student achievement in eight elementary schools. New York, NY:
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T. & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive
school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 73, 125-230.

Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B. & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role
of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34-64.

94

Carnoy, M. & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A
cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.

Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Principal's leadership as a critical indicator of school performance:
Evidence from multi-levels of primary schools. An International Journal of
Research, Policy, and Practice, 5(3), 299-317.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital and the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, 95—120.

Coleman, J. S. (1999). Social capital. In J. S. Coleman (Ed.), Foundations of social
theory (pp. 300-321). Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E. T.& Ben-Avie, M. (1996). Rallying the whole
village: The Comer process for reforming education. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Crowson, R. L. & Boyd, W. L. (2001). The New Role of Community Development in
Educational Reform. Peabody Educational Journal, 76(2), 9-29.

Culbertson, J. (1974). Educational leadership: The uses of adversity. Educational
Leadership, XV(4).

Datnow, A. (2002). Can We Transplant Educational Reform, and Does It Last? Journal
of Educational Change, 3, 215-239.

Datnow, A. (2005). The Sustainability of Comprehensive School Reform Models in

Changing District and State Contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly,
41(1),121-153.

Deal, T. E. (1987). The culture of schools. In L. Sheive & M. Schoenheit (Eds),
Leadership: Examining the elusive. The 1987 Yearbook of the Assocation for
Supervision and Curriculm Development (pp. 1-15). Alexandria, VA.

Driscoll, M. E. & Kerchner, C. T. (1999). The implications of social capital for schools,
communities, and cities. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds), Handbook of
research on educational administration (Vol. 2nd, pp. 385—404). San Francisco:
J ossey-Bass.

Eberts, R. W. & Stone, J. A. (1988). Student Achievement in Public Schools: Do
Principals Make a Difference? Economics of Education Review, 7(3), 291-299.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
The Albert Shanker Institute.

95

Erickson, D. A. (1967). The school administrator. Review of Educational Research, 3 7(4),
417-432.

Factor, A. from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/factorhtm

The Funding Gap: Low-Income and Minority Students Receive Fewer Dollars. (2002).
Washington, DC.

Gardner, R. & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2000). School Reform and Desegregation: The Real
Deal or More of the Same? Education and Urban Society, 33(1), 74-87.

Goldring, E. B. & Hausman, C. (2001). Civic capacity and school principals: The missing
links for community development. In R. Crowson (Ed.), Community development
and school reform (pp. 193-209). London: Elsevier.

Goldring, E. B. & Pastemack, R. (1994). Principals' Coordinating Strategies and School
Effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 239-253.

Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal role in school effectiveness:
A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32(10), 5-44.

Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Eﬂectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-
191. -

Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. H. (1999). Can leadership enhance school eﬂectiveness?
London: Paul Chapman.

Halpin, A. W. (1966). A paradigm for research on administrator behavior. New York:
The Macmillan Company.

Heck, R. H. (1996). Leadership and culture: Conceptual and methodological issues in
comparing models across cultural settings. Journal of Educational Administration,
34(5), 74-97.

Hess, F. (1999). Spinning Wheels: The Politics of Urban School Reform. Washington,
DC: Brooking Institution Press.

Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

Krug, S. E.(1992). Instructional Leadership, School Instructional Climate, and Student

Learning Outcomes. Project Report. MI: MetriTech/Urbana, IL: National Center
for School Leadership.

96

Larsen, R. J. (1987). Identification of Instructional Leadership Behaviors and the Impact
of Their Implementation on Academic Achievement. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington,
DC.

Lashway, L. (2003). Role of the school leader: Trends and Issues

Leithwood, K. A. & J antzi, D. (2000). Principal and Teacher Leadership Effects: a
replication. School Leadership & Management, 20(4), 415-434.

Leithwood, K. A. & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University.

Levine, D. (1982). Successful Approaches for Improving Academic Achievement in
Inner-City Elementary Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 63(8), 523-526.

Lipham, J. M. (1964). Organizational character of education: Administrative behavior.
Review of Educational Research, 34(4), 435-454.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (1996). The connective edge: Leading in an interdependent world.
San Francisco, CA: J ossey-Bass Publishers.

Morris, J. E. (1994). Community in an all-Black neighborhood school: Implications for
immersion schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University
Council for Educational Administration, Philadelphia, PA.

Murphy, J. & Datnow, A. (2003). Leadership Lessons from Comprehensive School
Reforms. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin Press.

The National Education Goals Report - Summary Guide Building the Best. (1993).
Department of Education

, No Child Left Behind. (2001). Department of Education

Pearson, S. S. (2002). Finding common ground: Service-learning and education reform-A
survey of 28 leading school reform models. Washington, DC: American Youth
Policy Forum.

Porter, K. & Soper, S. (2003). Closing the Achievement Gap: Urban Schools.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.

Portz, J ., Stein, L. & Jones, R. R. (1999). City Schools and City Politics: Institutions and
Leadership in Pittsburg, Boston and St. Louis. Lawrence, Kanas: University Press

of Kanas.

Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.

97

Sarason, S. B.& Lorentz, E. M. (1998). Crossing boundaries: Collaboration,
coordination, and the redeﬁnition of resources. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Savage, C. J. (1999). The agency of African American teachers in Franklin, Tennessee:
1890—1967. Because we did more with less. Paper presented at the The annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Schorr, L. B. (1997). Common purposes: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to
rebuild America. New York: Anchor.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. & Moore, J. H. (1989). Teachers and learners: The cornerstone of
reform. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. H. Moore (Eds), Schooling for tomorrow:
Directing reforms to issues that count. Boston, MA.

Slater, R. O. & Boyd, W. L. (1999). Schools as politics. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis
(Eds), Handbook of research on educational administration (Vol. 2, pp. 323-335).
San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Slaughter-Defoe, D. T., Andrews, A. & Zhang, D. (2002). African American Children
and Successful Public Elementary Schools. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

St. John, E. P. & Ridenour, C. S. (2002). School Leadership in a Market Setting: The
Inﬂuence of Private Scholarships on Educational Leadership in Urban Schools.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(4), 317-344.

Suskavcevic, M. & Blake, S. (2004). Principal Leadership and Student achievement: an
Examination of the T IMSS 1999. Paper presented at the The lst IEA International
Research Conference, Lefkosia, Cyprus.

Teske, P. & Schneider, M. (1999). The Importance of Leadership: The Role of School
Principals. Arlington, Va.

Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995). T inkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School
Reform: Harvard University Press.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D. & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for
school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249-294.

Weiner, L. (1999). To teach or not to teach in an urban school? Teaching in urban public
schools is different. English Journal,, 88(5), 21-24.

West, M., Jackson, D., Harris, A. & Hopkins, D. (2000). Learning through leadership:
leadership through learning. In K. A. Riley & K. 8. Louis (Eds), Leadership for

98

Learning: International Perspectives on Leadership for Change and School
Reform. London: Routledge Falmer.

Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J. & Kriiger, M. L. (2003). Educational Leadership and Student
Achievement: The Elusive Search for an Association. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 49398-44258.

99

APPENDIX

100

 

 

EN EN

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
         

@2838: o». 52:38

   

manganese—5. 096.332:
wanna—one:

 

Cacao: Zwrmsm >925.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wanna—ego: om wage.
vqomnnmm

 

 

 

 

 

vm~ vmw

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emcnm N. $50838— Zoaoﬁ mew masons»— Uaommmo=-§w§=m >035

101

 

 

 

 

 

 

v: EN

 

 

.3: .qmm

      
    

$20820: em 52:38

.Haa

   

33038:». 6213303
$2830:

 

Danie: Karim >33"!

 

 

$2.830: on. maroo—
vqomamm

.mqm F F .39

vm_ vmw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

03— DEN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

208” mag :38 5388 mmmammoma 35m 85 none—macaw. Conan :33 3988 scabies—mama 33m

Ewan w. Wows—.8 om mmz ”5»;me men Hon: $565 Unommwo=-ZmE:m >335 Kean.

102

 

 

w: EN

 

 

 

 

 

 

.23 .93

         
   

22.0323 om 32:38

.32

   

2328238— USE—333"
22833

 

682.23 Karim >353.

 

 

 

228223 om warez 2U _ Eu N DZ _ UK N

338mm

.93 F L at

ww— me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zea” mozn 2:8 3:88 £32282 .825 3: 828.8239 008: .32.. 5288 33-362283 35m

2.15:8 A. W858 o». mmz 3?me 29. C33 meEa Canaan—-3335 >333. Kong

103

 

 

 

2: EN

.03 .23

 

22828: cm 528:8

.34

mac

      

  

 

 

 

.qu . bun
232,885—8— 088—02382
$025330: UGOWWOS zw—A—Sm >Onm<mq
.OQN .3 2% #3
128220: c». maroa 2U _ 2U N DZ _ UZ— ~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

23288

.83 F H .8

2m. wmu

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

208” wo2a 2:8 2:288 85:58:» .828 8:2 coin—820:8. 0282 2:8 2:288 :o:-82m:228:~ 2228

320 m. ”8:5 om mmz 8:858; man 238— mwBEo 68288:-3853 >225~ Kong

 

104

 

 

2: EN

hum .HX

 

228220: 0». 528:8

.32

A;

      

.32

22028208. 92202383

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

228220: 08220:-3855 >022?
.03 .9: .5 .82 .5
228220: 0». m0200_ 2U _ 2U N OZ _ DZ N
23288
.3»
.23
2m 2 2m N

 

 

 

 

 

 

208” m022 2:8 2:288 85:58:" 2828 8:2 0085208. U038 2:8 2:288 :0:-m2m:228:» 2828

Emcaa 2. W858 0». mmg 285828 m3 mccﬁcm: $823 0002820:-me2:m >225~ 72028—

 

105

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LLLLLLLL

IImmuwmlgumWW1“