INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI film s the original text directly from the copy submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be from a computer printer. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to be removed, a note w ill indicate the deletion. Oversize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with sm all overlaps. Each oversize page is available as one exposure oh a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or 6"x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Accessing the World's Information since 1938 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA Order N um ber 8807125 E d u cation al leadership: A stu d y o f principals* leadership o f eigh t M ichigan elem en tary schools selected for n ation al recogn ition in 1985—1086 as perceived by th e principals and teachers Stebbins, Jo Ann, Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1987 C opyright © 1087 by S teb b in s, Jo A nn. A ll righ ts reserved. UMI 300N.ZeebRd. Ann Aibor, M I 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way fromthe available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or pages____ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_____ 3. Photographs with dark background____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy_____ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy_____ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements_____ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______ S 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_____ 11. Page(s)_________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)_________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered 14. Curling and wrinkledpages_____ 15. Dissertation contains 16. Other____________________________________________________________ . Text follows. pages with print at a slant, filmed as received _ y UMI EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY OF PRINCIPALS' LEADERSHIP OF EIGHT MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SELECTED FOR NATIONAL RECOGNITION IN 1985-1986 AS PERCEIVED BY THE PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS By Jo Ann Stebbins A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1987 Copyright by JOANN STEBBINS 1987 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY OF PRINCIPALS' LEADERSHIP OF EIGHT MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SELECTED FOR NATIONAL RECOGNITION IN 1985-1986 AS PERCEIVED BY THE PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS By Jo Ann Stebbins AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1987 ABSTRACT EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY OF PRINCIPALS' LEADERSHIP OF EIGHT MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SELECTED FOR NATIONAL RECOGNITION IN 1985-1986 AS PERCEIVED BY THE PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS By Jo Ann Stebbins The purpose of this study was to examine the principals' leadership of the eight Michigan elementary schools the U.S. Department of Education in the recognized by 1985-1986 School Recognition Program based on the principals' and teachers' perceptions. The characteristics of leadership were: instructional leadership; monitoring of student progress; clear and focused school mission; emphasis of student attainment of basic skills; positive school climate for learning; high level of effectiveness; high expectations for students and teachers; and general behaviors. Erosedure To measure the perceptions of the principals and teachers a Leadership Questionnaire adapted from Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. and a leadership questionnaire used in a dissertation by Isabel Gabashane was used. Mean and standard deviation to determine the level of effectiveness was used. Principals and teachers of the eight Michigan elementary schools recognized in 1985-1986 Jo Ann Stebbins participated in the study. Major findings 1. Principals perceived themselves to be highly effective leaders in all areas. Teachers perceived principals to be highly effective in all areas but instructional leadership. 2. Principals and teachers as a group perceived the principals as highly effective leaders in all areas but instructional leadership. 3. Of the eight school principals, five were perceived by the principals and teachers as highly effective leaders in the eight areas and three principals were perceived by the principal and teachers as effective leaders in some leadership areas (instructional leadership, clear and focused school mission, creating a positive school climate, high expectations for students and teachers, level of effectiveness, monitoring student progress and general behavior). 4. Rural principals were perceived as highly effective in all areas except instructional leadership. Suburban principals were perceived as highly effective in all areas except instructional leadership, level of effectivenss, and general behavior. Urban principals were perceived as highly effective in all eight areas. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is with deep appreciation that I acknowledge the support, guidance, and encouragement given by my chairman, Dr. Louis Romano. I wish to thank Dr. Robert Muth, Dr. Keith Groty, and Dr. Lois Bader for serving on my dissertation committee and providing me with encouragement and assistance. Special thanks to my parents for instilling in me the value of education, my sister who keeps me grounded in reality, my oldest friend Myrna Webb the computer expert who spent many hours typing this dissertation, and Sara Magafia who "showed me the ropes" at M.S.U. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............................................................................. Page ix Chapter I. THE PROBLEM.................................................................... 1 Introduction..................................................................... Purpose of Study........................................................... Need for the Study.................................................... Definition of Terms............... Assumptions ............................................................ Limitations....................................................................... Research Questions........................................................ Design of the Study......................................................... Overview of the Study.................................................... 1 3 II. LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................... 4 8 10 10 11 12 13 15 Job of Principal............................................................... 15 Leaders of Effective Schools..................................... 17 High Level of Effectiveness.................................. 22 Instructional Leadership............................................. 24 27 Monitoring of Student Progress................................. Clear and Focused School Mission............................ 29 Emphasis of Student Attainment of BasicSkills. . 30 30 Positive School Climate for Learning.................. High Expectations for Students and Teachers . . . . 32 General Behaviors...................................................... 33 Summary ............................................................... 34 vi III. DESIGN OFTHE STUDY............................................................ 38 Purpose.............................................................................. Population........................................................................... Questionnaire Construction................................................. Validity................................................................................ Reliability............................................................................. Data Gathering.................................................................... Procedure for Analyzing Data............................................. Interpretation of Means....................................................... Research Questions............................................................ Summary............................................................................ 38 38 39 41 41 41 42 43 43 45 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA........................................................ 46 Demographic Information.................................................... Research Questions........................................................... Research Question 1 .................................................... Research Question 2 .................................................... Research Question 3 .................................................... Research Question 4 ................................................... Summary..................................................................... 47 51 51 67 83 109 126 V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................. 130 Summary............................................................................ Design of the S tu d y ........................................................... Findings............................................................................... Research Question 1 .................................................... Research Question 2 .................................................... Research Question 3 .................................................... Research Question 4 .................................................... Conclusions....................................................................... Recomendations................................................................ Suggestions for Further S tu d y ......................................... Reflections........................................................................ vii 130 131 131 131 137 140 142 144 146 147 148 APPENDICES A. Panel Critique......................................................................... 150 B. Letters...................................................................................... 152 C. Leadership Questionnaire...................... 159 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................. 177 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Return of Principal Leadership Questionnaire................. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Page 37 Principal Leadership Questionnaire: Principal Self-Perceptions and Teacher Perceptions. Key to Index Items............................................................ 40 Frequency distribution of principal responses to gender, age, years working in school with administrator and district location.................................... 48 Frequency distribution of teacher responses to gender, age, years working in school with administrator, and district lo ca tio n .................................. 50 Means of principals' and teachers' responses in principals level of effectiveness................................... 52 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals as instructional le a d e rs............................. 54 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals' monitoring of student progress................ 56 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals' clear and focused mission.......................... 58 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals emphasis of student attainment of basic s k ills ................................................................... 60 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals creating a positive school climate for learning...................................................................... 62 ix 11 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals having high expectations for students and teachers..................................................... 64 12 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals general behaviors...................................... 66 13 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals high level of effectiveness........................... 68 14 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals as instructional leader............................... 70 15 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principal monitoring of student progress.................. 72 16 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals clear and focused school mission .......... 74 17 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals emphasis of student attainment of basic skills................................................................... 76 18 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals creating a positive school climate for learning......................................................... 78 19 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals high expectations for students and teachers......................................................... 80 20 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals general behaviors........................................ 82 21 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals high level of effectiveness............................. x 85 22 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals instructional leadership................................. 89 23 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principal monitoring of student progress...................... 92 24 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals clear and focused school mission............... 95 25 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals emphasis on student attainment of basic skills................................................................. 98 26 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals creating a positive school climate for learning........................................................................ 101 27 Means of principals’ and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals high expectations for students and teachers............................................................... 104 28 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals general behaviors....................................... 108 29 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals high level of effectiveness........................ 110 30 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals instructional leadership............................... 113 xi 31 Means of principals' and teachers responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals monitoring of student p ro g re ss.................. 115 32 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals clear and focused school mission............... 117 33 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals emphasis on student attainment of basic skills.................................................................... 119 34 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals creating a positive school climate for learning................................................................... 121 35 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals high expectations for students and teachers................................................................... 123 36 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals general behaviors........................................... 125 37 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to Principal Leadership Questionnaire............................ 129 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Education Secretary William J. Bennett proclaimed 1985-1986 the "Year of the Elementary School." As part of this effort to focus national attention on the early years of a child's education, the U.S. Department of Education recognized 210 outstanding public elementary schools in the United States. In Michigan eight public elementary schools were selected for the 1985-1986 Recognition Program as a representation of Michigan's outstanding schools. The purpose of the Elementary School Recognition Program was to call attention to elementary schools that were doing an exceptional job of educating their students by developing a solid foundation of basic skills and knowledge, and development of character, values, ethical judgement, and self-discipline. To be eligible for nomination, public schools had to meet three "threshold" criteria: 1) They had to be elementary schools with at least three grade levels between kindergarten and eighth grade; they had to have their own building administrators; and 2) 3) 75 percent or more of the students during each of the last three years must have achieved at or above grade level in math and reading, or 1 2 during each of the last three years the number of students in the school who achieved at or above grade level in math and reading must have increased by an average of 5 percent annually, and in the last year 50 percent or more of the students must have achieved at or above grade level in both areas. Eligibility for the U.S. Elementary School Recognition Program was determined at the state level. In Michigan the nomination form and requirements were the same as the U.S. Department of Education. The U.S. Department of Education nomination form required local educators to describe the school's performance on eight sets of quality indicators. They were: 1) quality of school organization; 2) quality of building leadership; instructional program development; climate; efforts and curriculum, 4) quality of instruction; 3) quality of including 5) quality of school 6) quality of school/community relations; to programs; make improvements and to character maintain and 8) quality of student outcomes. 7) quality of high quality In the eight quality areas there were no specific standards to be met. Each school was judged on the context of how well its programs were tailored to local circumstances and its success in meeting local needs. It was assumed that there is no one formula for success, and that a variety of successful approaches to each of the quality indicators was possible (McKee et a!., 1986). The U.S. Recognition Program for Elementary Schools has only one year of reference to date; however, the secondary schools program has been operating three years and therefore able to provide information on the qualities of successful schools. In the report, The Search for Successful Secondary Schools: The First Three Years of the Secondary School Recognition Program (1986), there are many themes that describe successful schools and successful leaders, "They are all vital, dynamic institutions that are clear about their purposes and actively pursue their goals, addressing and overcoming all obstacles. Their leaders insist on high standards and are willing to take risks to meet them. They provide excellent conditions for teaching and, as a result, are able to assemble talented, dedicated staffs. Their hallmarks are caring relationships between adults and adolescents, and a willingness to open their doors to the public and to build on the resources that are present in their communities.1* The importance of the educational leader has become evident as a part of the characteristics of a successful school. The schools recognized in the U.S. Elementary School Recognition Program provide a wealth of information about the principals' leadership of successful schools. Purpose of Study Quality of building leadership is one of the areas that a schools performance was based on in being chosen as an outstanding elementary school in 1985-1986 by the U.S. Department of Education. The purpose of this study was to look at the leadership of the principals based upon the principals' self-perceptions and teachers' perceptions of the principal's leadership in the eight Michigan public elementary schools that received recognition by the U.S. Department of Education in 1985-1986. Need .for the Study The elementary school is the beginning of a child's formal education, the foundation from which reading, writing, math and critical thinking skills used throughout a lifetime are learned. It is imperative that America's children attend schools that give them the opportunity to build a strong base. The principal of the school has been recognized as one of the keys in establishing a successful school in which learning takes place. U.S. Secretary of Education William J. Bennett in First Lessons: A Report on Elementary Education In America (1986) states that "Education is a continuum, lasting a lifetime. Elementary education is its critical beginning. Today our elementary schools are faced with unprecedented challenges. Children of today are not limited to the boundaries of family, school, neighborhood and town due to technology. America's children are a diverse group." They are economically, racially and ethnically heterogeneous with a great diversity of languages, religions and beliefs, and cultural habits. In the National Commission on Excellence in Education study of schools, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983) states that "America is at risk because the ideal of academic excellence as the primary goal of schooling seems to be fading across the board in American education". The report points out that "this declining trend stems more from weakness of purpose, confusion of vision, underuse of talent, and lack of leadership and that through effective leadership there can be reform in the educational system". The Carnegie Forum On Education And The Economy in The 5 Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (1986) states that "the 1980's will be remembered for two developments: the beginning of a sweeping reassessment of the basis of the nation's economic strength and an outpouring of concern for the quality of American education. The nationwide effort to improve our schools and student achievement rivals those of any period in American history." The report goes on to say that "These and many other changes have not come without controversy, and have often been accomplished only by virtue of courageous, determined leadership." In First Lessons (Bennett, 1986) the study group felt strongly about the leadership of a school. Member Sandy Wisley commented "You won't find an excellent school without a strong principal." Another member Michael Joyce stated, "If a school is to function as a 'working community', if all the parts are to mesh in an engine of achievement, the principal must act as catalyst. More than any other figure, conditions excellence." the principal Professor is able James to Guthrie create of the for University of California-Berkely says: "[If] you could only change one component of a school in order to make it more effective, finding a dynamic principal is the most important thing you can do" (Banas, 1986). Educators are beginning to realize how important the principal is to the quality of learning. With the reform movement for academic achievement of American children a great responsibility is placed on the principals who lead and guide our nation's schools. Much of the burden for reform at the classroom level rests upon the leadership initiative of the principal (McKee et al., 1986). As a result, greater attention is being centered on the leadership 6 qualities of principals. The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory in Onward To Excellence: Making Schools More Effective outlines an effective leader as: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. An instructional leader portraying learning as the most important reason for being in school. A leader that has a clear understanding of the school's mission and is able to state it in direct, concrete terms. An instructional focus is established that unifies staff. The building leadership believes that all students can learn and that the school makes the difference between success and failure. A building leader knows and can apply teaching and learning principles; he/she knows research, legitimizes and fosters its use in problem solving. Effective teaching practices are modeled for staff as appropriate. A leader who sets expectations for curriculum quality through the use of standards and guidelines. Alignment is checked and improved; priorities are established within the curriculum; curriculum implementation is monitored. A leader who protects learning time from disruption. Adm inistrative matters are handled with time conserving routines that don't disrupt instructional activities; priorities are established in the use of time, widely communicated and enforced. A leader who establishes and maintains a safe, orderly school environment. An instructional leader who checks student progress frequently by relying on explicit performance data. Results are made visible; progress standards are set and used as points of comparison; discrepancies are used to stimulate action. Leaders who set up systems of incentives and rewards to encourage excellence in student and teacher performance. Leaders who provide resources needed to ensure the effectiveness of instructional programs; resources are 7 sought from many sources, including the community, as needed; allocations are made according to instructional priorities. 10. Instructional leaders who expect all staff to meet high instructional standards; Agreement is obtained on a schoolwide instructional model; visits to classrooms to observe instruction are frequent; teacher supervision focuses on in stru ction a l im provem ent; sta ff development opportunities are secured and monitored. 11. Leaders who express an expectation and strong desire that instructional programs improve over time. Improvement strategies are organized and systematic; they are given high priority and visib ility; implementation of new practices is carefully monitored; staff are supported. 12. Leaders who involve staff and others in planning implementation strategies. They set and enforce expectations for participation; commitments are made and followed through with determination and consistency. (Berman, 1979; Blumberg, 1980; Bossert, 1982; Brookover, 1979b; Brundage, 1979; Clark, 1980; Crandall, 1982; Duke, 1982; Edmonds, 1979a; Emrick, 1977; Hall, 1980; Hargrove, 1981; Leithwood, 1982; Lipham, 1981; Little, 1981; Madden, 1976; New York SDE, 1974; Purkey, 1983; Stallings, 1981B; Venezky, 1979; Weber, 1971; Wellisch, 1978). Research concerning the leadership of principals of outstanding schools will provide more information about these qualities of principals' results. leadership in schools that produce better learning Definition of Terms The following terms are defined to assist in the interpretation and understanding of this study. ifiadSEshio: Involves introducing something new or helping to improve present conditions. (Sergiovanni, 1975) The influence of an individual in interaction with other individuals within a group setting (Williams, 1983). Egj3.oip.aL The building administrator who is delegated certain responsibilities by the Board of Education usually through the District Superintendent. Responsibilities include instruction, staff personnel, pupil personnel, budgeting, management of school facilities, and school-community relations. Staff: All personnel involved in the elementary school (salaried and non-salaried). This includes administrators, specialists, school nurse, secretaries, teachers, teacher aids, cooks, bus drivers, and playground aids. Elementary .School; The building housing students in grades ranging from prekindergarten to sixth grade. Instructional Those activities engaged in by one or more individuals, which have as their main purpose the improvement of a person, group, or program (Gorton, 1983). Leadership; School Mission: Clearly articulated instructional goals, priorities, assessment procedures and accountability in the school that are accepted by the staff who assume responsibility for student's learning of the schools curricular goals (Lezotte, 1985). 9 Effective.-S.cb.QQl: An effective school is one in which all the students learn the intended curriculum (Lezotte, 1985). School, Climate; The social organization of the school-the mores, customs and rules that foster academic excellence. These are a) clear academic and social behavior goals b) order and discipline c) high expectations d) teacher efficacy e) pervasive caring f) public rewards and incentives g) administrative leadership h) community support (Mackenzie, 1983). Behaviors: How a principal conducts himself/herself in an effective school. This would include functioning at high levels of effectiveness in administrative and leadership duties and re s p o n s ib ilitie s , d is p la y in g strong instructional leadership, monitoring student progress, emphasizing student attainment of basic skills, having a clear and focused school mission, having high expectations for students and staff and creating a positive school climate for learning. Monitor: Observation of staff and students academic progress in the school setting. A variety of assessment procedures are used. The results are used to improve individual student performance and the instructional program (Lezotte, 1985). Basic Skills: Reading and mathematics. Expectations: An attitude of staff in the school environment that all students should be expected to attain at least minimal mastery of a given subject. Effe.ctiven.ess.; The commitment of the school to learning is apparent and recognized by most of the adults 10 associated with the school. There is a common goal that all students can learn with the instructional focus on the curriculum that will enhance student learning. Assumptions 1. A highly effective elementary principal is an instructional leader who emphasizes student attainment of basic skills, has high expectations for students and teachers, has a clear and focused school mission, monitors student progress, creates a positive school climate for learning, and functions at a high level of effectiveness. 2. The Leadership instructional Questionnaire leadership; measures principal for monitoring of principal student progress; principal clear and focused school mission; principal emphasis of student attainment of basic skills; principal creating a positive school climate for learning; principal level of effectiveness; principal high expectations for students and teachers; and principal general behaviors. Limitations 1. The study was limited to the eight Michigan elementary schools recognized in 1985*1986. 2. The study was limited to principals and teachers perceptions. 3. The study was limited to those principals and teachers who chose to return the questionnaire. 11 4. The descriptive nature of the study was limited to how accurately principals and teachers described their perceptions. 5. The data of the study was affected by the degree of sincerity of the responses to the instrument administered. 