$33 {IHIIIHHWHIHWNW"IIWIWIHHIHHIIIHIHHI

   

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND
SENSE OF EMPOWERMENT FOR SCHOOL PERSONNEL

presented by

ANDREA PERKINS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Rehabilitation Counselor
Education

 

 

M % /é/Z‘rc’fl* ”4/

 

O Major Professor’s Signature

.. ops/@005
/

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

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:ICIRC/DatoDue.indd-p.1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND SENSE OF
EMPOWERMENT FOR SCHOOL PERSONNEL

By

Andrea Perkins

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education

2006

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND SENSE OF
EMPOWERMENT FOR SCHOOL PERSONNEL

By
Andrea Perkins

The legislative milieu of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB) creates
pressure for school districts, administrators, and educators to meet and exceed
achievement goals for all students on an annual basis. The essential ingredients for
evaluating capacity for the implementation of this type of reform in schools, as
hypothesized in the current study, are school climate, social capital, and sense of
empowerment. The theoretical framework to investigate this relationship of these
variables was Spreitzer’s (1997) model of individual empowerment in organizations.
When applied to the field of education, Spreitzer’s model suggests the need for schools to
facilitate the development these conditions in an attempt to create constructive school
conditions that lead to desired outcomes for students.

The purposes of the current study were to (I) examine the relationship between
school social structure and sense of empowerment among professional school personnel
and (2) explicate the relationships among the components of sense of empowerment
among professional school personnel. Participants included professional school staff from
a suburban school district in Michigan (11 = 98). The School Climate Inventory (The
Center for Research in Educational Policy, 2001) and the School Participant
Empowerment Scale (Short & Rinehart, 1992) were used to operationally define
variables. Canonical correlation analysis and multiple regression were used to investigate

the purposes, respectively.

The canonical correlation for the first and only canonical variate was .73. As
such, 53% of the variance between the school social structure and sense of empowerment
variables is explained by the first canonical variate. This finding suggests that a moderate
relationship exists between the social structure and empowerment variable sets.
Collaboration had the greatest ratio of importance for the criterion variables of social
structure, whereas Professional Growth and Impact had the greatest importance for the
predictor variables of sense of empowerment. For the regression analysis, each of the
three predictor variables of Self-Determination, Competence, and Meaning entered the
regression equation at statistically significant levels and added to the variance accounted
for in the criterion variable of Impact. The adjusted R2 of the entire model was .67.

The results of the current study support the body of literature which suggests that
collegiality and the use of learning communities are hallmarks of a positive school
environment. As such, the development of positive school environments may be most
effectively promoted through professional development/training, collaborative work
arrangements, and recognition of the contributions of all school personnel (Status). Also,
Involvement of parents and the community was found to be of less importance in relation
to empowerment than Collaboration. This finding emphasizes the significance of internal
social capital for promoting organizational empowerment over external capital. Finally,
Professional Growth, as a measure of competence, was the most important predictor
variable in relation to social structure. This suggests that the level and quality of
competence among school personnel is a significant factor in relation to social structure

and overall empowerment, and, by extension, potentially student achievement outcomes.

Copyright by
ANDREA PERKINS
2006

To Rich.

We were just kids when we set out on our dreams. But, through perseverance, much
encouragement, and the grace of God, we will both now be known as Doctor.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation is the culmination of three years of growth, persistence, and
inquiry, which could never have been attempted or completed without the unflinching
support of many.

First, I would like to thank Dr. John Kosciulek, my advisor and dissertation chair,
for his tireless effort and support of all that I have accomplished in my doctoral studies. I
came to Michigan State University with a grand respect of his work as an academic and
researcher, but am coming away with an admiration of him as a mentor, friend, and
kindred spirit. He teaches best by example the principle and balance that are needed to be
fruitful in academe. I will continue to cherish my connection with him throughout the
course of my professional career.

I want to extend a debt of gratitude to the other members of my dissertation
committee: Drs. Michael Leahy, Chandra Donnell, and Matthew Diemer. Your guidance
and challenge have made the proceeding work possible.

I am thankful to Jeanne Tomlinson and Dr. Sharon Field for being champions of
the self-determination movement and for sharing their enthusiasm for bettering the lives
of students with disabilities. All of my conversations with them proved to be enlightening
and stimulated me to this line of inquiry. Their reputations paved the way to my access in
the Haslett School district, whom I also thank for their willingness to participate in my
research.

I am appreciative of the countless colleagues and mentors that have made my

journey through rehabilitation counseling challenging, but unencumbered. From my early

vi

roots, I thank Drs. Graney, Stano, Decoteau, and Ruscio for providing a foundation. From
my years in the field, I thank Nancy Amundson, Wendy Whittington, Tom Wilkinson,
and Phyllis Bonelli for taking a chance on a “kid” fresh out of school. In Project
Excellence, I thank Drs. Virginia Thielsen and Darlene Groomes for providing great
depth to my experience at MSU.

Thank you to my colleagues—now friends—in the Rehabilitation Counselor
Education program for encouragement and acknowledgement. I want to especially thank
Sukyeong Pi for giving me more guidance than she will ever know and Cozetta Shannon
for letting me “cut my chops” at mentoring. Thank you to my cohort—Deb Farrell,
Roxane Minkus, and David Schroeder. Good luck and I hope to see all of you on the
other side soon.

Lastly, I would not be the person I am today without my family and long-time
friends. Thank you to my Mom and Dad for instilling in me the drive to achieve my
' goals. Thank you to my sister and lifetime best friend, Nikki, for always being willing to
commiserate when the going got tough. Thank you to them and the rest of my family for
always being proud, even if they never could remember my major. Thank you to Rich
for. . .everything. Thanks to Wes, Tamara, Rolf, Mary, Katy, and Tanya for reminding me
that there’s more to making a great professor than what I can find in a book. And,
finally—to Patrick—thanks for being the Calvin to my Hobbes. Thank you all with love

and admiration.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. x

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................... xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
Statement of Problem ............................................................... 2
Theoretical Framework .............................................................. 6
Significance of the Problem ....................................................... 8
Purpose of the Study ................................................................. 9
Utility of the Research ............................................................... 1 1
Brief Overview of Study ............................................................ 12
Definition of Terms .................................................................. 13

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 14
Reforming Schools .................................................................. 17
Spreitzer’s Model of Individual Empowerment in Organizations ............. 22
School Climate ....................................................................... 26
Social Capital ......................................................................... 31
Empowerment ........................................................................ 37

CHAPTER 3

METHOD ...................................................................................... 49
Participants ........................................................................... 49
Variables and Measures ............................................................. 52
Procedure .............................................................................. 56

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS ...................................................................................... 59
Descriptive Statistics and Correlational Analyses ............................... 59
Results in Relation to Research Question 1 ....................................... 60
Results in Relation to Research Question 2 ....................................... 64
Supplemental Analyses .............................................................. 65

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 68
Limitations of the Study ............................................................ 69
Narrative Summary of Results ..................................................... 70
Relation of Findings to Previous Research ....................................... 72

viii

Implications for Theory and Practice ............................................. 74

ISuggestions for Future Research ................................................... 76
APPENDICES ................................................................................. 79
REFERENCES ................................................................................ 86

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Participant Demographic Characteristics ..................................... 51
TABLE 2: Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables .................................... 60
TABLE 3: Correlations among Study Variables ......................................... 61

TABLE 4: Correlational Analysis of School Social Structure and Sense of Empowerment
Variables (n = 73) ............................................................................. 62

TABLE 5: Regression of Sense of Empowerment Variables on Impact (n = 86). ...65

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: A Theoretical Model of Individual Empowerment in Organizations. . ..6

FIGURE 2: Conceptual Framework for the Relationship among the Components of

Sense of Empowerment ...................................................................... 11
FIGURE 3: Variable Sets for Canonical Correlation .................................... 57
FIGURE 4: Measurement Model for Regression using SPES Subscales .............. 58

xi

AYP

CDTE

IDEA

NCLB

SCI

SPES

STWL

USDOE

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Annual Yearly Progress

Consumer-Directed Theory of Empowerment
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

School Climate Inventory

School Participant Empowerment Scale
School-to-Work-to-Life Model of Transition

United States Department of Education

xii

CHAPTER 1
Introduction

Students with disabilities have lagged behind their peers in the general student
population with respect to academic achievement (Prince, 2004; Walberg, 2005),
graduation rate (Grayson, 1998; Ochs & Roessler, 2001), post-secondary school
enrollment (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Fairweather & Shaver, 1991), and post-school
vocational and independent living outcomes (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Kohler &
Field, 2003; Kosciulek & Perkins, 2005). However, due in part to legislative mandates,
the number of students who have participated in special education has increased during
the past 25 years. Giuliano (2004) reported that from the 1976-1977 to 2000-2001 school
years the number of students from age 3 through age 21 served by special education
programs rose by nearly 2.6 million, equaling a 70 percent increase in participation.
Participation rates for special education have increased in part because members of
marginalized groups, including migrant students, minority students, students with limited
English proficiency, and students labeled as ‘behavior problems’ have increasingly been
overrepresented in special education classes (Artiles, 2003; Artiles & Trent, 1994; Patton,
1998). These groups have experienced the same gaps in achievement and outcomes when
compared to other general education students (Geenen, Powers, Vasquez, & Bersani,
2003; Prince, 2004).

In response to these findings, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) was crafted to address the education and transition needs of students with
disabilities (Edmondson & Cain, 2002), focusing on choice, empowerment, and student

participation (Rusch & Millar, 1998; Wehmeyer, 1998). Under IDEA, most recently

reauthorized in 2004, special education students must be granted access to the same
quality and type of curriculum and instruction as all other students. IDEA has recently
been strengthened through its alignment with the national education agenda of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (N CLB). The No Child Left Behind Act was signed into
law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002 and affected education from
elementary to high school (U SDOE, 2004). The purpose of this legislation was to raise
student achievement and address the achievement gap between disadvantaged and
minority students and their peers (Prince, 2004), which include students with disabilities.
Statement of Problem

Over the past twenty years, reform efforts in education have been focused on
crafting legislation and policy (Brotherson, Cook, Wehmeyer, & Cuconan—Lahr, 1995;
Burgstahler, 2001; Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997; Stodden, 1998), preparing students
to exit school with the skills necessary to compete in the current workplace (Benz,
Yovanoff, & Doren, 1997; Solsberg, Howard, Blustein, & Close, 2002), and
implementing best practices for student performance (deFur, 2003; Kohler, 1998; Rusch
& Millar, 1998; Siegel, 1998). In most schools, the manifestation of these practices has
been divided along the lines of general and special education (Halpern, 1999). Despite
being housed in the same buildings, having access to similar resources, and abiding by
the rules of the same administration, special and general educators ofien assume a vision
and role that is reserved only for the students with whom they work. The enactment of
NCLB has given rise to the need to abandon this boundary and shift paradigms in order to

achieve the spirit and letter of the legislation.

The legislative milieu of No Child Left Behind creates pressure for school
districts, administrators, and educators to meet and exceed achievement goals for all
students on an annual basis. A school or school district is considered to be ‘in need of
improvement’ if it cannot meet its state’s definition of ‘adequate yearly progress’ (AYP),
across the school or within any subgroup (e.g., minority, ESL, students with disabilities),
for two consecutive years (U SDOE, 2004). According to Darling-Hammond (2004), an
estimated 26,000 of the nation’s 93,000 schools failed to make adequate yearly progress
in 2004. Many schools fell short of their AYP goals because of the poor achievement
performance of specific subgroups, such as minorities and students with disabilities
(Sunderman, Kim, & Orfield, 2005).

As a result of their students’ inability make adequate progress on NCLB
assessment measures, special educators sometimes find themselves being blamed for
their school being put on the ‘failing list’ (Karp, 2004). However, the overall
performance of the school and its students should be the concern and responsibility of all
teachers and administrators, regardless of their area of instruction or specialty. To attend
to these circumstances, general and special education teachers must become
knowledgeable and skilled in instruction methods and pedagogy for all students,
including students with disabilities, so that all students can achieve high academic
. standards (USDOE, 2004). NCLB promotes collaboration between general and special
education teachers to ensure quality education for all.

An appropriate framework for a cohesive and inclusive curriculum for all students
would best be rooted in a transition philosophy. The current focus on transition-related

services has resulted from legislation, investment in transition services development, and

effective transition practices research (Kohler & Field, 2003). While the intent of
transition is to ensure that students leave school knowing who they are, what they want to
do with their lives, and what supports they will need to accomplish their goals (Tashie,
Malloy, & Lichtenstein, 1998), transition planning need not be reserved for high school
years. The recent trend in transition and vocational education is to begin such processes
as early and often as possible (Cummings, Maddux, & Casey, 2000; Lent, Hackett, &
Brown, 1999). Transition points should be identified at a student’s move between any
two systems (e.g., elementary to middle school, middle to high school, high school to
career or post-secondary education).

To be effective, a model of transition—focused education should be fully integrated
in the general curriculum. Full integration of a transition-focused curriculum, as an
avenue to achieve better NCLB outcomes, requires high levels of collaboration among
general and special educators. Karp (2004) expressed that the keys to school
improvement were not standards and tests, but the teachers and students. Fullan (2003)
summarized the need for teacher involvement in school change efforts, stating: ". . .there
is such a depth of knowledge required to go to new horizons that we can't possibly
generate it without the ideas of teachers and principals coming to bear on complex
problems. . .we can't sustain the effort required unless local educators pour in their
purpose, passion, and concomitant energy" (p. 48). By involving teachers directly in the
change process, rather than relying on a top-down administrative approach, teachers can
move toward ownership of the undertakings that occur in their district.

Implementation of NCLB has produced a culture of accountability within our

educational system (Walberg, 2005). Historically, attention to standards has tended to be

at the state and federal level (Halpern, 1999), but the importance of implementation and
action also needs to be considered at the local level. Schools and districts need to become
collaborative, professional learning communities because, as Fullan (2003) stated, these
communities “not only build confidence and competence, but they also make teachers
and principals realize that they can’t go the distance alone” (p. 44). Fumey and
colleagues (1997) noted the inherent difficulty at the local level with policy compliance:

“. . .the more general literature on policy implementation suggested that the

implementation of any policy is a challenging prospect. The current literature

regards policy implementation not as an event, but a slow, incremental, and
multifacteted process that must take into account local context and values;
encourage the development of local capacity and will; and empower local
implementers to take ownership for implementing, evaluating, revising, and

incorporating changes into daily practice” (p. 344).

An evaluation of the system where policies and reform efforts will be
implemented should be conducted to ensure that these efforts tap into the resources and
capacity of the staff, school, and community. The previous excerpt from Fumey et a1.
(1997) draws attention to the essential ingredients for evaluating capacity for the
implementation of reform in schools: school climate, social capital, and teacher
empowerment. These concepts are intertwined with one another and outline the V
fundamental components for understanding the scope of potential within a district.
Education should be embraced as a collective enterprise, with frequent analysis and
evaluation in order for continuous improvement to occur (Rosenholtz, Bassler, &

Hoover-Dempsey, 1986). These concepts also shape the focus for evaluation efforts.

Theoretical Framework

An investigation of social capital, school climate, and teacher empowerment can

be seen as a first step to achieving better performance outcomes for students. Spreitzer’s

(1997) model of individual empowerment in organizations can be used as a paradigm for

such an investigation. As illustrated in Figure 1, in this model, social structural

antecedents (organic structure, access to strategic information, access to organizational

resources, organizational culture) are mediated by a psychological sense of empowerment

(meaning, competence, self-determination, impact) to produce behavioral outcomes

(innovation, upward influence, effectiveness).

 

Social Structural
Antecedents

Organic Structure

Access to Strategic
Information

Access to
Organizational
Resources

Organizational
Culture

 

\

c \

 

 

j

 

Psychological
Sense of

Empowerment

Meaning

Competence

Self-Determination

Impact

 

 

/

 

 

\

Behavioral
Outcomes

Innovation

Upward
Influence

Effectiveness

 

 

Figure 1: A Theoretical Model of Individual Empowerment in Organizations

From Spreitzer, G. (1997). Toward a common ground in defining empowerment. In W. A. Pasmore & R.
W. Woodman (Eds), Research in organizational change and development, Vol. 10 (pp. 31-62).Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Social Structural Antecedents

The social structural antecedents of the work environment are considered
individual interpretations of the employee, rather than objective characteristics of the
work environment itself (Spreitzer, 1995b, 1996). Those variables that challenge the
assumptions of a traditional bureaucratic structure are hypothesized to facilitate
empowerment (Spreitzer, 1997). Less hierarchical, organic systems which emphasize
flexibility, adaptability, and innovation, along with access to sources of system power
(e.g., resources, information, and support) and an organizational culture which values
human assets have been proposed to be empowering (Spreitzer, 1997).

