THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP OF … · 2017-02-04 · Transformational Leadership...

THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP OF

PRINCIPALS ON STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty

of

California State University, Stanislaus

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership

By

Sharon S. Chen

August 2014

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP OF

PRINCIPALS ON STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

by

Sharon S. Chen

Signed Certification of Approval page

is on file with the University Library

Dr. John Borba

Professor of School Administration

Dr. Oddmund Myhre

Professor/Interim Dean, College of Education

Dr. Steve E. Gomes

Superintendent of Schools

Merced County Office of Education

Date

Date

Date

© 2014

Sharon S. Chen

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

DEDICATION

I wish to dedicate this research study to Paul, my devoted husband, and Dr.

Joseph Chen and Dr. Victor Chen, my sons. They have enthusiastically supported me.

I doubt that this life journey would have been completed without their constant,

unconditional, and unfailing love; their unwavering support, and their never ending

words of encouragement have always been my hope and my guiding light all along to

the end of my educational endeavor.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Writing a doctoral dissertation is seldom successfully finished without the

contribution of numerous talented individuals. My deepest gratitude goes out to Dr.

John Borba, my Dissertation Chair, for his support, encouragement, guidance,

feedback, sacrifice, and patience. This study has expanded my horizons and made me

a better principal. Also, I owe my sincere appreciation to Dr. Dawn Poole, my former

Dissertation Chair. I have much respect and am grateful for Dr. Poole who helped me

in the early statistics design. Also wish to thank Dr. Oddmund Myhre and Dr. Steve

E. Gomes, my two other committee members, for their time, ideas, and expertise

throughout this project. Finally, I wish to express thanks to Dr. Jim Riggs for

encouraging me to enter the program, giving me support, strength, and inspiring me

to complete this journey to the finish line.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Dedication .................................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements................................................................................................. v

List of Tables .......................................................................................................... x

Abstract ...................................................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER

I. Introduction........................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem.......................................................... 3

Significance of the Study .......................................................... 7

Research Questions .................................................................. 8

Theoretical Foundation ............................................................ 14

Limitations ............................................................................... 16

Delimitations ............................................................................ 16

Definition of Key Terms .......................................................... 16

Summary .................................................................................. 18

II. Review of Literature ............................................................................. 20

Introduction .............................................................................. 20

The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership ........................... 23

Instructional Leadership ........................................................... 32

Transformational Leadership ................................................... 39

Factors of Transformational Leadership .................................. 41

High Performing Schools ......................................................... 47

Academic Achievement ........................................................... 53

Influence of Principal’s Leadership ......................................... 65

Influence of Technology Availability ...................................... 70

Influence of Instructional Coaching ......................................... 71

Influence of Socioeconomic Status .......................................... 72

Influence of Professional Learning Communities ................... 76

Summary .................................................................................. 78

III. Methodology ........................................................................................ 80

Introduction .............................................................................. 80

Sample ...................................................................................... 80

vi

Methods .................................................................................... 82

Instrumentation ........................................................................ 82 Academic Performance Index (API) ........................................ 91

Data Analysis ........................................................................... 94

Summary .................................................................................. 96

IV. Findings................................................................................................. 97

Introduction............................................................................... 97

Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................ 97

Research Question One .................................................. 97

Hypothesis 1A ...................................................... 97

Hypothesis 1B ...................................................... 97

Hypothesis 1C ...................................................... 98

Hypothesis 1D ...................................................... 98

Hypothesis 1E ...................................................... 98

Hypothesis 1F ...................................................... 98

Hypothesis 1G ...................................................... 98

Hypothesis 1H ...................................................... 98

Hypothesis 1I ....................................................... 98

Hypothesis 1J ....................................................... 99

Hypothesis 1K ...................................................... 99

Hypothesis 1L ...................................................... 99

Research Question Two ................................................. 99

Hypothesis 2A ...................................................... 99

Hypothesis 2B ...................................................... 99

Hypothesis 2C ...................................................... 99

Hypothesis 2D ...................................................... 100

Hypothesis 2E ...................................................... 100

Hypothesis 2F ...................................................... 100

Hypothesis 2G ...................................................... 100

Hypothesis 2H ...................................................... 100

Hypothesis 2I ....................................................... 100

Hypothesis 2J ....................................................... 101

Hypothesis 2K ...................................................... 101

Hypothesis 2L ...................................................... 101

Research Question Three ............................................... 101

Hypothesis 3A ...................................................... 101

Hypothesis 3B ...................................................... 102

Hypothesis 3C ...................................................... 102

Hypothesis 3D ...................................................... 102

Description of Study Variables ................................................ 102

Research Question One .................................................. 106

Hypothesis 1A ...................................................... 106

vii

Hypothesis 1B ...................................................... 108

Hypothesis 1C ...................................................... 111 Hypothesis 1D ...................................................... 113