6. The study was conducted one year after the award was received. Research Questions This study attempted to examine the similarities and differences of the principals leadership of the eight Michigan elementary schools recognized in 1985-1986 as measured by the Leadership Questionnaire. The general research question is "What similarities and differences in leadership exist among the eight principals of schools recognized self-perceptions and as outstanding teachers' based perceptions of on principals' the principals' leadership?” The specific research questions: 1.Are the ratings of the principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership similar in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? 2. Are the combined ratings of principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership similar in the areas of principals' 12 instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? 3. Are the principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership in each school as measured by the survey instrument congruent in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? 4. Is there a difference in the ratings of principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership in rural, urban and suburban schools in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? Desion of the Study Population The population of the study is the principals and teachers of the eight Michigan public elementary schools 1985-1986 by the U.S. Department of Education. recognized in 13 Procedures Used A Leadership Questionnaire to measure teachers' perceptions and principals' self-perceptions of principals' leadership was sent to teachers and principals of the eight Michigan public elementary schools that received recognition from the U.S. Department of Education in 1985-1986. The data collected was analyzed to determine what similarities and differences in leadership existed among the eight principals based on the perceptions of the principals and teachers of the eight elementary schools. All information was keyed into the computer at Michigan State University and the statistics generated. The survey behaviors: instruments gave two measures of principal 1) teacher perceptions and 2) principal self-perceptions. Mean and standard deviation were used to interpret the data. Overview of the Study This study consists of five chapters, a selected bibliography, and appendices. Chapter I included the rationale for the study, need for the study, purpose of the study, definition of terms, design of the study, research questions, assumptions, limitations, and the organization of the study. Chapter II contains a review of the literature related to the topic. Chapter III explains and describes the methods and procedures of the study. This includes a description of the population, questionnaire construction, and procedures for collecting analyzing the data. and 14 Chapter IV is an analysis of the data. Chapter V presents recommendations of the study. the summary, findings, and CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Research emphasizes the significant role that the principal plays in an effective school. In a good school, management and instructional leadership exist simultaneously. Management means keeping the nuts and bolts in place and the machinery working smoothly. Leadership means keeping sight of long-term goals and steering in their direction (Rallis and Highsmith, 1986). This review will include the job of a principal and the behaviors of effective principals. Job, of, Principal A principal of today has many different responsibilities. To give an example of what it is that a principal does, Behling and Champion (1984) provide a hypothetical advertisement for the job of a school principal: WANTED: Individual who can serve, manage and lead a variety of people (all ages, 6-65); unionized and non-unionized; some certified; some classified; larger number of minors, (some willingly present, some not). 10-12 hour workday on the average; some night meetings. High energy level is required to attend to many tasks, usually several tasks simultaneously, ranging from unstopping sinks to digging cinders out of knees to changing math instruction throughout the entire school. Understanding of standardized tests, zero-based budgeting, and new federal law changes is a must. Skill is needed in planning and evaluating gifted education, inquiry approaches to science for low-achievers, bilingual 15 16 education, early identification of learning disabilities, interrelated arts instruction, and a comprehensive basic skills program. Experience and willingness to develop and implement cooperative school-and-community programs is a plus. This challenging position involves opportunities to work closely with a nearby university; this site has recently been designated as a center for prospective teachers to observe and participate in field experiences with an emphasis on team teaching. Golden opportunity for right person adept in staff development; nearly one-third of staff have been transferred to site from four closing schools. Excellent middle management position for well trained person who works well with minimum supervision in multiple expectation situation. The principal's job is ambiguous. community and members and community leaders, Parents, teachers, students, principals, school board superintendents ail have different expectations about the role of the principal (Foskett, 1967). The principal is a problem solver; an instructional leader; a crisis manager; an accountant; a transportation specialist; a supervisor; a public relations specialist; a provider of social services, food services, health care, and recreation; a manager and a leader. The role of the elementary principal has been described in research studies as becoming increasingly demanding and complex. The principal's day has been found to be fragmented and riddled with competing priorities, interruptions, and demands for the principal's time and attention. Kmetz and Willower examined the work behavior of a small group of elementary school principals and found that principals' activities were "intense, varied, and fragmented." The principals they studied spent an average of 19 percent of their time on desk work, 10 percent on telephone calls, scheduled meetings, 10 percent on monitoring 8 percent on activities in their buildings, and 33 percent of their time on unscheduled meetings. Principals view their role and priorities differently and 17 operationally define their roles in terms of what they actually do each day. Principals' perceptions of their role are important, for these perceptions can govern daily actions (Hall, Hord, and Griffin, 1980). The principal is ultimately responsible for almost everything that happens in school and out (Behling & Champion, 1984). Sergiovanni (1984) found important differences existed in the leadership among incompetent, competent, and excellent schools. Schools that are managed by incompetent leaders don't get the job done. The incompetent school characteristics include confusion and inefficiency in operation and malaise in human climate. Student achievement is lower, absenteeism is high, and discipline and violence may be a problem. Competent schools measure up to these standards of effectiveness and the job is done in a satisfactory manner. Excellent schools go beyond the expectations considered satisfactory. Students in excellent schools accomplish far more and teachers work much harder than can ordinarily be expected. Researchers now know that a principal who is successful in one school may not be successful in another. The principal's leadership style needs to fit the situation (Fiedler,1972). Lead.srs.Qf .Effective., Schools The effective schools research supports the American belief that good schools can and do enhance student learning through the actions they take (Robinson, 1985). The research identifies and describes school climates most conducive to the teaching and learning process and indicates that no single factor accounted for school success in generating higher levels of student achievement. 18 The research showed that exemplary pupil performance resulted from many policies, behaviors, and attitudes that together shaped the learning environment. Formulas for success tended to differ across studies, yet the research disclosed important similarities between many instructionally effective schools (Robinson, 1985). Effective schools emerge from a complex set of cultural and social factors that focus attention on academic performance, support academic growth in a manner consistent with the developmental stage of the youngster, and build an intellectual community that rewards and reinforces academic pursuits in its public rituals and in its private interactions (Johnston, 1986). Standards of excellence outlined by the Michigan Education Department for the U.S. Recognition Program in 1985-1986 included a written statement of the school's philosophy, goals and objectives; an instructional program that assures accomplishment of the school's educational objectives; an approved curriculum that defines what teachers are to teach and what children are to learn; a plan for monitoring, assessing and supervising implementation of the school's curriculum; teachers that plan and provide effective instruction to accomplish the school's goals; a curriculum that includes experiences that provide children with basic skills necessary to function effectively in society; a curriculum which is supported by adequate financial and material resources; students who are taught how to learn and to value learning; a school environment that encourages the capabilities and emphasizes the worth of all individuals; a principal that demonstrates values, beliefs, personal characteristics and skills that enable the school to reach its goals; a school that has an effective staff development 19 program for all members of the staff; a plan for student assessment and evaluation based on mastery of defined objectives of the curriculum and used to improve the school's program; a fair and systematic procedure that is followed for the evaluation of all teachers; a staff that can describe conditions that have contributed to the school's success and describe obstacles and problems that have been overcome. The "Standards of Excellence” as outlined by the Michigan Department of Education follow the effective schooling research base (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory) which identifies schooling practices and characteristics associated with measurable improvements in student achievement and excellence in student behavior. These "effective schooling practices” include elements of schooling associated with a clearly defined curriculum; focused classroom instruction and management; firm, consistent discipline; close monitoring of student performance and strong instructional leadership. Two areas have been included in this study to cover key items that were considered as important by the U.S. Department of Education Recognition Program in 1985-1986. level of effectiveness (placing a strong They are: emphasis a) on high the accomplishment of objectives and establishing concrete norms and goals for teachers and students; formulating evaluation of achievement of objectives) and procedures for b) general behaviors (being efficient at handling the administrative paperwork and routine tasks; maintaining high visibility and accessibility to students, teachers and parents). A school's effectiveness in the promotion of student learning 20 was found to be the product of a building-wide, unified effort which depended upon the exercise of leadership. depicted the building principal Most often research as the key person providing leadership to the school (Robinson, 1985). Schooling is a complex and continuous, multifaceted process. As a consequence, no single element of school effectiveness can be considered in isolation from all of the others, or from the total situation in which it is found. The principles of effectiveness may be consistent but each school must implement them in unique ways. When effective schools are examined, what emerges is not a checklist of specific ingredients but a "syndrome” or "culture” of mutually reinforcing expectations and activities (Purkey & Smith, 1982). Sergiovanni (1984) proposed a model of leadership made up of five "forces”: and a) technical, e) cultural. b) human, d) symbolic, The first three forces are what is necessary for a competent organization. The technical leader is described as a management engineer who scheduling, c) educational and time is knowledgeable about planning, management. Human leadership is characterized by an emphasis on human relationship, interpersonal competence, and instrumental motivational strategies provide support, encouragement, and growth opportunities. which The educational leader is described as a clinical practitioner who diagnoses substantive problems and can recommend and implement solutions. This dimension is what distinguishes leadership from one type of organization to another. The remaining two forces, symbolic and cultural, are considered necessary for excellence. The symbolic leader is seen as the "chief”, modeling important goals and 21 behaviors in such activities as visiting workplaces, seeking out and visibly spending time with organizational members, downplaying management concerns, presiding over ceremonies and rituals, and providing a unified vision of the organization through words and actions. The cultural leader of an organization, according to Sergiovanni, assumes the role of "high priest”, seeking to define, strengthen, and articulate those enduring values, beliefs, and cultural strands that give the school its unique identity. The leader works to create shared norms, expectations, common meaning, and assumptions, all of which guide the behaviors of organizational members. Warren Bennis (1985) interviewed 90 leaders (chief executives of some of the nation's biggest corporations, university presidents, public officials, newspaper publishers and coaches of consistently winning athletic teams) and identified five traits these leaders had in common. These are: 1) vision-the capacity to create a compelling picture of the desired state of affairs that inspires people to perform; 2) communication-the ability to portray the vision clearly and in a way that enlists the support of their constituencies; 3) persistence-the ability to stay on course regardless of the obstacles encountered; 4) empowerment-the ability to create a structure that harnesses the energies of others to achieve the desired result; and 5) organizational ability-the capacity to monitor the activities of the group, learn from the mistakes and use the resulting performance of the organization. knowledge to improve the Bennis points out that the effective leaders studied were tremendously diverse and showed no common pattern of psychological makeup or background. 22 When leadership is felt throughout an organization, people feel important and know that what they do has meaning and is significant; learning and mastery are valued; there is a team, a family, a unity; work is stimulating, challenging, fascinating, and fun because people are motivated and identify with the ideals of the organization (Bennis, 1984). The research indicated that no single factor accounted for school success in generating higher levels of student achievement but resulted from many policies, behaviors, and attitudes that together shaped the learning environment (Robinson, 1985). The characteristics constitute an integrated whole and are not intended to stand alone. High Level of Effectiveness The attitudes conveyed by the individual in the leadership position present themselves throughout the entire organization. attitude, as well as the degree of involvement principal is very important. The of an effective According to Edward Kelly of the University of Nebraska, the principal is the individual in the school who is most responsible for the outcomes of productivity and satisfaction attained by students and staff. One of the traits in the study of leaders by Bennis that was most apparent is the ability of the leaders to draw others to them because they have a vision. They communicate an extraordinary focus of commitment, which attracts people to them. The leader is able to communicate the vision to others and also create meaning. There is constancy. A recent study showed that people would much rather follow individuals they can count on, even when they disagree 23 with their viewpoint, than on people they agree with but who shift position frequently (Bennis, 1984). Leaders know their strengths and weaknesses. Effective leaders have a fundamental belief in and commitment to student learning. There exists the belief that students can learn and a commitment to making sure that the students do learn. The positive staff attitudes are conveyed to the students (Robinson, 1985). Behling and Champion (1984) identified ten key ideas from the research on principals and leadership important to leadership and vision: 1. All principals who are effective instructional leaders must be good managers, but not all good managers are good instructional leaders (Blumberg and Greenfield, 1980; Benjamin, 1981). 2. Leadership styles vary and no one style is best for improving instruction in all schools (Fiedler, 1972). 3. The most effective instructional leaders among principals view constraints differently from the way less successful prinicipals do (McCleary and Thomson, 1979). 4. The most effective instructional leaders are able and aggressive strategists (Benjamin, 1981). 5. There is a positive relationship between the level of professional leadership and teachers' morale and performance and pupils' learning (Gross and Herriott, 1965). 6. Principals must demonstrate both human consideration and initiation of structure to be effective (Kunz and Hoy, 1976). 7. Leadership styles are difficult to change (Fiedler, 1972). 24 8. Effective principals are committed to education and can distinguish between long-term and short-term instructional goals (Goldhammer et al., 1976). 9. Principals who manage educational changes in their schools know how to use various decision-making processes appropriately (Lipham and Rankin, 1982). 10.The most effective principals often have a leadership style described as "charismatic” (Goldhammer, 1971). Blumberg and Greenfield (1980) conducted in-depth interviews with eight principals who had been identified by reputation as being very effective. They were judged to be making a qualitative difference in the education of the students in their schools. The researchers found that despite differences in style these principals were all committed to achieving some particular educational or organizational vision. They used a proactive approach to tasks and were able to deal with routine tasks in a manner that permitted them to spend ample time on tasks related to their vision. Effective principals rise to the challenge and overcome the constraints. It appears they are able to keep their eyes on their vision of the school and not on the constraints which operate around it (McCleary and Thomson, 1979). Instructional Leadership In the effective school the principal acts as an instructional leader and effectively and persistently communicates that mission to the staff, parents and students. The principal understands and applies the characteristics of instructional effectiveness in the management of the instructional program (Lezotte, 1985). 25 Robinson and Block (1982) compiled a summary of 22 studies which looked at the effect of the principal on student achievement and instructional leadership in the school. principals who were strong instructional They found that leaders and who emphasized educational goals and high expectations for student achievement had higher achieving students. As well as being efficient at handling the administrative paperwork and routine tasks, principals of effective schools maintain high visibility and accessibility to students, teachers and parents. As achievement instructional through the leader use of coordinated curriculum and programs. the principal instructional emphasizes goals and a The effective principal forms a partnership with staff and students to set instructional goals, coordinate the total program and to evaluate the program (Howell, 1981). The principal increases effectiveness with the emphasis on objectives by regularly evaluating student achievement; conveying expectations to students and teachers and checking to see if they are being met; and checking to see how well his/her students are doing in comparison to the achievement levels of other schools. As the instructional leader the principal of an effective school believes that all students can be taught and that none will fall below minimum levels of achievement. He/she must convince teachers as well as students and this belief must be accepted by all. Strategies used by principals in the more effective schools are in agreement with outcomes. the teachers on standards and achievement Regularly scheduled teacher evaluations (based on predetermined objectives), accessibility to the principal, positive reinforcement and feedback, suggestions for further personal 26 development, mutual goal setting, and setting priorities are more of the strategies used by principals of effective schools. An effective principal is accessible to students and teachers. Expectations for students and teachers are clear and understood and accepted by students and teachers. Seifert and Beck (1981) reported that principals participating in their nationwide study felt that their top area of responsibility was instructional leadership. Behling and Champion (1984) found four key ideas from the research literature: 1. Instructional leadership may come from the principal or others in the school (Howell, 1981). 2. Innovations and other program changes tend to dissolve without the support of the principal (Berman and McLaughlin,1975; Reinhard, Arends, Kuntz, Lovell, and Wyant, 1980). 3. Some principals are involved directly and other principals influence the instructional program more indirectly (Wynne, 1981; Wilson, 1982; Blumberg and Greenfield, 1980; Crowson and Porter-Gehrie, 1980). 4. Only in-depth studies of the principal reveal the full extent of the principal's influence on the instructional program (Dwyer, Lee, Rowan, and Bossert, 1983A). Behling and Champion (1984) reviewed the research on principal staff development and supervision and found that there are six key findings: 1. Effective principals supervise different teachers in different ways depending on the teacher's maturity (Blanchard and Hersey, 1970). 27 2. While some staff supervision is conducted in formal classroom observations, much of the principal's supervision is more informal and conducted throughout the school building (Willis, 1980; Benjamin, 1981). 3. Effective principals use a variety of staff development modes (Wynne, 1982). 4. While principals may feel inadequate to conduct staff development activities, they can learn to conduct meaningful training programs which can improve instruction (Educational Research Service, Inc., 1982; Smith, Mazzarella, and Piele, 1981; Hunter, 1976). 5. Principals can influence staff development and the instructional program by the way they manage rewards and incentives (Wynne, 1982). 6. Principals will use knowledge and skills that they gain from well-conceived and clearly focused inservice training to influence their own behavior and the instructional program in the school (Shinn, 1976). Monitoring of Student Progress In the effective school, student academic progress is measured frequently. A variety of assessment procedures are used. The results of the assessments are used to improve individual student performance and also to improve the instructional program (Lezotte, 1985). The use of standardized tests to evaluate performance is one of the controversial issues regarding the schools prefer criterion measures of mastery to non-reference measures. effective school.Effective This permits individualized analyses of pupil progress. Instead of being compared to each other, pupils are compared to a level that all students are expected to achieve. Evaluation is a 28 necessity in that it gives vital information regarding the progress of the student and the school itself. The best methods for the measurement of student achievement are curriculum based to insure that students are tested on what they are taught, criterion referenced to insure accuracy of assessment of one student at a time, standardized to eliminate teacher subjectivity as a possible source of error, and nationally validated to insure that the definition of mastery in one particular school district is acceptable in other school districts (Effective Schools Report). When the principal serves as instructional leader, a partnership must be formed with the staff and students to set instructional goals, coordinate the total program and to evaluate the program (Howell, 1981). The principal regularly evaluates student achievement, conveys expectations to students and teachers, then checks regularly to see if they are being met and recognizes how well one's own students are doing relative to the achievement levels of other schools (Michigan State Board of Education). Student progress is assessed through frequent student-teacher interaction, classroom testing and criterion referenced testing. Persons in the school monitor student progress with respect to social and personal growth (Lezotte, 1985). Effective principals spend a significant amount of their time observing classes. Effective principals visited classrooms often with a specific purpose in mind, such as staff assessment or instructional evaluation. Frequent classroom visits helped principals determine classroom needs and the types of assistance that would be of greatest value to teachers. Principals in effective schools promoted staff inservice training targeted toward specific 29 school and program goals. The researchers found such ongoing inservice training to have a positive effect on staff behavior, classroom practices, and student performance (Robinson, 1985). Effective schools had systematic programs for assessing and monitoring student progress toward specific learning objectives. Test results in effective schools were thoroughly reviewed by teachers and principals. feedback objectives. regarding Students were provided with prompt their progress toward specific learning The testing program was an accurate measure of the curriculum, and test results were used to make modifications in the instructional program (Robinson, 1985). Clear..and Focused, School Mission In the effective school there is a clearly articulated school mission through which the staff shares an understanding of and a commitment to the instructional goals, procedures and accountability. student's learning of the priorities, assessment Staff accept responsibility for school's essential curricular goals (Lezotte, 1985). School effectiveness resulted from concrete actions taken in response to the premise that students could and would learn. Successful schools had action plans that involved setting clear goals, devising specific ways to reach the goals, directing school resources toward achieving the goals, and creating a school environment supporting goal attainment (Robinson, 1985). In-house communication was effective, with school policies well defined and written down. Students and staff knew what was to be achieved, who was responsible, and what was expected from 30 everyone. Principals often interacted with students and showed greater leadership in the area of pupil guidance and services (Robinson, 1985). Emphasis on Student Attainment of Basic Skills in effective schools teachers allocate a significant amount of classroom time to instruction in the essential skills. For a high percentage of this time, students are engaged in whole class or large group, planned, teacher directed, learning activities (Lezotte, 1985). All students are expected to master skills which are identified as essential in each course. Basic skills are reinforced across the curriculum by all teachers as are desirable social behaviors (Lezotte, 1985). Researchers found successful principals working to maintain an environment that supported teacher efforts in the classroom and minimized outside factors that would disrupt the learning process. They were both supportive of teachers and skilled in providing an environment in which teachers could function effectively (Robinson, 1985). Positive-SshooLClimate for Learning In the effective school there is an orderly, purposeful, business-like atmosphere which is free from the threat of physical harm. The school climate is not oppressive and is conducive to teaching and learning (Lezotte, 1985). Climate includes many things ranging from what an observer can see on entering a building or a classroom to what an observer can 31 feel during time spent in a school. Schools that can be characterized as orderly, purposeful and peaceful are schools in which achievement is higher (Shoemaker and Fraser, 1983). Principals of effective schools see themselves as being the leader in the development of school climate by determining the tone, ambiance and style of the school. Principals of successful schools work at creating an orderly environment which is conducive to academic growth and development of staff and students. As a "center for learning" the atmosphere is pleasant for both students and staff. There is a clear, schooiwide set of goals for social behavior and academic achievement. The goals are emphasized by all of the teaching staff, and there is no ambiguity about school priorities. Teachers, students, parents and administrators understanding of the goals. all share an Teachers, students, parents and administrators agree on a basic rule of conduct. The rules are positively stated and have an obvious relation to fostering learning (Johnston & Markle, 1986). The staffs of effective schools expressed greater optimism concerning their ability to change, improve, and manage the learning environments of their students. over the learning environment. There is a greater sense of control The staffs were more optimistic about their ability to influence student achievement, and students believed their accomplishment depended on how hard they worked (Robinson, 1985). Behling and Champion (1984) identified six points from the research about the principal and school climate that are critical: 1. Human relations is a prime factor in the success of a principal. 32 2. The principal spends great amounts of time on relationships (Wolcott, 1973; Kmetz and Willower 1982). human 3. A positive school climate, while difficult to describe or measure, has impressed researchers as being present in schools that work well (Wynne, 1982; Rutter, Maughn, Mortimore, Outson, and Smith, 1979; McCleary and Thomson, 1979; and Dwyer, Lee, Rowan, and Bossert, 1983A). 