Psychological Sense of Empowerment

A sense of empowerment has been implied as a mediating influence in the
workplace (Spreitzer, 1995b); the social structural context of the organization is not
sufficient to produce behavioral outcomes. Empowerment is not a collection of
management practices, but rather a set of characteristics reflecting the personal beliefs
and mind-set an individual has about his/her role in the organization (Quinn & Spreitzer,
1997). Together, the four attributes of an interpersonal sense of empowerment reflect an
active, rather than passive, orientation to a work role (Spreitzer, 1996).

Meaning is defined as a purpose and involves a fit between the requirements of a
work role and the individual’s values, beliefs, and behaviors (Spreitzer, 1995a).
Competence can be conceived as self-efficacy, or an individual’s belief in his or her
capability to perform activities with skill (Spreitzer, 1995b). Self-determination denotes a

sense of choice in initiating and regulating actions, akin to autonomy (Spreitzer, 1995b).

Impact, which is opposite the concept of learned helplessness, is a sense of personal
control over outcomes in the organization (Spreitzer, 1997).
Behavioral Outcomes

Spreitzer (1997) postulated that “because empowerment reflects an active self-
orientation to one’s work role, it is reasonable to expect that an active mindset will
translate into proactive behavior” (p. 52). Through empowerment, individuals are more
likely to challenge common expectations, be upwardly influencing, and engage in
innovation. Empowered individuals will be more likely to pursue inquiry (Vogt &
Murrell, 1990), improve their effectiveness (Spreitzer, 1995b), and experience greater job
satisfaction (Thomas & Tymon, 1994).

Significance of the Problem

Despite its noble intent, the No Child Left Behind Act has received criticism
because of the burden that it places on school districts and its seemingly unattainable
standards (e.g., Meier & Wood, 2004; Sunderrnan et al., 2005). The reality, however, is
that NCLB is the prevailing education reform agenda and teachers and districts are
accountable to its standards. In addition to achievement standards, NCLB also advocates
for schools to increase the quality of their teachers, make connections to the community
and with parents, and explore ways to increase spending flexibility to allow more
freedom to implement innovations and allocate resources in the most efficacious way
(U SDOE, 2004). The theoretical framework presented above suggests the need for
schools to facilitate the development of school climate, social capital, and empowerment,

which, in turn, will lead to desired outcomes for students.

Purpose of the Study

Systemic change means that reform efforts must focus on the interrelationship
among all the primary aspects of a school, such as teachers, students, curriculum, and the
community, and not only policy and regulations (Fullan & Miles, 1992). For commitment
to be sustained by all members, the school environment, as well as the processes to
develop and implement policies, must be empowering (Chemiss, 1997). If the climate of
the school does not value collaboration and a willingness to pursue innovation, then the
goals of continuous improvement and quality education for all students may not be
realized. The insight that is gained from the primary constituents of a community is a
driving force for capacity building and the task of continuous improvement. Fettennan
(2002) articulated that “the aim is to try to understand what is going on in a situation
from the participant’s own perspective as accurately and honestly as possible and then
proceed to improve it with meaningful goals and strategies and credible documentation”
(p. 89). Therefore, the present study focused on the perceptions of school personnel in
order to yield data useful for better understanding these interrelationships.

This investigation had two purposes. The primary purpose of this study was to
examine the relationship between school social structure and sense of empowerment
among professional school personnel. A study of the relationship between school social
structure and sense of empowerment among school personnel may yield data useful for
school districts to assess internal assets and barriers which will lead to higher
achievement for students. The research question of interest in relation to the primary

purpose was as follows:

Research Question 1: What is the relationship between school social structure and

teacher empowerment?

Given its potential significance in the process of promoting higher student
achievement and its centrality in Spreitzer’s (1997) model, detailed exploration of the
sense of empowerment of school personnel was warranted. As such, the secondary
purpose of this study was to explore the construct of sense of empowerment. The
relationship of the components of sense of empowerment to one another was explored.
Spreitzer and colleagues (Spreitzer 1995b, 1996; Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997) have
investigated the antecedents to sense of empowerment, the social structural
characteristics related to empowerment, and the individual dimensions of empowerment
related to job effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. However, none of their studies
explored the relationship among the four individual components of empowerment
postulated in the model (i.e., meaning, competence, impact, self-determination). In one
study using Spreitzer’s multidimensional empowerment construct, Kraimer, Seibert, and
Liden (1999) confirmed the discriminant validity of the four dimensions and convergent
validity for a single, higher order factor of empowerment. The model that resulted from
their study indicated that self-determination was a precursor to impact, given the high
correlation between the two variables. It was therefore hypothesized in the present study
that all components of empowerment may have a temporal, cyclical effect on one
another.

I hypothesized that self-determination is an initial component in the development
of a sense of empowerment. Through a greater experience of self—determination, school

personnel will begin to feel more competent in their professional role. Professional

10

 

 

 

 

 

Self-

determination l:> Competence l:> Meaning l:> Impact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A I
' I

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework for the Relationship among the Components
of Sense of Empowerment

competence will lead to a greater sense of purpose and meaning to the individual, with
the external benefit of increased status among colleagues. With greater status and purpose
of role, teachers will have a more significant impact through increased control. This
impact and achievement of control are desired outcomes that continue to feed the cycle of
sense of empowerment. The internal and external incentives of accomplishments serve to
strengthen personnel’s experiences of self-determination and motivate them to
continually renew the empowerment cycle through professional development and
collaboration with colleagues. Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual framework of this
hypothesized relationship among the components of empowerment. To explore the above
conceptualization of the interrelationships among the components of sense of
empowerment, the following research question was addressed:

Research Question 2: What is the relationship among the components of
empowerment?

Utility of the Research
The utility of the current line of research is threefold. First, by exploring the

elements that comprise school climate, social capital, and staff empowerment,

ll

administrators will be better able to pinpoint areas for staff development and school
improvement. For example, if teachers have voiced concerns that they lack satisfaction in
their job, through professional development, the administration may be able to target the
Meaning aspect of teacher empowerment and focus on improving their efficacy for
teaching. A second use of this research is to understand the organizational and
community factors at the local level that can be used to create a better teaching and
learning environment. Positive environments should breed positive people and results.
And, finally, turning attention to the school as a whole and its responsibility to produce
favorable outcomes for all students will positively impact students with disabilities and
other marginalized groups by including them in the solution rather than blaming them for
the problem.
Brief Overview of the Study

The participants in this study were professional school personnel from the Haslett,
MI school district. Social structure, in terms of a school setting, was conceptualized by
school climate and social capital. The relationship between the components of the district
schools’ social structure and the sense of empowerment among professional school
personnel was investigated. Data related to school social structure and sense of
empowerment were collected from district personnel via paper and pencil format in each
of the six district school buildings. The relationship between these constructs was
analyzed using canonical correlation. In addition, the relationship among the components
of sense of empowerment among school personnel was investigated via regression using

the School Participant Empowerment Scale (Short & Rinehart, 1992).

12

Definition of Terms
Social capital: features of a social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks that
can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated action (Putnam, 1993).
School climate: emphasizes the feeling and contemporary tone of the school, the feeling
of the relationships, and the morale among staff (Peterson & Deal, 2002).
Empowerment: a set of dimensions that characterize an environment’s interaction with
persons in it so as to encourage their taking initiative to improve processes and to take
action (Herrenkohl, Judson, & Heffner, 1999). The common set of dimensions that define
the psychological experience of empowerment in the workplace, which includes a sense
of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1997).
Meaning: a sense of purpose that involves a fit between the requirements of a work role
and the individual’s values, beliefs, and behaviors (Spreitzer, 1995a).
Competence: self-efficacy, or an individual’s belief in his or her capability to perform
activities with skill (Spreitzer, 1995b).
Self-determination: autonomy, or a sense of choice in initiating and regulating actions
(Spreitzer, 1995b).
I_rp_p_a_c_t: a sense of personal control over outcomes in an organization (Spreitzer, 1997).
SchoolJQersonnel: school staff employed in a professional role (i.e., general education
teacher, special education teacher, counselors, administrators, paraprofessional) who have

completed at least two years of post—secondary education.

13

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review

The educational agenda and policy of greatest concern to educators in
contemporary schools is the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The No Child
Left Behind Act was signed into law in 2002 and affected education from elementary to
high school (USDOE, 2004). The intent of this legislation was to improve overall student
achievement and address the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority
students and their peers (Prince, 2004). The main accountability component to NCLB is
mandated standardized tests that are administered yearly to every child in grades three
through eight and at least once in high school to determine adequate yearly progress
(AYP) (Goertz, 2005). Students in schools that underperform for two consecutive years
have the option of switching to a higher performing public school in their district, while
those in schools that underperform for three years can gain access to supplemental
tutoring services (Howell, 2006). However, plans for accountability and achieving
performance standards by 2014 are left up to individuals states,meaning that AYP
requirements make school performance look worse in states with more demanding plans
(Hess, 2005).

NCLB has been described as a path to educational transformation and a key to
racial equity and economic success (Sunderrnan et al., 2005). Unfortunately, the policy
emphasizes the responsibility and opportunities for students in the school setting, while it
deemphasizes the social and economic factors that impact students beyond the school
walls. Neither of the unions representing educators—the American Federation of

Teachers and the National Education Association—supported the institution of this

14

legislation. Despite differing approaches to securing change, both bodies felt that the
legislation is underfunded, has too great of a reliance on standardized testing as the sole
accountability measure, and ignores the real challenges faced in urban district (i.e.,
factors outside of the school that cannot be controlled) (Koppich, 2005).

Sunderman and colleagues (2005) claimed that the assumption underlying NCLB
was that schools would solely be able to achieve unprecedented levels of academic
achievement for all students in a short space of time and without changing any of the
other inequalities in their lives. Many analysts believe that NCLB treats educational
improvement as a regulatory rather than as an educational and professional problem.
Goertz (2005) stated that “the design of NCLB is based on the assumption that public
reporting of test scores, the identification of schools that do not make AYP, and the threat
of consequences for schools that fail to improve will create incentives for educators to
work ‘harder and smarter’” (p. 82).

The current need in school reform is to fit reform goals to what is known about
educational opportunity and to encourage the development of comprehensive reforms that
can take years of focused and concerted effort to achieve real breakthroughs (Sunderrnan
et al., 2005). School personnel at the local level can serve as the driving force behind
educational improvement. Capacity at the local level grounds the assumptions of NCLB.
Goertz (2005) asserted that the law assumes that states and local school districts possess
or can develop the capacity to assist in improvement efforts to bring all students to
proficiency, as well as pay for these efforts. Discussing what individual teachers and
schools could do to participate in reform, Fullan (2003) suggested understanding

overriding educational agendas, working together, looking to supportive leaders, and

15

seeking external linkages that have capacity-building resources.

In a survey of teachers conducted in urban school districts in 2004 regarding
NCLB and reform, Sunderrnan and colleagues (2004) found that teachers reported that
reform was underway prior to NCLB and that this legislation may have disrupted their
efforts, as low performing districts tend to continually change their educational programs
in response to calls for reform. These teachers also felt that they could better assist
students to meet improvement standards through more resources, additional time to
collaborate, smaller class sizes, more experienced staff, more involvement of parents, and
removal of ineffective personnel. In response to the results, Sunderrnan and colleagues
(2004) recommended additional or reallocated resources within districts, nurturing of
committed long-term leaders in poorly performing schools, funding and collaboration for
staffs to improve low retention and high turnover, and a refocusing of accountability
measures away from sole reliance on standardized testing.

Teachers should have a voice in reform efforts because while teachers may be
motivated to learn new practices and improve student learning, "what they lack is a sense
of individual and collective agency, or control, over the organizational conditions that
affect the learning of students and adults in their schools" (Elmore, 2002, p. 24). Such
control can be facilitated through a social structure that provides quality relationships and
resources. A school climate valuing collaboration, collegiality, and innovation, the
conditions for teachers to develop a sense of empowerment, will also lead to more
efficacious outcomes.

The purposes of the current study were to (I) explore the relationship between

school social structure and the empowerment of school personnel and (2) evaluate the

16

concept of empowerment among school personnel. To provide a comprehensive review
of social structure and empowerment in a context of school setting, the literature review
addressed three areas. First, a framework for approaching school reform will be
discussed. Second, a model for organizing the relationship between the social structure of
schools and empowerment will be presented. Finally, the major variables of interest in
this study will be described, including school climate, social capital, and empowerment.
Reforming Schools

The abundance of literature on effective education has focused on student
outcomes as they relate to a school’s ability to prepare students for assuming future roles.
These outcomes have included achievement (e.g., Picus, Marion, Calvo, & Glenn, 2005;
Sheldon & Biddle, 1998), interpersonal gains (e.g., Daniel & King, 1997; Dincher &
McGuire, 1994), and transition from school to adult life (e.g., Geenen et al., 2003;
Morgan, Moore, McSweyn, & Salzberg, 1992). Given its strong research tradition, this
final outcome area, transitioning of students through the stages of schooling and into life
after high school, is an important paradigm through which to conceptualize student
achievement and skill development.

The interest in school-to-work transition grew out of acknowledgement that
employees needed to have competitive skills to be marketable in today’s workplace, that
a growing number of students were exiting school without these skills, and that schools
were failing to prepare students for these demands (Benz et al., 1997). Legislation was
enacted throughout the 1990’s to address these deficits. Guidance for these educational
policies came from reports by the Secretary of Education's Commission on Achieving

Necessary Skills (SCANS), which indicated the academic skills, thinking skills, and

17

personal qualities needed to meet educational goals and compete in current and future job
markets (Solberg et al., 2002). The current education policy milieu is being driven by the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 . To attend to the requirements of NCLB, a framework
of best practice is useful to structure the process to achieve these ends.

Reform framework. An organizing framework for reform in education can first
begin with a focus on student transition between school levels, as well as the transition to
life after school, in order to prepare students to make adequate progress and acquire
appropriate skills. Transition is viewed as a system of planning that supports the
movement of a student through and out of high school, as the bridge between school and
adulthood. The intent of transition planning is to ensure that students leave school
knowing who they are, what they want to do with their lives, and the supports they will
need to accomplish their goals (Tashie et al., 1998).

Models of transition can be helpful when assumed within the educational
philosophy of a school. Solberg and colleagues (2002) proposed the school-to-work-to-
life (STWL) model as a framework for lifespan transition. This framework is guided by
the assumptions that development continues across the lifespan and is shaped by the
person’s context and exposure to positive, challenging learning environments. The STWL
model emphasizes the interacting systems of the individual and the need to target
interventions at these system levels. Kohler (1998) also proposed a systemic model for a
transition curriculum. The author’s Taxonomy for Transition Programming recognized
student-focused planning, family involvement, program structure and attributes,
interagency collaboration, and student development as essential for efficacious transition

programs. Hallmark program structures of efficient and effective transition programs also

18

include variety in curricular options, a clearly articulated mission and values, sufficient
resources, qualified staff, and collaborative mechanisms to facilitate systems change
(Kohler & Field, 2003).

Kohler and Field (2003) stated that “the field learned that successful transition
requires the development of a student's abilities through education and other experiences,
specific supports that enhance or facilitate those abilities, and opportunities through
which one can apply those abilities" (p. 175). The concept of transition-focused
education means that transition is not seen as an additive to the curriculum but the
fundamental basis to education founded on abilities, options, and self-determination.
Student-focused planning is based on the identification of students' interests and
preferences to be used in goal setting and self-exploration activities across the
curriculum. Student development activities focus on preparing individuals to assume
adult roles. Collaborative activities with agencies that can assist students provide
immediate services for current students, but also address community issues that can be
beneficial to all current and future students.