Hypothesis 1E ...................................................... 116

Hypothesis 1F ...................................................... 118

Hypothesis 1G ...................................................... 121

Hypothesis 1H ...................................................... 123

Hypothesis 1I ....................................................... 125

Hypothesis 1J ....................................................... 128

Hypothesis 1K ...................................................... 130

Research Question Two ................................................. 133

Hypothesis 2A....................................................... 133

Hypothesis 2B ...................................................... 134

Hypothesis 2C ...................................................... 135

Hypothesis 2D ...................................................... 136

Hypothesis 2E ...................................................... 137

Hypothesis 2F ...................................................... 138

Hypothesis 2G ...................................................... 139

Hypothesis 2H ...................................................... 141

Hypothesis 2I ....................................................... 142

Hypothesis 2J ....................................................... 143

Hypothesis 2K ...................................................... 144

Hypothesis 2L ...................................................... 145

Research Question Three ............................................... 146

Hypothesis 3A ...................................................... 146

Hypothesis 3B ...................................................... 149

Hypothesis 3C ...................................................... 152

Hypothesis 3D ...................................................... 155

Summary .................................................................................. 157

V. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations................................... 158

Introduction............................................................................... 158

Summary ................................................................................... 158

Conclusions .............................................................................. 161

Implications .............................................................................. 166

Recommendations for Further Research .................................. 166

References .................................................................................................................. 169

viii

Appendices

A. Permission Letter ........................................................................................ 191

B. IRB Approval ............................................................................................. 192

C. Email Invitation .......................................................................................... 193

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Likert Scale Used in the LPI-Self Instrument .............................................................. 85

2. The Five Practices and 10 Commitments of Leadership .............................................. 86

3. Leadership Practices Inventory Category Questions .................................................... 86

4. Leadership Practices Inventory – Self-Form ................................................................ 87

5. Reliability Coefficients of the Leadership Practices Inventory .................................... 88

6. Internal Reliability Coefficient of LPI-Self, LPI Means and Standard

Deviations .................................................................................................................... 89

7. Validation of the LPI .................................................................................................... 91

8. Number of Students Tested by Ethnic Group in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013

API Scores .................................................................................................................... 93

9. California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Results for Mathematics and

English Language Arts (ELA) by Student Classification, 2012-2013 ......................... 94

10. Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership .................................................................... 103

11. School Scores ............................................................................................................. 104

12. School Type ............................................................................................................... 104

13. API Scores (2011-2012) ............................................................................................. 104

14. API Scores (2012-2013) ............................................................................................. 105

15. Utilization of Instructional Coaches ........................................................................... 105

16. Presence of Professional Learning Communities ....................................................... 106

17. Percentage of Students Eligible for Free Meals ......................................................... 106

x

18. Students per Computer ............................................................................................... 106

19. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included

in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................ 107

20. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 Similar

School Rankings) ....................................................................................................... 108




School Rankings of Middle Schools) ......................................................................... 111




School Rankings of High Schools) ............................................................................ 113



26. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2011-2012 API Scores) 116



28. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 API Scores) 118



30. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2011-2012 API of

Middle Schools .......................................................................................................... 120

31. Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices

Included in Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................. 122

32. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 API of

High Schools) ............................................................................................................. 123



xi

34. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2011-2012 API Scores

of High Schools) ........................................................................................................ 125



36. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 API Scores

of High Schools) ........................................................................................................ 128



38. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 CAHSEE

Pass Rates in Mathematics ......................................................................................... 130




Pass Rates in ELA) .................................................................................................... 133

41. Independent Samples t-test, Transformational Leadership and 2011-2012

API Scores .................................................................................................................. 134

42. Independent Samples t-test, Transformational Leadership and 2012-2013

API Scores .................................................................................................................. 135

43. Independent Samples t-test, Model the Way and 2011-2012 API Scores .................. 136

44. Independent Samples t-test, Model the Way and 2012-2013 API Scores .................. 137

45. Independent Samples t-test, Inspire a Shared Vision and 2011-2012 API

Scores ......................................................................................................................... 138

46. Independent Samples t-test, Inspire a Shared Vision and 2012-2013 API

Scores ......................................................................................................................... 139

47. Independent Samples t-test, Challenge the Process and 2011-2012 API

Scores ......................................................................................................................... 140

48. Independent Samples t-test, Challenge the Process and 2012-2013 API

Scores ......................................................................................................................... 142

xii

49. Independent Samples t-test, Enable Others to Act and 2011-2012 API

Scores ................................................................................................................... 143

50. Independent Samples t-test, Enable Others to Act and 2012-2013 API

Scores ................................................................................................................... 144

51. Independent Samples t-test, Encourage the Heart and 2011-2012 API

Scores ................................................................................................................... 145