4. The principal's executive leadership has an effect on the morale of the school, teachers' professional performance, and the student's learning (Gross and Harriott, 1965). 5. Both elementary and secondary school principals spend more of their day on unscheduled meetings than any other activity (Kmetz and Willower, 1982). 6. Students view their principal's effectiveness in terms of human factors (Pederson, 1970). Hioh Expectations for Students and Teachers In the effective school there is a climate of expectation in which the staff believes and demonstrates that all students can attain mastery of the essential school skills and they believe that they have the capability to help all students attain that mastery (Lezotte, 1985). The Michigan State Board of Education with assistance from the Educational Testing Service defines principal expectations as one of the variables that research indicates makes a difference in pupil achievement. Principals who possess high expectations of their students and firmly believe that all their students can master basic academic objectives tend improving to be in schools that are successful or in terms of achievement (Brookover et al., 1977; Gigliotti, 1975). Principals exercising leadership not only set, but communicated 33 high goals for their building. students, for staff, and They conveyed high expectations for for their own performance. They emphasized dedication and hard work, and encouraged greater professionalism and initiative by staff (Robinson, 1985). Effective schools principals place a strong emphasis on the accomplishment of objectives. Expectations are conveyed by establishing concrete norms and goals for teachers and students; formulating procedures for evaluation of achievement of objectives; making numerous classroom observations; and providing more teacher inservice on instructional skills. Two important areas to be utilized by principals establishing expectations for students and staff are school climate and instructional leadership. General. Behaviors Rallis and Highsmith reported that an effective school requires a manager competent in maintenance functions to insure a positive school climate. A building must operate smoothly; activities must be coordinated; students and teachers must feel safe. Principals in high achieving schools were well organized and demonstrated skill in delegating responsibility to others. They achieved a balance between a strong leadership role for themselves and maximum autonomy for classroom teachers. Such organization and delegation of responsibility to others provided principals in effective schools with the necessary time for classroom visitation and supervision of the instructional program (Robinson, 1985). The management activities of principals have an important influence on the instructional program through the many day-to-day functions which principals perform. The effective ones have a 34 greater impact on the teaching and learning which goes on in their school buildings. Behling and Champion (1984) found six key ideas in the research on principals and management that relate to principal general behaviors: 1. Effective time management is an important element in whether the principal has a strong, positive influence on instruction in the school (Crowson and Porter-Gehrie, 1980; Benjamin, 1981). 2. Effective school administrators are problem solvers (McCleary and Thomson, 1979). 3. Effective school managers use a variety of means to keep weil-informed and to inform others of what is happening in the organization (Wynne, 1981). 4. School administrators are willing to play a variety of roles in the organization to get the job done (Crowson and Porter-Gehrie, 1980). 5. Good school managers develop an effective structure for the organization to operate well (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). 6. Effective school administrators develop and use a system of record keeping as an important aspect of the organization (Wynne, 1981). Summary This chapter reviewed research related to the job of the principal and the behaviors of effective principals. The principal of today has many different responsibilities. He/she is a problem solver, an instructional leader, a crisis manager, an accountant, a transportation specialist, a supervisor, a public relations specialist, a provider of social services, food 35 services, health care and recreation, a manager and a leader. job is ambiguous, busy, with many expectations. increasingly demanding and complex. The It has become Principals perceptions of their roles and priorities are important as that is what influences their daily actions. Education is a complex, continuous, multifaceted process. behaviors of the effective principal are mutually The reinforcing expectations and activities. High-Leyal .of., -Effectiveness The effective principal functions at a high level of effectiveness. He/she expects and desires that instructional programs improve over time through organized and systematic plans that have high priority and visibility. Implementation is carefully monitored and there is strong staff support. The principal involves the staff and others in planning and implementation strategies. set and enforced. Expectations are Commitments are made and followed through with determination and consistency. Instructional Leadership The effective principal is an instructional leader who depicts learning as the most important reason for being in school and establishes an instructional focus that unifies the staff. The belief is that all students can learn and that the school makes the difference between success and failure. Standards and guidelines are used to set expectations for curriculum quality. established within monitored. the curriculum and the Priorities are implementation is 36 Monitoring of Student Progress The effective principal monitors student progress by relying on explicit performance data. The results are made visible, progress standards are set and used to find strengths and weaknesses and stimulate action. The effective principal encourages excellence in student and teacher performance through the use of incentives and rewards. Clear and Focused School Mission The effective principal has a clear understanding of the school's mission and is able to state it in direct, concrete terms. Emphasis on Student Attainment of Basic Skills The effective principal knows and can apply teaching and learning principles. He/she knows the research and uses it in problem solving. Positive School Climate for Learning The effective principal establishes and maintains a safe, orderly school environment. High Expectations.. for-Studants. and. Teachers The effective principalhas high expectations of staff high instructional standards. schoolwide instructional model. to meet The principal and teachers agree on a Classroom visits are frequent and teacher supervision focuses on instructional improvement. development opportunities are provided. Staff 37 General Behaviors The effective principal protects learning time from disruption. Administrative business is handled with time conserving routines so that instructional activities are not disrupted. The effective principal provides resources needed to ensure the effectiveness of the instructional programs. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Included in this chapter on design and research methodology is the definition of the population, questionnaire construction (validity and reliability), scoring procedures, procedures for analyzing the data, and the interpretation of the means. * Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership of the principals of the eight Michigan elementary schools the U.S. Department of Education in the recognized by 1985-1986 School Recognition Program by studying the principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership in each of the eight schools. The question posed was: "What similarities and differences in leadership exist among these eight principals of schools recognized as outstanding based on the perceptions of the principals and teachers?” Population In 1985-1986 the U.S. Department of Education recognized eight Michigan public elementary schools as a representation of Michigan's outstanding schools. Two of the schools were rural, three of the schools suburban and three urban schools. The total 38 39 population of the eight elementary schools consisted of 174 principals and teachers. All principals and teachers were asked to participate in the study. Eighty-four percent (146) of the total population chose to participate (8 principals and 138 teachers) by returning the questionnaire. Table 1 School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL: Return of Principal Leadership Questionnaire. Total Teacher % Principal Teacher Return Return Return Teachere Principal % Total% Return Return 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 20 9 17 26 15 12 15 27 23 10 22 27 18 18 21 80% 87% 90% 77% 96% 83% 67% 71% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 8 138 1 66 83% 100% 84% Questionnaire Construction The Leadership Questionnaire was adapted from "The Profile Of A School (POS) Staff Questionnaire,” Rensis Likert Associates, Inc., 1986 (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40) and a dissertation on leadership training questionnaire used by Isabel Gabashane (Items 5, 6, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25). The questionnaire was submitted to a panel of three elementary 40 principals and one middle school principal and three elementary teachers to critique and evaluate to make sure each item was stated clearly and that the cover letter was understandable in terms of directions for completing the questionnaire. Revisions were made. The questionnaire consisted of six demographic items and forty leadership items, five for each of the areas of effective leadership being studied (Table 2): 1) principal instructional leadership; 2) principal monitoring of student progress; 3) principal clear and focused school mission; attainment of basic skills; climate for learning; 6) 4) principal of student 5) principal creating a positive school principal level of effectiveness; principal high expectations for students principal general behaviors. emphasis and teachers; 7) and 8) Each of the variables were answered by an "extent scale guide” : 1-Very Little Extent, 2-Little Extent, 3-Some Great Extent, 4-Great Extent, and 5-Very Extent. Participants filled out the demographic questions consisting of job position, grade level, gender, age, years working in the school with the principal, and district location. Table 2 Principal Leadership Questionnaire: Principal Self-Perceptions and Teacher Perceptions. Key to Index Items. Principal Behaviors Question Numbers High Level Of Effectiveness Instructional Leadership Monitor Student Progress Clear and Focused School Mission Emphasis of Student Attainment Of Basic Skills Positive School Climate For Learning High Expectations For Students And Teachers General Behaviors 3,4, 20,28, 30 5, 6, 21,29,32 7, 8,22, 31,33 9,10, 23, 34, 36 11, 12,24, 35, 38 13,14, 25, 37, 39 15,16,17,26, 40 1,2,18,19,27 41 Validity. Steps taken to ensure the validity of the Leadership Questionnaire were having it reviewed by a panel of principals and teachers as well as professors at Michigan State University. Based on comments received the questionnaire was revised. Bsliabiliiy Reliability of a questionnaire indicates the degree of consistency of the responses over repeated administration of the questionnaire to the same set of respondents. administrators and teachers revisions were made. reviewed the The panel of questionnaire and The questionnaire was then administered to four doctoral students to check the clarity of the items. Comments from these students indicated that the questionnaire was readable and clear. The Cronbach-2S reliability questionnaire was computed to be .96. coefficient for the The .96 reliability coefficient for this questionnaire is above the range of Muller's well constructed scale (reliability coefficient of 0.8 to 0.9). Data Gathering The following methods were used in collecting the data for this e> ’dy. Superintendents of the eight elementary schools were sent letters explaining the purpose of the study and requesting permission to contact the principal and staff of the elementary school and a copy of the principal questionnaire and teacher questionnaire to review. A follow-up phone call to each superintendent was made to answer any questions and receive permission to contact the principal of the elementary school. 42 Once permission was received from superintendents, principals of each school were sent letters explaining the purpose of the study and requesting the principal and staffs participation. A copy of the principal questionnaire and teacher questionnaire was enclosed for the principal to review. A follow-up phone call to each principal was then made to answer any questions and receive permission to send the questionnaires along with discussing and agreeing on procedures for distributing, collecting, and returning the questionnaires. The questionnaires were then sent to each school with a cover letter outlining the procedures agreed on for distribution, collection and return of the questionnaires. Follow-up individual teacher mailings were done for schools where teacher return of the questionnaire was poor. 100 percent (8) of the principals and 83 percent (138) of the teachers returned the questionnaire as shown in Table 1. Procedure for Analyzing Data Data for this study consisted of the responses to the Leadership Questionnaire and questions about demographics. When the questionnaires were returned the information was keyed into the computer at Michigan State University and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences used. statistics, mean and standard deviation, for Descriptive principals' and teachers' responses was used for each of the areas being studied. 43 iDterprfltationLQf A/leans The survey instruments give two measures of principal behaviors: 1) teacher perceptions and 2) principal self-perceptions. The scores measure principal instructional leadership; principal monitoring of student progress; principal clear and focused school mission; principal emphasis of student attainment of basic skills; principal creating a positive school climate for learning; principal level of effectiveness; principal expectations for students and teachers; and principal general behaviors. responses will be interpreted as follows: The mean of the the mean between 3.68 and 5 will be interpreted as a high measure of leader effectiveness (highly effective), the mean between 2.34 and 3.67 will be interpreted as an average measure of leader effectiveness (effective), and the mean between 1 and 2.33 will be interpreted as a low measure of leader effectiveness (noneffective). Research.Questions The objective of this study was to examine the similarities and differences in the leadership of the eight principals of elementary schools that were recognized in 1985-1986 by the U.S. Department of Education based on the perceptions of the teachers and principals. The specific research questions formed: 1. Are the ratings of the principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership similar in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and 44 teachers, and general behaviors? 2. Are the c o m b i n e d ratings of principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership similar in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? 3. Are the principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership in each school as measured by the survey instrument congruent in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, effectiveness, level of high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? 4. Is there a difference in the ratings of principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership in rural, urban and suburban schools in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? 45 Summary Eight principals and 138 teachers participated in this study of principals' self-perceptions and teachers' perceptions principals' leadership of the eight elementary schools of the recognized as a representation of outstanding schools in Michigan by the U.S Department of Education in 1985-1986. Principals and teachers completed the Leadership Questionnaire to determine their perceptions of the building leadership. standard deviation were used to measure Mean and principal instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors. Demographic questions included job position, grade level, gender, age, years working in the school with the principal, and district location. All information was keyed into the computer at Michigan State University and the statistics Package for the Social Sciences. generated using the Statistical CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the data related to the purpose of this study which was to determine the similarities and differences of the leadership of the principals of the eight Michigan elementary schools chosen in 1985-86 as a representation of outstanding schools in Michigan based on the perceptions of the principals and teachers of those schools. A Leadership Questionnaire was completed by principals and teachers providing data on principals' instructional leadership, principals' monitoring of student progress, principals' clear and focused school mission, principals' emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, principals' effort in creating a positive school climate for learning, principals' level of effectiveness, principals' high expectations for students and teachers, and principals' general behaviors. Demographic information was obtained on gender, age, years working in the school with the principal, and district location. The data analysis is presented in the following manner: 1. Data related to demographics is presented. 2. The research question is restated and the appropriate data and explanation are provided. 3. The means are interpreted as follows: 46 a. 3.68-5.00 b. 2.34-3.67 c. 1.00-2.33 47 highly effective effective noneffective The chapter concludes with a summary of the findings. Demographic Information The focus of this study was on principals' self-perceptions and teachers' perceptions of the leadership of the principals of the eight public elementary schools in Michigan recognized in 1985-86 by the U.S. Department of Education. All eight elementary schools recognized in Michigan in 1985-86 participated in the study. 146 questionnaires were returned, 5.5 percent (8) from principals and 94.5 percent (138) from teachers. Fifty percent (4) were male. (4) of the principals were female and 50 percent The majority, 62.5 percent (5) of the principals were between the ages of 36 to 45 years of age, 25 percent (2) were between 47-55 older. years of age and 12.5 percent (1) was 56 years or Fifty percent (4) of the principals had been in the school when it received recognition 1-5 years, 37.5 percent (3) had been in the school 6-10 years and 12.5 percent (1) had been in the school 11 to 20 years. Thirty-seven and five tenths percent (3) principals were from urban districts, 37.5 percent (3) were from suburban districts, and 25 percent (2) from rural districts. 48 Table 3 Frequency distribution of principal responses to gender, age, years working in school with administrator and district location. Demographic Variable Principal frequency Gender: Male Female Blank Age: 25 years old or less 26 years-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years 56 years or over Blank 4 4 - 5 2 1 50.0% 50.0% • • 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% • - Years Working In School: Less than 1 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 21 years or more Blank - - “ 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% • - - 4 3 1 District Location: Rural Suburban Urban 2 3 3 25.0% 37.5% 37.5% Total 8 5.50% Of the questionnaires received from teachers, the majority 82.5 percent (114) were female and 13 percent (18) were male. Four and three tenths percent (6) of the gender responses were blank. Forty-seven and one tenth percent (65) of the teachers were between the ages of 36-45, 25.4 percent (35) were between the ages of 46-55, 14.5 percent (20) were between the ages of 26-35, 5.8 percent (8) were 56 years or older, 5.1 percent (7) were 25 years or less and 2.2 percent (3) were blank responses. Fifty-eight and seven tenths percent (81) of the teachers had worked in the school with the principal at the time of recognition 1-5 years, 21.7 percent (30) 6-10 years, 10.9 percent (15) less than one year, 7.2 percent (10) 11-20 years, .7 percent (1) 21 years or more and .7 percent (1) did not respond. Forty-four and nine tenths percent (62) of the teachers responses were from suburban districts, 36.2 percent (50) from urban districts and 18.8 percent (26) from rural districts. 50 Table 4 Frequency distribution of teacher responses to gender, age, years working in school with administrator, and district location. Demographic Variable Teacher frequency Gender: Male Female Blank percent 18 114 6 13.0% 82.6% 4.3% Age: 25 years old or less 26 years-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years 56 years or over Blank 7 20 65 35 8 3 5.1% 14.5% 47.1% 25.4% 5.8% 2.2% Years Working in School With Administrator: Less than 1 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 21 years or more Blank 15 81 30 10 1 1 10.9% 58.7% 21.7% 7.2% .7% .7% District Location: Rural Suburban Urban 26 62 50 18.8% 44.9% 36.2% 138 94.5% Total 51 Research.. Questions Research-Question 1 Are the ratings of the principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership sim ilar in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? Principal, L«cal,.of Effectiveness; In rating the principals' leadership under "Principal Level of Effectiveness” (Table 5), principals and teachers rated the principals as highly effective in these specific items: 3. The extent the principals influence the school (principals' mean-4.38/teachers' mean-4.30). 20. The extent the school is influenced by teachers (principals' mean-4.25/teachers' mean-3.91). 28. The extent the principals seek and implement ideas from teachers regarding academics (principals' mean-4.25/ teachers' mean-3.69). In the following items, the principals rated themselves as highly effective while the teachers rated the principals effective. 4. The extent the school is influenced by students (principals' mean-3.75/teachers' mean-3.50). 52 30. The extent the principals seek and implement ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics (principals' mean-4.00/teachers' mean-3.54). In the overall rating, principals (mean-4.13) and teachers (mean-3.79) rated the principals as highly effective leaders. Table 5 Means of principals' and teachers' responses in principals' level of effectiveness. High Level of Effectiveness Principals Mean Standard Deviation 3. 4. 20. 28. 30. Teachers Mean Standard Deviation Extent school influenced by principal. 4.38 .52 4.30 .70 Extent school influenced by students. 3.75 .89 3.50 .95 Extent school influenced by teachers. 4.25 .46 3.91 .91 Extent principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding academics. 4.25 .89 3.69 .99 Extent principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics. 4.00 .53 3.54 1.03 OVERALL 4.13 .41 3.79 .66 53 Principal Instructional Leadership In rating the principals' "instructional leadership” (Table 6), principals and teachers rated the principals as highly effective in this specific item: 32. The extent the principals provide materials and equipment for teachers to enhance job performance (principals' mean-4.00/teachers' mean-3.83). In the following items, the principals rated themselves as highly effective while teachers rated the principal e ffective: 5. The extent the principals try to improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision (i.e., using observation data, various planning and inservice experiences)(principals mean-3.75/teachers' mean-3.52). 21. The extent the principals adjust the curricula to meet the needs of the students (principals' mean-3.75/teachers' mean-3.53). The principals and teachers rated the principals as effective in: 6. The extent the principals guide the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula (principals' mean-3.63/teachers' mean-3.41). 29. The extent the principals provide staff development activities for teachers (principals' mean-3.50/teachers* mean-3.64). In the overall rating, the principals (mean-3.73) perceived themselves teachers as hiohlv effective instructional leaders and the (mean-3.59) perceived the instructional leaders. principals as e ffe c tiv e 54 Table 6 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals as instructional leaders. Instructional Leadership 5. 6. 21. 29. Principals Mean Standard Deviation Teachers Mean Standard Deviation Extent principal tries to improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision(i.e., using observation data, various planning and inservice experiences). 3.75 .71 3.52 .90 Extent principal guides the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula. 3.63 .74 3.41 .92 Extent principal adjusts the curricula to meet the needs of students. 3.75 .46 3.53 .86 Extent staff development activities provided for teachers by the principal. 3.50 .53 3.64 .99 Extent principal provides materials and equipment for teachers to enhance job performance. 4.00 .53 3.83 .90 OVERALL 3.73 .41 3.59 .66 32. 55 Principal Monitoring of Student Progress: In rating the principals' leadership in "monitoring of student progress” (Table 7), the principals and teachers rated the principals as highly effective in these specific items: 7. The extent the principals feel responsible for the achievement of educational excellence (principals' mean-4.50/teachers' mean-4.36). 22. The extent the principals are aware of the learning problems students face (principals' mean-4.38/teachers' mean-3.98). 31. The extent the principals are interested in students' success (principals' mean-5.00/teachers' mean-4.51). 33. The extent the principals are aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students (principals' mean-4.63/teachers' mean-3.81). Both groups rated the specific behavior (item 8) principals making classroom visits as e ffe c tiv e (principals' mean=3.25/ teachers mean-3.23). In the overall rating, principals (mean-4.35) and teachers (mean-3.98) rated the principals as hiohlv monitoring of student progress. effective leaders in 56 Table 7 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals' monitoring of student progress. Monitoring of Student Progress 7. 8. 22. 31. 33. Principals Mean Standard Deviation Teachers Mean Standard Deviation Extent principal feels responsible for the achievement of educational excellence. 4.50 .53 4.36 .77 Extent principal makes classroom visits. 3.25 .46 3.23 .87 Extent principal is aware of the learning problems students face. 4.38 .52 3.98 .86 Extent principal is interested in students' success. 5.00 .00 4.51 .66 Extent principal is aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students. 4.63 .52 3.81 .96 OVERALL 4.35 .21 3.98 .57 57 Principal.Clear and FQCused-ScftQQLMissiQo: in rating the principals' leadership in "clear and focused school mission" (Table 8), principals and teachers rated the principals as highly effective in these specific items: 23. The extent the principals promote commitment of teachers and students to the school mission (principals' mean-4.25/teachers' mean-3.92). 34. The extent principals initiate and encourage teamwork by teachers (principals' mean-4.38/teachers' mean-3.91). 36. The extent principals set high standards and goals for educational performance in the schools (principals' mean-4.13/teachers' mean-4.40). The principals rated themselves as hiahlv effective while the teachers rated them as effective for: 9. The extent the principals are instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well (principals' mean-3.88/teachers' mean-3.67). 10. The extent the principals employ procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities (principals' mean-4.13/teachers' mean-3.62). In the overall rating, the principals (mean-4.15) and the teachers (mean-3.90) rated the principals as hiahlv leaders having a clear and focused school mission. effective 58 Table 8 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals' clear and focused mission. Clear and Focused School Mission 9. 10. 23. 34. 36. Principals Mean Standard Deviation Teachers Mean Standard Deviation Extent principal is instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well. 3.88 .64 3.67 ..98 Extent principal employs procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities. 4.13 .83 3.62 .95 Extent principal promotes commitment of teachers and students to school mission. 4.25 .71 3.92 .93 Extent principal initiates and encourages teamwork by teachers. 4.38 .74 3.91 .94 Extent principal sets high standards and goals for educational performance in school. 4.13 .64 4.40 .71 OVERALL 4.15 .48 3.90 .69 59 ErincipaL Emphasis of Students Attainment of Basic Skills In rating the principals on "emphasis of student attainment of basic skills” (Table 9), principals and teachers rated the principals as highly, .effective in all items: 11. The extent the principals support teachers in the development of innovative, more effective and efficient practices in the classroom (principals' mean-4.63/teachers' mean-4.02). 12. The extent the principals recognize students for their attainment of basic skills achievement (principals' mean-4.25/teachers' mean-4.06). 24. The extent the principals assist teachers to cooperatively plan and coordinate their instructional efforts (principals' mean-4.13/teachers’ mean-3.87). 35. The extent the principal supports students in setting high performance goals for educational achievement (principals' mean-4.13/teachers' mean-3.71). 38. The extent the principals are concerned about the instructional success of the teachers (principals' mean-4.75/teachers' mean-4.22). In the overall rating, principals (mean-4.38) and teachers (mean-3.98) rated the principals as hiohlv effective leaders in emphasizing student attainment of basic skills achievement. Table 9 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals' emphasis of student attainment of basic skills. Emphasize Student Attainment of Basic Skills 11. 12. 24. 35. 38. Principals Mean Standard Deviation Teachers Mean Standard Deviation Extent principal supports teachers in the development of innovative, more effective and efficient practices in the classroom. 4.63 .52 4.02 1.04 Extent students recognized for their attainment of basic skills achievement. 4.25 .71 4.06 .88 Extent principal assists teachers to cooperatively plan and coordinate their instructional efforts. 