The special education literature is replete with concerns as to whether students
with disabilities can reach the levels of achievement that have been set by No Child Left
Behind (e. g., Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003; Simpson, 2005; Steffan, 2004). A second
component of reforming schools to attend to the achievement of all students, therefore, is
to develop collaborative efforts among general and special educators. NCLB has
influenced the inevitable merging of reform agendas within schools, including both
general and special education. Achieving the standards set forth by this legislation calls

for a refocusing of educational philosophy and collaboration that spans across the local

19

school districts. Halpern (1999) suggested several areas for focusing unified reform
efforts, including students assuming responsibility for their own education, enhancing
teachers’ skills in transition, facilitating the use of proven best practices and programs,
and working to enhance the integration of special education and transition within general
education reform. Schools operate under general and special education legislation and
agendas simultaneously, so educators need to team to develop a philosophy that creates a
continuum of services throughout the district to ensure the highest potential of all
students to assume the responsibilities of citizenship and adulthood.

General and special education can reciprocally inform one another. In a special
education investigation, Fumey, Hasazi, and Destefano (1997) conducted a policy study
to investigate the statewide implementation of transition services for youth with
disabilities thay could be used as a basis for school improvement efforts. Seven themes
for effective execution were identified and retained from the study: (1) the role of shared
values and beliefs in creating an environment conducive to the implementation of
transition policies and practices; (2) using direct policy approaches to create changes
related to transition; (3) paving the way for change by uniting leadership and advocacy;
(4) building collaborative structures to promote systemic change; (5) using the results of
research and evaluation to inform change efforts; (6) building the capacity for long-
lasting change; and (7) looking ahead by linking transition to other restructuring efforts.
The underlying tenet of these themes is that transition should be viewed as a 'big picture'
initiative of social responsibility, with leadership and autonomy given at the local levels
to direct efforts and collaboration.

Focusing on the local level, the final component for reforming schools to achieve

20

NCLB standards for all students is to develop local capacity for change and
accountability. The unit of analysis that will yield the richest data on the effect of policy
on student outcomes is the individual school or district because of its proximal impact on
students. Energy and effort should focus on how local entities are progressing in relation
to the current policy milieu. Sundennan and colleagues (2005) posited that reliance on
federal and state regulatory processes to force compliance deemphasizes the need to build
state and local capacity and does not consider the expectations needed to ensure local
buy-in for the policy. Neill (2004) proposed principles for authentic accountability within
school systems. These principles included (1) shared vision and goals, (2) adequate
resources used well, (3) participation and democracy among school personnel, (4)
prioritizing goals, (5) relying on multiple forms of accountability evidence, (6) inclusion
of all students, (7) induction of improvement and professional development, (8) equity,
(9) a balance of bottom-up and top-down accountability, and (10) interventions that
produce improvement. These principles are consistent with the philosophical objectives
of the current study and are applicable to focusing attention at the local level.

Each of the three components outlined above—transition-focused education,
collaboration among general and special education personnel, and development of local
capacity—point to the need to explore aspects within a district that would make each of
these goals a reality. As such, the primary purpose of this study was to investigate the
relationship between the social structure of a school district and the empowerment of
school personnel. The following section of this literature review describes a model that

can be useful when studying schools and school personnel.

21

Spreitzer ’3 Model of Individual Empowerment in Organizations

As discussed in Chapter 1, the social structure of a school and its ability to
empower teachers and other professional personnel can be a vehicle for generating
collaboration among staff to achieve successful outcomes for all students (see Figure 1, p.
6). While the administration is historically responsible for leadership within schools, this
structure must be inverted to embrace one that generates energy from those personnel
closest to the students. Elmore (2002) articulated that "the idea behind distributed
leadership is that the complex nature of instructional practice requires people to operate
in networks of shared and complimentary expertise rather than in hierarchies" (p. 24).
However, empowered teachers might pose a threat to administrations that do not value
such qualities (Chemiss, 1997). Investigation of the social structure of a school and the
sense of empowerment embodied by its staff is an initial step in working toward more
successful outcomes for students.

The model for the present study was adopted from the realm of business and
organizational development. Spreitzer’s (1997) model of individual empowerment in
organizations depicted psychological empowerment as a mediating variable between the
social structure of an organization and the outcomes it wishes to achieve. Psychological
empowerment encompasses intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral empowerment.
Specific characteristics of organizational social structure include the input variables of
lack of role ambiguity, sociopolitical support, access to information and resources, and
work culture. The common set of dimensions that define the psychological experience of
empowerment in the workplace includes a sense of meaning, competence, self-

determination, and impact. Generally speaking, meaning is defined as purpose,

22

competence as self-efficacy, self-determination as a sense of choice in initiating and
regulation one's actions, and impact as the degree to which one can influence outcomes
(Spreitzer, 1997). The four dimensions reflect a proactive rather than passive orientation
to the individual’s role in the workplace.

Components of Spreitzer’s model are dependent on the perceptions and
interpretations of the individuals in the organization. Spreitzer’s theoretical framework
linked individual interpretations of the work environment, rather than 'obj ective'
characteristics of the work environment, to individual components of empowerment. As
such, empowerment involves an understanding of the sociopolitical environment of the
organization, resulting not in a static personality trait, but rather a dynamic context driven
construct (Spreitzer, 1995a). Spreitzer (1995b) outlined three general assumptions that
should be made about her definition of empowerment:

First, empowerment is not an enduring personality trait generalizable across

situations, but rather a set of cognitions shaped by a work environment. Thus,

empowerment reflects the ongoing ebb and flow of people’s perceptions about

themselves in relation to their work environments. Second, empowerment is a

continuous variable; people can be viewed as more or less empowered, rather

than empowered or not empowered. Third, empowerment is not a global construct
generalizable across different life situations and roles but rather, specific to the

work domain. (p. 1444)

These assumptions were central to the present study. The perceptions of the study
participants about their work environment and sense of empowerment represented a

snapshot of their continual ‘ebb and flow.’ In addition, the representation of sense of

23

empowerment sought in this study was rooted to and contextualized by the school
environment. It was not assumed that the rating of empowerment represented a global
measure of the individuals’ empowerment, but rather one specific to their role as a
professional school employee.

Spreitzer and colleagues empirically tested components of the model of individual
empowerment in organizations throughout several studies. Using a sample of 393 mid-
level managers from a Fortune 500 industrial organization, Spreitzer (1995b, 1996)
investigated the antecedents to sense of empowerment and the social structural
characteristics related to empowerment. In examining these antecedents via structural
equation modeling, Spreitzer (1995b) found that self-esteem, access to information about
an organization’s mission, rewards, and information about unit performance were
significantly related to empowerment, while locus of control was not. Spreitzer (1996)
found that the social structural characteristics of an organization varied in their
relationship to sense of empowerment. Wide span of control, sociopolitical support,
access to information, and unit climate were significantly, positively correlated with
empowerment, while role ambiguity was significantly, negatively correlated. Access to
resources, however, was not related to empowerment.

Using the same sample data, Spreitzer, Kizilos, and Nason (1997) investigated the
individual dimensions of empowerment related to job effectiveness, satisfaction, and
strain, which were identified in extant literature to be anticipated outcomes of
empowerment. Competence, self-determination, and impact were found to be related to
effectiveness, while meaning was not. Work satisfaction was positively related to all

dimensions, with the most significant variance being explained by meaning. Only

24

competence was related to lower levels of job-related strain. Given that no single
dimension of empowerment was related to all three outcomes, the findings in this study
indicate the importance of using a multidimensional conceptualization of empowerment
in achieving desired job outcomes, such as that adopted for the present study.

Kramer, Seibert, and Liden (1999) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of
data provided from a sample of nurses (n = 160) to test the construct validity of
Spreitzer’s multidimensional empowerment construct. Using the scale Spreitzer
developed in her original research, these researchers found support for the use of a
multidimensional model of empowerment over a single-dimensional construct.
Discriminant validity of the four empowerment dimensions and convergent validity for a
single, higher order factor of empowerment were found in this sample. The model that
resulted indicated that self-determination was a precursor to impact.

Spreitzer’s (1997) model was used as the theoretical framework in this study.
Initially developed for use in general organizations, it was applied to the school as an
organization. Within this context, school climate and social capital were used as the
characteristics of school social structure. Spreitzer’s (1997) conceptualization of sense of
empowerment was retained. This multidimensional perspective aligns well with research
on schools in relation to teachers’ sense of competence and self-efficacy (Chemiss,
1997), status among colleagues (Husband & Short, 1994), and perceptions of self-
determination (Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 2000). The following sections will address

the variables of interest in the proposed study.

25

School Climate

School climate is a multidimensional construct encompassing organizational,
instructional, and interpersonal dimensions (Loukas & Robinson, 2004). School climate
underlies individual values, behaviors, and group norms. Organizational dimensions of
climate include staff stability, administrative support, and appropriate financial and
human resources. School climate also relates to a school’s approach to achievement and
discipline, which impact its participants’ motivation toward success and compliance to
rules. Gittlesohn and colleagues (2003) highlighted the multifaceted nature of this
construct:

School climate can be defined as the characteristics that distinguish one school

from another and that affect the behavior of people within the school. A school’s

climate is dynamic, based on the perceptions of its members, and is influenced by
the school’s formal and informal organization, staff morale, and the leadership of
the school. (p. S98)

An environment that encourages school members to form positive emotional
bonds with others and a positive attitude toward the school facilitates students’
motivation to learn and succeed in learning (Pepper & Thomas, 2002). As such, interest
in the environmental conditions of schools is integral to the school improvement
movement (Freiberg, 1998). In order for change to be successful, cultural aspects to
support change must first be in place (Loughridge & Tarantino, 2005). All stakeholders
in school improvement efforts must understand the power of school culture (Fiore, 2001).
Maehr and Midgley (1996) have advocated using culture as the construct to understand

nonproductive investment in schools because it involves seeing the school as a

26

functioning system, drawing attention to how individuals function within a group and
how groups draw on resources and focus the efforts of individuals.

Comparison and contrast of school culture and school climate. Contemporary
researchers interested in the study of school culture have investigated the more readily
available and observable construct of school climate to understand the milieu
underpinning school improvement and student achievement. Despite the tendency of
some researchers to use the terms school culture and climate interchangeably (Van
Houtte, 2005), each has a distinct role in the discourse of school environments. Culture
can be identified by role models, communication networks, rites and rituals, history, rules
and sanctions, and the physical environment (Loughridge & Tarantino, 2005). Culture is
concerned with traditions, beliefs, policies, and norms and is composed of artifacts
(visible structures), espoused values, and basic underlying assumptions (beliefs, thoughts,
and feelings) (Short & Greer, 1997). Norms include protecting the mission of the group,
critically analyzing strengths and weaknesses, supporting continuous improvement, and
actively participating in decision-making at all levels (Loughridge & Tarantino, 2005).

School climate, on the other hand, consists of the more observable aspects of the
school environment (Fiore, 2001). Much like school culture, school climate is an
interaction of factors that create a network of support that allows school members to
teach and learn at optimal levels (Freiberg, 1998). As a quality-of-life indicator for school
professionals, school climate has been referred akin to atmosphere, ambience, and overall
tone (Dunn & Harris, 1998).

While these constructs are linked to one another, climate represents the current

reality of a school, and culture, its history. Each school has its own culture that shapes the

27

climate of the building and sends a message to teachers and students about what is
important in that environment (Pepper & Thomas, 2002). “Climate emphasizes the
feeling and contemporary tone of the school, the feeling of the relationships, and the
morale of the place. We believe that the term culture best denotes the complex elements
of values, traditions, languages, and purpose somewhat better...Culture exists in the
deeper elements of a school” (Peterson & Deal, 2002, p. 9). Fiore (2001) further
elaborated on this notion stating that climate reflects one fact of personality and self-
image of the school, while at the deepest levels, culture represents strongly held beliefs,
values, and assumptions of a group. As a dynamic construct, climate is influenced by the
needs and desires of the group that result in the norms of day-to-day behavior and impact
daily decisions. Given its observable quality, school climate was the variable of interest
in the current study.

Measurement of school climate. Measurement of school climate can focus on
several factors within the school. According to Creemers and Reezigt (1999), there are
four school-level climate variables: (1) the physical environment of the building, (2) the
social systems, (3) the orderly school environment, and (4) the expectations about teacher
behavior and student outcomes. In reviewing over 200 studies on school climate,
Anderson (1982) defined climate as dealing with the quality within an organization.
Using Tagiuri’s (1968) taxonomy of climate-related terms as the basis for her literature
review, variables within a school environment were organized along ecological (e.g.,
material/physical), milieu (e. g., characteristics of individuals in the school), social system

(e.g., patterns or rules), and cultural (e.g., belief systems and values) categories.

28

Van Horn (2003), however, emphasized the unit of theory measurement dilemma
that can arise when investigating school climate. Two divergent schools of thought exist
regarding the ‘location’ of school climate: within the school or in the perceptions of
participants of the school. School climate has been used as both an organizational and
individual level variable. In the individual level view, “there is no property of the
organization that could be called its climate, instead the climate will be different for each
participant in the organization based on personal characteristics and perceptions of the
organization” (Van Horn, 2003, p. 1003). Dunn and Harris (1998) pointed to the
agreement in the literature that climate involves a group phenomenon that centers on a
consensus in perception, encompassing psychological, social, and physical characteristics
of the school environment.

In his study, Van Horn (2003) found that the organizational-level theory had
stronger support when investigating the influence of climate on student outcomes, as
individual ratings did not have significant relationships to outcomes. In this study, school
climate was investigated as an individual level variable, focusing on the staff perceptions
of the organization. The Order, Leadership, Environment, Instruction, and Expectations
subscales of the School Climate Inventory (SCI; The Center for Research in Educational
Policy, 2002) were used to measure school climate.

Impact of school climate on school personnel. Much of the literature on school
climate has emphasized its direct impact on student success or development (e.g., Dunn
& Harris, 1998; Loukas & Robinson, 2004; Strahan, Carlone, Horn, Dallas, & Ware,
2003). However, it is equally important to investigate the impact of school climate on the

professional quality of life of school personnel. The school’s climate has an effect on the

29

adults who work there, which inevitably will influence the academic success of the
students (Pepper & Thomas, 2002). The climate of a school has been found to have an
influence on teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy and job satisfaction, as well as on
whether new innovations are successfully implemented (Gittlesohn et al., 2003). A
culture valuing professionalism for teachers promotes a climate of collaboration where
they work together by providing mutual support, offering constructive feedback,
developing common goals, and setting realistic limits of what they can mutually achieve
(Pepper & Thomas, 2002).

A collegial environment impacts teachers' morale, happiness, and satisfaction. A
collegial school climate is one in which teachers are able to work well with one another,
work well with administrators, manage conflict, and match their educational strengths
and preferences with an appropriate school (Martinez, 2004). The research on effective
schools pointed to collegiality and cooperation among teachers as vital aspects of the
culture (Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997). In schools where collegiality is the standard,
Little (1982) found that teachers frequently consult about teaching, jointly plan and
evaluate teaching materials, and teach each other the craft of teaching. Fullan (2003)
articulated the need for the development of collaborative learning communities to sustain
educational change, stating “one of the interesting by-products of engaging learning
communities is that they become more proactive with parents and the public. The
dynamic, I think, is that when teachers are working alone, not learning together, they are
not as confident about what they are doing” (p. 43). Teachers who lack the confidence to

explain themselves take fewer risks and collaborate less. However, professional learning

30

communities build confidence and competence, bringing teachers and principals to the
realization that they can only be effective as partners.

School reform efforts related to teachers have begun to focus on enhancing
teacher involvement in decision making, developing their sense of career development,
and attaining a quality of work life (Conley & Muncey, 1999). Former methods for
promoting school change were not driven by the teachers and received little support from
teachers because of their lack of commitment to these agendas (Chemiss, 1997).
Collaborative work and the pursuit of continuous improvement need to become part of
the norms and climate of the school (F ullan & Miles, 1992). Short and Greer (1997)
noted the centrality of collegial relationships in schools that are identified as unusually
effective, as well as the importance of collegiality to each school’s climate. Cooperation
among school personnel is necessary for promoting and institutionalizing change efforts.
As such, the participants of this study included all professional personnel responsible for
student success, not only teachers, in order to provide a more comprehensive portrayal of
school climate.

Social Capital

Interest in social capital was catalyzed by the work of Bordieu (1986), Coleman
(1988), and Putnam (1993), and has been applied in the fields of sociology, economics,
civics, and education. Generically speaking, capital is a resource that is acquired,
accumulated, and of value (Spillane, Hallett, & Diamond, 2003). Different from physical
and human capital, which emphasize resources and skills/education respectively, social
capital is concerned with relationships between individuals and groups (Hooghe & Stolle,

2003). Two important forms of social capital are (1) the potential for the information that

31

is inherent in social relationships and (2) the establishment of norms that either encourage
positive actions or deter negative ones (Coleman, 1988).