52. Independent Samples t-test, Encourage the Heart and 2012-2013 API

Scores ................................................................................................................... 146

53. Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and other

factors Included in Multiple Regression Analysis ............................................... 148

54. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors with 2011-2012 API

Scores ................................................................................................................... 149

55. Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and Other

Factors Included in Multiple Regression Analysis ............................................... 151

56. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors with 2012-2013 API

Scores ................................................................................................................... 152

57. Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and other

factors Included in Multiple Regression Analysis ............................................... 153


Pass Rates in Mathematics) .................................................................................. 154

59. Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and Other

Factors Included in Multiple Regression Analysis ............................................... 156


Pass Rates in ELA Scores) ................................................................................... 157

xiii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of Transformational Leadership

on student achievement. The main research question focused on the relationship

between Transformational Leadership practices of principals and student academic

achievement. This study also attempted to determine if the Transformational practices

of principals differ between low performing schools and high performing schools as

well as identify other factors that may affect the performance of students. The study

relied upon Transformational Leadership as its theoretical framework. This researcher

used the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) to measure the leadership practices of

154 middle and high school principals in California. The results of multiple

regressions suggest that Transformational Leadership has no significant impact on

student academic achievement. The results of the independent samples t-tests suggest

there are no significant differences regarding the perceived application of effective

Transformational Leadership practices between principals of high performing schools

and principals of low performing schools in terms of the Academic Performance

Index (API). The results suggest that Transformational Leadership has no significant

impact on student academic achievement as measured by the Similar Schools Decile

Ranking, API, and the percentage of students who pass the CAHSEE exams in

mathematics and ELA.

xiv

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A Los Angeles Times article by Steve Lopez, dated November 6, 2011, carried

the headline, “Shaking up the status quo in Los Angeles schools.” The article

described a letter that a "Don't Hold Us Back" group sent to John Deasy,

Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, demanding reforms for

the sake of the district's 700,000 students. Parents and education advocates planned to

sue L.A. Unified in an effort to enforce an overlooked state law that required teacher

and principal evaluations to be linked to student achievement. The group argued, “We

won’t have a strong economic future if our kids do not get a good education” (Lopez,

2011).

Student achievement, principal and teacher evaluations, and school reforms

have long been on U.S. policy makers’ minds. The launch of Sputnik in 1957, the

enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by President

Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, and the publication of Nation at Risk in 1983, all

emphasized or established high standards and accountability within the nation’s

education system.

In 2002, Congress reauthorized ESEA by passing the No Child Left Behind

(NCLB) Act. This act would affect education from kindergarten through high school

in the next decade. NCLB called for increased accountability, standardized testing,

and closing the achievement gap (NCLB, 2002).

1

2

In 2010, approximately 470,000 15-year-olds across the world sat for

a numeracy, literacy, and science test. After nearly 10 years of NCLB, the United

States ranked 17th in reading, 32nd in mathematics, and 23rd in Science. Shanghai-

China ranked number one in all three areas (OECD, 2010). This determination was

based on the results of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)

conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

On November 7, 2011, the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) published a report card describing the national performance of students

(Grades 4, 8, and 12) nationally in reading and mathematics; it also provided

information showing how these students compared to their counterparts in other

states. This report card was utilized as a tool to inform boards of education, parents,

teachers, administrators, and community members on the academic progress of

students in the United States. The results were less than satisfactory. Eighty-two

percent of students had at least a basic knowledge of fourth grade mathematics in

2011 compared to 50% of students in 1990. Seventy-three percent of students had at

least a basic knowledge of eighth grade mathematics in 2011, unchanged from 2009,

but this was four points higher than in 1992. The eighth grade average reading score

in 2011 was one point higher than in 2009, and five points higher than in 1992. The

fourth grade average reading score in 2011 was unchanged from 2009 but four points

higher than in 1992 (Nord et al., 2011).

Since 1983, American public schools have undergone an unprecedented

amount of reform that has placed an enormous burden on the public school system.

3

Today’s principals are living in a world of rapid changes and expectations to improve

student achievement. Therefore, principals must stay informed of innovative

approaches to make a difference in student achievement by focusing on cooperation

and collaboration with teachers, students, parents, and the community (Kline &

Saunders, 1993). It is important to determine what successful school leaders are doing

to meet standards and improve teaching and learning in schools.

Leithwood (1994) suggested that principal leadership has an effect on student

achievement. Cotton and Savard (1980) also stated that specific leadership behaviors

appear to have a positive impact on student achievement. Educational researchers

have begun studying the specific leadership styles of principals who have made a

genuine difference in school effectiveness and student achievement (Gordon, 2011).

Due to pressures from internal and external forces, principals have to manage school

functions daily, as well as work as instructional coaches to ensure success.