4.13 .64 3.87 .86 Extent students support high performance goals set for educational achievement 4.13 .64 3.71 .83 Extent principal is concerned about the instructional success of teachers. 4.75 .46 4.22 .83 OVERALL 4.38 .36 3.98 .65 61 Principal Creating A Positive School Climate For Learning: In rating the principals' leadership in "creating a positive school climate for learning" (Table 10), the principals and teachers rated the principals as highly effective in these specific items: 13. The extent principals establish control of the students (principals' mean-4.50/teachers' mean-4.11). 14. The extent the principals encourage teachers to communicate openly and honestly with him/her, students and other teachers (principals' mean-4.75/teachers' mean-3.90). 37. The extent principals interact on a friendly and supportive basis with teachers and students (principals' mean-4.50/teachers' mean-4.04). 39. The extent the principals encourage teachers to support one another in striving to do their best (principals' mean-4.50/teachers' mean-4.03). The principals rated themselves as highly effective (mean-4.13) while the teachers (mean-3.48) rated the principals as effective in the extent the principals develop rational approaches to problem-solving processes with the participation of teachers (item 25). In the overall rating, both groups (p rin cip a ls' mean-4.48/teachers' mean-3.91) rated the principals as highly effective in creating a positive school climate for learning. 62 Table 10 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals creating a positive school climate for learning. Positive School Climate For Learning 13. 14. 25. 37. 39. Principals Mean Standard Deviation Teachers Mean Standard Deviation Extent principal establishes control of the students. 4.50 .53 4.11 .81 Extent principal encourages teachers to communicate openly and honestly with him/her, students and other teachers. 4.75 .46 3.90 .90 Extent principal develops rational approaches to problem solving processes with the teachers and students. 4.13 .64 3.48 .94 Extent principal interacts on a friendly and supportive basis with teachers and students. 4.50 .53 4.04 .96 Extent principal encourages teachers to support one anothei in striving to do their best. 4.50 .76 4.03 .85 OVERALL .40 3.91 .66 4.48 63 Principal High Expectations for Students and Teachers: In rating the principals' leadership in "high expectations for students and teachers" (Table 11), principals and teachers rated the principals as hiohlv effective in all items: 15. The extent the principals determine high performance goals for achieving educational excellence in the school (principals' mean-3.75/teachers' mean-4.11). 16. The extent the principals guide and inspire teachers in teaching to meet the schools' goals (principals' mean-4.13/teachers' mean-3.83). 17. The extent the principals organize the school functions to achieve the objectives of the school (principals' mean-4.25/teachers' mean-3.83). 26. The extent students are aware of the principals' high expectations for their academic achievement (principals' mean-4.25/teachers' mean-3.83). 40. The extent teachers feel responsible for the achievement of educational excellence (principals' mean«4.75/teachers' mean-4.52). In the overall rating, principals (mean-4.23) and teachers (mean-4.02) rated principals as hiohlv effective leaders in having high expectations for students and teachers. 64 Table 11 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals having high expectations for students and teachers. High Expectations for Students and Teachers 15. 16. 17. 26. 40. Principals Mean Standard Deviation Teachers Mean Standard Deviation Extent principal determines high performance goals for achieving educational excellence in the school. 3.75 .46 4.11 .92 Extent principal guides and inspires teachers in teaching to meet the schools goals. 4.13 .64 3.83 .96 Extent principal organizes the school functions to achieve the objectives of the school. 4.25 .71 3.83 .95 Extent students are aware of the principals' high expectations for their academic achievement. 4.25 .46 3.83 1.02 Extent teachers feel responsible for the achievement of educational excellence. 4.75 .46 4.52 .64 OVERALL 4.23 .27 4.02 .66 65 Pri.ncipaUSflDe£aLBe.haviQis; In rating the principals' "general behaviors” (Table 12), principals and teachers rated the principals as hiohlv effective in these specific items: 1. The extent the principals involve teachers and students in decision making as it relates to achieving effective performance goals of the school (principals' mean-4.25/teachers' mean-3.91). 2. The extent the principals encourage teachers to work with him/her as a team (principals' mean-4.50/teachers' mean-3.87). 18. The extent the principals handle the administrative side of the job well (i.e., scheduling, budgeting, job assignments, records) (principals' mean-4.13/teachers' mean-4.13). 27. The extent the principals handle the technical or educational side of the job well (i.e., motivation of staff to maximum performance, continuous study of curricular and instructional innovation, formulating with staff plans for evaluating and reporting student progress) (principals' mean-4.00/teachers' mean-3.83). The principals rated (mean-4.00) themselves as h ig h ly effective while the teachers rated (mean-3.57) the principals as effective in the extent the principals resolve conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school (item 19). In the overall rating, principals (mean-4.18) and teachers (mean-3.86) rated principals general behaviors as hiohlv effective. 66 Table 12 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals general behaviors. General Behaviors Principals Mean Standard Deviation 1. 2. 18. 19. 27. Extent principal involves teachers and student in decision making as it relates to achieving effective performance goals of the school. Teachers Mean Standard Deviation 4.25 .71 3.91 .92 Extent principal encourages teachers to work with him/her as a team. 4.50 .53 3.87 1.06 Extent principal handles the administrative side of the job well (i.e.t scheduling, budgeting, job assignments, records). 4.13 .64 4.13 .78 Extent principal resolves conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school. 4.00 .53 3.57 .93 Extent principal handles the technical or educational side of the job well (i.e., motivation of staff to maximum performance, continuous study of curricular and instructional innovation, formulating with staff plans for evaluating and reporting student progress). 4.00 .76 3.83 .96 OVERALL 4.18 .33 3.86 .74 67 Research. Questions Are the combined ratings of principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership similar in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? PiincipaLHiqti -Leval at.Effectiveness; The combined ratings of principals and teachers under "Principal High Level of Effectiveness” (Table 13), the principals were rated as highly effective in: 3. The extent the principals influence the school (mean-4.31). 20. The extent the school is influenced by teachers (mean-3.92). 28. The extent the principals seek and implement ideas from teachers regarding academics (mean-3.72). The combined rating of principals and teachers rated the principals as effective in: 4. The extent the school is influenced by students (mean-3.51). 30. The extent the principals seek and implement ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics (mean-3.56). 68 In the combined overall rating of principals and teachers (mean-3.80), the principals were rated as highly effective leaders while the individual ratings of principals (mean-4.13) and teachers (mean-3.79) was as high as the combined rating (mean-3.80). Table 13 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals high level of effectiveness. High Level of Effectiveness 3. 4. 20. 28. 30. Prlncipale Teachera Principals/Teachers Mean SD Mean Extent school influenced by principal. 4.38 .52 4.30 .70 4.31 .69 Extent school influenced by students. .75 .89 3.50 .95 3.51 .95 Extent school influenced by teachers. 4.25 .46 3.91 .91 3.92 .90 Extent principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding academics. 4.25 .89 3.69 .99 3.72 .99 Extent principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics. 4.00 .53 3.54 1.03 3.56 1.02 OVERALL 4.13 .41 3.79 .66 3.80 .66 SD Mean SD 69 Erinsioal- Instructional Leadership.; In rating the principals' "instructional leadership” (Table 14), the combined rating of the principals and teachers (mean-3.84) rated the principals as hiohlv effective in the extent principals provide materials and equipment for teachers to enhance their job performance (item 32). The combined rating of principals and teachers rated the principals as effective in these specific items: 5. The extent the principals try to improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision (i.e., using observation data, various planning and inservice experiences) (mean-3.53). 6. The extent the principals guide the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula (mean-3.42). 21. The extent the principals adjust the curricula to meet the needs of the students (mean-3.54). 29. The extent the principals provide staff development activities for teachers (mean-3.64). In the overall combined rating, principals and teachers rated (m ean-3.59) principals as e ffe c tiv e leaders in instructional leadership. In an examination of the separate ratings, the principals rated themselves higher (mean-3.73) than the teachers (mean-3.59), but the teachers rating was similar to the combined rating of principals and teachers (mean-3.59). 70 Table 14 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principal as instructional leader. Principals Teachers Principals/Teachers Mean SD Mean Extant principal tries to improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision (i.e.,using observation data, various planning and inservice experience). 3.75 .71 3.52 .90 3.53 .89 Extent principal guides the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula. 3.63 .74 3.41 .92 3.42 .91 Extent principal adjusts the curricula to meet the needs of students. 3.75 .46 3.53 .86 3.54 .84 Extent staff development activities provided for teachers by the principal. 3.50 .53 3.64 .99 3.64 .97 Extent principal provides materials and equipment for teachers to enhance job performance. 4.00 .53 3.83 .90 3.84 .88 OVERALL 3.73 .41 3.59 .66 3.59 .65 Instructional Leadership 5. 6. 21. 29. 32. SD Mean SD 71 Principal Monitoring of Student Progress: In the combined ratings under "Principal Monitoring of Student Progress” (Table 15), principals and teachers rated the principals as highly effective in these specific items: 7. The extent the principals feel responsible for the achievement of educational excellence (mean-4.37). 22. The extent the principals are aware of the learning problems students face (mean-4.0). 31. The extent the principals are interested in students' success (mean-4.54). 33. The extent the principals are aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students (mean-3.86). Combined ratings of principals and teachers rated (mean-3.23) the principals as effective in making classroom visits (item 8). In the overall combined rating, principals and teachers rated (mean-4.00) the principals as highly effective in monitoring student progress. In the separate ratings (principals' mean-4.35/teachers' mean-3.98) and the combined ratings of principals and teachers (mean-4.00), both groups found the principals hiohlv effective in monitoring of student progress. Table 15 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals monitoring of student progress. Monitoring of Principals Teachers Principals/Teachers Mean SD Mean Extent principal feels responsible for the achievement of educational excellence. 4.50 .53 4.36 .77 4.37 .76 Extent principal makes classroom visits. 3.25 .46 3.23 .87 3.23 .86 Extent principal is aware of the learning problems students face. 4.38 .52 3.98 .86 4.00 .85 Extent principal interested in student success. 5.00 .00 4.51 .66 4.54 .66 Extent principal aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students. 4.63 .52 3.81 .96 3.86 .96 OVERALL 4.35 .21 3.98 .57 4.00 .56 Student Progress 7. 8. 22. 31. 33. SD Mean SD 73 Principal Clear and Focused School Mission: In the combined ratings under "Principal Monitoring of Student Progress" (Table 15), principals and teachers rated the principals as highly effective in these specific items: 9. The extent the principals are instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well (mean-3.68). 23. The extent the principals promote commitment of teachers and students to the school mission (mean-3.94). 34. The extent the principals initiate and encourage teamwork by teachers (mean-3.93). 36. The extent the principals set high standards and goals for educational performance in the school (mean-4.38). The combined ratings of principals and teachers (mean-3.64) showed the principals as e ffe c tiv e in the extent the principal employs procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities (item 10). In the overall combined rating, both groups rated (mean-3.92) the principals as highly effective in the area clear and focused school mission. Both the separate (principals' mean-4.15/teachers' mean-3.90) and combined ratings (mean-3.92) from principals and teachers showed the principals as highly effective in clear and focused school mission. 74 Table 16 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals clear and focused school mission. Clear and Focused School Mission 9. 10 . 23. 34. 36. Principals Teachers Principals/Teachers Mean SD Mean SD Extent principal is instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well. 3.88 .64 3.67 .98 3.68 .96 Extent principal employs procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities. 4.13 .83 3.62 .95 3.64 .95 Extent principal promotes commitment of teachers and students to school mission. 4.25 .71 3.92 .93 3.94 .92 Extent principal initiates and encourages teamwork by teachers. 4.38 .74 3.91 .94 3.93 .93 Extent principal sets high standards and goals for educational performance in school. 4.13 .64 4.40 .71 4.38 .71 OVERALL 4.15 —4 2 - 3.90 .69 3.92 .69 Mean SD 75 Principal Emphasis of Student Attainment of Basic Skills In the combined ratings under "Principal Emphasis of Student Attainment of Basic Skills" (Table 17), the combined ratings of principals and teachers rated the principals as highly effective in all items: 11. The extent the principals support teachers in the development of innovative, more effective and efficient practices in the classroom (mean-4.05). 12. The extent the principals recognize students for their attainment of basic skills achievement (mean-4.07). 24. The extent teachers are encouraged to cooperatively plan and coordinate their instructional efforts (mean-3.88). 35. The extent students support high performance goals set for educational achievement (mean-3.73). 38. The extent the principals are concerned about the instructional success of teachers (mean-4.25). In the overall combined rating of principals and teachers (mean-4.00) the principals were rated as highly effective in principal emphasis of student attainment of basic skills. The separate ratings (principals' m ean-4.38/teachers' mean-4.00) and the combined ratings of principals and teachers (mean-3.98) found the principals hiohlv effective in emphasis of student attainment of basic skills. 76 Table 17 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals emphasis of student attainment of basic skills. Emphasize Student Attainment of Basic Skills Principals Teachers Principals/Teachers Mean Mean SD SD Mean SD 11. Extent principal supports teachers in the development of innovative, more effective and efficient practices in the classroom. 4.63 .52 4.02 1.04 4.05 1.03 12. Extent principal recognizes students for their attainment of basic skills achievement. 4.25 .71 4.06 .88 4.07 .87 Extent principal encourages teachers to cooperatively plan and coordinate their instructional efforts. 4.13 .64 3.87 .86 3.88 .85 Extent students support high performance goals set for educational achievement 4.13 .64 3.71 .83 3.73 .82 Extent principal is concerned about the instructional success of teachers. 4.75 .46 4.22 .83 4.25 .82 OVERALL 4.38 .36 3.98 .65 4.00 .65 24. 35. 38. 77 Principal Creating a Positive School Climate _foE_Leamina: In the combined rating of the principals' leadership in "Creating A Positive School Climate For Learning" (Table 18), principals and teachers rated principals as highly effective in: 13. The extent principals establish control of the students (mean-4.13). 14. The extent principals encourage teachers to communicate openly and honestly with the principal, students and other teachers (mean-3.95). 37. The extent the principals interact on a friendly and supportive basis with the teachers and students (mean-4.06). 39. The extent the principals encourage teachers to support one another in striving to do their best (mean-4.05). Combined ratings of principals and teachers rated (mean-3.51) the principals as e ffe c tiv e in item 25, developing rational approaches to problem solving processes with the participation of teachers. In the overall combined rating of principals and teachers (mean-3.94), the principals were rated as highly effective in creating a positive school climate for learning. In the separate ratings (principals' mean-4.48/teachers' mean-3.91) and the combined ratings of principals and teachers (mean-3.94) showed the principals highly effective in monitoring of student progress. 78 Table 18 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals creating a positive school climate for learning. Positive School Climate lor Learning Principals Teachers Principals/Teachers ^ ^ SD 13. Extent principal establishes control of the students. 4.50 .53 4.11 14. Extent principal encourages teachers to communicate honestly with him/her, students and other teachers. 4.75 .46 25. Extent principal develops rational approaches to problem solving processes with the participation of teachers. 4.13 37. Extent principal interacts on a friendly and supportive basis with teachers and students. 39. Extent principal encourages teachers to support one another in striving to do their best. OVERALL SD Mean SD .81 4.13 .80 3.90 .90 3.95 .90 .64 3.48 .94 3.51 .93 4.50 .53 4.04 .96 4.06 .95 4.50 .76 4.03 .85 4.05 .85 4.48 .40 3.91 .66 3.94 .66 • 79 Principal High Expectations For Students, and Jeachers; In the combined rating in the area "Principal High Expectations for Students and Teachers” (Table 19), both groups rated the principals as hiohlv effective in all items: 15. The extent the principals determine high performance goals for achieving educational excellence in the schools (mean-4.09). 16. The extent the principals guide and inspire teachers in teaching to meet the schools goals (mean-3.84). 17. The extent the principals organize the school functions to achieve the objectives of the school (mean-3.85). 26. The extent the students are aware of the principals' high expectations for their academic achievement (mean-3.85). 40. The extent teachers feel responsible for the achievement of educational excellence (mean-4.53). In the overall combined rating, both groups rated (mean-4.03) the principals as highly effective in having high expectations for students and teachers. Both the separate (principals' mean-4.23/teachers' mean-4.02) and combined rating of principals and teachers (mean-4.03) showed the principals as highly mission. effective in clear and focused school 80 Table 19 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals high expectations for students and teachers. High Expectations for Stud.nl. .nd Teacher. Principals ^ SQ Teachers Principals/Teachers ^ SD ^ SD 15. Extent principal determines high performance goals for achieving educational excellence in the school. 3.75 .46 4.11 .92 4.09 .90 16. Extent principal guides and inspires teachers in teaching to meet the schools goals. 4.13 .64 3.83 .96 3.84 .94 17. Extent principal organizes the school functions to achieve the objectives of the school. 4.25 .71 3.83 .95 3.65 .94 26. Extent students aware of the principals' high expectations for their academic achievement 4.25 .46 3.83 1.02 3.85 1.01 40. Extent teachers feel responsible for the achievement of educational excellence. 4.75 .46 4.52 .64 4.53 .63 4.23 .27 4.02 .66 4.03 .65 OVERALL 81 Principal General Behaviors: In the combined rating in "Principal General Behaviors” (Table 20), both groups rated the principals as highly effective in: 1. The extent the principals involve teachers and students in decision making as it relates to achieving effective performance goals of the school (mean-3.92). 2. The extent the principals encourage teachers to work with him/her as a team (mean-3.90). 18. The extent the principals handle the administrative side of the job well (i.e., scheduling, budgeting, job assignments, records) (mean-4.13). 27. The extent the principals handle the technical or educational side of the job well (i.e., motivation of staff to maximum performance, continuous study of curricular and instructional innovation, formulating with staff plans for evaluating and reporting student progress) (mean-3.84). The combined ratings of principals and teachers (mean-3.60) showed the principals e ffe c tiv e for item 19 which pertains to principals resolving conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school. In the overall combined rating, both groups rated (mean-3.88) the principals as highly effective in general behaviors. In the separate ratings (principals' mean-4.18/teachers' mean-3.86) and the combined rating (mean-3.88) of principals and teachers, both groups found the principals highly general behaviors. effective in 82 Table 20 Means of principals' and teachers' responses to principals general behaviors. Responses to Principals Oanaral Behavior. Principals ^ so Teachers Principals/Teachers mmh SD Maan SD 1. Extent principal involves teachers and students in decision making as it relates to achieving effective performance goals of the school. 4.25 .71 3.91 .92 3.92 .91 2. Extent principal encourages teachers to work with him/her as a team. 4.50 .53 3.87 1.06 3.90 1.05 18. Extent principal handles the administrative side of the job well (i.e., scheduling, budgeting, job assignments, records). 4.13 •84 4.13 .78 4.13 .77 19. Extent principal resolves conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school. 4.00 .53 3.57 .93 3.60 .91 27. Extent principal handles the the technical or educational side of the job well (i.e., motivation of staff to maximum performance, continuous study of curricular and instructional innovation, formulating with staff plans for evaluating and reporting student progress). 4.00 .76 3.83 .96 3.84 .94 4.18 .33 3.86 .74 3.88 .73 OVERALL 1 83 Research, Question a Are the principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership in each school as measured by the survey instrument congruent in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school clim ate fo r learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? Principal J-iioh Level of Effectiveness: In each school, the following specific items under "Principal High Level of Effectiveness' showed the principal as effective (Table 21): School 2: 4. The extent the school is influenced by students (mean-3.50). School 5: 4. The extent the school is influenced by students (mean-3.29). 20. The extent the school is influenced by teachers (mean-3.57). 30. The extent the principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics (mean-3.50). School 6: 4. The extent the school is influenced by students (mean-2.81). 20. The extent the school is influenced by teachers (mean-3.13). 28. The extent the principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding academics (mean-2.81). 30. The extent the principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics (mean-2.50). 84 School 7: 4. The extent the school is influenced by students (mean-2.85). 28. The extent principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding academics (mean-3.00). 30. The extent the principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics (mean-3.00). In the above four schools, item 4 (The extent the school is influenced by students) is lacking in all schools. Item 30 (The extent the principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics) is lacking in three of these four schools (School 5, School 6, School 7). Item 20 (The extent the school is influenced by teachers) is lacking in School 5 and School 6, while item 28 (The extent the principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding academics) is lacking in two of the schools (School 6 and School 7). All items (4, 20, 28, 30) are lacking in School 6. School 1, School 3, School 4 and School 8 principals were rated as highly effective on all items. None of the principals were rated as noneffective. In the overall rating, principals and teachers of School 1 (mean-4.05), School 2 (mean-3.92), School 3 (mean-4.12), School 4 (mean-4.00), School 5 (mean-3.69) and School 8 (mean- 4.20) rated the principals as highly effective leaders. Principals and teachers of school 6 (mean-3.05) and School 7 (mean-3.35) rated the principals as effective leaders. Table 21 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals high level of effectiveness. High Level of Effectiveness School School ____________________ 1________ 2 Mean §0 3. Extent school influenced by principal. 4.43 .59 School School School School School School 3_________ 4_________ 5_________ 6________ 7_________ 8 Mean SO 4.64 .49 Maan SD 4.30 .48 Mean sp Mean 4.11 .83 4.32 sn .77 Mean SO Mean SD 4.00 .89 3.92 .49 Mean SD 4.50 .52 00 Ol 4. Extent school influenced by students. 3.91 1.04 3.50 .60 4.10 .88 3.83 .79 3.29 1.01 2.81 1.11 2.85 .55 3.81 .66 20. Extent school influenced by teachers. 4.09 1.00 4.09 .81 4.20 .42 4.11 .76 3.57 .84 3.13 1.02 4.00 .91 4.44 .51 28. Extent principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding academics. 3.87 .76 3.68 .95 4.20 .63 4.11 1.02 3.75 .89 2.81 1.17 3.00 1.08 4.25 .58 30. Extent principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics. 3.96 .88 3.68 .78 3.80 .79 3.83 1.04 3.50 .92 2.50 1.03 3.00 1.22 4.00 .73 .65 3.92 .45 4.12 .52 4.00 .75 3.69 .55 3.05 .59 3.35 .54 4.20 .36 OVERALL 4.05 86 Principal- lostmctioriaL Leadership; In each school, the following specific items under "Principal Instructional Leadership" showed the principal as effective (Table 22 ): School 1: 21. The extent the principal adjusts the curricula to meet the needs of students (mean-3.39). School 2: 21. The extent the principal adjusts the curricula to meet the needs of students (mean -3.45). 32. The extent the principal provides materials and equipment to teachers to enhance job performance (mean-3.59). School 3: 29. The extent the principal provides staff development activities for teachers (mean-3.50). 32. The extent the principal provides materials and equipment for teachers to enhance job performance (mean-3.60). School 4: 6. The extent the principal guides the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula (mean-3.28). 21. The extent the principal adjusts the curricula to meet the needs of students (mean-3.67). School 5: 5. The extent the principal tries to improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision (i.e., using observation data, various planning and inservice experiences) (mean-3.39). 6. The extent the principal guides the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula (mean-3.11) 21. The extent the principal adjusts the curricula to meet the needs of students (mean-3.29). 87 School 6: 5. The extent the principal tries to improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision (i.e. using observation data, various planning and inservice experiences) (mean-3.19). 6. The extent principal guides the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula (mean-3.25). 21. The extent the principal adjusts the curricula to meet the needs of students (mean-3.44). 29. The extent the principal provides staff development activities for teachers (mean-3.06). 32. The extent the principal provides materials and equipment for teachers to enhance job performance (mean-3.44). School 7: 5. The extent the principal tries to improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision (i.e., using observation data, various planning and inservice experiences) (mean-2.62). 6. The extent the principal guides the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula (mean-2.77). 21. The extent the principal adjusts the curricula to meet the needs of students (mean-3.46). 29. The extent the principal provides staff development activities for teachers (mean-2.46). School 8: 6. The extent the principal guides the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula (mean-3.50). In the eight schools above, item 21 (Adjusting the curricula to meet the needs of students) is lacking in six of the eight schools (School 1, School 2, School 4, School 5, School 6, School 7); item 6 (Instructional planning using the adapted curricula) is lacking in five of the eight schools (School 4, School 5, School 6, School 7, School 88 8); item 5 (The extent the principal tries to improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision) is lacking in three of the eight schools (School 5, School 6, School 7); item 29 (The extent the principal provides staff development activities for teachers) is lacking in three of the eight schools (School 6, School 7, School 3); and item 32 (The extent the principal provides materials and equipment for teachers to enhance job performance) is also lacking in three schools (School 2, School 3, School 6). All five items (5, 6, 21, 29, 32) are lacking in School 6. None of the principals were rated as noneffective . In the overall rating, principals as highly effective principals and teachers rated the in instructional leadership in School 1 (mean-3.70), School 2 (mean-3.68), School 3 (mean-3.84), School 4 (mean-3.81), and School 8 (mean-3.83). School 5 (mean-3.49), Principals and teachers of School 6 (mean-3.28) and School 7 (mean-3.11) rated the principals as e ffe c tiv e leadership. in instructional Table 22 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals instructional leadership. Instructional Leadership School School Mean SD School Mean SD School Mean School sp Mean School fin School School Mean SD Mean 3.19 .83 2.62 .65 3.75 .68 Mean sp 5. Extent principal tries to improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision 3.74 .81 3.86 .71 3.70 .82 3.78 .81 3.39 1.07 6. Extent principal guides the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula. 3.74 .69 3.68 .89 4.30 .67 3.28 .75 3.11 .96 3.25 1.18 2.77 .73 3.50 .63 21. Extent principal adjusts the curricula to meet the needs of students. 