"Social capital can be defined as resources embedded in a social structure which
are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions. By this definition, the notion of
social capital contains three ingredients: resources imbedded in a social structure;
accessibility to such social resources by individuals; and use or mobilization of such
social resources by individuals in purposive actions" (Lin, 2001a, p. 12). It refers to
connections among individuals, such as social networks and the norms of reciprocity and
trustworthiness that arise out of them (Putnam, 2000). Social capital relates to the norms
and social relations that enable people to coordinate action to achieve desired goals
(Cohen & Prusak, 2001). It refers to features of social organizations that facilitate
coordination and cooperation for mutual benefits. Stolle (2003) conceptualized social
capital as “a societal resource that links citizens to each other and enables them to pursue
their common objectives more effectively. It taps the potential willingness of citizens to
cooperate with each other and to engage in civic endeavors collectively” (p. 19).

Pooley, Cohen, and Pike (2005) content analyzed multiple definitions of social
capital. Their study resulted in the identification of a concept that integrated three themes:
the relationships between individuals and groups, the composition of networks (e. g.,
interaction, structure, density), and the competencies to interact effectively. They referred
to social capital commonly as the ‘glue’ that holds groups together; without this ‘glue’,
people are merely a collection of individuals. In the current study, social capital for
school professional personnel was measured by the Involvement and Collaboration

subscales of the SCI.

32

Conditions of social capital. The concept of social capital at a group level focuses
on how groups develop and maintain social capital as a collective asset and how such an
asset enhances group members' life chances. The premise behind this notion is that
people invest in social relations with others with an expectation of a return on that
investment (Lin, 2001a). Whether capital is an investment depends on the return for a
specific individual or group. It is defined by its function. Coleman (1988) envisaged
social capital not as a single entity, but as a variety of different entities incorporating two
common elements: all consist of some aspect of social structures and facilitate certain
actions of the people within the structure. Like other forms of capital, social capital
makes possible the attainment of certain needs that, in its absence, would not be possible
(Coleman, 1988).

In the same vein as Coleman (1988) and Lin (2001a), Herreros (2004) argued that
social capital is not merely the presence of trust and networks. The true measure of social
capital is the obligation of reciprocity that is derived from the relations of trust and the
information that is gained from participation in social networks. Two conditions are
necessary for this reciprocity: (1) that the trustee has goodwill and (2) that he/she will be
influenced by the fact that they are trusted. The responses that are derived from the
trusting relationships and development of networks are the critical drivers to the benefits
of social capital.

Social capital can be both within and between groups. MacGillivray and Walker
(2000) developed a framework that split social capital pragmatically into informal and
formal social capital—the first about ‘us’ and the second about ‘them.’ Informal social

capital can be conceptualized as trust in individuals within the group through norms,

33

reciprocity, and connections. Formal social capital is conceptualized as trust in
organizations through community involvement, networks, and agency partnerships
outside of the group. In this way, social capital can be either a bonding or bridging
experience. Bonding focuses on internal ties for the collective of the group, while
bridging is concerned with examining ways to utilize links with other social groups
(Taylor, Jones, & Boles, 2004). Bridging can work to instill tolerance and acceptance,
and also reaches out to benefit both the group and society/community (Putnam, 2000).

Similarly, Granovetter (1973) described the notion of strong and weak ties. The
strength of ties is defined in terms of the frequency and closeness of the individuals.
While strong ties are important for group accomplishments, weak ties may be more
useful for the accomplishment of goals because they tap into a larger body of resources
beyond the immediate group. Relying on the strong ties of a group will only give access
to a limited number of contacts, while weak ties or acquaintances are more likely to be
able to open members up to new opportunities to find a solution or resolve.

Using social capital in school reform. In this study, social capital was
conceptualized as one of the major components of a school’s social structure, as it has
increasingly been proposed as a solution to persistent educational and social problems
(Dika & Singh, 2002). In the present study, social capital was investigated both as an
internal resource (collaboration) and a means to form external partnerships to bring about
better outcomes for students. Israel and Beaulieu (2004) identified a school’s
composition, resources, and climate as indicators of social capital and stimulus to student
performance. These positive school conditions included high teacher expectations for

students, teacher interest in the welfare of students, students perceiving teachers as caring

34

role models, and parent involvement in school activities. Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell
(1997) categorized effective schools as those with high levels of teacher-teacher and
teacher-principal collaboration, as well as extensive commitments to staff development.
Fullan (2002) posited the need to invest in the social and moral environment of the school
as a means to develop “resources to close the achievement gap between the high and low
performers, to develop all schools in the system, and to connect schools to the strength of
democracy in society” (p. 19).

Warren (2005) highlighted the positive outcomes for developing strong social
capital among the stakeholders of the school system. Teachers and principals who deepen
their social capital build trust within each other, within the community for their efforts,
and are able to develop a common vision for school improvement. Social relationships
among adult stakeholders (e.g., parents, teachers, administrators) result in a protective
network for students and a greater ability to coordinate educational activities. Strong
social capital within a school can then be used to branch out to other agencies and
institutions to widen the resources available for reaching educational goals.

Programs that demonstrate positive outcomes for graduates are those that are well
connected to institutions and agencies beyond the school and coordinate efforts across
different groups and departments within the school (Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997).
Using social capital resources to form partnerships is consistent with major areas of
change suggested in No Child Left Behind in relation to allowing for parental controls and
expanding local control and flexibility (Martinez, 2004). Parent involvement and
interagency collaboration have also been cited as best practices for education and the

transition of students (Benz, Lindstrom, & Halpern, 1995; Edmondson & Cain, 2002;

35

Israel & Beaulieu, 2004; Kohler, 1993; Luecking & Certo, 2003; Nuehring & Sitlington,
2003; Phelps & Hartley-Maxwell, 1997).

The development of multiple lines of social capital is vitally important to students
with disabilities. Benz and colleagues (1995) posited the dual reasons for building
partnerships between schools and the community as (a) securing the community
resources needed to help an individual student accomplish transition goals and (b)
improving the capacity of schools and communities to deliver services and provide
resources to enhance the transition of all students. The fostering of relationships between
schools and adult service providers has been emphasized as crucial to the transition
process (Edmondson & Cain, 2003; Garret, Huff, & Sheppard-Jones, 2002; Harley, Tice,
& Kaplan, 2001). In a study of partnerships between vocational rehabilitation counselors
and special education administrators, Garrett and colleagues (2002) found that
individuals with more positive perceptions of their community were more likely to
partner with one another. Building capacity within the community to serve basic needs
will create conditions where individuals with disabilities will then be able to make
choices (Lehmann, Deniston, Tobin, & Howard, 1996).

Regardless of the physical and human capital resources people have, when people
have ties to other people and develop trust in one another, they are better able to achieve
collective results (Warren, 2005). Successfiil schools deal with problems similar to other
schools, but they are able to cope more effectively (Fullan & Miles, 1992). These deeper
coping strategies are related to building personal capacity and structural redesign.
Literature on systems change suggests guiding principles for capacity building efforts as:

(1) active participation of diverse stakeholders, (2) viewing change as a process and not

36

an event, and (3) partnerships that are supported by a larger structure that sustains and
validates effort and facilitates networking among communities to broaden the impact of
capacity (Benz et al., 1995).

The use of social capital as a panacea for poor achievement and the NCLB
standards is not without risks. Dika and Singh (2002) criticized that much of the
conceptualization of social capital is vague and fear that using it as a framework to
explain the effects of inequality in educational outcomes will add another ‘thing’ that
unsuccessful individuals lack. Although, schools with equal resources may not be as
effective as one another because of the capacity of individuals within those organizations
to efficiently use the resources (Maehr & Midgley, 1996). Therefore, investment in social
capital is paramount to mobilizing individuals. To facilitate the accumulation of capital,
the organization must give people the time and space to connect, develop trust,
communicate effectively, and enjoy the rewards of participation. Cohen and Prushak
(2001) captured the marshalling force of social capital:

Social capital bridges the space between people. Its characteristic elements and

indicators include high levels of trust, robust personal networks and vibrant

communities, shared understandings, and a sense of equitable participation in a

joint enterprise—all the things that draw individuals together into a group. This

kind of connection supports collaboration, commitment, ready access to

knowledge and talent, and coherent organizational behavior. (p. 4)
Empowerment

Throughout the literature, there is a lack of an agreed upon operational definition

of empowerment (Herrenkohl et al., 1999). Empowerment has interchangeably been

37

referred to as a theory, plan of action, goal, framework, and process (McWhirter, 1991).
The model of empowerment used as the conceptual framework in this study is Spreitzer’s
(1997) model, which was adapted from Thomas and Velthouse (1990), and includes the
components of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact.

The construct of empowerment shares attributes with similar concepts, such as
self—determination, self-efficacy, and autonomy. At times, these terms are used
synonymously and, at other times, they are used to describe one another. McWhirter
(1991) distinguished among the concepts of empowerment, autonomy, and self-efficacy:

Empowerment refers to a comprehensive process affecting not just the individual

but the individual in relation to others, to the community, and to society.

Although increased autonomy is certainly one aspect of empowerment, the term

is not broad enough to capture the relational aspect. . .Efficacy is a cognitive

appraisal of performance capabilities; empowerment is a global process involving

behavioral and cognitive components. (p. 224)

Szymanski (1994) specified the features of empowerment as self-control,
expanded choices, independence or interdependence, authority, and self-determination.
An expansion of the concept of empowerment, from multiple fields, will elucidate the
concept further and underscore its applicability to the current study.

Theories of empowerment. The fields of organizational development, counseling,
psychology, disability rights, rehabilitation counseling, and education have all provided
voice to the dialogue on empowerment. In an attempt to operationalize the concept of
employee empowerment, Herrenkohl and colleagues (1999) proposed empowerment as

“a set of dimensions that characterize an environment’s interaction with persons in it so

38

as to encourage their taking initiative to improve process and to take action” (p. 375).
These writers hypothesized that the four dimensions of shared vision, supportive
organizational structure and governance, institutional recognition, and knowledge and
learning would be integral components of empowerment, but found that only the first
three components were retained following their analysis. Spreitzer and colleagues (1999)
linked psychological empowerment to change-oriented leadership, relating it with the
qualities of innovativeness, upward influence, and inspiration of subordinates.

In the counseling realm, empowerment has become analogous to an attitude
involving self-esteem and competence (Emener, 1991), the ability to cope (McWhirter,
1991), intentionality or goal-directed behavior (Richardson, 2000), and a way to construct
political, economic, psychological, and social environments (Savage, Harley, & Nowak,
2005). Bolton and Brookings (1996) proposed a multifaceted definition of empowerment
for people with disabilities, which consisted of 20 characteristics such as assertive,
collaborative, goal-directed, interdependent, self-discovering, and socially responsible.
Dunst (1991), as cited in Short and Rinehart (1992), suggested that empowerment
consists of enabling experiences, provided within an organization that fosters autonomy,
choice, control, and responsibility, that allow the individual to demonstrate competencies
as well as learn new skills.

Kosciulek (1999) developed the consumer-directed theory of empowerment
(CDTE) for use in the field of rehabilitation counseling. The theoretical constructs related
to this theory include consumer-direction, community integration, and empowerment,
with an outcome construct of quality of life. Propositions of the CDTE are offered as a

basis for disability policy development, service delivery and program evaluation, and

39

rehabilitation research. These propositions are: (1) consumer direction has a positive
effect on community integration, (2) consumer direction has a positive effect on
empowerment, (3) community integration has a positive effect on empowerment, (4)
community integration mediates the relation between consumer direction and
empowerment, and (5) empowerment has a positive effect on quality of life. Based on
these propositions, Kosciulek and Merz (2001) tested the hypothetical structural model of
the CDTE using participants from a community rehabilitation program for consumers
with disabilities (n = 159). Using structural equation modeling, the relationships of
consumer direction, empowerment, and quality of life were retained in the model
(propositions 1, 2, & 5); however, community integration was not found to have a
mediating relationship on empowerment, but rather a direct relationship to quality of life.

Most relevant to the current study is the conceptualization of empowerment in the
school setting. Following the realization in the 1990’s that a bottom-up approach would
be more beneficial for school reform (Palestini, 2000), empowerment of teachers,
administrators, and students has been seen as integral to school improvement (Short &
Rinehard, 1992). Short and Greer (1997) acknowledged empowerment for teachers as the
process that allows school participants to develop the competence to take charge of their
grth and resolve personal problems. Empowered individuals believe they have the
skills and knowledge to act in situations and improve them. Palestini (2000) defined
empowerment in schools as “a deliberate effort to provide principals and teachers with
the room, right, responsibility, and resources to make sensible decisions and informed
professional judgments that reflect their circumstances” (p. 78).

Research involving empowerment. As a result of its relevance to many fields of

40

study, empowerment has been used as a variable of interest in a number of studies. The
overriding use of the construct was as a mediator or explanatory condition for outcomes.
In Spreitzer’s (1997) model, which is the conceptual framework for the current study,
empowerment is used as a mediating variable. The following literature explicates the use
of empowerment as a study variable within several disciplines.

Chemiss (1995) conducted a longitudinal, qualitative study to understand the
factors within careers and work environments that resulted in personnel retention and
burnout. Initial interviews with professionals (11 = 26) from human service fields (e.g.,
teachers, nurses, therapists) were conducted within their first year of employment and 12
years later. Results of this study pointed to the multidimensional aspects of
empowerment. Self-efficacy was highly related to the professionals' compassion and
openness to clients because of growing self-confidence. As professionals felt better about
themselves, they felt better about their clients/students. Self-confidence led to greater
effectiveness, which strengthened personal confidence. Lack of collegiality within the
environment led to the inability to tolerate frustration and disappointment. Professionals
were more likely to find work with difficult clients rewarding if they were in a supportive
environment. Two of the lessons that came out of this study were that administrators (I)
need to plan for better working environments to provide the support that prevents burnout
and (2) give professionals a greater role in the planning of change. A combination of
autonomy and support led to better career adjustment for professionals through freedom
from bureaucracy and role conflicts, administrative support and feedback, and stimulating

and congenial colleagues.

41

Maton and Salem (1995) used a multiple case study method to examine the
characteristics of empowering communities. Data from three settings were used as case
studies, including a religious fellowship group, a mutual help organization for individuals
with mental illness, and a scholarship program for Afiican American college students.
Salient characteristics across all settings were a group-based belief system, opportunity
role structures, support systems, and leadership. The group-based belief system was
characterized as inspiring of growth toward goals, based on the capacity and strength of
its members, and based beyond the self to the entire group or mission. For each study, the
opportunity role structure provided a large number of multi-level roles for members,
requiring a varying level of skill and responsibility, as well as the opportunity to develop
and use a variety of skills. A support system was identified in each study that contributes
to the members' quality of life. The support systems were described as encompassing,
peer-based, and providing a sense of community. Finally, leadership was defined as a
motivating and inspirational force. Leaders had a clear vision, were talented and skilled,
shared responsibilities with members, and were committed to the growth of members and
the organization. The characteristics identified as common within these settings were
wholly consistent with extant literature on empowering organizations.

The field of education has yielded variable results with respect to the impact and
relationship of empowerment to other constructs. Husband and Short (1994) found that
the empowerment of teachers was impacted by the organizational structure for personnel.
Using the School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES), the impact of working in
interdisciplinary teams on empowerment was assessed from a sample of 309 middle

school teachers (155 interdisciplinary teamed and 154 departmentally organized). The

42

study revealed that those teachers on the interdisciplinary teams were more significantly
empowered on all six factors of teacher empowerment than their reference group. The
SPES was used to measure empowerment in this study, both in relation to school social
structure and to explore the four components of empowerment postulated in Spreitzer’s
(1997) model.

Martin, Crossland, and Johnson (2001) investigated the connection among teacher
empowerment, teachers’ sense of responsibility, and student success. A sample of 271
classroom teachers from small and mid-sized school districts completed a measure of
responsibility for student achievement and the SPES. Using correlational analysis,
relationships were investigated between teachers’ perceived empowerment in the
workplace, teachers’ perceived levels of responsibility for student learning, and student
achievement on standardized tests in reading and mathematics. A statistically significant
relationship was found between level of empowerment and sense of responsibility for
student success, although a relationship was not found for sense of responsibility for
student negative outcomes. No significant relationship was found between students’
achievement and levels of empowerment. The authors reported that the data indicated
that teacher empowerment and sense of responsibility for student outcomes were
important contributors to school climate and increased teacher efficacy, but only
secondarily to student achievement.