Statement of the Problem

Ever since NCLB became law, teachers, administrators, policy makers, and

school board members have started paying attention to the nation’s underperforming

schools. The mandates have brought the leadership style of principals to the forefront

for its potential impact on student achievement. Student academic success in

California and the rest of the nation is typically measured by how well students

perform on standardized tests. Low test scores suggest that students are not learning

enough, the schools are failing, or are not closing the achievement gap among

different ethnic groups. President Obama signed an executive order that allowed

4

states to seek waivers, which provided some relief from the rigorous sanctions

associated with the NCLB federal law (McNeil, 2012). However, many states did not

apply for the waiver. States that receive waivers must agree to set new academic

targets and establish new strategies for evaluating teachers and turning around

struggling schools (McNeil, 2012). Under the waiver, the federal government and

states work together to implement a very strict plan to raise student achievement and

increase teacher effectiveness. Because the California Teachers Association disagreed

with the evaluation system that ties teacher performance to test scores, California did

not receive approval for the waiver. As a result, California still is required to follow

the old NCLB law, including the 2014 deadline for all students to be proficient in

mathematics and English language arts.

Districts and schools that receive Title I funding and fail to meet Adequate

Yearly Progress (AYP) growth targets for 2 years in a row are placed in Program

Improvement. For example, during 2004-2005, the California Department of

Education reported 1,600 schools and 142 districts were in Program Improvement

(PI). The number of schools in Program Improvement soared to 3,197 out of 6,142 in

2010 (Freedberg, 2010). Five hundred and sixty-seven schools were assigned

program improvement status for the first time (Freedberg, 2010).

The Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) was passed in California in

1999. The Act provides a comprehensive system to hold students, schools, and

districts accountable for academic performance. The Standardized Testing and

Reporting (STAR) system and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) are

5

used for measuring academic achievement in English language arts and mathematics.

The Academic Performance Index (API) is a numeric index (or scale) that ranges

from a low of 200 to a high of 1,000 and is used to measure the overall progress of

districts, schools, and their significant subgroups. The statewide API performance

target for all schools is 800. Annual API targets for districts, schools and their

significant subgroups are based on 5% of the difference between current API and the

statewide performance target of 800. A school that has reached the state’s goal must

maintain its API of 800 or higher (California Department of Education, 2013).

In California, fewer than 287,000 teachers worked in public school classrooms

in 2010-11, compared to more than 310,000 in 2007-08, the year before the recent

national economic crisis. Recruiting qualified teachers, evaluating and providing

ongoing training for existing teachers, and encouraging them to stay in the profession

are some of the biggest challenges in public education today (Ed-Data, 2011-2012).

The rate of teacher turnover in the United States is alarming. Ingersoll and Rossi

asserted that approximately one third of all new teachers leave the teaching profession

during their first 3 years and that almost half leave during their first 5 years (Ingersoll,

2004). Teacher turnover contributes to shortages and causes discontinuity that

interferes with school improvement efforts. Teacher turnover is also wasteful, costing

California an estimated $700 million a year in replacement costs for teachers who

leave before retirement (Ed-Data, 2011-2012).

Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) reported that effective school

leadership has the potential to increase student achievement substantially. In fact,

6

educational researchers have continually identified the principal as an essential force

in school reform efforts (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2000). According to Leithwood and

Jantzi (1999a), the school principal can account for about 20% of student

achievement when multiple variables are considered. According to Maxwell (2002),

“Leadership is influence—nothing more, nothing less” (p. 17) and “Meaningful

school improvement begins with cultural change, and cultural change begins with the

school leadership.”Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, and Orr (2007) stated:

Tremendous expectations have been placed on school leaders to cure the ills

facing the nation’s schools. The critical part principals’ play in developing

successful schools has been well established by researchers over the last two

decades: committed leaders who understand instruction and can develop the

capacities of teachers and of schools are key to improving educational

outcomes for all students. (p. 1)

The behaviors of school principals vary in numerous ways based on their

responsibilities. Time spent working on personnel, budget, and public relations has

limited school administrators on the time they can work as instructional leaders. But

this may be changing. “Many principal training programs focus on the new role they

assume in instructional leadership amid accountability pressures to raise student

achievement” (Butler, 2008, p. 66). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to

explore the impact of various leadership styles and characteristics of schools and

administrators in influencing student achievement.

7

Significance of the Study

This study is important because since the NCLB Act was enacted in 2001,

federal and state governments have mandated superintendents, principals, and

teachers to improve student achievement. Increased accountability of school

principals encouraged them to find ways to raise student test scores, to bridge the

achievement gap, to boost teacher morale, and to improve the graduation rate.

Effective school leadership style has been an important research topic in recent years.

Marzano et al. (2005) reported that effective school leadership has the potential to

increase student achievement substantially. The authors identified 21 key leadership

responsibilities and Cotton’s 25 leadership practices that are extensively connected

with higher student achievement (p. 178). According to Waters, Marzano, and

McNulty (2003), effective leaders not only know what to do, but when, how, and why

to do it in the educational organization based on various attributes. This study

examined the degree to which the leadership styles of school principals and other

factors impact student achievement.