3.39 .78 3.45 .80 4.10.74 3.67 .84 3.29 .81 3.44 1.03 3.46 .66 4.00 .82 29. Extent staff develop­ ment activities pro­ vided for teachers by the principal. 3.83 .72 3.82 .66 3.50 .97 4.22 .73 3.71 .98 3.06 1.29 2.46 .88 3.94 .68 32. Extent principal pro­ vides materials and equipment for teachers to enhance job performance. 3.83 .98 3.59 .80 3.60 .84 4.11 .83 3.93 .86 3.44 1.03 4.23 .73 3.94 .77 3.70 .63 3.68 .62 3.84 .63 3.81 .55 3.49 .75 3.28 .68 3.11 .51 3.83 .44 OVERALL 90 Principal Monitoring of Student Progress: In each school, the following specific items under "Principal Monitoring of Student Progress” showed the principal as effective (Table 23): School 1: 8. The extent the principal makes classroom visits (mean-3.17). School 2: 8. The extent the principal makes classroom visits (mean-3.45). School 3: 8. The extent the principal makes classroom visits (mean-3.60). School 4: 8. The extent the principal makes classroom visits (mean-3.61). School 5: 8. The extent the principal makes classroom visits (mean-3.18). 22. The extent the principal is aware of the learning problems students face (mean-3.57). 33. The extent the principal is aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students (mean-3.46). School 6: 8. The extent the principal makes classroom visits (mean-2.88). 33. The extent the principal is aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students (mean-3.19). 91 8. The extent the principal makes classroom visits (mean-2.38). 22. The extent the principal is aware of the learning problems students face (mean-3.46). 33. The extent the principal is aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students (mean-3.62). School 8: 8. The extent the principal makes classroom visits (mean-3.50). In the above eight schools, item 8 (The extent the principal makes classroom visits) is lacking in all schools. Item 33 (The extent the principal is aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students) is lacking in three of the eight schools (School 5, School 6, School 7) and item 22 (The extent the principal is aware of the learning problems students face) is lacking in two of the schools (School 5 and School 7). None of the principals were rated as noneffective. In the overall rating, principals and teachers of seven schools, School 1 (mean-4.08), School 2 (mean-4.32), School 3 (mean-4.28), School 4 (mean-4.08), School 5 (mean-3.71), School 6 (mean-3.76), and School 8 (mean-4.29) leaders in monitoring rated the principals as highly effective of school progress. In the overall rating, School 7 rated (mean-3.57) the principal as effective in monitoring of school progress. Table 23 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals monitoring of student progress. Monitoring of Student Progress _______________ 7. 8. 22. 31. 33. School School 1_2 Mean SD Mean SD School 3 School School School School School 4_________ 5_________ 6________ 7_________ 8 Mean Mean sn Mean SD Mean Mean SD Extent principal feels responsible for the achievement of educational excellence. 4.35 .71 4.64 .58 4.70 .48 4.28 .67 4.14 .93 4.38 .96 4.08 .76 4.56 .63 Extent principal makes classroom visits. 3.17 .49 3.45 .80 3.60 .70 3.61 .78 3.18 .94 2.88 .96 2.38 .87 3.50 .73 Extent principal is aware of the learning problems students face. 4.30 .70 4.32 .72 4.20 .42 3.83 .86 3.57 1.00 3.94 .93 3.46 .66 4.44 .63 Extent principal is interested in students' success. 4.61 .58 4.82 .39 4.70 .48 4.56 .51 4.18 .90 4.44 .73 4.31 .63 4.88 .34 Extent principal is aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students. 3.96 .88 4.36 .66 4.20 .42 4.11 .76 3.46 1.07 3.19 1.11 3.62 1.19 4.06 .77 4.08 .53 4.32 .44 4.28 .29 4.08 .50 3.71 3.76 .53 3.57 .58 4.29 .31 OVERALL .62 to to 93 Principal Clear and Focused School Mission: In each school, the following specific items under "Principal Clear and Focused School Mission” showed the principal as effective (Table 24): School 4: 9. The extent the principal is instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well (mean-3.61). School 5: 9. The extent the principal is instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well (mean-3.25). 10. The extent the principal employs procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities (mean-3.46). 23. The extent the principal promotes commitment of teachers and students to the school mission (mean-3.64). School 6: 10. The extent the principal employs procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities (mean-3.31). 23. The extent the principal promotes commitment of teachers and students to the SGhooi mission (mean-3.50). 34. The extent the principal initiates and encourages teamwork by teachers (mean-3.25). School 7: 9. The extent the principal is instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well (mean-3.08). 10. The extent the principal employs procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities (mean-2.92). 23. The extent the principal promotes commitment of teachers and students to the school mission (mean-3.23). 34. The extent the principal initiates and encourages teamwork by teachers (mean-3.38). 94 School 8: 10. The extent the principal employs procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities (mean-3.56). In the above five schools, item 10 (The extent the principal employs procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities) is lacking in four of the schools (School 5, School 6, School 7, School 8); item 23 (The extent the principal promotes commitment of teachers and students to the school mission) is lacking in three of the schools (School 5, School 6, School 7); item 9 (The extent the principal is instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well) is also lacking in three of the schools (School 4, School 5, School 7); and item 34 (The extent the principal initiates and encourages teamwork by teachers) is lacking in two of the schools (School 6 and School 7). All items (9, 10, 23, 34) are lacking in School 7. Three of the principals, School 1, School 2 and School 3, were rated as highly effective on all items. None of the principals were rated as noneffective. In the overall rating, principals and teachers of School 1 (mean-4.03), School 2 (mean-4.18), School 3 (mean-4.28), School 4 (mean-3.99) and School 8 (mean-4.29) rated the principals as highly effective leaders having a clear and focused school mission. In the overall rating, principals and teachers of School 5 (mean-3.66), School6 (mean-3.64) and School 7 (mean-3.34) rated theprincipals as effective mission. in having a clear and focused school Table 24 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals clear and focused school mission. Clear and Focused School Mission School 1 School 2 Mean 9. Extent principal is instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well. 3.78 Mean SD .74 4.05 School School 9 4 School 5 Mean 5ft Mean .65 4.30 .67 3.61 .92 SD School 6 School School 7 a Mean SD Mean sp 3.25 1.11 3.81 .91 3.08 1.04 3.88 1.09 Mean 8ft Mean SD 10. Extent principal employs procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities. 3.83 1.03 3.95 .65 3.80 .63 4.11 .68 3.46 .96 3.31 1.20 2.92 .76 3.56 1.03 23. Extent principal promotes commitment of teachers and students to school mission. 4.00 4.36 .73 4.30 .67 3.94 .73 3.64 .91 3.50 1.15 3.23 1.09 4.56 .63 34. Extent principal initiates and encourages teamwork by teachers. 4.04 .88 3.95 .84 4.40 .52 4.00 .84 3.82 .90 3.25 1.00 3.38 1.12 4.69 .48 36. Extent principal sets high standards and goals for educational performance in school. 4.48 .73 4.59 .50 4.60 .52 4.28 .67 4.11 .88 4.31 .79 4.08 .64 4.75 .45 .69 4.18 .50 4.28 .34 3.99 .61 3.66 .78 3.64 .69 3.34 .68 4.29 .44 OVERALL 4.03 .74 96 Principal Emphasis of Student Attainment of Basic Skills: In each school, the following specific items under "Principal Emphasis of Student Attainment of Basic Skills" showed the principal as effective (Table 25): School 2: 24. The extent the principal encourages teachers to cooperatively plan and coordinate their instructional efforts (mean-3.55). School 5: 12. The extent students are recognized by the principal for their attainment of basic skills achievement (mean-3.64). 24. The extent the principal encourages teachers to cooperatively plan and coordinate their instructional efforts (mean-3.57). School 6: 11. The extent the principal supports teachers in the development of innovative, more effective and efficient practices in the classroom (mean-3.50). 12. The extent students are recognized by the principal for their attainment of basic skills achievement (mean-3.38). 24. The extent the principal encourages teachers to cooperatively plan and coordinate their instructional efforts (mean-3.38). 35. The extent students support high performance goals set for educational achievement (mean-3.19). 38. The extent the principal is concerned about the instructional success of teachers (mean-3.56). School 7: 12. The extent students are recognized by the principal for their attainment of basic skills achievement (mean-3.38). 35. The extent students support high performance goals set for educational achievement (mean-3.31). 97 In the above four schools, item 12 (The extent students are recognized by the principal for their attainment of basic skills achievement) is lacking in three of the four schools (School 5, School 6, School 7); item 24 (The extent the principal encourages teachers to cooperatively plan and coordinate their instructional efforts) is lacking in three of the four schools (School 5, School 6, School 2); and item 35 (The extent students support high performance goals set for educational achievement) is lacking in two schools (School 6 and School 7). All items (12, 24, 35) are lacking in School 6. None of the principals were rated as noneffective. In the overall rating, principals and teachers of seven of the schools, School 1 (mean-4.12), School 2 (mean-4.09), School 3 (mean-4.24), School 4 (mean-4.17), School 5 (mean-3.76), School 7 (mean-3.72) and School 8 (mean-4.59) rated the principals as highly effective in emphasizing student attainment of basic skills. The principal of School 6 was rated (mean-3.40) as e ffe c tiv e in emphasizing student attainment of basic skills. Table 25 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals emphasis on student attainment of basic skills. Emphasize Student Attainment of Basic Skills Schooi 1 Mean School 2 Mean ?P School 3 School 4 SO Mean SD School 5 Mean fin School 6 School 7 Mean Mean SD School 8 sp Mean SD 11. Extent principal supports teachers in the develop­ ment of innovative.effective,efficient practices in the classroom. 4.04 .88 4.14 .89 4.20 .63 4.22 1.00 3.71 1.24 3.50 1.26 4.00 1.00 4.88 .34 12. Extent students recog­ nized for attainment of basic skills. 4.39 .66 4.41 .59 4.20 .79 4.39 .70 3.64 .73 3.38 1.02 3.38 .96 4.69 .60 24. Extent principal assists teachers to plan and coordinate instructional efforts. 4.13 .81 3.55 .60 4.40 .70 3.78 .73 3.57 .57 3.38 1.02 3.85 1.07 4.88 .34 35. Extent students support high performance goals for achievement. 3.70 .76 3.91 .68 4.10 .74 4.06 .73 3.75 .89 3.19 1.11 3.31 .63 3.81 .66 38. Extent principal is concerned about the instructional success of teachers. 4.35 .71 4.45 .60 4.30 .48 4.39 .61 4.11 .88 3.56 1.26 4.08 .86 4.69 .48 4.12 .58 4.09 .44 4.24 .47 4.17 .55 3.76 .59 3.40 3.72 .50 4.59 .36 OVERALL .90 99 Principal Creating A Positive School Climate For Learning: In each school, the following specific items under "Principal Creating a Positive School Climate For Learning” showed the principal as effective (Table 26): School 5: 14. The extent the principal encourages teachers to communicate openly and honestly with the principal, students and other teachers (mean-3.50). 39. The extent the principal encourages teachers to support one another in striving to do their best (mean-3.57). School 6: 13. The extent the principal establishes control of the students (mean-3.50). 14. The extent the principal encourages teachers to communicate openly and honestly with the principal, students and other teachers (mean-3.00). 25. The extent the principal develops rational approaches to problem-solving processes with the participation of teachers (mean-2.69). 37. The extent the principal interacts on a friendly and supportive basis with teachers and students (mean-2.69). School 7: 13. The extent the principal establishes control of the students (mean-3.62). 25. The extent the principal develops rational approaches to problem solving processes with the participation of teachers (mean-3.00). School 8: 25. The extent the principal develops rational approaches to problem solving processes with the participation of teachers (mean-3.44). 100 In the above four schools, item 25 (The extent the principal develops rational approaches to problem-solving processes with the participation of teachers) is lacking in three of the four schools (School 6, School 7, School 8). Item 13 (The extent the principal establishes control of the students) is lacking in two of the four schools (School 6 and School 7) as is item 14 (The extent the principal encourages teachers to communicate openly and honestly with the principal, students and other teachers) (School 5 and School 6). All items (13, 14, 25) are found in School 6. School 1, School 2, School 3 and School 4 principals were rated as hiahlv effective on all items. None of the principals were rated as noneffective. In the overall rating, principals and teachers in School 1 (mean-4.17), School 2 (mean-4.23), School 3 (mean-4.24), School 4 (mean-4.19), School 7 (mean-3.68), and School 8 (mean-4.36) rated principals as hiahlv effective for learning. in creating a positive school climate School 5 (mean-3.61) and School 6 (mean-3.13) rated the principals as effective in creating a positive school climate for learning. Table 26 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals creating a positive school climate for learning. Positive School Climate for Learnina School i School School School School 2 3 A 5 sp Maan SO Mean 4.35 .65 4.68 .48 4.30 .48 4.00 14. Extent teachers communicate openly and honestly with principal, students and other 4.17 .78 teachers. 4.23 .75 4.00 .67 25. Extent principal develop rational approaches to problem solving processes with the 3.74 .81 teachers and students. 3.95 .72 3.80 37. Extent principal inter­ acts on a friendly and supportive basis with teachers and students. .66 4.45 .60 39. Extent principal encourages teachers to support one another in striving to do their best 4.17 .65 4.17 .55 Mean ?P Mean SO School 8 7 SO Mean .69 3.79 .74 3.50 .97 3.62 .87 4.75 .45 4.28 .83 3.50 .88 3.00 1.03 3.92 .64 4.56 .51 .79 3.89 .90 3.39 .88 2.69 1.01 3.00 .91 3.44 .89 4.40 .52 4.61 .61 3.82 .94 2.69 1.14 3.77 .60 4.25 .86 3.82 .59 4.70 .48 4.17 1.04 3.57 .88 3.75 1.00 4.08 .64 4.81 .40 4.23 .35 4.24 .40 4.19 .64 3.61 .55 3.13 .81 3.68 .47 4.36 .38 SO SO 101 OVERALL 4.39 School Mean Mean SO Mean 13. Extent principal estab­ lishes control of the students. School 6 102 Principal High Expectations For Students and Teachers: In each school, the following specific items under "Principal High Expectations for Students and Teachers" showed the principal as effective (Table 27): School 5: 16. The extent the principal guides and inspires teachers in teaching to meet the school's goals (mean-3.50). 26. The extent the students are aware of principals' high expectations for their academic achievement (mean-3.50). School 6: 16. The extent the principal guides and inspires teachers in teaching to meet the school's goals (mean-3.13). 17. The extent the principal organizes the school functions to achieve the objectives of the school (mean-3.38). 26. The extent the students are aware of the principals' high expectations for their academic achievement (mean-2.88). School 7: 15. The extent the principal determines high performance goals for achieving educational excellence (mean-3.38). 16. The extent the principal guides and inspires teachers in teaching to meet the school's goals (mean-2.92). 17. The extent the principal organizes the school functions to achieve the objectives of the school (mean-3.23). 26. The extent the students are aware of the principals' high expectations for their academic achievement (mean-2.77). In the above three schools, item 16 (The extent the principal guides and inspires teachers in teaching to meet the school's goals) and item 26 (The extent students are aware of the principals' high 103 expectations for their academic achievement) are lacking in all three schools (School 5, School 6, School 7). Item 17 (The extent the principal organizes the school functions to achieve the objectives of the school) is lacking in two of the three schools (School 6 and School 7), while item 15 (The extent the principal determines high performance goals for achieving educational excellence) is lacking only in School 7. All items (15, 16, 17, 26) are lacking in School 7. School 1, School 2, School 3, School 4 and School 8 were rated as highly effective on all items. None of the principals were rated as noneffective. In the overall rating, principals and teachers of School 1 (mean-4.25), School 2 (mean-4.39), School 3 (mean-4.36), School 4 (mean-4.06), School 5 (mean-3.78), and School 8 (mean-4.44) rated principals as hiohtv effective in high expectations for students and teachers. Principals and teachers of School 6 (mean-3.53) and School 7 (mean-3.43) rated the principals as e ffe ctive in high expectations for students and teachers. Table 27 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals high expectations for students and teachers. High Expectations for Students and Teachers School 1 School 2 School 4 School 3 School s School 6 School 7 -Mean .SD,. Mean Mean SD _ School 8 sp Mean SD 8° 4.40 .70 3.89 .76 3.75 1.04 4.06 .93 3.38 .87 4.38 .89 4.32 .65 4.30 .48 3.94 .64 3.50 1.04 3.13 1.02 2.92 .86 4.38 .72 4.00 .95 4.23 .69 4.10 1.10 4.06 .80 3.75 .89 3.38 1.09 3.23 .93 3.88 .96 26. Extent students are aware of the principals' high expectations for academic achievement. 4.30 .82 4.32 .57 4.30 .48 3.89 .76 3.50 .84 2.88 1.20 2.77 .93 4.69 .60 40. Extent teachers feel responsible for the achievement of educational excellence. 4.52 .67 4.50 .60 4.70 .48 4.50 .62 4.40 .69 4.19 .83 4.85 .38 4.88 .34 4.25 .63 4.39 .41 4.36 .43 4.06 .53 3.78 .68 3.53 .56 3.43 .59 4.44 .40 Mean. SD 15. Extent principal determines high performance goals for achieving educational excellence in the school. 4.26 .75 4.59 .67 16. Extent principal guides and inspires teachers in teaching to meet the school goals. 4.17 .78 17. Extent principal organizes functions to achieve the objectives of the school. OVERALL 104 SD Mean Mean SD 105 Principal General Behaviors: In each school, the following specific items under "Principal General Behaviors” showed the principals as effective (Table 28): School 5: 18. The extent the principal handles the administrative side of the job well (i.e., scheduling, budgeting, job assignment, records) (mean-3.50). 19. The extent the principal resolves conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school (mean-3.04). 27. The extent the principal handles the technical or educational side of the job well (i.e., motivation of staff to maximum performance, continuous study of curricular and instructional innovation, formulating with staff plans for evaluating and reporting student progress) (mean-3.57). School 6: 1. The extent the principal involves teachers and students in decision making as it relates to achieving effective performance goals of the school (mean-2.81). 2. The extent the principal encourages teachers and students to work with him/her as a team (mean-2.88). 19. The extent the principal resolves conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school (mean-2.81). 27. The extent the principal handles the technical or educational side of the job well (i.e., motivation of staff to maximum performance, continuous study of curricular and instructional innovation, formulating with staff plans for evaluating and reporting student progress) (mean-3.19). School 7: 1. The extent the principal involves teachers and students in decision making as it relates to achieving effective performance goals of the school (mean-3.23). 106 2. The extent the principal encourages teachers and students to work with him/her as a team (mean-2.85). 19. The extent the principal resolves conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school (mean-3.23). 27. The extent the principal handles the technical or educational side of the job well (i.e., motivation of staff to maximum performance, continuous study of curricular and instructional innovation, formulating with staff plans for evaluating and reporting student progress (mean-3.15). In the above three schools, item 19 (The extent the principal resolves conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the the school) and item 27 (The extent the principal handles the technical or educational side of the job well is lacking in all three schools (School 5, School 6, School 7). Item 1 (The extent the principal involves teachers and students in decision making as it relates to achieving effective performance goals of the school) and item 2 (The extent the principal resolves conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school) are lacking in two of the three schools (School 6 and School 7), while item 18 (The extent the principal handles the administrative side of the job well) is lacking only in School 5. Ail items (1, 2, 19, 27) are lacking in School 6 and School 7. School 1, School 2, School 3, School 4 and School 8 principals were rated as hiohlv effective on all items. None of the principals were rated as noneffective. In the overall rating, principals and teachers in School 1 (mean4.02), School 2 (mean-4.31), School 3 (mean-4.24), School 4 (mean-4.16), and School 8 (mean-4.30) rated the principals as highly effective in principal general behaviors. School 5 (mean-3.58), Principals and teachers in School 6 (mean-3.16), and School 7 (mean-3.26) rated the principals as effective in principal general behaviors. Table 28 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for each individual elementary school regarding principals general behaviors. General Behaviors 2 Mean SD Mean School School a School School 1 sp School 5 A Mean fif) Mean SD Mean SI? School 6 School 7 Mean SD Mean sp 2.81 1.05 3.23 1.01 4.44 .51 School A Mean SD 3.87 .81 4.32 .65 4.30 .67 4.22 .55 4.00 2. Extent principal encourages teachers to work with him/her as a team. 4.22 .74 4.36 .66 4.30 .67 4.28 .83 3.79 1.17 2.88 1.15 2.85 1.21 4.25 .45 18. Extent principal handles the administrative side of the job well. 4.35 .65 4.55 .60 4.30 .67 4.28 .57 3.50 .79 4.13 .96 3.85 .55 4.31 .70 19. Extent principal resolves conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school. 3.74 .81 4.09 .75 4.00 .47 4.00 .69 3.04 .84 2.81 .91 3.23 1.01 4.06 .68 27, Extent principal handles the technical or educa­ tional side of the job well. 3.91 .85 4.23 .75 4.30 .67 4.00 .84 3.57 1.07 3.19 .91 3.15 .90 4.44 .63 .61 4.31 .51 4.24 .34 4.16 .56 3.58 — 75. 3.16 .67 3.26 .77 4.30 .38 OVERALL 4.02 .82 108 1. Extent principal involves teachers and students in decision making as it relates to achieving effective performance goals of the school. 109 Research .Qufistlp.n. .4 Is there a difference in the ratings of principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership in rural, urban and suburban schools in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school clim ate fo r learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations tor students and teachers, and general behaviors? Principal Hioh Level of Effectiveness: In rating the principals' leadership in rural, suburban and urban schools under "Principal High Level of Effectiveness" (Table 29), principals and teachers rated the principals as effective in these specific items: Rural Schools: 4. The extent the school is influenced by students (mean-3.39). 30. The extent the principals seek and implement ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics (mean-3.57). Suburban Schools: 4. The extent the school is influenced by students (mean-3.34). 28. The extent the principals seek and implement ideas from teachers regarding academics (mean-3.65). 30. The extent principals seek and implement ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics (mean-3.43). In the rural and urban schools item 4 (The extent the school is influenced by students) and item 30 (The extent the principals seek and implement ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics) are found. Item 28 (The extent the principals seek and implement ideas 110 from teachers regarding academics) is found only in the suburban schools. Urban principals were rated as highly effective on all items. There were no noneffective ratings for rural, suburban or urban principals. In the overall rating, principals of rural schools (mean-3.84) and urban schools (mean-3.97) were rated as highly effective while principals of suburban schools (mean-3.66) were rated as effective in level of effectiveness. Table 29 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban and urban schools regarding principals high level of effectiveness. High Level of Effectiveness 3. 4. 20. 28. 30. Rural Suburban SD Urban Mean SD Mean Mean SD Extent school influenced by principal. 4.29 .53 4.18 .77 4.47 .64 Extent school influenced by students. 3.39 .79 3.34 1.02 3.77 .89 Extent school influenced by teachers. 4.21 .74 3.68 .92 4.08 .87 Extent principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding academics. 3.71 1.05 3.65 1.04 3.81 .92 Extent principal seeks and implements ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics. 3.57 1.10 3.43 1.07 3.72 .89 OVERALL 3.84 .62 3.66 .67 3.97 .63 Ill Principal Jnstr.uc.tional_-Leadaiistiip; In rating the principals' leadership in rural, suburban and urban schools under "Principal Instructional Leadership" (Table 30), principals and teachers rated the principals as effective in these specific items: Rural Schools: 5. The extent the principals improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision (i.e., using observation data, various planning and inservice experiences) (mean-3.25). 6. The extent the principals guide the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula (mean-3.18). 29. The extent staff development activities are provided for teachers by the principals (mean-3.36). Suburban Schools: 5. The extent the principals improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision (i.e., using observation data, various planning and inservice experiences (mean-3.48). 6. The extent the principal guides the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula (mean-3.23). 21. The extent the principals adjust the curricula to meet the needs of students (mean-3.46). 29. The extent staff development activities are provided or teachers by the principals (mean-3.65). Urban Schools: 21. The extent the principals adjust the curricula to meet the needs of students (mean-3.53). In the rural and suburban schools item 5 related to clinical supervision, item 6 related to adapted curricula, and item 29 related to staff development activities. Item 21, related to adjusting the 112 curricula to meet the needs of students, is found in suburban and urban schools. There were no noneffective ratings of rural, suburban or urban principals. In the (mean-3.71) overall were rating, rated the principals as hiohlv of effective urban in schools instructional leadership while the suburban and rural principals were rated effective in instructional leadership. 113 Table 5. 6. 21. 29. 32. 30 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals instructional leadership. Rural Urban Suburban Instructional Leadership Mean Extent principal tries to improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision (i.e.,using observation data, various planning and inservice experience). 3.25 .89 3.48 .95 3.75 .76 Extent principal guides the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula. 3.18 .77 3.23 .94 3.81 .81 Extent principal adjusts the curricula to meet the needs of students. 3.75 .80 3.46 .85 3.53 .85 Extent staff development activities provided for teachers by the principal. 3.36 .99 3.65 1.12 3.74 .74 Extent principal provides materials and equipment for teachers to enhance job performance 4.07 .77 3.85 .94 3.70 .85 OVERALL 3.52 .59 3.54 .70 3.71 .61 SD Mean SD Mean SD 114 Principal Monitoring of Student Progress: In rating the principals' leadership in rural, suburban and urban schools under "Principal Monitoring of Student Progress" (Table 31), the principals and teachers rated the principals as effective in these specific items: Rural Schools: 8. The extent the principals make classroom visits (mean-3.04). Suburban Schools: 8. The extent the principals make classroom visits (mean-3.25). 33. The extent the principals are aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students (mean-3.62). Urban Schools: 8. The extent the principals make classroom visits (mean-3.32). The common item rated as effective for rural, suburban and urban schools is item classroom visits. 8 which related to principals making Item 33 relating to principals awareness of teachers instructional problems in working with students is found only in suburban schools. There were no noneffective ratings for rural, suburban or urban principals. In the overall rating, principals of rural schools (mean-3.97), suburban schools (mean-3.85), and urban schools (mean-4.20) were rated as highly effective in monitoring of student progress. 115 Table 31 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals monitoring of student progress. Monitoring of Student Progress 7. 8. 22. 31. 33. Rural Mean Suburban SO Mean SD Urban Mean SD Extent principal feels responsible for the achievement of educational excellence. 4.32 .72 4.25 .85 4.55 .64 Extent principal makes classroom visits. 3.04 .96 3.25 .92 3.32 .70 Extent principal is aware of the learning problems students face. 4.00 .82 3.77 .93 4.28 .66 Extent principal interested in student success. 4.64 .56 4.37 .76 4.70 .50 Extent principal aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students. 3.86 1.01 3.62 1.04 4.15 .74 OVERALL 3.97 .58 3.85 .57 4.20 .48 116 Principal Clear and Focused School Mission: In rating the principals' leadership in rural, suburban and urban schools under "Principal Clear and Focused School Mission” (Table 32), principals and teachers rated the principals as e ffe ctive in these specific items: Rural Schools: 9. The extent the principals are instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well (mean-3.54). 10. The extent the principals employ procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities (mean-3.29). Suburban Schools: 9. The extent the principals are instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well (mean-3.54). 