Similar to the proposed study, Sweetland and Hoy (2000) and Sweetland (2001)
were interested in the relationships among the organizational aspects of schools and the
empowerment of professional staff. Sweetland and Hoy (2000) used responses from

middle school teachers (n = 2,741) to investigate the relationship among school climate,

43

teacher empowerment, organizational effectiveness, and student achievement. Climate
variables of collegial leadership and academic press (i.e., stress on academics, resource
support, principal influence) were the strongest predictors of teacher empowerment. The
climate variable of environmental press, categorized as strong pressure from parents and
the community to change the school, was not sufficient to empower teachers. These
researchers concluded that a school climate that is open, collegial, professional, and
focused on student achievement provides an atmosphere for productive teacher
empowerment. Results from the study indicated that teacher empowerment is related to
higher levels of effectiveness and was a significant independent predictor of student
achievement in math and reading. These authors suggested that future research in this
vein should utilize a multidimensional and contextual measure of empowerment, rather
than a global measure, and that the ability for teachers to act in empowered ways should
be analyzed.

Sweetland (2001) investigated the interrelationships among an enabling school
structure, professional authenticity, and teacher sense of power. This author hypothesized
that more enabling school structures would lead to more authenticity in teacher
relationships among peers and between principals and teachers, as well as a greater sense
of power. Strong correlation among an enabling environment, authenticity, and sense of
power pointed to enabling structures facilitating authentic interaction among school
personnel. Using a multiple regression, authenticity and sense of power explained 71% of
the variance of enabling structure. To further the literature on empowerment in schools,

the current study investigated sense of empowerment among school personnel in relation

44

to the environmental and social conditions of the school. To this end, the following
section will discuss the literature related to teacher empowerment.

Teacher empowerment. Teacher empowerment has been a growing concept within
education. Melenyzer (1990) identified teacher empowerment as the opportunity and
confidence to act upon ideas and influence one’s professional performance. Goyne,
Padgett, and Rowicki (1999) proposed that empowerment be viewed as a process, rather
than an outcome, that requires leaders to relinquish some power to create an environment
that fosters collaboration. Two primary causes of barriers to empowerment relate to lack
of interest and giving responsibility with no power. For teachers to become involved,
they must feel that the issue is relevant and worth their effort. In addition, teachers must
be given the power to carry out their plans, once they have been charged with the
responsibility for making them. The three keys to empowerment, identified by Blanchard,
Carlos, and Randolph (1996), are (1) share information with everyone; (2) replace the old
hierarchy with self-directed teams; and (3) create autonomy through boundaries. The
message from leadership in empowering schools needs to be that empowerment and
responsibility are inseparable.

Contemporary school reform efforts have recognized that teachers should be
involved in the change process. With mounting expectations and standards, teachers need
to be more creative and productive to prepare students for the changing demands of the
workforce (Fullan & Miles, 1992). Considering teacher empowerment from a social or
political agenda, Prawat (1991) stated that the goal is to enhance teachers' ability to deal
with oppression in schools and overcome the tendency to hold back or yield to those in

positions of authority. Empowerment should be viewed from a positive, active approach

45

to freedom that views freedom as an achievement, rather than a right. The key to
empowerment, from this stance, is to encourage teachers to be open to creative and
effective ways of constructing the classroom and school environments.

Prawat (1991) described teacher empowerment as an enculturation process,
although the teacher has a reciprocal effect on the environment and the community. From
a political perspective, the keys to empowerment include becoming aware of how power
is arranged in the environment and then finding a way to create a supportive environment
where teachers can find and use their own voice. "A commitment to self is empowering
for teachers only when it takes the form of a commitment to self as professional”
(Prawat, 1991, p. 752). Commitment to others is an important aspect to teachers’ personal
empowerment, especially in developing a voice and sense of self.

Empowering settings. Teacher empowerment can only be realized in an
empowering setting. Miles (1965) identified ten characteristics of healthy organizations:
clear goals accepted by the participants, adequate communication that flows in all
directions and is distortion free, equalized influence among all players in the
organization, human resources used effectively, clear vision concerning what the
organization is about, high morale, innovativeness, autonomy, adaptability, and problem-
solving strategies and procedures. Themes evident in empowering environments include
trust, communication, structures for involvement, and risk taking (Short & Rinehard,
1992)

Chemiss (1997) defined the following factors as contributing to an empowering
setting: (1) role clarity, (2) meaningful roles, (3) self-efficacy, (4) self-determination, (5)

impact, (6) political support, (7) socio-emotional support, (8) access to strategic

46

information, (9) access to resources, (10) leadership that is both inspiring and shared, and
(11) a work unit culture that values members and their potential to make important
contributions. Rosenholtz and Simpson (1990) delineated the organizational factors that
are influential in relation to a teacher's commitment to work. These included performance
efficacy, psychic rewards (learning about the positive results of one's efforts), task
autonomy and discretion (exercise judgment and be a causal agent), learning
opportunities, school management of student behavior (allows more time for the teacher
to teach), and buffering by principals.

Empowerment in the school setting. Empowering schools set the stage for school
personnel to become actively involved in the movement to reform schools and facilitate
better outcomes for students. In describing reform efforts in England, Fullan (2003)
reported that as students’ scores on standardized tests began to rise, the morale of
teachers and principals declined because the working conditions did not adapt to allow
them to become fully engaged in the change process. NCLB’s focus on achievement
creates a legitimate concern for the impact it will have on the morale of school personnel
and overall working conditions within the school. Empowered schools must create
opportunities for competence to be developed and displayed (Short & Greer, 1997).
Teachers need to be welcomed to the table to offer solutions to meet the standards set
forth by No Child Left Behind and demonstrate pride in their schools. Casas (1990, as
cited in McWhirter, 1991) postulated that problem analysis within a school will be
empowering when responsibility for the problem is shared among individuals, the
system, and society, blame is not assigned to an individual, and each stakeholder group is

accountable for contribution to solutions.

47

Through teacher empowerment and the development of active, empowering
school environments, teachers will be willing to assume this role of change-oriented
leader. Empowered individuals do not passively wait for the work environment to
provide direction. They take a proactive approach toward shaping their environment
(Spreitzer, de Janasz, & Quinn, 1999). Prawat (1991) contended that commitment to the
workplace be considered a more encompassing type of outcome variable because, as a
hallmark of organizational success in education, it has become the criterion of choice in

the evaluation of education reform strategies.

48

CHAPTER 3
Method
Participants

The population of interest in this study was public school district personnel. The
sample for this study was drawn from the Haslett, Michigan School District. The Haslett
School District was selected because it was one of three school districts that participated
in a learning community related to self-determination sponsored by the Ingham
Intermediate School District (IISD) in 2004. The 3 districts were selected for inclusion in
the learning community because self-determination was identified by these districts as an
important area of development for transition planning.

During the 2004-2005 school year, a group of school professionals, including six
Haslett School District teachers and counselors, met in a group coordinated by Jeanne
Tomlinson, Transition Coordinator for the IISD, and facilitated by Dr. Sharon Field and
Ms. Kay Cornell of the Center for Self-Determination and Transition at Wayne State
University (Detroit, MI). The group met six times over the course of the school year to
accomplish the following:

0 Become oriented to the self-determination concept and the Steps to Self-

Determination (Field & Hoffman, 1996) curriculum,

0 Prepare for the implementation of self-determination activities,

0 Reflect on the implementation of the curriculum,

0 Discuss resources necessary for continuation of the program, and

- Brainstorm for the possibility of a K-12 self-determination continuum within each

school district.

49

While the Haslett School District was selected due to its participation in the self-
deterrnination learning community, no attempt was made in the present study to measure
the efficacy of the implementation of the self-determination curriculum.

In this study, participant inclusion criteria were that staff be employed in a
professional role (i.e., general education teacher, special education teacher, counselor,
administrator, paraprofessional) and have completed at least two years of post-secondary
education. Of the district personnel who completed a survey (n = 102), 100 participants
met these inclusion criteria. Data from two additional participants were excluded because
one side of one of the study measures, the School Climate Inventory (SCI), was not
completed. Thus, the total potential available sample for this study was 98. Based on
estimates provided by the Assistant Superintendent, the total potential population that
could be sampled, based on inclusion criteria, was approximately 200 staff. The sample
participating in the current study represented approximately 50% of the entire population
available.

A Participant Demographic Questionnaire, which can be found in Appendix A,
was used to collect demographic information from participants. The participants were
comprised mostly of females (71.4%) and all but 2 respondents were Caucasian. The
average age of participants was 43.7 years (Range = 21-64). Participants had a mean of
15.7 years of education and were employed an average of 9.8 years at their current
school. Six participants reported an education level below a Bachelor’s degree, 35 a
Bachelor’s degree, 52 a Master’s degree, and 4 a degree beyond a Master’s. The greatest
proportion of respondents were general education teachers (59.2%), followed by

paraprofessionals (12.2%), special education teachers (11.2%), counselors/therapists

50

Table 1

Participant Demographic Characteristics

 

 

Variables Freq %8 M SD Range
Gender
Female 70 71.4
Male 26 26.5
Race
Caucasian 94 95.9
American Indian 1 1.0
Asian or Pacific Islander 1 1.0
Level of Education
Some college, no degree 4 4.1
Associate’s degree 2 2.0
Bachelor’s degree 35 35.7
Master’s degree 52 53.1
Degree beyond Master’s 4 4.]
Position
Administrator 3 3. 1
General Education Teacher 58 59.2
Special Education Teacher 1 1 11.2
Therapist/Counselor 7 7. 1
Paraprofessional l 2 1 2 .2
Other 6 6.1
Level of School
Elementary 40 40.8
Middle 24 24.5
High 34 34.7
Age 95 43.7 10.8 21-64
Years in Education Field 96 15.7 9.5 1-37
1-35

Years at Current School 96 9.8 8.0

 

a Percentages may not equal 100% due to omitted data.

51

(7.1%), other (6.1%), and administrators (3.1%). Participants represented the three school
levels as follows: elementary school (40.8%), middle school (24.5%), and high school
(34.7%). Table 1 contains detailed information regarding participant demographic
characteristics.

Variables and Instruments

Social structure. The social structure of a school forms its contemporary reality
and the necessary preconditions for a sense of empowerment among teachers. The overall
tone of the school and the image that is perceived by others, both inside and outside of
the school, has a direct impact on the capacity that can be generated through connections
to staff, parents, students, and the community. The development of capital and resources
should further strengthen the climate and image of the school. For the purposes of this
study, social structure, in relation to a school setting, was conceptually defined as school
climate and social capital.

Climate describes the personality of an organization and provides a frame of
reference for individuals to shape behaviors and attitudes (Spreitzer, 1996). School
climate is the readily observable characteristics of the school, while school culture is the
deeper, supporting structure upon which the climate rests (Fiore, 2001). Because of this
observable quality, the climate of a school was the variable of interest in this study as
opposed to culture, although authors sometimes use the terms interchangeably (Van
Houtte, 2005). Climate emphasizes the feeling and tone of the school, the mood of
relationships and staff morale, and the overall personality of the school (F iore, 2001;

Peterson & Deal, 2002).

52

The term social capital was first used to describe the tangible assets that count the
most in the daily lives of people, including goodwill, fellowship, and social intercourse
among people (Pooley et al., 2005). Social capital has been proposed to explain
cooperation and trust within communities (Lin, 2001a, 2001b). Putnam (1993) defined
social capital as the "features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks
that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated action" (p. 167).
School social capital can be identified through its composition, resources, and climate
(Israel & Beaulieu, 2004).

The School Climate Inventory (SCI; The Center for Research in Educational
Policy, 2002) was used to measure the concept of social structure by operationally
defining school climate and social capital. The SCI assesses the perceptions and opinions
of school personnel. The SCI can be used to monitor and manage educational change
initiatives by evaluating climate factors that either limit or bolster school effectiveness.
The SCI consists of seven dimensions that are linked with factors associated with
effective school organizational climates. Items on this 49-item measure (seven items per
dimension) are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strong disagreement; 5 = strong
agreement). A mean score is calculated for each of the following seven instrument
dimensions. Internal consistency reliability coefficients are provided in parentheses.

1. Order: the extent to which the environment is ordered and appropriate student

behaviors are present (u=.83).

Is.)

Leadership: the extent to which the administration provides instructional
leadership (a=.83).

3. Environment: the extent to which positive learning environments exist (a=.81).

53

4. Involvement: the extent to which parents and the community are involved in the
school (a=.76).
5. Instruction: the extent to which the instructional program is well developed and

implemented (a = .75).

6. Expectations: the extent to which students are expected to learn and be
responsible (a=.73).

7. Collaboration: the extent to which the administration, faculty, and students
cooperate and participate in problem solving (a=.74).

School climate was operationally defined by the mean scores on the Order,
Leadership, Environment, Instruction, and Expectations dimensions. Social capital was
operationally defined by the mean scores on the Involvement and Collaboration
dimensions. The SCI was used with permission of The Center for Research in
Educational Policy at the University of Memphis.

Sense of empowerment. According to Prawat (1991), keys to empowerment
include becoming aware of the structure of power in the environment and then finding a
way to create a supportive environment where teachers can find and use their own voice.
The organization of the school may negatively affect teacher empowerment, in that
bureaucratic schools can deny autonomy and control (Husband & Short, 1994). Spreitzer
(1996) suggested that empowerment of individuals within an organization has a
reciprocal, although not equally significant, effect on the social structure of the
organization. In the current study, sense of empowerment was theoretically defined as
self-determination, competence, meaning, and impact, based on Spreitzer’s (1997) model

of individual empowerment in organizations. In this study, sense of empowerment was

54

operationally defined by the School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES; Short &

Rinehart, I992). Permission to use the SPES was granted by the first author.

The SPES was "designed to assess several conceptually derived dimensions, or

components, of empowerment" (Short & Rinehart, 1992, p. 953). Items are rated on a 5-

point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Mean scores are calculated

for each of six factor scales; with higher mean scale scores indicating greater

empowerment. The six dimensions, or factor scales, of the SPES are listed and defined

below. Internal consistency reliability coefficients are provided in parentheses.

1.

Decision Making (10 items): refers to the participation of teachers in critical
decisions that directly affect their work (a=.89).

Professional Growth (6 items): refers to teachers’ perceptions that their school
provides them with opportunities to grow and develop as a professional, learn
continuously, and expand one’s skills (u=.83).

Status (6 items): refers to the teacher’s sense of esteem ascribed by others to the
position of teacher (a=.86).

Self-Efficacy (6 items): refers to teachers’ perceptions that they have the skills
and ability to help students learn, are competent in building effective programs for
students, and can affect change in student learning (a=.84).

Autonomy (4 items): refers to teachers’ beliefs that they can control certain
aspects of their work life (o=.81).

Impact (6 items): refers to teachers’ perceptions that they have an effect and

influence on school life ((1:82).

55

Procedure

A request to conduct a research study was submitted to the Haslett School
District. The Assistant Superintendent of the Haslett School District provided approval
for the conduct of this study. Following receipt of a letter from the MSU Institutional
Review Board indicating that this study was exempt from review for the use of human
subjects in research (see Appendix B), the investigator contacted the principal of each of
the six Haslett School District schools to arrange for a time to collect data from staff at
their school. In addition, recruitment flyers were distributed to potential participants with
the date and time for data collection. To collect study data, the investigator spent two to
six hours of a school day in the staff lounge at each school. Data were collected across a
three-week time period.

On the day of data collection at each site, the demographic questionnaire, SCI,
and SPES were administered to school personnel in an individual format. A verbal
description of the study and written letter of informed consent (see Appendix C) were
provided to each participant prior to his or her completion of study questionnaires.
Informed consent was implied from each participant who completed and returned study
questionnaires. All study packets were sealed following completion and remained sealed
until data entry. All demographic information and questionnaire responses were entered
into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 14. 0 for Windows (SPSS, 2005) for
data analysis.

Data Analysis
Canonical correlation analysis was used to answer Research Question I: What is

the relationship'between school social structure and teacher empowerment? Canonical

56

'i art-3T

correlation was selected because it allows the researcher to investigate the simultaneous

relationship between sets of variables (Polit, 1996; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2000). In this

analysis, the purpose was to evaluate the relationship between school social structure and

sense of empowerment. The social structure criterion variables were measured via

subscales of the SCI, while the empowerment predictor variables were measured via

subscales of the SPES. Figure 3 illustrates the predictor and criterion variables used in the

canonical correlation analysis. Using guidelines developed by Cohen (1988) and Lipsey

(1990), an a priori statistical power analysis when using canonical analysis (i.e., multiple

correlation) indicated that under the conditions of a fixed alpha level of 0.05, seven

predictor variables, and assuming an anticipated small to medium effect size, that a

sample size of approximately 90 was required to obtain a desired statistical power level

of 0.80.