Every year, the California Department of Education announces the award-

winning blue ribbon schools, as well as reports the number of program improvement

(PI) failing schools. How does the principal contribute to schools falling into either of

these categories? This study sought to determine how different leadership styles may

impact student achievement in relationship to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals.

This study may benefit school board members and superintendents as they

consider qualities when hiring or retaining principals. It may also show how different

8

leadership styles of the principals may help retention of teachers, and ultimately

improve student learning and increase student achievement. Other possible

contributions of this study include the potential to influence administrative practices,

principal training, and leadership development programs. The findings also may be

useful to universities that are redesigning curricula for their leadership degree

programs that will prepare the next generation of administrators. Also, this study may

be used to identify professional development needs of principals in the future, help

school leaders learn best practices from the recent research, and ultimately increase

student achievement.

Research Questions

This study examined the relationship between Transformational Leadership

practices of principals and student academic achievement. This study also examined

how leadership practices of principals differ between high performing schools and

low performing schools. Finally, the study looked into other factors that may affect

the performance of students such as reduced meal costs, the integration of

technological instruction, the presence of professional learning communities, and the

use and availability of instructional coaches.

Research Question One

What impact does the school principals’ level of Transformational Leadership

practices have on student academic achievement?

9

Hypothesis 1A. There is a strong positive relationship between the principals’

level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ Similar Schools Decile

Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic school year.

Hypothesis 1B. At the middle school level, there is a strong positive

relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and

the schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic school year.

Hypothesis 1C. At the high school level, there is a strong positive relationship

between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’

Similar Schools Decile Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic school year.

Hypothesis 1D. There is a strong positive relationship between principals’

level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking for 2011-

2012 academic school year.

Hypothesis 1E. There is a strong positive relationship between principals’



Hypothesis 1F. At the middle school level, there is a strong positive


the schools’ API ranking for 2011-2012 academic school year.

Hypothesis 1G. At the middle school level, there is a strong positive


the schools’ API ranking for 2012-2013 academic school year.

10

Hypothesis 1H. At the high school level, there is a strong positive

relationship between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style

and the schools’ API ranking for 2011-2012 academic school year.

Hypothesis 1I. At the high school level, there is a strong positive



Hypothesis 1J. At the high school level, there is a strong positive


and the schools’ percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in mathematics for

2012-2013 academic school year.

Hypothesis 1K. At the high school level, there is a strong positive


and the schools’ percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in English language

arts (ELA) for 2012-2013 academic school year.

Research Question Two

How do the principals’ leadership practices differ between high performing

schools and low performing schools based on 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 API scores?

Hypothesis 2A. There is a difference in the principals’ overall

Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they lead at high

performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-2012 API scores.

Hypothesis 2B. There is a difference in the principals’ overall

Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they lead high performing

11

schools or low performing schools using 2012-2013 API scores.

Hypothesis 2C. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Modeling the Way category of Transformational Leadership practices based

on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-

2012 API scores.

Hypothesis 2D. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Modeling the Way category of practices based on whether they lead high


Hypothesis 2E. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Inspiring a Shared Vision category of Transformational Leadership practices

based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using

2011-2012 API scores.

Hypothesis 2F. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Inspiring a Shared vision category of Transformational Leadership

practices based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing

schools using 2012-2013 API scores.

Hypothesis 2G. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Challenging the Process category of Transformational Leadership practices

based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools

using 2011-2012 API scores.

Hypothesis 2H. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Challenging the Process category of Transformational Leadership

12



Hypothesis 2I. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Enabling Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership practices



Hypothesis 2J. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Enabling Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership



Hypothesis 2K. There is a difference in principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Encouraging the Heart category of Transformational Leadership



Hypothesis 2L. There is a difference in principals’ use of Kouzes and




Research Question Three

How do other factors beyond the Transformational Leadership style

of principals impact academic achievement?

Hypothesis 3A. The percent of students receiving free and reduced price

13

meals, the utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of professional learning

communities, and the number of students per computer each contributed to schools’

2011-2012 API scores, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational

Leadership practices.

Hypothesis 3B. The percent of students receiving free and reduced price





Hypothesis 3C. At the high school level, the percent of students receiving

free and reduced price meals, the utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of

professional learning communities, and the number of students per computer each

contributed to the percent of students who passed the 2012-2013 CAHSEE in

mathematics, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational Leadership

practices.

Hypothesis 3D. At the high school level, the percent of students receiving


a professional learning communities, and the number of students per computer each


English language arts (ELA), above and beyond the principals’ Transformational

Leadership style practices.