10. The extent the principals employ procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities (mean-3.60). In the rural and suburban schools item 9 which related to principals planning and setting priorities and item 10 which related to clarifying roles and planning activities are found. Urban school principals were rated as hiohlv effective on all items. There were no noneffective ratings for rural, suburban or urban principals. In the overall rating, principals of rural schools (mean-3.86), suburban schools (mean-3.78), and urban schools (mean-4.11) were rated as highly effective in having a clear and focused mission. 117 Table 32 Means of principals’ and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals clear and focused school mission. Clear and Focused School Mission 9. 10. 23. 34. 36. Rural Suburban Urban Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Extent principal is instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well. 3.54 1.14 3.54 .95 3.94 .82 Extent principal employs procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities. 3.29 .98 3.60 1.00 3.89 .80 Extent principal promotes commitment of teachers and students to school mission. 3.96 1.10 3.75 .92 4.15 .77 Extent principal initiates and encourages teamwork by teachers. 4.07 1.05 3.78 .93 4.04 .85 Extent principal sets high standards and goals for educational performance in school. 4.46 .64 4.23 .77 4.53 .64 OVERALL 3.86 .74 3.78 .69 4.11 .61 118 Principal Emphasis On Student Attainment of Basic Skills: In rating the principals' leadership in the rural, suburban and urban schools under "Principal Emphasis On Student Attainment of Basic Skills” (Table 33), showed the principals as effective in these specific items: Rural Schools: 35. The extent that students support high performance goals set for educational achievement (mean-3.61). Suburban Schools: 24. The extent the principals encourage teachers to cooperatively plan and coordinate their instructional efforts (mean-3.60). There are no common items found among the rural, suburban and urban principals. Urban principals were rated as highly effective on all items. There were no noneffective ratings for rural, suburban or urban principals. In the overall ratings, principals of rural schools (mean-4.21), suburban schools (mean-3.81), and urban schools (mean-4.11) are rated as highly effective in emphasis on student attainment of basic skills. 119 Table 33 Means of Principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals emphasis on student attainment of basic skills. Emphasize Student Attainment of Basic Skills 11. 12. 24. 35. 38. Rura| Mean Suburban SO Mean SD Urban Mean SD Extent principal supports teachers in the development of innovative, more effective and efficient practices in the classroom. 4.50 .84 3.85 1.15 4.08 .90 Extent principal recognizes students for their attainment of basic skills achievement. 4.11 1.03 3.83 .88 4.34 .68 Extent principal encourages teachers to cooperatively plan and coordinate their instructional efforts. 4.43 .92 3.60 .72 3.94 .82 Extent students support high performance goals set for educational achievement 3.61 .69 3.69 .95 3.85 .72 Extent principal is concerned about the instructional success of teachers. 4.43 .74 4.09 .95 4.34 .65 OVERALL 4.21 .61 3.81 .70 4.11 .54 120 Principal Creating A .Positive School Climate For Learning: In rating the principals' leadership in the rural, suburban and urban schools under "Principal Creating A Positive School Climate For Learning" (Table 34), principals and teachers rated the principals as effective in these specific items: Rural Schools: 25. The extent the principals develop rational approaches to problem solving processes with the participation of theachers (mean-3.21). Suburban Schools: 14. The extent the principals encourage teachers to communicate openly and honestly with the principal, students and teachers (mean-3.62). 25. The extent principals develop rational approaches to problem solving processes with the participation of teachers (mean-3.38). The common item found in rural and suburban schools is the extent principals use problem solving processes (item 25). Urban principals were rated as highly effective on all items. There were no noneffective ratings for rural, suburban or urban principals. In the overall rating, principals of rural schools (mean-4.06), suburban schools (mean-3.69), and urban schools (mean-4.18) were rated as hiohlv effective in creating a positive school climate for learning. 0 121 T a b la 3 4 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals creating a positive school climate for learning. Positive School Climate for Learning .. Rural __ Mean SD Suburban __ Mean SD Urban „ e_ Mean SD 13. Extent principal establishes control of the students. 4.32 .77 3.78 .84 4.45 .57 14. Extent principal encourages teachers to communicate honestly with him/her, students and other teachers. 4.29 .66 3.62 1.00 4.17 .75 25. Extent principal develops rational approaches to problem solving processes with the participation of teachers. 3.21 .92 3.38 .98 3.83 .80 37. Extent principal interacts on a friendly and supportive basis with teachers and students. 4.04 .79 3.80 1.15 4.40 .60 39. Extent principal encourages teachers to support one another in striving to do their best. 4.46 .64 3.86 .90 4.08 .81 4.06 .55 3.69 .73 4.18 .49 OVERALL 122 Principal High Expectations for Students and Teachers: In rating the principals' leadership in rural, suburban and urban schools under "Principal High Expectations for Students and Teachers" (Table 35), principals and teachers rated the principals as effective in these specific items: Rural Schools: 17. The extent the principals organize the school functions to achieve the objective of the school (mean-3.64). Suburban Schools: 16. The extent the principals guide and inspire teachers in teaching to meet the schools goals (mean-3.57). 26. The extent students are aware of the principals' high expectations for their academic achievement (mean-3.46). There are no common effective items for rural and suburban principals. Urban principals were rated as hiahlv effective on all items. There were no noneffective ratings for rural, suburban or urban principals. In the overall rating, principals of rural schools (mean-4.01), suburban schools (mean-3.81), and urban schools (mean-4.32) are rated as hiohlv effective in setting high expectations for students and teachers. 123 T a b le 3 5 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals high expectations for students and teachers. High Expectations for Students and Teachers Rural .. Mean „ SD Suburban „ e_ Mean SD Urban „ „ Mean SD 15. Extent principal determines high performance goals for achieving educational excellence in the school. 3.93 1.02 3.91 .93 4.40 .72 16. Extent principal guides and inspires teachers in teaching to meet the schools goals. 3.75 1.08 3.57 .98 4.23 .67 17. Extent principal organizes the school functions to achieve the objectives of the school. 3.64 .95 3.74 .96 4.09 .88 26. Extent students aware of the principals' high expectations for their academic achievement 3.86 1.24 3.46 .97 4.32 .67 40. Extent teachers feel responsible for the achievement of educational excellence. 4.86 .36 4.37 .70 4.57 .60 4.01 .71 3.81 .64 4.32 .51 OVERALL 124 Principal General Behaviors: In rating the principals' leadership in rural, suburban and urban schools under "Principal General Behaviors” (Table 36), principals and teachers of suburban schools rated the principals as effective in these specific items: Suburban Schools 19. The extent the principals resolve conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school (mean-3.31). 27. The extent the principals handle the technical or educational side of the job well (i.e., motivation of staff to maximum performance, continuous study of curricular and instructional innovation, formulating with staff plans for evaluating and reporting student progress) (mean-3.63). Rural and urban principals were rated as highly effective on all items. There were no noneffective ratings for rural, suburban or urban principals. In the overall rating, the principals of rural schools (mean-3.86) and urban schools (mean-4.15) were rated as highly e ffe ctive in general behaviors while those of suburban schools (mean-3.67) were rated as effective. 125 Table 36 Means of principals' and teachers' responses for rural, suburban, and urban schools regarding principals general behaviors. Responses to Principals General Behaviors Rural .. Mean SD Suburban „ ePk Mean SD Urban __ ..__ Mean SD Extent principal involves teachers and students in decision making as it relates to achieving effective performance goals of the school. 3.93 .98 3.78 .99 4.09 .74 Extent principal encourages teachers to work with him/her as a team. 3.68 1.09 3.71 1.17 4.26 .74 Extent principal handles the administrative side of the job well (i.e., scheduling, budgeting, job assignments, records). 4.11 .69 3.91 .84 4.42 .63 Extent principal resolves conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school. 3.68 .94 3.31 .95 3.91 .74 Extent principal handles the the technical or educational side of the job well (i.e., motivation of staff to maximum performance, continuous study of curricular and instructional innovation, formulating with staff plans for evaluating and reporting student progress). 3.89 .99 3.63 .98 4.08 .83 OVERALL 3.86 .78 3.67 .77 4.15 .55 126 Summary. The purpose of this study was to examine the similarities and differences in the leadership of the principals of the eight elementary schools recognized by the U.S. Department of Education in the 1985-1986 U.S. Recognition Program by looking at the principals' self-perceptions principals' instructional and teachers' leadership; perceptions principals' of the monitoring of student progress; principals' clear and focused school mission; principals' emphasis principals' creating of a student positive attainm ent school of clim ate basic for skills; learning; principals' level of effectiveness; principals' high expectations for students and teachers; and principals' general behaviors. Principals and teachers of the eight schools recognized in Michigan were requested to complete the Leadership Questionnaire measuring their perceptions of the principals' leadership. Mean and standard deviation were used to measure principals' behaviors (Table 37). A rating scale of 1 to 5 was used to interpret the means. The means between 1 and 2.33 were interpreted as a low measure of leader effectiveness (noneffective), the means between 2.34 and 3.67 were interpreted as an average measure of leader effectiveness (effective), and the means between 3.68 and 5 were interpreted as a high measure of leader effectiveness (highly effective). Principals rated principals as highly effective in all items (instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating positive school climate for learning, i level of 127 effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers and general behaviors). Principals perceived themselves as highly effective in all eight qualities while teachers perceived principals as highly effective in all qualities except instructional leadership. The combined ratings of principals and teachers perceived principals as highly effective in ail qualities except instructional leadership. The principals and teachers rating according to area is: Area 1. High level of effectiveness: the principals were rated as highly effective in six of the eight schools (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8). Area 2. Instructional leadership: the principals were rated as highly effective in five of the eight schools (1, 2, 3, 4, 8). Area 3. Monitoring student progress: the principals were rated as highly effective in seven of the eight schools (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 8). Area 4,. Clear and focused school mission: the principals were rated as highly effective in five of the eight schools (1, 2, 3, 4, 8). Area 5. Emphasis of student attainment of basic skills: the principals were rated as highly effective in seven of the eight schools (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8). Area 6. Positive school climate for learning: the principals were rated as highly effective in six of the eight schools (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8). Area 7. High expectations for students and teachers: the principals were rated as highly effective in six of the eight schools (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8). Area 8. General behavior: the principals were rated as highly effective in six of the eight schools (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8). 128 The principals and teachers perceived the principals leadership as highly effective or effective in all qualities. None of the principals were rated noneffective. Rural principals and teachers perceived principals as highly effective in all items but instructional leadership. Suburban principals and teachers perceived principals as highly effective in all items but instructional leadership and level of effectiveness. Urban principals and teachers perceived principals as highly effective in all items. The perceptions of the principals and teachers of the leadership of the eight Michigan public elementary school principals recognized in 1985-1986 by the U.S. Department of Education showed that the principals and teachers perceived five of the eight principals in the highly effective range while three of the principals to be in the effective range. High Expectations for Students and Teachers Positive School Climate for Learning 2 E-3 to Ul Attainment of Basic Skills Clear & Focused School Mission Monitor Student Progress Mean SD Mean so •M — +* 2 * •2 c s | i i O e 0 Mean SD Mean SD Mean Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Principals Teachers Principals/Teachers 4.13 3.79 3.80 .41 3.73 .66 3.59 .66 3.59 .41 .66 .65 4.35 3.98 4.00 .21 4.15 .57 3.90 .56 3.92 .48 .69 .69 4.38 3.98 4.00 .36 4.48 .65 3.91 .65 3.94 .40 .66 .66 4.23 4.02 4.03 .27 .66 .65 4.18 3.86 3.88 .33 .74 .73 School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 4.05 3.92 4.12 4.00 3.69 3.05 3.35 4.20 .65 .45 .52 .75 .55 .59 .54 .36 3.70 3.68 3.84 3.81 3.49 3.28 3.11 3.83 .63 .67 .63 .55 .75 .68 .51 .44 4.08 .53 4.03 4.32 .44 4.18 4.28 .29 4.28 4.08 .50 3.99 3.71 .62 3.66 3.76 .53 3.64 3.57 .58 3.34 4.29 .31 4.29 .69 .50 .34 .61 .78 .69 .68 .44 4.12 4.09 4.24 4.17 3.76 3.40 3.72 4.59 .58 .44 .47 .55 .59 .90 .50 .36 4.17 4.23 4.24 4.19 3.61 3.13 3.68 4.36 .55 .35 .40 .64 .55 .81 .47 .38 4.25 4.39 4.36 4.06 3.78 3.53 3.43 4.44 .63 .41 .43 .53 .68 .56 .59 .40 4.02 4.31 4.24 4.16 3.58 3.16 3.26 4.30 .61 .51 .34 .56 .75 .67 .77 .38 Rural Suburban Urban 3.84 3.66 3.97 .62 3.52 .67 3.54 .63 3.71 .59 .70 .61 3.97 3.85 4.20 .58 3.86 .57 3.78 .48 4.11 .74 .69 .61 4.21 3.81 4.11 .61 4.06 .70 3.69 .54 4.18 .55 .73 .49 4.01 3.81 4.32 .71 .64 .51 3.86 3.67 4.15 .78 .77 .55 129 Instructional Leadership Means of principals' and teachers' responses to Principal Leadership Questionnaire. High Lavs! of Effectiveness Table 37 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This final chapter is a summary of the study, a discussion of the conclusions from the analysis of the data, and recommendations for further research. Summary The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership of the principals of the eight Michigan elementary schools recognized by the U.S. Department of Education in the 1985-1986 School Recognition Program by looking at the principals' self-perceptions and the teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership in each of the eight schools as measured by the Leadership Questionnaire adapted from "The Profile Of A School (POS) Staff Questionnaire", Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. and a leadership training questionnaire used in a dissertation by Isabel Gabashane. Leadership Questionnaire included eight areas leadership: 1) instructional leadership; progress; learning; of effective 2) monitoring of student 3) clear and focused school mission; student attainment of basic skills; The 4) emphasis of 5) positive school climate for 6) high level of effectiveness; 7) high expectations for students and teachers; and 8) general behaviors. The literature was reviewed to include the job of a principal and the behaviors of effective principals. 130 131 The limitations of the study included: 1) the study was limited to the eight Michigan elementary schools recognized in 1985-1986; 2) the study was limited to principals' and teachers' perceptions; 3) the study was limited to those principals and teachers who chose to return the questionnaire; 4) the descriptive nature of the study was limited to how accurately principals and teachers described their perceptions; 5) the data of the study was affected by the degree of sincerity of the responses to the instrument administered; and 6) the study was conducted one year after the award was received. Design of the Study The population of this study was the principals and teachers of the eight elementary schools in Michigan recognized as a representation of Michigan's outstanding schools in the 1985-1986 U.S. Department of Education Recognition Program. The principals and teachers of the eight recognized schools were requested to complete the Leadership Questionnaire. Findings Research Question 1: Are the ratings of the principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership sim iliar in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? Principals perceived themselves as highly effective in ail eight qualities: 1) instructional leadership; 2) monitoring of student 132 progress; 3) clear and focused school mission; student attainment of basic skills; learning; 6) 5) level of effectiveness 4) emphasis of positive school climate for 7) high expectations for students and teachers; and 8) general behaviors. Teachers perceived the principals effective in seven of the eight areas: progress; 2) 5) 1) 4) as highly monitoring of student clear and focused school mission; student attainment of basic skills; learning; leadership 3) emphasis of positive school climate for level of effectiveness; 6) high expectations for students and teachers; and 7) general behaviors. Teachers perceived the principals leadership as effective in instructional leadership. Discussion; Research shows that principals who were strong instructional leaders and emphasized educational goals and high expectations for student achievement had higher achieving students (Robinson and Block, 1982). Achievement was one of the quality indicators for the U.S. Recognition Program. All schools had to show 75 percent or more of their students achieving at or above grade level in math and reading in the past three years or showing improvement of 50 percent or moreof the students in the last year and increasing by an average of 5 percent annually. All schools showed high achievement. Instructional leadership is the umbrella characteristics in effective schools gather. are interconnected. under which all All the characteristics It is interesting to note that in the applications for the U.S. Recognition Program that were completed by the schools to describe the quality of leadership of the building principal the following was written: 133 1. "The building principal inspires teachers, parents, and students to accomplish the school's mission and goals by: working cooperatively with staff to set mutual goals; scheduling regular classroom observations (based on predetermined objectives); providing positive reinforcement and feedback to staff about progress toward attainment of goals; providing suggestions for further professional development; and by setting priorities. The building leader places a strong emphasis on the accomplishment of objectives. They are assertive instructional leaders who convey high expectations in ways such as establishing specific goals for teachers and students; formulating procedures for evaluation of achievement objectives; making numerous classroom observations and post conference evaluations; providing teacher inservice on instructional skills; sharing of research philosophies and materials; and providing a role model through expressions of optimism.” 2. "Our building principal and other members of our school administration sincerely believe that all children can learn and demonstrate great confidence in the abilities of teachers to teach and parents to parent. The principal in particular, in a firm but friendly manner, has delineated our school's needs, goals and objectives, and has provided leadership to staff, students and parents in the development of high expectations for our school. Our leadership has subscribed to the concept of research-based instruction and effective schools models inservice training has been provided to staff along these lines. Our principal has made efforts to provide leadership in the development of a school improvement team while also providing inservice training to teachers in the elements of effective instruction. In addition to modeling the type of behavior and achievement he/she expects from students and staff, our principal is very open to ideas and suggestions from others; not content to rest on current accomplishments, our leadership continues to seek improvement.” 3. "The principal uses cooperation and teamwork with the teachers to identify and accomplish academic goals. The teachers and the principal plan together the educational goals of the school after thoroughly analyzing standardized test data. These goals and related activities are formulated into a written plan for a yearly evaluation.” 134 4. "As in the Navajo tradition that sends children to a "school father", so are we in the good hands of our principal. Each year the cycle of leadership is renewed. He/she respects teachers as family, caring and helpful in personal emergencies, promotes creativity without fear of failure, encouraging unity and sharing. He/she works alongside children in classrooms, takes "Good Deed” winners to lunch, sings in the halls, plays games with them and models a love of life and learning. This results in teachers respecting children, treating them as family, imparting a love of life, and learning.” "Leadership is situational. ______ is blessed with high quality leadership from its reading consultant, media consultant, special education staff, special subject teachers, classroom teachers, parents and principal. Each challenge is accepted by a different individual and carried through to a sucessful completion. The united and cooperative effort of the entire staff and parents contributes to ideas and constructs solutions necessary to improve the effectiveness of the instructional program.” 5. "The building administrator: works with individual students who are evidencing difficulty mastering specific math skills; meets with each classroom teacher every six weeks to review student progress and to dialogue on ways to better meet the needs of individual students; encourages teachers to attend professional development workshops; sets with teachers four annual improvement goals; ana visits each classroom at least once each week to monitor instruction and to interact with students instructionally as they are working.” 6. "As a building leader, our principal realizes that leadership is not a single responsibility but a group effort. By delegating tasks among the staff, he/she places confidence in their professionalism and thus inspires the development of high morale and professional conscientiousness. Teachers with strong backgrounds in particular areas are "tapped” as resource people and their knowledge and expertise is sought whenever that particular area needs attention. Always available for consultation the principal operates the school with an "open door policy. Teachers, parents and children do not hesitate to meet and discuss concerns with him/her. High expectations are the norm. Teachers meet with the principal each fall to discuss and set goals. High expectations for teachers and students are conveyed by building leaders through teacher 135 observations, personal conferences and the setting of personal and professional goals. Graphs of school-wide and classroom achievement scores are used and shared with the faculty to encourage productivity. Student achievements are recognized by the building principal through certificates, awards, and honor rolls." 7. "Our building principal as well as our teachers assume leadership roles for projects and committee functions. All "own” high standards. This modeling and enthusiasm has an impact on the entire building. Our principal serves as a role model for the teachers as well as the students. He/she gives demonstration lessons for teachers to enable them to see how to implement a new or slightly different instructional technique. He/she supports teachers in the quest to obtain high level of achievements for their students. He/she knows how to nudge students and teachers to see the excellence within themselves. He/she allows, as well as encourages, teachers to explore various materials and methods which could increase student achievement. He/she fosters individualism among the staff yet at the same time helps the staff to agree upon and work toward similar goals. The result is that teachers are not only in agreement as to where they are going but they are allowed the freedom of choice as to the means to reach this goal. Our building principal openly states that all students can and will achieve! He/she meets with the students in their classrooms in September, November, January and April to restate the mission that "School Is for Learning”. Our principal has effectively used the written evaluation process to compliment teachers for meeting the high expectations which have been established as well as to outline specific expectations for individual teachers.” 8. "Our principal is a teacher of teachers. He/she has developed a record of encouraging cooperative leadership among staff and community. As a role model, he/she has high visibility in our building and provides direct instruction for teachers. He/she encourages the professional growth of staff through workshops, continuing education and support of new programs and ideas. Examples include: initiating an Assertive Discipline program, observing teachers and offering constructive feedback, moving the building from traditional self-contained classrooms toward cooperative teaming, . . .” 136 The principals' job is ambiguous and it is important how the principal perceives his/her role as it determines daily actions. Research shows that most principals feel that their top area of responsibility is instructional leadership (Seifert and Beck, 1981). The principals of the recognized schools perceived themselves as effective instructional leaders. Success in school achievement is success for the principal. Research shows that some principals are involved directly and other principals influence the instructional program more indirectly (Wynne, 1981; Wilson, 1982; Blumberg and Greenfield, 1980; Crowson and Porter-Gehrie, 1980). Principals direct involvement in the instructional program are apparent when they observe or teach classes and discuss or direct curriculum planning efforts. Much of the principal's time is involved indirectly with the instructional program in requiring teachers to establish long-term achievement-based objectives for students; regular classroom observation of instruction; evaluating and monitoring teachers' lesson plans; holding conferences with teachers; structuring the year's staff development program; holding conferences with teachers; determining skills and experiences teachers lack; working with teachers to develop the school's discipline policy; seeing that teachers have the materials needed to teach; upgrading texts, while leaving the choice to the teachers; reorganizing classrooms to locate the same grade level close to each other; managing budgets; facilitating the process of planning; providing time for staff development activities; touring the grounds and visiting classrooms; monitoring student performance on standardized tests; deciding which sources should be included in the school program; determining 137 the school schedule; maintaining policy; and placing an emphasis on homework that will increase instructional time in classes. The building leadership was described in the application as placing an emphasis on these areas. been true. At the time of recognition this may have Due to the time between the recognition and the time of the study the leadership emphasis of the principal may have changed as well as the teachers. Research Question 2: Are the combined ratings of principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership similar in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? Principals and teachers perceived the principals' leadership as highly effective in seven of the eight qualities: student progress; 2) monitoring of clear and focused school mission; emphasis of student attainment of basic skills; climate for learning; 1) 5) 4) positive school level of effectiveness; expectations for students and teachers; and 7) 3) 6) high general behaviors. Principals and teachers perceived the principals' leadership as effective in instructional leadership. Discussion: The research showed that exemplary pupil performance resulted from many policies, behaviors, and attitudes that together shaped the learning environment. Each school is different yet the 138 research shows there are important similarities between instructional^ effective schools. It is surprising that the combined rating of teachers and principals was effective in instructional leadership academic when the rating of the other areas which support growth were rated as highly effective. The schools also had to meet certain academic achievement standards in order to qualify for the recognition program. The information written on the application form for the recognition program emphasized the principal as strong in the effective schools characteristics. It is necessary to look at the areas where principals were rated as highly effective. The principals showed a high level of effectiveness. The principal expects and desires that the instructional programs improve over time through organized and systematic plans that have high priority and visibility. influence the school. The principal, teachers and students Teachers have input into the academic program as well as other nonacademic activities. The principals monitor student progress as he/she feels responsible for the achievement of educational excellence in the school. The principal is interested in student success and is aware of the learning problems students face and the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with the students. The principal makes classroom visits. The principal is highly effective in having a clear and focused school mission. Teachers and students are committed to the school mission. The principal is instrumental in ensuring that planning and priorities are set and that there Teamwork is encouraged. are procedures to follow. 