 

Social Structure

Social Capital
Involvement
Collaboration

School Climate
Order
Leadership
Environment
Instruction
Expectation

 

 

Criterion Variables

 

 

 

Predictor Variables
Empowerment

Decision Making
Professional Growth
Status
Self-Efficacy
Autonomy
Impact

 

Figure 3: Variable Sets for Canonical Correlation

To answer the second research question, the hypothesized relationship among the

components of sense of empowerment was analyzed using multiple regression analysis.

Figure 4 illustrates the measurement model used to test the relationship among the

 

components of sense of empowerment. SPES subscale mean scores were used to measure

each of the predictor variables and the criterion variable.

 

Self-determination

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Autonomy
Competence I—"lpa—c-t
Professional Growth |:> Decrslton-M ak mg
, : mpact
Meaning
Criterion Variable
Status
Self-Eflicacy

 

 

 

Predictor Variables

 

 

 

Figure 4: Measurement Model for Regression using SPES Subscales

As shown in Figure 4, for the Meaning and Impact variables, two subscale mean
scores were combined to yield a single score for each of these variables. Although the
conceptual framework in Figure 2 (pg. 11) hypothesizes a temporal, cyclical effect, only
the general relationship of the predictor variables to the criterion variable of Impact will
be assessed. A forward, sequential regression method was used to determine the inclusion
order of the predictor variables, based on the order proposed in Figure 2. An a priori
power analysis indicated that when using multiple regression with a fixed alpha level of
0.05, three predictor variables, and assuming an anticipated small to medium effect size,
that a sample size of approximately 60 was required to obtain a desired statistical power

level of 0.80 (Cohen, 1988; Lipsey, 1990).

58

CHAPTER FOUR
'Results

The purposes of this investigation were to determine the relationship between
school social structure and sense of empowerment and to explicate the relationship
among the components of sense of empowerment. Prior to conducting the primary
analyses related to each of the two research questions, descriptive statistics and
correlation analyses were calculated to yield data to describe the variables in this study
and examine interrelationships among the variables. Using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences 1 4.0 for Windows (SPSS, 2005), Research Question 1 (i.e., the
relationship of social structure to empowerment) was addressed using canonical
correlation analysis. SPSS also was used to conduct a multiple regression analysis to
address Research Question 2 (i.e., the relationship among the components of sense of
empowerment).
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analyses

Means, standard deviations, ranges, and internal consistency reliability estimates
(i.e., Cronbach’s alphas) for all study variables are presented in Table 2 and correlations
among the variables are shown in Table 3. As illustrated in Table 2, the alpha levels for
the study variables were similar to the alpha levels reported for the School Climate
Inventory subscales (The Center for Research in Educational Policy, 2002). Similarly,
alpha levels for the study variables were, for the most part, similar to the alpha levels
reported for the School Participant Empowerment Scale subscales (Short & Rinehart,
1992). One study variable, Autonomy, had low to moderate internal consistency reliability

(alpha = .65) and had an alpha level lower than the alpha of .81 previously reported by

59

Short and Rinehart (1992). As shown in Table 3, many statistically significant

correlations were found to exist between the study variables.
Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

 

 

Variables M SD Rangeal a
1. Collaboration 3.96 .56 1.86-5.00 .81
2. Expectation 4.12 .53 2.86-5.00 .80
3. Instruction 4.06 .51 2.86-5.00 .79
4. Involvement 3.92 .62 2.29-5.00 .77
5. Environment 4.16 .55 2.71-5.00 .83
6. Leadership 3.95 .67 2.14-5.00 .85
7. Order 3.78 .72 1.29-5.00 .85
8. Decision Making 3.72 .73 1.40-5.00 .85
9. Professional Growth 4.20 .63 1.67-5.00 .83
10. Status 4.46 .45 3.00-5.00 .77
11. Self-Efficacy 4.52 .53 1.67-5.00 .88
12. Autonomy 3.55 .76 1.00-5.00 .65
13. Impact 4.30 .56 2.33-5.00 .78

 

a Minimum to maximum.

Results in Relation to Research Question I

The first research question of interest in this study was: What is the relationship
between school social structure and teacher empowerment? The correlations and
standardized canonical coefficients between school social structure and sense of
empowerment, as well as the overall canonical correlation results, are presented in Table
4. Only one canonical variate emerged as significant in the relationship between these
two sets of variables. The squared canonical correlation of the canonical variate (RC2),
which represented the variance shared by the linear combination of the two sets of

variables, was .53.

60

mo. V 9., Jo. V a“:

 

 

-- fee. :5. :5. 2:8. :80. .38. tax. team. as. 18m. :Sm. :48. 888%:
-- :84. :94. 1.9%. :48. at. 1.2m. 1.53. So; ten. of. team. ES§<§

-- tame. :5. :53. in“. 15m. ream. new. :mR. 38m. :5. 585339:

-- 25%. :Sm. to? tan. 1.3.. 1.2. :84. :24. :34. 3592

-- :5. 2:9,. :80. team. tam. tom. tam. tame. :Eocoaeoameea .o

-- NE. teem. tam. e8. ...mmm. 8m. :34. win: 5365 .w

-- ta. 1.3m. £3. :58. £2. team. 520 s

-- :8». :3. .238. 1:5. :85 32083 e

-- £3. to; tie. :me aoecesam .m

-- :Rm. :30. ten. 80523:. e

-- :5. :NE. 8:855 .m

-- :85 coesoaxm .N

I screens—BO .—

2 S _ _ 2 a w e e m 4 m N _ m“SEES

 

333.95.; SEW MESS» “.2333th

m 2an

61

Table 4

Canonical Analysis of School Social Structure and Sense of Empowerment Variables (n = 73)

 

First Variate

 

Canonical
Variable Correlation Coefficient
School Social Structure
Involvement . 1 8 -.48
Collaboration -.66 -.96
Order -.14 -.63
Leadership -.30 -.89
Environment -.15 -.87
Instruction . l 6 -.68
Expectation -. I2 -. 71
Percentage of Variance8 58.01
Redundancy of Predictor Variables .31
Sense of Empowerment
Decision Making -.18 -.59
Professional Growth -.88 -.94
Status -.24 -.77
Self-Efficacy -.35 -.65
Autonomy .02 -.43
Impact .65 -.52
Percentage of Variance3 45.00
Redundancy of Criterion Variables .24
Canonical Correlation .73***

 

NOTE: The correlations are standardized canonical coefficient; the canonical
coefficients are the structure coefficients.

aPercentage of variance accounted for within the set by the canonical variate.
***p < .001

62

The standardized canonical coefficients reveal the ratio of importance of each of
the original variables in calculating the canonical score for each canonical variate. For the
criterion variables of social structure, Collaboration had a greater ratio of importance in
calculating the canonical variate, whereas Professional Growth and Impact held the
greatest importance for the sense of empowerment predictor variables.

The canonical (structure) coefficients illustrate how the original predictor
variables load on each of the canonical variables for the criterion set in each of the
canonical correlations. Absolute values of structure coefficients above .30 can be
interpreted as important in defining the dimension, or characteristic, of the canonical
variate (Polit, 1996). In the present study, one canonical variate emerged for
interpretation at a significant level and all of the structure coefficients in this variate were
above the .30 level.

The percentage of variance represents the amount of variance that each canonical
variate extracts from the variables on its own side of the canonical equation. The variance
explained by the criterion variables was 58%. The variance explained by the predictor
variables was 45%. Of additional note to variance is the redundancy statistic. According
to Levine (1977), the question canonical correlation analysis seeks to answer is not how
much of the variance in a set is captured by a variate from that set, but rather how much
of the variance of a set, as contained in the variate, can be accounted for by a variate from
the other set. The redundancy from the predictor variables in the variance of the criterion
variables was .31 and the redundancy from the criterion variables in the variance of the

predictor variables was .24. Redundancy data thus indicate that low to moderate amounts

63

of variance in each of the sets of variables, as contained in the one variate, is accounted
for by the variate for the other set.

The canonical correlation for the first canonical variate was .73. The square of the
canonical correlation represents the variance shared by the specific linear combination of
the two sets of variables. Thus, the results in this study indicate that 53% of the variance
between the school social structure and empowerment variables is explained by the first
canonical variate.

Results in Relation to Research Question 2

The second research question of interest in this study was: What is the
relationship among the components of sense of empowerment? Sequential regression was
used to determine the relationship of the components of sense of empowerment. The
three predictor variables were forward-entered based on the theoretical relationship
proposed in Figure 4 (p. 58). Subscales from the SPES were used to operationally define
the variables in the proposed model. The Autonomy subscale was used to measure Self-
Determination and the Professional Growth subscale was used to measure Competence.
The Self-Efficacy and Status subscales were combined to measure Meaning. The
Decision-Making and Impact subscales were combined to measure the criterion variable
of Impact.

Results of the multiple regression analysis with the three predictor variables (Self-
Deterrnination, Competence, and Meaning) on Impact are presented in Table 5. Table 5
displays the correlations among the variables, the unstandardized regression coefficients
(B) and intercept, the standardized regression coefficients ([3), the semipartial correlations

(srz), and the R, R2, and adjusted R2 after entry of all three predictor variables. The

64

Table 5

Regression of Sense of Empowerment Variables on Impact (n = 86)

 

 

 

Variables 1 2 3 4 B [3 st2
Self-Determination .70 - .33 .42 .49"
Competence .69 .51 - .25 .27 .15* *
Meaning .68 .46 .68 - .38 .30 .05"
Intercept -.20
Mean 3.76 3.58 4.23 4.49
SD .59 .76 .62 .46
NOTE: 1 = Impact (dependent variable); 2 = Self-Determination; 3 = Competence;
4 = Meaning.
Total Model: R = .83, R2 = .68, Adjusted R2 = .67"
”p < .01

regression analysis produced a significant result, R = .83, F (3, 82) = 57.81, p < .01,
resulting in the selection of all three of the predictor variables.

After the first model, beginning with the regression of Self-Determination on
Impact (DV), R2 = .49, F (l, 84) = 79.65, p < .01. After the inclusion of Competence, R2
= .63, F (2, 83) = 71.67, p < .01. With the final addition of Meaning, R2 = .68, F (3, 82) =
57.81, p < .01. The addition of each of the three predictor variables resulted in significant
increments in R2. The adjusted R2 of the entire model was .67, meaning that 67% of the
variation in Impact was predicted from the linear combination of the predictor variables
of Self-Determination, Competence, and Meaning, following adjustment for the expected
inflation of R in the study sample.
Supplemental Analyses

Additional analyses were conducted to compare mean levels on all study variables

by participant demographic characteristics. Independent sample t-tests and ANOVAs

65

were used to explore differences based on job position, tenure on the job, years of
education, and school level. For job position, due to sample size limitations, participants
were coded into ‘teacher’ and ‘non-teacher’ groups. For years of education, participants
were coded into ‘advanced degree’ or ‘less than an advanced degree’. Findings indicated
that there was no statistically significant difference between study variable mean levels
by job position. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between study
variable mean levels by years of education.

Using ANOVA, participants were grouped into three categories for job tenure:
less than 10 years, 10-20 years, and more than twenty years. These categories were
created based on research related to the rise and decline of teacher satisfaction and
motivation (Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1990). ANOVA results indicated that there was a
statistically significant difference among the job tenure groups on the Autonomy (F =
4.05; p < .05) and Impact variables (F = 3.17; p < .05). Autonomy relates to the control
that personnel have over their work lives and Impact relates to the effect and influence
personnel have on their school life.

Significant differences also were found using ANOVA based on level of school:
elementary, middle, and high. Differences were found among the three groups on the
variables of Expectation (F = 7.72; p < .001), Involvement (F = 24.38; p < .001), Order (F
= 8.00; p < .001), Decision Making (F = 4.08; p < .05), and Autonomy (F = 5.87; p < .01).
Elementary school personnel had lower mean scores on Autonomy and Decision Making
than the other two groups, demonstrating that they perceived less control and participation
in aspects that affect their work life. Conversely, high school personnel reported lower

mean scores for Order, Involvement, and Expectation than the other two groups. This

66

finding suggests that a less organized school climate is perceived at the high school level,
which encompasses less parental/community involvement and student responsibility for

learning.

67

CHAPTER 5
Discussion

When applied to the field of education, the theoretical framework presented in
Spreitzer’s (1997) model suggests the need for schools to facilitate the development of a
positive school climate, social capital, and staff empowerment, in an attempt to create
constructive school conditions that lead to desired outcomes for students. Systemic
change should direct schools to focus on the interrelationships among the members of the
school community as a way to facilitate the implementation of NCLB policies and
regulations. Collaborative and empowering environments create the natural conditions for
change to occur. The present study solicited the perceptions of school personnel in the
Haslett (Michigan) School District to gain data useful to better understanding these
interrelationships.

The current investigation had two purposes. The primary purpose of this study
was to examine the relationship between school social structure and sense of
empowerment among professional school personnel. It was anticipated that a study of the
relationship between school social structure and sense of empowerment would provide
schools with information useful for assessing internal assets and barriers. The research
question of interest in relation to the primary purpose was as follows: What is the
relationship of school social structure and teacher empowerment?

The second purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationships among
the components of sense of empowerment among professional school personnel. The
research question of interest for addressing this purpose was: What is the relationship

among the components of empowerment? The potential value of this study is in

68

providing data useful for better understanding school organizational factors that may
promote school improvement efforts. This chapter addresses the following topics: (a)
limitations of the study; (b) narrative summary of results; (c) relation of findings to
previous research; ((1) theoretical and practice implications; and (e) suggestions for future
research.

Limitations of the Study

Prior to discussion of the results and their implications, several limitations should
be noted for the current study. The first relates to the nature of the study participants.
From a demographic characteristic perspective, the participants in this study were
homogeneous. The majority of participants in this sample were well-educated (93.9%
attaining a bachelor’s degree or higher) and Caucasian (95.9%). The sample was also
largely female (71.4%), although this is consistent with the general field of elementary
and secondary education. Participant demographic characteristics, combined with the
convenience sampling procedure, present significant limitations to generalizability.
Because study participants are not representative of the general professional school
personnel population, findings in this study cannot be generalized beyond the current
sample.

A second potential limitation in relation to the study sample is that some of the
participants may have participated in or been aware of the self-determination learning
community offered through the Ingham Intermediate School District. Participant
awareness of the learning community may have provided for a unique perspective or bias
regarding the topics of school climate, social capital, and sense empowerment, which was

different from those participants who were not aware of the self—determination learning

69

community.

Next, as per a pro-analysis statistical power analysis, power was adequate for
calculating a multiple regression analysis that would yield stable and reliable data.
However, due to sample size limitations, the power for conducting the canonical analysis
was less than optimal. As such, the results of the canonical analysis may lack stability
and reliability and must be viewed and interpreted with caution.

Finally, multicollinearity among variables was a limitation in this study.
Multicollinearity may have contributed to the lack of significant findings for the
canonical correlation analysis beyond the first canonical variate. The instruments that
were selected may have been too similar regarding the constructs they purport to
measure. More specifically, the high levels of correlation between the social structure and
empowerment variables likely influenced the results in relation to Research Question 1.
Further, the high levels of correlation among the empowerment variables as measured by
the SPES likely influenced results in relation to Research Question 2. A note of caution
regarding future research in this area is that investigators must consider potential
multicollinearity between school social structure and empowerment constructs in
instrument selection and variable measurement.

Narrative Summary of Results

The first purpose of the current investigation, to examine the relationship between
school social structure and sense of empowerment among professional school personnel,
was addressed through the application of canonical correlation analysis. The canonical
correlation for the first and only canonical variate was .73. As such, 53% of the variance

between the school social structure and sense of empowerment variables is explained by

70

the first canonical variate. This finding suggests that a moderate relationship exists
between the social structure and empowerment variable sets.

Results in the current study indicated that the structure loadings of each of the
predictor and criterion variables were greater than .30. Absolute vales of structure
coefficients greater than .30 can be interpreted as important in defining the dimensions,
characteristics, or meaning of a canonical variate (Polit, 1996). This finding is, in part,
likely due to the high levels of correlation among the variables. The finding that each of
the variables had structure loadings greater than .30 makes definitive interpretation of the
canonical variate tenuous. One aspect of the canonical variate interpretation that is
potentially reliable follows below.