14

Theoretical Foundation

Federal and state mandates to hold school principals, superintendents, teachers

accountable for student academic achievement increase daily. More specifically, it is

the responsibility of the principal to create an environment conducive to student

learning (Waters et al., 2003). Principals need to know “when, how and why to create

learning environments that support people, connect them with one another, and

provide the knowledge, skills and resources they need to succeed” (Waters et al.,

2003, p. 2). Effective leadership styles can make a difference in how well students

perform (Waters et al., 2003).

Leadership is the office or position of a leader, the capacity to lead, and the

act or instance of leading (Merriam-Webster Inc., 2011). “Leadership is a process, not

a property of a person” (Vroom & Jago, 2007, p. 17). Leadership, itself, is defined as

“the process of communication (verbal and nonverbal) that involves coaching,

motivating/inspiring, directing/guiding, and supporting/counseling others” (Zinn,

2010, p. 384). According to Gallos (2008), leadership is the result of relationships

between those people within an organization who want to lead and those who are

willing to follow. “Leadership is the ability to influence followers toward the

achievement of a common goal” (Cook, 2011, p. 27). Bass (1990) suggested “There

are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted

to define the concept” (p. 11). Kouzes and Posner (2006) also stated in their book, A

Leader’s Legacy, “Leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and

those who choose to follow” (p. 52, para. 2). Kouzes and Posner (2006) expressed

15

their view on the leadership-follower relationship, “We will work harder and more

effectively for people we like. And we will like them in direct proportion to how they

make us feel” (p. 57, para 3). “If you can’t influence people, then they will not follow

you. And if people won’t follow, you are not a leader…remember that leadership is

influence—nothing more, nothing less” (Maxwell, 2007, p. 11). Maxwell also stated,

“If you don’t have influence, you will never be able to lead others” (2007, p.12).

Transformational Leadership can be defined as a type of leadership that

motivates subordinates to go above and beyond their normal duties by educating them

on the importance of the direction of the overall organization (Avolio, Bass, & Jung,

1999b).

Bass explained that a Transformational Leader can be described as having

three characteristics: charisma, consideration, and creativity where the leader uses his

or her power and charisma to empower employees and encourages the development

of employee leadership capacities by collaboration, caring, and support (Leithwood,

1993). Transformational Leaders are always visible and will stand up to be counted

rather than hide behind their troops.

Kouzes and Posner (2002) developed five exemplary leadership behaviors,

and two commitments to each of the leadership behaviors. The Leadership Practices

Inventory (LPI) was created by forming 30 practices that equate to Transformational

Leadership and by expanding the 5-point Likert scale to a 10-point Likert scale. A

higher value represents more frequent use of a leadership behavior.

16

Limitations

This study was limited to public middle school and high school principals as

determined by the California Department of Education. The sample for this study was

derived from schools and individuals who volunteered to participate. There was no

control over the subjects’ willingness to participate. The fact that the sampling

procedure was voluntary rather than random impacts the generalizability of the

findings.

Delimitations

This study did not take into consideration principal experience, or parent

education level. Also, this researcher did not address the importance of teacher

leadership and teacher evaluation and how these could improve student academic

achievement.

Definition of Key Terms

Academic Performance Index (API). An index that measures the academic

performance and growth of schools using a variety of measures. California gives each

school a target score ranging from 200-1000. A minimum score of 800 is the goal for

all schools.

The Similar Schools Decile Rankings. A ranking that compares a school

against 100 other schools in California with similar demographic profiles (including

parent education level, poverty level, student mobility and ethnicity). Each rank

ranges from 1 to 10, with a score of 10 meaning that the school's API is in the top

10%.

17

California Standards Test (CST). Annual assessment that determines student

proficiency on the California Academic Content Standards. The assessments are

administered in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social science.

California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). A test that is required of all

students to pass in order to graduate from high school in California. The CAHSEE

consists of reading, writing, and mathematics. Students have multiple opportunities to

retake one or both portions of the exam to demonstrate grade level competency

through Grade 8 in mathematics and Grade 10 in English language arts

(California Department of Education, 2013).

Change agent. A leader who challenges the status quo, which fits the

characteristics of a transformational leader (Marzano et al., 2005).

High performing school. A school that scored at or above 800 on the API for

2011-2012 & 2012-2013 and considered as high performing in this study.

Instructional Leadership. Knowledge and skills a principal should possess to

focus attention on powerful and equitable learning for all students (Smith & Andrews,

1989).

Leadership. "Inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the

values and the motivations—the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations—

of both leaders and followers" (Burns, 1978, p. 19).

Low performing school. A school that scored below 800 on the API for 2011-

2012 & 2012-2013 was considered as low performing in this study.

18

Principal’s leadership style. "The ways in which the principal expresses

leadership, uses power and authority, arrives at decisions, and, in general, interacts

with teachers and others" (Sergiovanni & Elliott, 1975, p. 45).