139 The principal is highly effective in emphasizing attainment of basic skills. student The principal supports teachers in the development of innovative, effective and efficient practices in the classroom and encourages teachers to plan and coordinate their instructional efforts. Students and teachers are recognized for achievement. The principal is highly effective in creating a positive school climate for learning. Control of the students is established. Teachers play an active role in problem-solving processes. There are open lines of communication between the principal, teachers and students. The principal has high expectations for students and teachers. Teachers and students feel responsible for high academic achievement. The principal is highly effective in handling the administrative part of the job so that instructional time has priority. In the area of instructional leadership the principals were rated as highly effective in providing materials and equipment for teachers to enhance job performance. Principals were rated as effective in adjusting the curricula to meet the needs of students. curriculum to follow. Most school districts have a defined While there are certain things that must be taught at a certain grade level the teachers felt that the district dictated the curriculum. The freedom that teachers have in adjusting the curriculum at the classroom level is set by the administrator in the building who encourages or discourages this freedom by the leaderhship he/she gives. Principals were rated as effective in clinical supervision 140 practices which are designed to improve teacher performance. Lack of training in clinical supervision may be the cause of this less effective rating. Principals were rated as development activities for teachers. effective in providing staff Staff development is an area that, depending on the district, some principals control at a building level and in some districts decided at the superintendents level. Without this control, principals cannot provide these needed a ctivities. Principals were rated as effective in guiding the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula. Unfortunately, in many districts the curricula is determined at the central office level with minimal input by staff. Principals may be less effective in this area because they may require staff to adhere to the defined curriculum rather than adapting the defined curriculum to meet the needs of the student. Research Question 3: Are the principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership in each school as measured by the survey instrument congruent in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? Five of the eight principals (School 1, School 2, School 3, School 4, and School 8) were perceived as highly effective in the eight areas: 1) instructional leadership; 2) monitoring of student progress; 3) clear and focused school mission; 4) emphasis of 141 student attainment of basic skills; 5) creating a positive school climate for learning; 6) level of effectiveness; 7) expectations for students and teachers; and 8) general behaviors. Three of the principals (School 5, School 6, and School 7) were perceived as effective in some leadership areas. Discussion; Sergiovanni (1984) found that competent schools measure up to the standards of effective schools and do the job in a satisfactory manner. In excellent schools much more is accomplished and teachers work harder than expected. Effective schools identify and acknowledge their own educational problems and work on the assumption that better solutions can be found. The school is a total learning environment which is constantly changing. The schools rated as effective show there is room for school improvement. The principal of School 5 was rated as effective in the areas of instructional leadership, clear and focused school mission, positive school climate for learning, and general behaviors. By creating a more positive climate for academic achievement by collaborating with staff on supportively to long-range goals help teachers and working patiently implement sound and principles of classroom management and by setting a consistent example of commitment to excellence at all levels through achievement and performance should improve. hard work, The principal's responsibility lies in creating a vision of academic excellence supported by teachers and students and creating a school climate which reinforces teaching and learning, and organizing his/her administrative responsibilities which enhances the learning 142 program. The principal of School 6 was rated as effective in the areas of instructional leadership, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors. Student progress is monitored but there is no mission nor a belief in the mission. The principal of School 7 was rated as effective in the areas of instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, level of effectiveness, and high expectations for students and teachers. Research Question 4: Is there a difference in the ratings of the principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership in rural, urban and suburban schools in the areas of the principals' instructional leadership, monitoring of student progress, clear and focused school mission, emphasis of student attainment of basic skills, creating a positive school climate for learning, level of effectiveness, high expectations for students and teachers, and general behaviors? Rural principals and teachers perceived rural principals as highly effective in seven of the eight areas: student progress; 2) clear and focused school of student attainment of basic skills; learning; 5) level of effectiveness; students and teachers; and 7) and teachers perceived 1) monitoring of mission; 3) emphasis 4) positive school climate for 6) high expectations for general behaviors. Rural principals rural principals as effective in instructional leadership. Suburban principals and teachers perceived principals as highly 143 effective in five of the eight items: progress; 2) monitoring of student clear and focused school mission; student attainment of basic skills; learning; 1) and 5) 4) 3) emphasis of positive school climate for high expectations for students and teachers. Suburban principals and teachers perceived suburban principals as effective in instructional leadership, level of effectiveness, and general behaviors. Urban principals and teachers percieved urban principals as highly effective in all eight areas: 1) instructional leadership; monitoring of student progress; 3) clear and focused school mission; 4) 2) emphasis of student attainment of basic skills; positive school climate for learning; 6) 5) level of effectiveness; 7) high expectations for students and teachers; and 8) general behaviors. Discussion; Leadership is a set of attitudes, activities, and behaviors which inspire others to effectiveness (Mackenzie, 1983). The principal is in the position to provide consistent and continuous leadership to set the tone of order and purpose for the school whether it is a rural, suburban, or urban school. have to be defined and coordinated, School policies teachers should be involved in the actualization and formulation but the responsibility is the principals. There are key leadership behaviors of principals whether the school is located in rural, urban or suburban areas. Schools change and so must the leadership adapt to the changes. Purkey and Smith (1982) emphasize that a school is a small culture. The school is a 144 social organization not a machine. Nothing works ail the time, almost anything that makes sense will work more often than not if it is implemented with enough self-critical optimism and zest, some things work more than others, but hardly anything works for everybody. Nothing works by itself, and everything takes a long time (Mackenzie, 1985). The recognition the schools received may have enhanced the program as well as taken away from the program. Deal (1985) builds on the symbolism of effective schools. He points out that the faith and belief of teachers and administrators are rooted more in perception based on values and symbols. Improvement strategies and programs should be aware of the role played by school culture. Professionals inside schools need to participate in the decisions made that affect the goals and values of the school then reexamine, revitalize, and possibly revise school culture (Mackenzie, 1985). The subcultures of the teachers and administrators influence the school. The teaching subculture can directly influence teacher expectations or the amount of time spent on instruction and influence student achievement. The administrative subculture is involved with accountability, control and change as well as achievement. gonclusiflns 1. Principals perceived themselves to be highly effective leaders in all eight areas: instructional leadership; monitoring of student progress; clear and focused school mission; emphasis of student attainment of basic skills; creating a positive school climate for learning; level of effectiveness; high expectations for students and teachers; and general behavior. Teachers perceived principals to be 145 highly effective leaders in all areas but instructional leadership. 2. Principals and teachers as a group perceived the principals as highly effective leaders in all areas except instructional leadership. 3. Of the eight school principals, five were perceived by the principal and teachers as highly effective leaders in the eight areas and three principals were perceived by the principal and teachers as effective leaders in some leadership areas. Three principals were perceived as effective in instructional leadership and clear and focused school mission. Two principals were perceived as effective in the areas of creating a positive school climate, high expectations for students and teachers, level of effectiveness, and general behaviors. One principal was perceived as effective in monitoring of student progress. One principal was perceived as effective in the area of emphasis of student attainment of basic skills. 4. Rural principals were perceived as highly effective in seven of the eight areas. Rural principals were perceived as effective in instructional leadership. Suburban principals were perceived as highly effective in five of the eight areas. perceived as effective in effectiveness, and general Suburban principals were instructional behavior. leadership, Urban perceived as highly effective in all eight areas. level of principals were 146 Recommendations Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are presented. 1. As the data showed there was a discrepency between the principals' and the teachers' instructional leadership. perceptions of the principals' After receiving recognition the principal and staff may begin to rest on their laurels. of perceptions being distorted. There is the possibility It is recommended the principals and teachers monitor their behavior following recognition as an outstanding school. 2. An effective leader has a vision and is always striving to improve (Bennis, 1985). He or she sets goals and constantly monitors and compares what is being done and what is necessary for school improvement. improve. Excellent leaders are always striving to An instrument such as the Leadership Questionnaire would assist the principal to assess his or her leadership and help set goals for improvement. 3. It is recommended that school boards, superintendents, and principals involve teachers more in determining the curricula. Teachers did not perceive themselves as involved in this process. 4. It is recommended that the committee involved in the monitoring of the recognition program be aware of the differences in the teachers' and principals' perceptions and interpretations of the leadership in the school. This might call for changes in the 147 questions presented in the application form to insure that both principals and teachers clearly understand what is asked for in the questionnaire. Suggestions for Further Study 1. A comparison study be made using the Leadership Questionnaire with principals and teachers of schools recognized in other years. Do principals and teachers perceive the leadership of the principal in schools chosen to be effective in the eight areas? 2. A study be done in schools immediately after the recognition is received and one year after the recognition. Do principals and teachers perceive the principal as more effective immediately after recognition than one year later? 3. A comparison study be made within a school district. Is there a difference in the leadership of the school that received recognition and the school that did not? 4. A study be done comparing the leadership of the principals in the schools nationally recognized. Do the principals of the schools recognized in the United States as outstanding rate as effective leaders? 5. A study be done comparing the principals in recognized principals of management? schools and recognized schools leadership behavior of principal leadership style. have a "certain style” Do of 148 6. The Leadership Questionnaire be used as an evaluation tool for building principals to monitor and assess his/her leadership. What areas are perceived to need improvement? 7. A study be done with recognized schools including students' and parents' perceptions as well as principals' and teachers' perceptions of the principals' leadership. Do students, parents, teachers, and principals perceive the principals leadership as effective? 8. A study be done with principals of recognized schools that assesses changes made in the leadership as a direct or indirect result of the national recognition. 9. It is recommended that a survey be done to see what improvements have been made in the schools that received recognition since the honor was awarded. Reflections From this study many questions arise that another researcher may want to investigate: 1. It is interesting that there is a difference between the ratings of the rural, suburban, and urban principals. a. Could this be due to the differences in socio-economic status of the suburban teachers compared to the rural and urban teachers? b. Could this be a result of differences in the level of education or district inservice training of the rural, suburban, and urban teachers? c. Is there a difference in how principals and teachers perceive their role in rural, suburban, and urban districts? 149 2. Many administrative degree programs do not require curriculum or teaching of reading, writing, and math courses. Principals were not rated as highly effective instructional leaders by teachers as a group but on an individual rating of schools some principals were rated as highly effective. a. Could it be that even though principals perceive themselves as instructional leaders they are not as knowledgeable about curriculum and instruction as their teachers? b. Is there a difference in the achievement of students in schools where the principal is perceived as the instructional leader by teachers? c. Is there a difference in training of the principals rated as highly effective and principals rated as effective? APPENDICES APPENDIX A PANEL CRITIQUE 150 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV ER SITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824-1034 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ERICKSON HALL LETTER TO ACCOMPANY LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE CRITIQUE Date, 1987 Jo Stebbins 1325 Westview Ave. #12 East Lansing, Ml 48823 517-351-3914 j Principal Dear Principal, The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information about principal's self-perceptions and teachers' perceptions of the leadership of the principals of the eight Michigan elementary schools that received recognition as a representation of outstanding schools in Michigan in the 1985-1986 U.S. Department of Education Elementary Recognition Program. The questions were adapted from Rensis Ukert Associates, Inc. "Profile Of A School Staff Questionnaire" and a dissertation by Isabel Gabashane studying leadership experiences. The principal behaviors to be studied are: 1. Instructional Leadership 2. Level of Effectiveness 3. Involvement In The Monitoring of Student Progress 4. Clear And Focused School Mission 5. Emphasis On Student Attainment Of Basic Skills 6. Creating A Positive School Climate For Learning 7. Having High Expectations For Students And Staff I need your help as an experienced administrator in making sure the questions are clear and address the above listed statements. A critique form follows the questionnaire and comments will be appreciated. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely, Jo Ann Stebbins M S U is an A ffirm a tiv a A c tio n /E q u a l O p p o rtu n ity In s titu tio n 151 PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE CRITIQUE General impression of the instrument: Excellent Good Poor After completing the questionnaire, were there specific questions you found difficult to answer? If so, why? a. b. c. d. e. Confusing_____________________________________ Unclear_______________________________________ Not Relevant Need reworking_________________________________ Other reasons__________________________________ Is there anything not Included in the questionnaire that you think is im portant? Other comments and suggestions: APPENDIX B LETTERS 152 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV ER SITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824-1034 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ERICKSON HALL LETTER TO RENSIS UKERT ASSOCIATES REQUESTING PERMISSION TO USE POS Date, 1987 1325 Westview Ave. #12 East Lansing, Ml 48823 Raymond C. Seghers Rensis Liked Associates, Inc. Suite 401 Wolverine Tower 3001 S. State Street Ann Arbor, Ml 48104 Dear Mr. Seghers, I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University working on a Ph.D. in Educational Administration. My dissertation topic is "Educational Leadership: A Study of Principals' Leadership of Eight Michigan Public Elementary Schools Selected For National Recognition in 1985-1986 As Perceived By The Principals And Teachers.” I am requesting permission to adapt and modify 27 questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37) from Rensis Ukert Associates, Inc. "Profile Of A School Staff Questionnaire" to the Principal Leadership Questionnaire for my dissertation. Enclosed is a copy of the questionnaire. I hope it meets with your approval. Sincerely, Jo Ann Stebbins M S U is an A ffir m a tiv t A ctio n /E q u a l O p p o rtu n ity In s titu tio n 153 Rensis Likert Associates, Inc Consultants in Organization Diagnosis and Human Resource Development April 22, 1987 Jo A n n Ste b b i n s C o l l e g e of E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n E r i c k s o n Hall M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y East Lansing, M i c h i g a n 4 8 8 2 4 - 1 0 3 4 Dea r Ms. Stebbins: Rensis Likert Associates, Inc., is pleased to grant you p e r m i s s i o n to m o d i f y a n d use the P r o f i l e of a School Staff Q u e s t i o n n a i r e in y o u r d i s s e r t a t i o n research. I h a v e e x a m i n e d the s p e c i m e n copies, w h i c h inc l u d e the c o p y r i g h t information,, a nd e v e r y t h i n g looks good. Y ou m a y als o i n c l u d e c o p i e s of the m o d i f i e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e in you r final b o u n d a n d / o r m i c r o f i l m e d report. We u n d e r s t a n d that copies of y o u r report i n c l u d i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e wi.li b e d i s t r i b u t e d upon d e mand. We w o u l d like to r e c e i v e NOT be a b o u n d copy. Good luck. a copy of y o u r final report. Let m e k n o w if I m a y be of assistance. Senior Associate Suite 401 Wolverine Tower, 3001 S. State Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-7352 • (313) 769-1980 • Ann Arbor • Stamford • San Francisco • Honolulu • It need 154 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 4M 24-I046 H l'M AN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS) 2M ADMINISTRATION BUILDING isi7) JSS-2IB6 June 2 1 1987 • Ms. Jo Ann Stebbins 1325 Westview Ave., #12 East Lansing, MI 48823 Dear Ms. Stebbins: Subject: Proposal Entitled, "Educational Leadership: A Study of Principals' Leadership of Eight Michigan Elementary Schools Selected for National Recognition in 1985-86 as Perceived __________by the Principals and Teachers"____________________________ UCRIHS' review of the above referenced project has now been completed. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved this project at its meeting on June 1, 1987. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval Is valid for one calendar year.Ifyou plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior toJune 1, 1988. Any changes In procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. If we can be of any Sincerely, Henry E. Bredeck, Ph.D. Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/jms M S U i t an A ffirm a tiv e A c tio n /E q u a l O p p o rtu n ity h u titu tio n 155 MICHIGAN STATE U N IV ER SITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • M 24-10M DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ERICKSON HALL INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS OF RECOGNIZED SCHOOLS Date, 1987 _________________ , Superintendent Dear Superintendent (Name), Contratulations for having th e __________ Elementary School selected as one of the outstanding schools recognized by the U.S. Department of Education in 1985-1986. I am sure it is satisfying being recognized but it is also important to learn from your accomplishment so others may share in your success. I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University working on a Ph.D. in Educational Administration. My dissertation topic is "Educational Leadership: A Study of Principals' Leadership of Eight Michigan Public Elementary Schools Selected For National Recognition in 1985-1986 As Perceived By The Principals And Teachers." Research has shown that the principal is the key element in effective schools, "the principal is able to create conditions for excellence." The purpose of the study is to find out the commonalities of educational leadership that parties identify the eight recognized principals as having. I would like your permission to contact (Name of principal) to ask permission to pass out a "Principal Leadership Questionnaire, Principals' Self-Perceptions and Teachers Perceptions” to the principal and teachers at (Name of School). Enclosed is a copy of the questionnaire for you to review. All information will be confidential. I will be calling you in a few days to discuss the above and answer any questions that you may have. Sincerely, Jo Ann Stebbins M S V it an A ffirm a tiv e A c tio n /E q u a l O p p o rtu n ity in s titu tio n 156 M ICHIGAN STATE U N IV E R SIT Y COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824-1034 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ERICKSON HALL INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PRINCIPALS Date, 1987 Principal Dear (Name of Principal), Congratulations for receiving the honor of being recognized as an exemplarary school in the 1985-1986 U.S. Department of Education Recognition Program. I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University working on a Ph.D. in Educational Administration. My dissertation topic is "Educational Leadership: A Study of Principals' Leadership of Eight Michigan Public Elementary Schools Selected For National Recognition in 1985-1986 As Perceived By The Principals And Teachers.” Your Superintendent has been contacted and is aware that I am asking for your assistance in conducting this study. Since your school received this honor I would like to gather information from the principal and teachers who were part of the staff at the time the honor was received through the use of a questionnaire. The questionnaire for principal and teachers consists of 40 items and takes about 10-15 minutes to complete. Enclosed is a copy of the Leadership Questionnaire for the principal and the Leadership Questionnaire for teachers. I will be contacting you in a few days by phone to discuss the above and answer any questions that you may have. Looking forward to talking with you. Sincerely, Jo Ann Stebbins M S U is an A ffir m a tiv t A c tio n /E q u a l O p p o rtu n ity In s titu tio n 157 MICHIGAN STATE U N IV ER SITY COUEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824-1034 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ERICKSON H A IL LETTER TO PRINCIPALS TO ACCOMPANY QUESTIONNAIRES Date, 1987 Principal Dear (Name of Principal), Thanks again to you and your staff for participating in this study on Educational Leadership. The time and effort that you and your staff are taking to participate in this study to find out more about educational leadership is another example of how your school strives for educational excellence. Enclosed are the questionnaires (number discussed for teachers and 1 principal) and a prepaid return envelope. As we discussed please distribute to staff and designate a nonpartisian individual to collect and return the questionnaires to me. I will send a copy of the results as soon as I finish. Your support is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Jo Ann Stebbins M S U is an A ffirm a tiv e A ctio n /E q u a l O p p o rtu n ity In s titu tio n 158 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV ER SITY EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824-1034 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ERICKSON HALL FOLLOW-UP INDIVIDUAL MAILINGS Date, 1987 1325 Westview Ave. #12 East Lansing, Ml 48823 Dear Teacher, Recently you were asked to complete a Leadership Questionnaire for a study that I am doing at Michigan State University on Principals' Leadership of Schools Recognized in 1985-1986 by the U.S. Department of Education. I want to thank you for taking the time at the end of a busy school year to participate in this study if you completed one. If you didn't have the time to complete one before school was out I would greatly appreciate it if you would complete one now as a better representation of your building is needed. Enclosed is a questionnaire and return envelope. Thank you again for your time and cooperation. Sincerely, Jo Ann Stebbins M S U is an A ffirm a tiv e A ctio n /E q u a l O p p o rtu n ity In s titu tio n APPENDIX C LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 159 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY OF PRINCIPALS' LEADERSHIP OF EIGHT MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SELECTED FOR NATIONAL RECOGNITION IN 1985-1986 AS PERCEIVED BY THE PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS By Jo Ann Stebbins Department of Educational Administration Michigan State University Spring 1987 PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE PRINCIPAL SELF-PERCEPTIONS 160 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV ER SITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824-1034 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ERICKSON HALL May, 1987 Dear Principal, As a principal in an outstanding school chosen in the National Recognition Program I need your help. 1985-86 I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University working on a Ph.D. in Educational Administration. My dissertation topic is "Educational Leadership: A Study Of Principals' Leadership Of Eight Michigan Public Elementary Schools Selected For National Recognition In 1985-86 As Perceived By The Principals and Teachers." I need your assistance in answering the attached questionnaire on your perceptions of your leadership at the time of the award. The questionnaire takes approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. As a principal in the 1985-86 recognized school, participation is voluntary and will not have any bearing on your job. Personal information will be kept strictly confidential. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, Jo Ann Stebbins M S U is an A ffirm a tiv e A ctio n /E q u a l O p p o rtu n ity In s titu tio n 161 PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE Qeneial—Infpcmatian This questionnaire is designed to collect information about principals' self-perceptions and teachers perceptions of principals' leadership.The purpose is to examine the similiarities and differences in the leadership of the principals of the eight elementary schools recognized in the 1985-86 U.S. Elementary School Recognition Program. The questions were adapted from Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. "Profile Of A School Staff Questionnaire4" and a dissertation by Isabel Gabashane studing leadership experiences. There are no right or wrong answers. Your responses will be kept confidential and will have no bearing on your job. Several of the questions request personal information such as sex, age, and position. This information will not be used to identify you and will be kept strictly confidential. Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation. Instructions Each question has five possible responses. Choose the response which most closely matches your perception by placing a check on the line. The choices represented by numbers are as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 Exam ple: - Very Little Extent - Little Extent - Some Extent - Great Extent - Very Great Extent To what extent do you get cooperation from the people you work with? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent ‘ Copyright 1986 by Jane Gibson Likert. Distributed by Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. No further reproduction in any form authorized without written permission of Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. 162 PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE PRINCIPAL SELF-PERCEPTIONS DEMOGRAPHICS: 1. Please indicate vour.iob_ position; Principal Assistant Principal Teacher Counselor Other_________________________ 2. Grade Levels in Your School (Check all that apply^: 1 4 2 5 Kindergarten 3 6 _____ Other 3. Sex: M ale Female 4. Age: 25 26 36 46 56 years years years years years old or less - 35 years - 45 years - 55 years or over 5. How long had vou been the principal of the school when the school recgiYed.r9gpflDi,tifl.nl-by-the,-U.,S^-D.ep.ai:tm!Bnt-. Qf Education in 1985-86? Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6 - 1 0 years 1 1 - 2 0 years 21 years or more 6. D istrict: rural suburban urban 163 1. To what extent are teachers and students involved in decision making as it relates to achieving effective performance goals of the school? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 2. To what extent do you as principal encourage teachers and students to work with you as a team? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 3. To what extent is the school influenced by you as principal? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 4. To what extent is the school influenced by students? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 5. To what extent do you as principal try to improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical (observation data, various planning and inservice experiences). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 6. To what extent do you as principal guide the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 7. To what extent do you as principal feel responsible for the achievement of educational excellence? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 8. To what extent do you as principal make classroom visits? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 9. To what extent are you as principal instrum ental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 10. To what extent do you as principal employ procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 164 11. To what extent do you as principal support teachers in the development of innovative, more effective and efficient practices in the classroom? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 12. To what extent are students recognized for their attainment of basic skills achievement? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 13. To what extent do you as principal establish control of the students? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 14. To what extent do you as principal encourage teachers to communicate open and honestly with your students and other teachers? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very' Great Extent 15. To what extent do you as principal determine high performance goals for achieving educational excellence? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 16. To what extent do you as principal guide and inspire teachers in teaching to meet the school's goals? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great.Extent 17. To what extent do you as principal organize the school functions to achieve the objectives of the school? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 18. To what extent do you as principal handle the administrative side of the job well? (i.e., scheduling, budgeting, job assignments, records) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 19. To what extent do you as principal resolve conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 20. To what extent is the school influenced by teachers? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 165 21. To what extent do you as principal adjust the curricula to meet the needs of students? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 22. To what extent are you as principal aware of the learning problems students face? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 23. To what extent do you as principal promote commitment of teachers and students to school mission? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 24. To what extent do you as principal encourage teachers to cooperatively plan and coordinate their instructional efforts? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent .Great Extent Very Great Extent 25. To what extent do you as principal develop rational approaches to problem-solving processes with the participation of teachers? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 26. To what extent are students aware of your high expectations for their academic achievement? Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 1. Very Little Extent ___ 2. Little Extent 3. Some Extent 4. Great Extent 5. Very Great Extent 27. To what extent do you as principal handle the technical or educational side of the job well? (i.e., motivation of staff to m axim um p e rfo rm a n c e , continuous study of curricular and instructional innovation, formulating with staff plans for evaluating and reporting student progress) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 28. To what extent do you as principal seek and implement ideas from teachers regarding academics? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 29. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent To what extent are staff development activities provided for staff by you? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.- Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 166 30. To what extent do you as principal seek and implement ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 31. To what extent are you as principal interested in student's success? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 32. To what extent are materials and equipment provided by you as principal for teachers to enhance job performance? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 33. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent To what extent are you as principal aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 34. To what extent do you as principal initiate and encourage teamwork by teachers? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 35. To what extent do students support high performance goals set for educational achievement? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 36. To what extent do you as principal set high standards and goals for educational performance in your school? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 37. To what extent do you as principal interact on a friendly and supportive basis with teachers and students? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 38. To what extent are you as principal concerned about the instructional success of teachers? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 39. To what extent do you as principal encourage teachers to support one another in striving to do their best? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 167 40. To what extent do teachers feel responsible for the achievement of educational excellence? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 168 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A STUDY OF PRINCIPALS' LEADERSHIP OF EIGHT MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SELECTED FOR NATIONAL RECOGNITION IN 1985-1986 AS PERCEIVED BY THE PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS By Jo Ann Stebbins Department of Educational Administration Michigan State University Spring 1987 PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 169 MICHIGAN STATE U N IV ER SITY EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824-1034 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ERICKSON HALL May, .1987 Dear Teacher, As a teacher in an outstanding school chosen in the 1985-86 National Recognition Program I need your help. I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University working on a Ph.D. in Educational Administration. My dissertation topic is "Educational Leadership: A Study Of Principals' Leadership Of Eight Michigan Public Elementary Schools Selected For National Recognition In 1985-86 As Perceived By The Principals and Teachers." I need your assistance in answering the attached questionnaire on your perceptions of the leadership of your principal at the time of the award. The questionnaire takes approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. As a teacher in the 1985-86 recognized school, participation is voluntary and will not have any bearing on your job. Personal information will be kept strictly confidential. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, Jo Ann Stebbins M S V is an A ffirm a tiv e A c tio n /E q u a l O p p o rtu n ity In s titu tio n 170 PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE General Jniflr.matifl.ri This questionnaire is designed to collect information about principals' self-perceptions and teachers perceptions of principals' leadership. The purpose is to examine the sim iliarities and differences in the leadership of the principals of the eight elementary schools recognized in the 1985-86 U.S. Elementary School Recognition Program. The questions were adapted from Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. "Profile Of A School Staff Questionnaire*” and a dissertation by Isabel Gabashane studing leadership experiences. There are no right or wrong answers. Your responses will be kept confidential and will have no bearing on your job. Several of the questions request personal information such as sex, age, and position. This information will not be used to identify you and will be kept strictly confidential. Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation. Instructions Each question has five possible responses. Choose the response which most closely matches your perception by placing a check on the line. The choices represented by numbers are as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 Exam ple: - Very Little Extent - Little Extent - Some Extent - Great Extent - Very Great Extent To what extent do you get cooperation from the people you work with? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 'Copyright 1986 by Jane Gibson Likert. Distributed by Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. No further reproduction in any form authorized without written permission of Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. 171 PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE TEACHER PERCEPTIONS DEMOGRAPHICS: 1. Please indicate vour iob position: Principal Assistant Principal Teacher Counselor Other_________________________ 2. Grade Lev.elS-in-Your-SctiQQL(Ch9.cK-alLthat apply): 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kindergarten _____ Other 3. Sex: M a le Female 4. Age: 25 26 36 46 56 years years years years years old or less - 35 years - 45 years - 55 years or over 5. HowJopg. -hacLyflu .bean ihe-principaLoLtlie. aclio.QLwlien.tt3.e. .school received recognition bv the U.S. Department of Education in ■taflgdBfiZ Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6 - 1 0 years 1 1 - 2 0 years 21 years or more 6. District; rural suburban urban 172 1. To what extent does your principal involve teachers and students in decision making as it relates to achieving effective performance goals of the school? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 5. To what extent does your principal try to improve teacher behavior to improve student learning by using clinical supervision? (i.e ., using observation data.various planning and inservice experiences) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 8. To what extent does your principal make classroom visits? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 4. To what extent is the school influenced by students? Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 7. To what extent does your principal feel responsible for the achievement of educational excellence? Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 3. To what extent is the school influenced by your principal? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 2. To what extent does your principal encourage teachers and students to work with him/her as a team? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. To what extent does your principal guide the staff in instructional planning using the adapted curricula? Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 9. To what extent is your principal instrumental in ensuring that planning and setting priorities are done well? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent To what extent does your principal employ procedures for clarifying roles and planning activities? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 173 11, To what extent does your principal support you in the development of innovative, more effective and efficient practices in the classroom? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 12 . To what extent are students recognized for their attainment of basic skills achievement? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 13. To what extent is control of the students established? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 14. To what extent do teachers communicate openly and honestly with the principal, students and other teachers? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 15. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent To what extent does the principal determine high performance goals for achieving educational excellence in your school? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 16. To what extent does your principal guide and inspire teachers in teaching to meet the school's goals? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 17. To what extent does your principal organize the school functions to achieve the objectives of the school? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 18. To what extent does your p rin c ip a l han dle the administrative side of the job well? (i.e ., scheduling, budgeting, job assignments, records) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 19. To what extent does your principal resolve conflict between the teachers welfare and the efficient operation of the school? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 174 20. To what extent is the school influenced by teachers? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 21. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 25. To what extent does your principal develop rational approaches to problem-solving processes with the participation of teachers? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. To what extent does your principal adjust the curricula to meet the needs of students? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 26. To what extent are students aware of the principals' high expectations for their academic achievement? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 22. To what extent is your principal aware of the learning problems students face? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 27. 23. To what extent does your principal promote commitment of teachers to school mission? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 24. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 28. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent To what extent does your principal handle the technical or educational side of the job well? (i.e., motivation of staff to maximum performance, continuous study of curricular and instructional innovation, formulating with staff plans for evaluating and reporting student progress) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. To what extent do teachers cooperatively plan and coordinate their instructional efforts? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent To what extent does your principal seek and implement ideas from teachers regarding academics? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 175 29. To what extent are staff development activities provided for teachers by the principal? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 30. To what extent does your principal seek and implement ideas from teachers regarding nonacademics? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 31. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent To what extent is your principal interested in students' success? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 32. To what extent are materials and equipment provided by the principal for teachers to enhance job performance? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 33. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent To what extent is your principal aware of the instructional problems faced by teachers in working with students? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 34. To what extent does your principal initiate and encourage teamwork by teachers? 1. Very Uttle Extent 2. Uttle Extent 3. Some Extent 4. Great Extent 5. Very Great Extent 35. To what extent do students support high performance goals set for educational achievement? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 36. To what extent does your principal set high standards and goals for educational performance in your school? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 37. To what extent does your principal interact on a friendly and supportive basis with teachers and students? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Uttle Extent Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 38. To what extent is your principal concerned about the instructional success of teachers? 1. Very Uttle Extent 2. 3. 4. 5. Uttle Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent 176 39. To what extent do teachers support one another in striving to do their best? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 40. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent To what extent do teachers feel responsible for the achievement of educational excellence? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Little Extent Little Extent Some Extent Great Extent Very Great Extent BIBUOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. National Commission on Excellence, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983. A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. Carnegie Forum On Education And The Economy, New York, 1986. Austin, G., "Exemplary Schools and the Search for Effectiveness." Educational Leadership 37 (October 1979) : 10-14. Banas, J. & C. "The Haves, the Have-nots." The Chicago Tribune (May 6, 1986). Bartell, C. A. and Willis, D. B. "American and Japanese Principals: A Comparative Analysis of Excellence in Instructional Leadership." AERA Presentation, Washington D.C.,1987. Behling, H. E., Jr. and Champion, R. H. The Principal As An Instructional Leader. Instructional Improvement Institute: Maryland, 1984. Bell, T.H. 5-6. "A Nation Still At Risk." Principal 66 (September 1986): Benjamin, R. Making Schools Work. New York: Continuum Publishing Co., 1981. Bennis, W. "Commentary." Across the Board. (October 1984): 8-11. Bennis W. and Nanus, B. Leaders: The Strategies For Taking Charge. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers,1985. Berman, P. and McLaughlin, M. An Exploratory Study o f_School District Adaptation. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1979. 177 178 Bossert, S. T. "Effective Elementary Schools." Reaching for ExftQllenna: An Effective Schools Sourcebook. The National Institute of Education (May 1985): 39-53. Bossert, S. T. "The Instructional Management Role of the Principal.” Educational Administration Quarterly. 18 (Summer 1982) : 34-64. Blumberg, A. and Greenfield, W. The Effective Principal-Perspectives on School Leadership. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,1980. Brookover, W. and Lezotte, L. Changes in School Characteristics Coincident with Chances in Student Achievement. College of Urban Development of Michigan State University and the Michigan Department of Education, 1977. Brundage, D. The Journalism Research Fellows Report: What Makes an Effective School? Washington, D.C.: George Washington University, 1979. Clark, D.; Lotto, L.; and McCarthy, M. "Factors Associated with Success in Urban Elementary Schools." Phi Delta Kappan 61 (March 1980) : 467-480. Crandall, D. "Models of the School Improvement Process: Contributing to Success.” AERA Paper, New York, 1982. Factors Crowson, R. L., and Porter-Gehrie, C., "The Discretionary Behavior of Principals in Large-City Schools.” Ed ucatlQ naLAdm ioi strati on Quarterly 16 (Winter 1980) : 45-69. Cuban, L. "Transforming the Frog into a Prince: Effective Schools Research, Policy, and Practice at the District Level.” Harvard Educational Review. 54 (May 1984): 129-151. Deal, T. E. "The Symbolism of Effective Schools." School Journal. 85 (May 1985): 601-620. The Elementary Duke, D. "Leadership Functions for Instructional Effectiveness." Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland: February 1982. 179 Dwyer, D. D.; Lee, F. V.; Rowan, B.; and Bossert, S. Five Principals In Action: Perspectives on Instructional Management. Far West Laboratory: San Francisco (March 1983a). Edmonds, R., "A Discussion of the Literature and issues Related to Effective Schooling.” Harvard University, 1979. Edmonds, R. "Effective Schools for the Urban Poor." Leadership. 37 (October 1979a): 15-27. Edmonds, R. "Some Schools Work and More Can.” (March/April 1979): 2-4. Educational Social Policy: The Effective School Report: from Research and Practice. Vol. 1, No. 1 (November 1983): 1-4. Emrick, j.a . Evaluation., of., thft.NatiQ.naL, Diffusion Network .Volume I; Findings and Recommendations. Stanford: The Stanford Research Institute, 1977. Eubanks, E. E. and Levine, D. U. "A First Look At Effective Schools Projects In New York City And Milwaukee." Phi Delta Kappan (June 1983): 697-702. Eubanks, E. and Parish, R. "An Inside View of Change in Schools." £bi Delta -Kaooan- (April 1987): 610-615 . Fiedler, F. "The Effects of Leadership Training and Experience: A Contingency Model Interpretation." Adm inistrative Science Quarterly 17 (December 1972): 453-470. First Lessons: A Report on Elementary. Education in America, by William J. Bennett, Chairman. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1986. Foskett, J. M. The Normative World of the Elementary School Principal. Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration: University of Oregon, 1967. Giammatteo, M. C. and Giammatteo, D. M. Forces On Leadership. Reston, Virginia: The National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1981. 180 Goldhammer, K.; Becker, G.; Withycombe, R.; Doyel, F.; Miller, E.; Morgan, C.; DeLoretto, L.; and Aldridge, B. "Elementary School Principals and Their Schools: Beacons of Brilliance & Potholes of Pestilence." Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1971. Gorton, R. A. School Administration And Supervision: Leadership Challenges and Opportunities. Dubuque: Wm C Brown Company Publishers, 1983. Gross, S. and Furey, S. "A Day In The Life Of A School Principal: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis." AERA Presentation, Washington D.C.,1987. Gross, N., and Harriott, R.E. Staff Leadership in Public Schools: Sociological Inquiry. New York: John Wiley, 1965. A Hall, G.E.; Rutherford, W.L.; Hord, S.M.; and Huling, L.L. "Effects of Three Principal Styles on School Improvement." Educational Leadarshitt, (February 1984): 22-29. Hall, G.E.; Hord, S.M.; and Griffin, T.H. "Implementation at the School Building Level: ;The Development and Analysis of Nine Mini-Case Studies." AERA Paper. Boston, 1980. Hargrove, E.C. Regulations and schools: The implementation of Equal Education for Handicapped Children. Nashville: Institute for Public Policy Studies, Vanderbilt University, 1981. Hemphill, J.K.; Griffiths, D.E.; and Frederikson, N. "Administrative Performance and Personality.” Teachers College, Columbia University: New York. In "The Instructional Management Role of The Principal," by Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, and Lee, Education Administration. Q uarterly 18 (Summer 1982): 34-64. Howell, B. "Profile of the Principalship." (March 1981): 333-336. Educational Leadership. Hoffman, James V. and Rutherford, William L. "Effective Reading Programs: A Critical Review of Outlier Studies.” R eading Research Quarterly. 20 (Fall 1984): 79-91. 181 Johnston, J. H. and Markle, G. C. "What Research Says To The Middle Level Practitioner. National Middle School Association, Columbus, 1986. Kanter, R. M. The Change Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1983. Kmetz, J. T., and Willower, D. J., "Elementary School Principals' Work Behavior." Educational Administration Quarterly. 18 (Fail 1982) : 61-78. Krajewski, R. J., "Secondary Principals Want To Be Instructional Leaders." Phi Delta Kappan. (September, 1978): 65. Kunz, D. W., and Hoy W. K., "Leadership Style of Principals an the Professional Zone of Acceptance of Teachers." E d u c a tio n a l Administration Quarterly. 12, (Fall, 1976): 49-64. Larsen, T. J. "Identification Of Instructional Leadership Behaviors and the Impact o f their Implementation on Academic Achievement." AERA Presentation, Washington D.C., 1987. Leithwood, K. A. and Montgomery, D. J. "The Role of the Elementary Principal in Program Improvement." Review of Educational Research. 52:3 (Fall 1982): 309-339. Lezotte, L. W. "Characteristics Of Effective Schools." Michigan State University (Paraphrased from the synthesis conducted and reported by Joan Shoemaker, Connecticut State Department of Education), 1985. Lezotte, L. W. "Climate Characteristics in Instructionally Effective Schools." Impact. 16 (Summer 1981): 26-31. Lezotte, L. W. "Effective Schools Research and School Improvement Implications.” Citizens Participation for School Improvement Conference, March 1982. Lezotte, L. W. "School Mission and Goals." (February 1985). Education Forward 182 Lezotte, L. W. and Bancroft, B. A. "Growing Use of the Effective Schools Model for School Improvement.” Educational Leadership (March 1985): 23-27. Lezotte, L. W. and Bancroft, B. A. "School Improvement Based On Effective Schools Research.” Journal of Neoro Education (Summer Yearbook 1985): 1-22. Lipham, J. A. Effective Principal. Effective School. Reston, VA: American Association of Secondary School Principals, 1981. Little, J. W. School Success and Development:__ Ih e J M e Of -Staff Development in Urban Deseoreoated Schools. Executive Summary. National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C., 1981. Livers, A. "Debate Rages Over Standardized Tests.” Journal (March 29, 1987): 13A. Lansino State Mackenzie, D. E. "Research for School Improvement: An Appraisal of Some Recent Trends.” Educational Researcher (April 1983): 5-16. Madden, J. V. "School Effectiveness Study.” Unpublished manuscript, State of California Department of Education, 1976. Marcus, A. C. "Administrative Leadership in a Sample of Successful Schools for the National Evaluation of the Emergency School Aid Act.” System Development Corporation, AERA Presentation, San Francisco, 1976. McKee, P.; Wilson, B. L.; and Corcoran, T. B. "A Salute to Success: The Elementary School Recognition Program. Principal 66 (September 1986): 14-15. Mackenzie, D., "Research for School Improvement: An Appraisal of Some Recent Trends." Educational Researcher. 12 (April 1983): 5-16. McCormack-Larkin, M. Effectiveness Project." 31-37. "Ingredients Educational of a Successful School Leadership (March 1985): 183 Michigan State Board of Education and Educational Testing Service. School Effectiveness: Eight Variables that Make a Difference. Michigan State Board of Education 1985. Mintzberg, H. The Nature of Managerial Work. Row, Inc., 1973. New York: Harper & New York State Department of Education. Reading Achievement Related to Educational and Environmental Conditions in 12 New York Citv Elementary Schools. Division of Education Evaluation: Albany New York, March 1974. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Onward To Excellence: Making Schools More Effective. Portland, Oregon: 1982. Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. Jr. York: Harper & Row, 1982. In Search of Excellence. New Phi Delta Kappa, Why Do Some Urban Schools Succeed? The Phi Delta Dappa Study of Exceptional Urban Elementary Schools. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa, 1980. Purkey, S. C. and Smith, M. S. "Effective Schools-A Review." Elementary -Scho.QLJamnaL 83 (March 1983) : 427-452 . Purkey, S. C. and Smith, M. S. "School Reform: The District Policy Implications of the Effective Schools Literature." The Elementary School Journal. 85 (January 1985): 355-389. Rallis, S. F. and Highsmith, M. C., "The Myth of the 'Great Principal': Questions of School Management and Instructional Leadership." Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 68, No. 4 (Dec. 1986): 300-304. Report on The Search for Successful Secondary Schools: The First Three Years of the Secondary School Recognition Program. Research For Better Schools, Inc., Philadelphia: 1986. Reinhard, D. L.; Arends, R.A.; Kuntz, W.; Lovel, K.; and Wyant, S. "Great Expectations: The Principal's Role and Inservice Needs in Supporting Change Projects." AERA Paper, Boston (April 1980). 184 Robinson, G. E. "Effective Schools Research: A Guide To School Improvement." Concerns In Education .Educational Research Service (February 1985). Robinson, G. E. and Block, A. W. "The Principal and Achievement: A Summary of 22 Studies." Principal. Vol. ;62, No. 2 (Nov. 1982): 53-57. Rowan, B.; Dwyer, D.; and Bossert, S. "Methodological Consideration in Studies of Effective Principals." Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, AERA Presentation, New York, (March 1982). Sergiovanni, T. J. "Leadership and Excellence in Schooling." Educational Leadership. (February 1984): 14-23. Sergiovanni, T. J. and Elliot, D. L. Educational and Qroanizational Leadership in Elementary Schools. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1975. Shoemaker, J. and Fraser, H. W. "What Principals Can Do: Some Implications From Studies Of Effective Schooling”. Phi Delta Kapoan. (November 1983): 178-182. Stallings J. A. and Hohlman, G. School Policy. Leadership Stvle. Teacher Chanoe and Student Behavior in Eioht_ Secondary Schools. National Institute of Education, Mountain View, CA: Stallings Teaching and Learning Institute, 1981b. Stanfield, P. C. and Walter, J. E. "The Principal As White Knight." AERA Presentation, Washington D.C.,1987. United States Department Of Education, 1985-1986 School Recognition_Procu:am. 1985. Elementary United States Department Of Education, 1985-1986 Elementary School Recognition Program Selection Criteria. 1985. United States Department Of Education, 1985-1986 Elementary School Recognition Program-Prooram Elements. 1985. 185 United States Department Of Education NEWS. (News Release, Jane Glickman) 30 June 1986. Venezky, R. L. and Winfield, L. F. "Schools That Succeed Beyond Expectations in Reading." Studies in Education. University of Delaware: Newark, Delaware, 1979. Weber, G. Inner City Children Can Be Taught_to_ Read:__ EflUE Successful Schools. Occasional Paper No., 18, Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education, 1971. Wellisch, J. B.; MacQueen, A. H.; Carriere, R. A.; and Duck, G. A., "School Management and Organization in Successful Schools." Sociology of .Education 51 (July 1978) : 211-226 . Williams, S. W. School Administration: Leadership and Interaction. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc., 1983. Wolcott, H. F. The Man In The Principal's Office: An Ethnography Holt, Rinehart, and Wincston, Inc., 1973.