Regarding the contribution of variables to the canonical variate, Collaboration had
the greatest ratio of importance for the criterion variables of social structure, whereas
Professional Growth and Impact had the greatest importance for the predictor variables of
sense of empowerment. Collaboration relates to the extent to which administration,
faculty, and students cooperate and participate in problem solving. Professional Growth
relates to teachers’ perceptions that their school provides opportunities to grow and
develop as a professional, to learn continuously, and to expand one’s skills. Impact
corresponds to teachers’ perceptions that they have an effect and influence on school life.
Given the importance of these variables to the canonical variate, it can be hypothesized
that collaborative work environments, professional growth opportunities, and the ability
to impact outcomes strongly influence the relationship between school social structure
and sense of empowerment. Additional studies, conducted with instruments, constructs,

and sampling procedures able to ameliorate the potential limitations of the present study,

71

are needed to corroborate these findings.
Multiple regression analysis was conducted to answer the second research
question based on the hypothesized relationship among the components of sense of
empowerment illustrated in Figure 4 (p. 5 8). Because each of the three variables of Self-
Determination, Competence, and Meaning entered the regression equation at statistically
significant levels and added to the amount of variance accounted for in the criterion
variable of Impact, results provided evidence to support the following hypothesized
model:
Self-determination is the initial component in the development of a sense of
empowerment. Following a greater experience of self-determination, school personnel
begin to feel more competent in their professional role. Professional competence leads
to a greater sense of purpose and meaning, with the external benefit of increased
status among colleagues. With greater status and purpose of role, school personnel
can have a more significant impact through increased control. This impact and
achievement of control are desired outcomes that continue to feed the cycle of sense
of empowerment.

Relation of Findings to Previous Research

The findings in the current study are‘consistent with previous research in several
ways. First, in considering social capital, Collaboration was found to be highly related to
the canonical variate, while Involvement was not. Collaboration represents social capital
factors internal to the school, while Involvement relates to social capital external to the
school, such as parents and the community. Similarly, Spreitzer (1996) found that access

to external resources was not related to empowerment. Additionally, Sweetland and Hoy

72

(2000) found that the climate variable of environmental press, categorized as strong
pressure from parents and the community to change the school, was not sufficient to
empower teachers. The implication of this finding is that perhaps irrespective of the
external supports and resources that are available to schools, a collegial and collaborative
environment can generate substantial internal social capital to create a positive school
environment. In other words, it is what is inside the school counts. Studies utilizing
districts with demographics and resources different from the one used in this study would
be paramount to clarifying this discovery.

Second, Pepper, and Thomas (2002) postulated that schools that value teacher
professionalism promote a climate of collaboration where teachers can work together to
provide mutual support and constructive feedback to one another. In like fashion, the
current study points to Collaboration and Professional Growth as the most important
variables from each of the predictor and criterion variable sets relative to contributing to
the canonical variate. This finding suggests that school systems interested in enhancing
social structure and staff empowerment should focus on (a) methods to improve
collaboration among members and (b) staff professional development. Professional
development which focuses on a learning community paradigm may mutually enhance
these conditions.

Finally, regarding the significance of the empowerment variables in the canonical
variate, Professional Growth and Status were more significant predictors than Autonomy,
Self-Efficacy, Impact, and Decision-Making. This finding suggests that the facilitation of
sense of empowerment for school personnel can be most greatly impacted by increasing

an individual’s career/job status and enhancing his or her professional competence.

73

Further, in light of the discrepancy of status between general and special educators
reported in the literature (e. g., Halpem, 1999), morale building and professional
development efforts should focus on cross-departmental collaboration to elevate the
status of personnel across departmental lines.

Implications for Theory and Practice

The results of this investigation have implications for advancing both
empowerment theory and professional education practice. Regarding empowerment
theory, the findings of the present study, contextualized by the school setting, can be used
to further develop Spreitzer’s (1997) theoretical model of individual empowerment in
organizations in two distinct ways. First, similar to Spreitzer’s (1996) finding that access
to resources was not related to empowerment, in the present study, Involvement of
parents and the community was found to be of less importance in relation to
empowerment than Collaboration. As purported by Spreitzer (1997) theoretically, this
finding emphasizes the significance of internal social capital for promoting organizational
empowerment.

Second, Professional Growth, as a measure of competence, was the most
important predictor variable in relation to social structure. Spreitzer et al. (1997) found
that competence was related to effectiveness, work satisfaction, and lower levels of job
strain. Thus, both empirical findings and theoretical hypotheses (i.e., Spreitzer, 1997)
suggest that the level and quality of competence among school personnel is a significant
factor in relation to social structure and overall empowerment, and, by extension,
potentially student achievement outcomes.

The present findings also have two important implications for practice in the field

74

of education. First, professional development, collaboration, and status of personnel
emerged as important variables for evaluating the relationship between social structure
and empowerment. The results of the current and other studies (e.g., Little, 1982; Phelps
& Hanley-Maxwell, 1997; Short & Greer, 1997) suggest that collegiality and the use of
learning communities are hallmarks of a positive school environment. As such, the
development of positive school environments may be most effectively promoted through
professional development/training, collaborative work arrangements, and recognition of
the contributions of all school personnel (Status). Second, findings suggest that
collaboration among the members of the school was a more important predictor of the
relation between social capital and empowerment than the involvement of families and
the community. If additional studies yielded similar results, such data would indicate that
in order to maximize social capital and facilitate the empowerment of school personnel, it
would be critically important for schools to emphasize the involvement of internal school
members (i.e., administration, staff, and students).

The utility of the present study is also of importance in light of contemporary
educational reform. With consideration to the aforementioned limitations to the study, the
implications of the study can be viewed in terms of its direct usefulness. The reality of
the No Child Left Behind Act is that corrective action is not immediate, so that schools
may languish before adjustments are made. Sanctions are only brought upon schools if
they fail to meet their annual yearly progress goals for two or three consecutive years
(Howell, 2006). To be able to productively affect change at the local level and still have
control assumed by the schools, interventions for school improvement must be

implemented before this sanction schedule.

75

For this to occur, steps must be taken proactively and preemptively at the school
and district level. The current study points to the variables of Collaboration, Professional
Development, Impact, and Status as important to the development of positive school
social structure and the empowerment of school personnel. Translated into useful
interventions, school must focus on the cross-departmental learning community paradigm
of professional development in order to improve the competence, prestige, and
empowerment of individuals within the school community.

One caveat to the findings of this study, given its limitations, is that the model
purported here was substantiated using a suburban, well-resourced school district. The
model may not hold in an urban school district with fewer resources. The literature is
replete with evidence suggesting the continual promotion of collegiality, professional
development, and collaboration at the school level (e.g., Chemiss, 1995; Martinez, 2004;
Short & Greer, 1997). Additional, more diversified inquiry is needed to bear out the
findings of the current investigation to add to this body of research.

Suggestions for Future Research

Several suggestions should be considered regarding future research on school
social structure and sense of empowerment within the milieu of school improvement,
both in relation to procedure and substance. First, with respect to procedure, future school
social structure and empowerment investigations should expand the type of
constructs/variables that are studied in order to more specifically explicate the
relationships between these two constructs and among the components of empowerment.
The constructs, as measured in the current study, may have been too similar, thus

resulting in high correlation levels. Additional explanatory variables should be sought to

76

reduce this occurrence. Further, it would be instructive to evaluate the relationships
between social structure and empowerment beyond the individual at the school building
level. In the future, instruments should be selected or designed that include the ability to
collect district-level data. Such data potentially would provide more generalizable results
across schools and aid in distinguishing between school and district-level factors
influencing school climate and school personnel empowerment.

Second, future studies should include a larger and more diverse group of study
participants in order to increase the potential generalizability of results. While the
information gained in this study may be useful for the individual school district’s staff
development and school improvement efforts, it is not possible to extend the findings
beyond the sample used in the current investigation. Future studies should intentionally
seek to include more diverse samples across multiple school districts in order to more
specifically delineate the relation between school social structure and sense of
empowerment, as well as to delineate the aspects of each of these constructs that promote
positive student outcomes.

Third, global school reform issues should be included in future investigations in
order to differentiate a third level of impact, the state/federal level. It is a plausible
hypothesis that the attitudes toward No Child Left Behind among school personnel will
influence their impressions of school climate, social capital, and sense of empowerment.

Finally, the present study focused on only the first two components (social
structure and empowerment) of Spreitzer’s (1997) model of individual empowerment in
organizations. Exploring the relationship between social structure and sense of

empowerment was a first step toward developing interventions for school improvement.

77

Following additional studies to explicate the relationships among social structure and
sense of empowerment, the third aspect of Spreitzer’s model, behavioral outcomes,
should be examined within the school context (i.e., personnel effectiveness and student

achievement).

78

APPENDICES

79

APPENDIX A

Demographic Questionnaire

80

The Relationship between Social Structure and Sense of Empowerment for School
Personnel

Demographic Questionnaire

Please mark or provide the answers that best describe you.
1. Indicate the level of your school.

C) Elementary

CJ Middle

C] High School

2. Indicate your position at the school.

C) Administrator (:3 Special Education Teacher
C] General Education Teacher C] Counselor/Therapist
C3 Paraprofessional C) Other

 

 

3. How many total years of experience do you have as a school employee (e.g.,
teacher, administrator, support staff)?

 

4. How many years of experience do you have as an employee at YOUR SCHOOL?

 

5. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

C) High school diploma or less C) Some college, no degree
Cl Associate’s Degree Cl Bachelor’s Degree
C3 Master’s Degree CI Degree beyond Master’s

6. Which best describes you?

[3 American Indian or Alaskan Native C) Asian or Pacific Islander
[:1 Black/African American [3 Hispanic/Latino
Cl Multiracial Cl Caucasian

7. What is your age?

 

8. What is your gender?

B Female
C3 Male

81

APPENDIX B

MSU Institutional Review Board (UCRIHS) Exemption Letter

82

 

202 on: Hall

East Lansing, Moan
48820-1040
517-355-2180

For: 517432-4500

W hummesearch mat ECU
P38 BIBS: IRBOmwcdu
CRIBS: crxrtrfimsu edit

MI! 0 m adorn-m 1' nine
,rstl ,‘p‘. I". ran um. c.

 

U N l V E R S l T Y Application
April 26. 2006 DGIOI’ITII nation
*Exempt"

To: John KOSCIULEK
458 Erickson Hall

Re: [RD 0 X00434 Cannery: EXEMPT 1-2
Approval Date: April 23. 2006

Title; THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND SENSE OF EMPOWERMENT
FOR SCHOOL PERSONNEL

ThoinsfimfionelReviewBoerdheecompletedmehrwiewofyompreiect. lanpleeeedioadvieeyouMur
projectheebeendeunedeeempdnaecordancewimiederaimdeflone.

mimmmmmmmmmmummmmmmmm
protection at hurnan subjects In exempt research. Under our exempt pollcy the Principal Inveetlpator
new the reeponelbllltiee for the protection of human eubjectdn this project as outlined in the
ammo Ietterand exempt educational material. The IRB office has received your signed asmree tor
exornpt research. A copy of this signed agreement to appended for your Intonnatton and records.

Renewele: Enornptproiocoledomjneedtoberenewed. Ititrepmlectiscornpleted. pieaeeeubmiian
AppitcedonforPermenentCIoewe

Revleione Exemptproiocoledomnrequrereviaione. However.ifchangeearemadetoaprotocolthatmay
notongermeetmeexemptcmene.anewinmaiapplcadonwliborequred.

Problem Itieeuee should arise duringiheconduct attire research, suchaemantlcipated problems. adverse
overtimoranyproblem thayimeeemendttomohumannflecteandchangewmotrevlew.
notifyihelRBofllceprornptiy. Anyoomplolniehornparfldpantemgardngmeriskmdbeneflteofmepmiect
MbereportedtoiheIRB.

Follow-up: Ifyouroxemptproiectlenetcompletedand closed momma lRBoflioewllIcontect you
regerdlngdieetetusoithepmledandtovanfymatnochangeeheveoccwmdthatmayaitoctexemptstatus.

PleaseuaethelRBrunnberIistedaboveonanytormssubnittedwhlchreiatetomispmjectmron any
conespondencewtththelRBoffloe.

Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email
at W Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

M

Peter Vasrlenko. Pn D.
SIRE! Chair

c. Andre.) Perkins

.10 IA Erickson Hail
East Lansrnq. MI 48854

83

APPENDIX C

Letter of Informed Consent

84

The Relationship between Social Structure and Sense of Empowerment for School
Personnel

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your participation in a study being conducted by
researchers at Michigan State University entitled “The Relationship between Social Structure and
Sense of Empowerment for School Personnel.” The primary purpose of this study is to examine
the relationship between school social structure and sense of empowerment among professional
school personnel. The secondary purpose of this study is to explore the sense of empowerment in
school personnel.

The social structure of a school can be described by the climate of the school and its social
capital. School climate can be characterized by staff morale, cultural norms, and the overall
personality of the school, while social capital can be defined by the networks and resources
among a staff that facilitate coordinated action. Empowerment in school personnel is defined as a
set of characteristics reflecting the personal beliefs and mind-set an individual has about his/her
role in the school organization. It is believed that this study may assist with increasing
understanding of the organizational and interpersonal factors that create educational conditions
conducive to staff collaboration, greater individual and group investment in reform efforts, and,
ultimately, improved student outcomes.

You are being asked to participate in this study because you are a professional school staff
member. Your participation in this study would be greatly appreciated. However, your
participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may refuse to participate, refuse to answer
certain questions, or discontinue your participation at any time without penalty. If you are willing
to participate in this study, you will complete the enclosed study questionnaire. The study
questionnaire should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. At any time while completing
the enclosed questionnaire, you can decide to stop and not continue.

Please be assured that any information provided will not allow the investigator to identify you, as
an individual. Even if this could be done, no attempt will be made to do so. If you choose to
participate in the study, your status with the Haslett Public Schools will not be affected. The
results of this study may be published in professional journals and presented at conferences.
However, no individual names or other identifying information will be used in any reports or
publications that may result from this study and your name will not be connected to any of your
answers. Your privacy will be protected by the maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions concerning this study, please contact the investigator (Andrea Perkins,
401A Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, 517-432-4863,
perkin97@msu.edu) or her faculty research advisor (Dr. John Kosciulek, 458 Erickson Hall,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, 517-353-9443, jkosciul@msu.edu). If you
have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any
time with any aspect of this study, you may contact—anonymously, if you wish—the Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director
of Human Research Protections by phone: (517)355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail:
irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

 

You may keep this copy of this letter for your reference and records. You indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate by completing and returning the questionnaire.

85

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. A. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of research. Review of
Educational Research, 52, 368-420.

Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education’s changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in
views of culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73(2), 164-202.

Artiles, A. J., & Trent, T. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special
education: A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education, 27(4), 410-437.

Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L. E., & Halpern, A. S. (1995). Mobilizing local communities to
improve transition services. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,
18(1), 21-32.

Benz, M. R., Yovanoff, P., & Doren, B. (1997). School-to-work components that predict

postschool success for students with and without disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 63(2), 151-165.

Blackorby, J ., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with
disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study.
Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.

Blanchard, K., Carlos, J. P., & Randolph, A. (1996). Empowerment takes more than a
minute. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Bolton, B., & Brookings, J. (1999). Development of a multifaceted definition of
empowerment. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 39, 256-264.

Bordieu, P. (1986). The forms of social capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of
theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY:
Greenwood Press.

Brotherson, M. J., Cook, C. C., Wehmeyer, M. J., & Cunconan-Lahr, R. (1995). Policy
supporting self-determination in the environments of children with disabilities.

Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,
30, 3-13.

Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with
severe disabilities and the requirement for accountability in “No Child Left
Behind”. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 157-163.

Burgstahler, S. (2001). A collaborative model to promote career success for students with
disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16(3-4), 209-215.

86

Center for Research in Educational Policy. (2002). The School Climate Inventory.
Memphis, TN: Author.

Chemiss, C. (1995). Beyond burnout: Helping teachers, nurses, therapists, and lawyers
recover from stress and disillusionment. New York: Routledge.