Standards-based reform. Academic content standards that delineate what

children should know and do at each grade level, align curricula and teacher training,

guide statewide tests to measure student achievement, and serve as a basis for

rewards, sanctions, or assistance (Lake, Hill, O'Toole, & Celio, 1999).

Student achievement. Academic growth determined by using state prepared

standardized tests.

Summary

Chapter I provided an introduction of this study on the school principal’s level

of Transformational Leadership practices impacting student academic achievement.

Leithwood (1994) suggested that leadership of school principals impacts student

academic achievement. Chapter I also examined federal and state mandates that hold

school principals, superintendents, and teachers accountable.

Chapter II includes the historical background of principals’ level of

Transformational Leadership practices as well as an in-depth review of studies that

link leadership to academic achievement. Chapter III describes the participants, the

research methods, the instrumentation, and the data analysis. Chapter IV presents the

research findings, data analysis, and the statistical procedures of the research

questions and hypotheses. Chapter V discusses the summary of results of this study as

19

they pertain to relevant literature. It also presents conclusions, implications, and

recommendations for further studies based on the findings in Chapter IV.

.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

“When the perfect order

prevails, the world is like a home

shared by all. Virtuous and worthy men are

elected to public office, and capable

men hold posts of gainful employment in

society; peace and trust among all men are

the maxims of living. All men love and

respect their own parents and children, as

well as the parents and children of others.

There is caring for the old; there are jobs for the adults; there are nourishment and

education for the children. There is a

means of support for the widows, and the

widowers; for all who find themselves alone

in the world; and for the disabled. Every

man and woman has an appropriate role to

play in the family and society. A sense of

sharing displaces the effects of selfishness

and materialism. A devotion to public duty

leaves no room for idleness. Intrigues and

conniving for ill gain areunknown. Villains

such as thieves and robbers do not exist.The

door to every home need never be locked

and bolted by day or night. These are the

characteristics of an ideal world, the

commonwealth state.” ~ The Record of Rites, Bo IX ‘The

Commonwealth State’ by Confucius,

551-479 B.C.

Confucius taught this famous lesson 2,500 years ago, and since his death, his

ideas were exported to Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and later Hong Kong and Singapore.

20

21

In these countries, all students from middle school to high school have to recite these

107 words plus other wisdoms in this book. In his time, Confucius’ teachings

affirmed an existing social order that reached from the Emperor "Son of Heaven"

down to the lowest levels of society. Confucius was a great master teacher, a

philosopher, a warrior, and a true transformational leader. The ideas of Confucius

have been preserved, challenged, and revisited over the years. In China, soldiers

followed the generals in times of war and peace; many generals used to recite word

for word Sun Tzu’s classic The Art of War: “Leadership is a matter of intelligence,

trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and sternness” (Tzu, 2007, p. 44). Bass also

noted in his book, The Bass Handbook of Leadership, “Confucius and Lao-tzu of the

sixth century B.C.E. discussed the responsibilities of leaders and how leaders should

conduct themselves” (as cited by Blase & Blase, 1999, p. 119). According to

Anderson (2004), “Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood

phenomena on Earth” (p. 1). Cranton (2006) noted, “There are almost as many

definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the

concept” (p. 259). Just out of curiosity, this author typed in the keyword “leadership”

in Google Scholar, and it came back with 2,330,000 results. When the keyword

“school leadership” was searched, 2,110,000 results were generated, and

“Transformational Leadership” returned 94,500 hits. “School improvement” returned

about 3,300,000.

The work that principals perform today is based on the education process they

go through and their experiences. Their behaviors, decisions, and skills are currently

22

under scrutiny because of the passage of the crucial No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Act, which sought to raise the academic standards of education, as well as the

academic performance of all schools in the United States. Schools that underperform

for several years are placed in government mandated programs for educational

improvement. As a result, principals are under increased strain and scrutiny to ensure

that the educational performance of their schools is comparable to state standards

(Butler, 2008).

The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between the

self-perceived Transformational Leadership practices of principals and student

academic achievement. First, this study attempted to identify if any correlations exist

between the school principals’ perceived level of Transformational Leadership

practices and the academic achievement of their students. Second, this study

attempted to identify if differences exist in the self-perceived Transformational

Leadership practices between principals of high performing schools and principals of

low performing schools. Finally, this study examined other factors that may affect the

performance of students, including (1) student participation in the free and reduced

price meal program, (2) utilization of instructional coaches, (3) presence of

professional learning communities, and (4) the number of students per computer.

Chapter II will provide a background for this study, discussing relevant information

from the academic literature regarding Transformational Leadership and problems

this study seeks to resolve. This chapter will also review the literature regarding

principal leadership styles, school performance, and the relationship with academic

23

achievement as influenced by technology availability, instructional coaching, and

socioeconomic status. By doing so, the background of the problem will be provided

and gaps that exist in the literature with respect to the proposed study may be

explained.