Chemiss, C. (1997). Teacher empowerment, consultation, and the creation of new

programs in schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,
8(2), 135-152.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: How social capital makes
organizations work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 895-8120.

Conley, S., & Muncey, D. E. (1999). Organizational climate and teacher professionalism:
Identifying teacher work environment dimensions. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School
climate: Measuring, improving, and sustaining healthy learning environments
(pp. 103-123). London: F almer Press.

Creemers, B. P. M., & Reezigt, G. J. (1999). The role of school and classroom climate in
elementary school learning environments. In J. Freiberg (Ed.) School climate:
Measuring, improving, and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 30-47).
London: Falmer Press.

Cummings, R., Maddux, C. D. & Casey, J. (2000). Individualized transition planning for
students with learning disabilities. Career Development Quarterly, 49, 60-72.

Daniel, L. G., & King, D. A. (1997). Impact of inclusion education on academic
achievement, student behavior and self-esteem, and parental attitudes. Journal of
Educational Research, 91, 67-80.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From “separate but equal” to “no child left behind”: The
collision of new standards and old inequities. In D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds),
Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our
children and our schools (pp. 3-32). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

deFur, S. H. (2003). IEP transition planning—From compliance to quality.
Exceptionality, 11(2), 115-128.

Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A
critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72, 31-60.

87

Dincher, D., & McGuire, L. (1994). Improving student academic success and self-esteem
through the use of organizational skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 374 590).

Dunn, R. J ., & Harris, L. G. (1998). Organizational dimensions of climate and the impact
on school achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(2), 100-114.

Edmondson, C. A., & Cain, H. M. (2002). The spirit of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act: Collaboration between special education and vocational

rehabilitation for the transition of students with disabilities. Journal of Applied
Rehabilitation Counseling, 33(4), 10-14.

Elmore, R. (2002). Hard questions about practice. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 22-25.

Emener, W. G. (1991). An empowerment philosophy for rehabilitation in the 20th
century. Journal of Rehabilitation, 5 7(4), 7-12.

Fairweather, J. S., & Shaver, D. M. (1991). Making the transition to postsecondary
education and training. Exceptional Children, 5 7, 264-270.

Fetterrnan, D. M. (2002). Empowerment evaluation: Building communities of practice
and a culture of evaluation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1),
89-102.

Field, 8., & Hoffman, A. (1996). Steps to self-determination. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Fiore, D. J. (2001). Creating connections for better schools: How leaders enhance school
culture. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

F reiberg, H. J. (1998). Measuring school climate: Let me count the ways. Educational
Leadership, 56, 22-26.

F ullan, M. G. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Fullan, M. G. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. London: Routledge-Falmer.

Fullan, M. G., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what
doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744-752.

Fumey, K. S., Hasazi, S. B., & Destefano, L. (1997). Transition policies, practices, and
promises: Lessons from three states. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 343-355.

Garrett, B., Huff, M., & Sheppard-Jones, K. (2002). Rehabilitation and education

partnerships: Nurturing positive communities. Journal of Rehabilitation
Administration, 26(2), 123-1 33.

88

Geenen, 8., Powers, L., Vasquez, A. L., & Bersani, H. (2003). Understanding and
promoting the transition of minority adolescents. Career Development for
Exceptional Children, 26, 27-46.

Gittlesohn, J ., Merkle, S., Story, M., Stone, E. J., Steckler, A., Noel, J ., Davis, 8., Martin,
C. J ., & Ethelbah, B. (2003). School climate and implementation of the Pathways
study. Preventive Medicine, 3 7, S97-S106.

Giuliano, G. (2004). Education: Reflecting our society? Detroit, MI: Thompson/Gale.

Goertz, M. E. (2005). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the
states. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 73-89.

Goyne, J ., Padgett, D., Rowicki, M. A., & Triplitt, T. (1999). The journey to teacher
empowerment (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 434 384).

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology,
78, 1360-1380.

Grayson, T. E. (1998). Dropout prevention and special services. In F. R. Rusch & J. G.
Chadsey (Eds), Beyond high school: Transition from school to work (pp. 77-98).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Halpern, A. S. (1999, June). Transition: Is it time for another rebottling? Paper presented
at the 1999 Annual OSEP Project Director’s Meeting, Washington, DC.
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/sped/tri/halpern99.htm. Retrieved 6/5/2005.

Harley, D. A., Tice, K., & Kaplan, L. (2001). Professional border crossings: Implications
of collaboration between vocational rehabilitation counselors and social workers
in public schools to assist students with disabilities and families. Journal of
Rehabilitation Administration, 25(1), 29-41.

Herrenkohl, R. C ., Judson, G. T., & Heffner, J. A. (1999). Defining and measuring
employee empowerment. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 373-
389.

Herreros, F. (2004). The problem of forming social capital: Why trust? New York, NY:
Palgrave MacMillan.

Hess, F. M. (2005). Commentary: Accountability policy and scholarly research.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(4), 53-57.

Hooghe, M., & Stolle, D. (2003). Introduction: Generating social capital. In M. Hooghe

& D. Stolle (Eds) Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in
comparative perspective (pp. 1-18). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

89

Howell, W. (2006). Switching schools? A closer look at parents’ initial interest in and
knowledge about the choice provisions of No Child Left Behind. Peabody
Journal of Education, 81(1), 140-179.

Husband, R. E., & Short, P. M. (1994). Interdisciplinary teams lead to greater teacher
empowerment. Middle School Journal, 26(2), 58-61.

Israel, G. D., & Beaulieu, L. J. (2004). Investing in communities: Social capital's role in
keeping youth in school. Journal of the Community Development Society, 34(2),
35-57.

Karp, S. (2004). NCLB’s selective vision of equality: Some gaps count more than others.
In D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left
Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 53-65). Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.

Kohler, P. D. (1993). Best practices in transition: Substantiated or implied? Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16(2), 107-121.

Kohler, P. D. (1998). Implementing a transition perspective of education: A
comprehensive approach to planning and delivering secondary education and
transition services. In F. R. Rusch & J. G. Chadsey (Eds.), Beyond high school:
Transition from school to work (pp. 179-205). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kohler, P. D., & Field, S. (2003). Transition-focused education: Foundation for the
future. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 174-183.

Koppich, J. E. (2005). A tale of two approaches—The AFT, the NEA, and NCLB.
Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 137-155.

Kosciulek, J. F. (1999) The consumer-directed theory of empowerment. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 42, 196-213.

Kosciulek, J. F ., & Merz, M. (2001). Structural analysis of the consumer-directed theory
of empowerment. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 44, 209-216.

Kosciulek, J. F ., & Perkins, A. (2005). Transition to work and adult life of youth with
disabilities: A counseling-based case management approach. In F. Chan, M. J.

Leahy, & J. L. Saunders, Case management for rehabilitation health professionals
(2nd ed.), (pp. 293-308). Osage Beach, MO: Aspen Professional Services.

Kramer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological empowerment as a

multidimensional construct: A test of construct validity. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 59, 127-142.

90

Lehmann, J. P., Deniston, T. L., Tobin, R., & Howard, D. (1996). Sharing the journey:
An individual and integrated systems approach to self-determination. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 19(1), 1-14.

Lent, R. W., Hackett, G., & Brown, S. D. (1999). A social cognitive view of school-to-
work transition. The Career Development Quarterly, 47(4), 297-311.

Levine, M. S. (1977). Canonical analysis and factor comparison. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.

Lin, N. (2001 a). Building a network theory of social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. S.
Burt (Eds), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 3-29). New York: Aldine De
Gruyter.

Lin, N. (2001b). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of
school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.

Loughridge, M., & Tarantino, L. R. (2005). Leading effective secondary school reform:
Your guide to strategies that work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Loukas, A., & Robinson, S. (2004). Examining the moderating role of perceived school
climate in early adolescent adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
14(2), 209-233.

Luecking, R. G., & Certo, N. J. (2003). Integrating service systems at the point of
transition for youth with significant support needs: A model that works. American
Rehabilitation, 27(1), 2-9.

MacGillivray, A., & Walker, P. (2000). Local social capital: Making it work on the
ground. In S. Baron, J. Field, & T. Schuller (Eds.), Social capital: Critical
perspectives (pp. 197-211). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Martin, B. N., Crossland, B., & Johnson, J. A. (2001) Is there a connection: Teacher

empowerment, teachers’ sense of responsibility, and student success? (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 460 116).

91

Martinez, M. C. (2004). Teachers working together for school success. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

Maton, K. 1., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering
community settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 23(5), 631-656.

McWhirter, E. H. (1991). Empowerment in counseling. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 69, 222-227.

Meier, D., & Wood, G. (Eds) (2004). Many children left behind: How No Child Left
Behind is damaging our children and our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Melenyzer, S. J. (1990). Teacher empowerment: The discourse, meaning, and social
actions of teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 327 496).

Miles, M. B. (1965). Planned change and organizational health: Figure and ground. In R.
Carlson (Ed.), Change processes in the public schools (pp. 96). Eugene, OR:
Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration.

Morgan, R. L., Moore, S. C., McSweyn, C., & Salzberg, C. L. (1992). Transition from
school to work: Views from secondary special educators. Education and Training
in Mental Retardation, 27, 315-323.

Neill, M. (2004). Leaving no child behind: Overhauling NCLB. In D. Meier & G. Wood
(Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging
our children and our schools (pp. 101 -1 19). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Nuehring, M. L., & Sitlington, P. L. (2003). Transition as a vehicle: Moving from high
school to an adult vocational service provider. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 14(1), 23-35.

Ochs, L. A., & Roessler, R. T. (2001). Students with disabilities: How ready are they for
the 21" century? Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 44(3), 170-176.

Palestini, R. H. (2000). Ten steps to educational reform: Making change happen.
Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.

Patton, J. (1998). The disproportionate representation of African Americans in special
education: Looking behind the curtain for understanding and solutions. The
Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 25-31.

Pepper, K., & Thomas, L. H. (2002). Making a change: The effects of the leadership role
on school climate. Learning Environments Research, 5, 155-166.

92

Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (2002). The shaping school culture fieldbook. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Phelps, L. A., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School-to-work transitions for youth with

disabilities: A review of outcomes and practices. Review of Educational Research,
67(2), 197-226.

Picus, L. 0., Marion, S. F., Calvo, N., & Glenn, W. J. (2005). Understanding the
relationship between student achievement and the quality of educational facilities:
Evidence from Wyoming. Peaboay Journal of Education, 80(3), 71-95.

Polit, D. F. (1996). Data analysis and statistics for nursing research. Stamford, CT:
Appleton & Lange.

Pooley, J. A., Cohen, L., & Pike, L. T. (2005). Can sense of community inform social
capital? Social Science Journal, 42, 71-79.

Prawat, R. S. (1991). Conversations with self and settings: A framework for thinking
about teacher empowerment. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 737-
757.

Prince, C. D. (2004). Changing policies to close the achievement gap: A guide for school
system leaders. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). The road to empowerment: Seven questions
every leader should consider. Organizational Dynamics, 26(2), 37-49.

Richardson, M. S. (2000). A new perspective for counsellors: From career ideologies to
empowerment through work and relationships practices. In A. Collin & R. A.
Young (Eds.), The future of career (pp. 197-211). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Rosenholtz, S. J., Bassler, O., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (1986). Organizational conditions
of teacher learning. Teaching & Teacher Education, 2(2), 91-104.

Rosenholtz, S. J ., & Simpson, C. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of
teachers' commitment. Sociology of Education, 63(4), 241-257.

Rusch, F. R., & Millar, D. M. (1998). Emerging transition best practices. In F. R. Rusch

& J. G. Chadsey (Eds.), Beyond high school: Transition from school to work (pp.
36-59). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

93

Savage, T. A., Harley, D. A., & Nowak, T. M. (2005). Applying social empowerment
strategies as tools for self-advocacy in counseling lesbian and gay male clients.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 83(2), 131-137.

Sheldon, K. M., & Biddle, B. J. (1998). Standards, accountability, and school reform:
Perils and pitfalls. Teachers College Record, 100, 164-180.

Short, P. M., & Greer, J. T. (1997). Leadership in empowered school: Themes from
innovative efforts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). School participant empowerment scale:
Assessment of level of empowerment within the school environment. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 52, 951-960.

Siegel (1998). Foundations for a school-to-work system that serves all students. In F. R.
Rusch & J. G. Chadsey (Eds.), Beyond high school: Transition from school to
work (pp. 146-178). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Simpson, R. L. (2005). Evidence-based practices and students with autism spectrum
disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(3), 140-
149.

Solsberg, V. 8., Howard, K. A., Blustein, D. L., & Close, W. (2002). Career development
in the schools: Connecting school-to-work-to-life. The Counseling Psychologist,
30, 705-725.

Spillane, J. P., Hallett, T., & Diamond, J. B. (2003). Forms of capital and the construction

of leadership: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of
Education, 76, 1-17.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995a). An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal
empowerment in the workplace. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23,
601 -629.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995b). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimension,
measurement, and validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-
1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.
The Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). Toward a common ground in defining empowerment. In W. A.
Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (vol. 10) (pp. 31-62). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

94

Spreitzer, G. M., de Janasz, S. C., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of
psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
20(4), 511-526.

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the
relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction,
and strain. Journal of Management, 23, 679-704.

SPSS, Inc. (2005). SPSS I 4. 0 for Windows, Rel. 14.0.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Steffan, R. C., Jr. (2004). Navigating the difficult waters of the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001: What it means for education of the deaf. American Annals of the Deaf
149, 46-50.

Stodden (1998). School-to-work transition: Overview of disability legislation. In F. R.
Rusch & J. G. Chadsey (Eds.), Beyond high school: Transition from school to
work (pp. 60-76). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Stolle, D. (2003). The sources of social capital. In M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.),
Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative
perspective (pp. 19-42). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Strahan, D., Carlone, H., Horn, S., Dallas, F., & Ware, A. Beating the odds at Archer
Elementary School: Developing a shared stance toward learning. Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision, 18(3), 204-221.

Sunderman, G. L., Kim, J. S., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities:
Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sunderman, G. L., Tracey, C. A., Kim, J. S., & Orfield, G. (2004). Listening to teachers:
Classroom realities and No Child Left Behind. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights
Project. http://www.civilrightproject.harvard.edu/research/articles/NCLB_
Survey_Report.pdf. Retrieved 6/5/2005.

Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Authenticity and sense of power in enabling school structures:
An empirical analysis. Education, 121, 581-588.

Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes:
Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools.
Education Administration Quarterly, 36, 703-729.

Szymanski, E. M. (1994). Transition: Life-span and life-space considerations for
empowerment. Exceptional Children, 60, 402-410.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New
York, NY: Harper Collins.

95

Tagiuri, R. (1968). The concept of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri & G. H. Litwin
(Eds.), Organizational climate." Exploration of a concept. Boston, MA: Harvard
University.

Tashie, C., Malloy, J. M., & Lichtenstein, S. J. (1998). Transition or graduation?
Supporting all students to plan for the future. In C. M. Jorgensen (Ed.),

Restructuring high school for all students: Taking inclusion to the next level (pp.
233-260). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Taylor, D. W., Jones, 0., & Boles, K. (2004). Building social capital through action
learning: An insight into the entrepreneur. Education & T raining, 46, 226-235.

Thomas, K., & Tymon, W. (1994). Does empowerment always work? Understanding the
role of intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation. Journal of Management
Systems, 6(2), 1-13.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An
“interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. The Academy of Management
Review, 15, 666-681.

US Department of Education. (2004). No Child Left Behind: A toolkit for teachers.
Washington, DC: USDOE.

Van Horn, M. L. (2003). Assessing the unit of measurement for school climate through
psychometric and outcome analyses of the school climate survey. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 63, 1002-1019.

Van Houtte, M. (2005). Climate or culture? A plea for conceptual clarity in school
effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1 6, 71-89.

Vogt, J. F., & Murrell, K. F. (1990). Empowerment in organizations. San Diego, CA:
University Associates.

Walberg, H. J. (2005). Standards, testing, and accountability. In J. E. Chubb (Ed.), Within
our reach: How America can educate every child (pp. 53-78). Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.

Warren, M. R. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133-173.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Student involvement in transition-planning and transition-
program implementation. In F. R. Rusch & J. G. Chadsey (Eds.), Beyond high
school: Transition from school to work (pp. 206-233). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

96

Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000). A national survey of teachers'
promotion of self-determination and student-directed learning. The Journal of
Special Education, 34(2), 58-68.

97

IG

lllillllilllilllililllrlilliiill