Anderson (2004) noted “The transforming leader looks for potential motives

in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the

follower” (p. 4). Kouzes and Posner (2007) extracted a profile of Transformational

Leadership from interviews asking leaders to describe their personal best leadership

experience. Later, they used the interview information to develop the Leadership

Practices Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). This chapter begins by reviewing

the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership initiated by Kouzes and Posner, the

connection with their studies, and the implications for educational leadership

behaviors.

The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership

Kouzes and Posner (2007) examined “personal best experiences” of more

than 1,200 executives and managers throughout the United States. The authors

believe that leadership is everyone’s business, and the leaders and leadership

opportunities are everywhere. Transformational leaders inspire ordinary people to

make extraordinary things happen in organizations. “It is about the practices leaders

use to transform values into actions, visions into realities, obstacles into innovations,

separateness into solidarity, and risks into rewards” (Kouzes & Posner, 2012, p. 2).

From thousands of “personal best” stories, they concluded that when leaders do their

24

best, they model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others

to act, and encourage the heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2012, p. 3). These five concepts

form the basis of effective leadership practices.

Modeling the way calls for leaders to exhibit behaviors that others will want

to emulate. “Leading by example is more effective than leading by command. If

people see that you work hard while preaching hard work, they are more likely to

follow you” (Kouzes & Posner, 2012, p. 17). Transformational leaders need to

demonstrate standards, be clear about their own values and philosophy, and set and

achieve shared values and goals. Values are “guiding principles in our lives with

respect to the personal and social ends we desire” (Kouzes & Posner, 1995, p. 60).

According to Kouzes and Posner (2003a), leaders communicate personal values to

their organizations. Further, leaders set examples and align their actions with shared

values of the group. Strong leaders follow through on their promises, build trust and

commitments, and affirm the common values they share with others. “If the words

you speak are not your words but someone else’s, you will not, in the long term, be

able to be consistent in word and deed” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 49). “Leadership

can never stop at words. Leaders must act, and they can do so only in the context of

their beliefs. Without action or principles, no one can become a leader” (De Pree,

1997, p. 6). Kouzes and Posner (2007) noted this in their First Law of Leadership: “If

you don’t believe in the messenger, you won’t believe the message” (p. 38). So, how

should leaders model the way? DWYSYWD: Do What You Say You Will Do. People

trust leaders when their deeds and words match.

25

“Titles are granted, but it’s your behavior that wins you respect” (Kouzes &

Posner, 2007, p. 15). As a matter of fact, Maxwell (2011) in his Five Levels of

Leadership noted that “Position is the lowest level of leadership—the entry level” (p.

7). Building relationships takes leaders to the second level of leadership. On this

second level of leadership, people follow because they like the person. “Modeling the

way is essentially about earning the right and the respect to lead through direct

involvement and action. People first follow the person, then the plan” (Kouzes &

Posner, 2002, p. 15) . This trusting relationship is important: “When people don’t

trust each other, they ignore and twist facts, ideas, conclusions, and feelings that they

believe will increase their vulnerability. Not surprisingly, the likelihood of

misunderstanding and misinterpretation increases under these conditions (Kouzes &

Posner, 1995, p. 165).

To inspire a shared vision, effective transformational leaders create

compelling visions, imagine future possibilities, and build relationships between

those who aspire to lead with a new vision and those who share that vision and

choose to follow (Kouzes & Posner, 1995). They are able to visualize positive

outcomes in the future and communicate them to others. Kouzes and Posner (2007)

also mentioned, “The kind of leadership that gets people to infuse their energy into

strategies is called Transformational Leadership” (p. 122). Leaders also listen to the

dreams of others and show them how their dreams can be realized. “Every

organization, every social movement, begins with a dream. The dream or vision is the

force that invents the future” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 17). “You can’t command

26

commitment; you have to inspire it. You have to enlist others in a common vision by

appealing to shared aspirations (Kouzes & Posner, 2012, p. 18).

Nanus (1992) gave the formula for visionary leadership: Vision +

Communication = Shared Purpose; Shared Purpose + Empowered People +

Appropriate Organizational Changes + Strategic Thinking = Successful Visionary

Leadership (p. 156). This leadership practice consists of understanding each other’s

needs and wants; thus, leaders must have an intimate knowledge of their followers’

dreams, hopes, aspirations, values, and vision (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). So, what is

vision? It is “a realistic, credible, attractive future for your organization” (Nanus,

1992, p. 79). According to Goethals, Sorenson, and Burns (2004), visionary

leadership is defined by the Oxford English dictionary as “the ability to plan or form

policy in a far-sighted way” (p. 1568). The leadership field generally defines vision in

terms of future-oriented goals that are highly meaningful to followers. For example,

the scholars Noel Tichy and Mary Anne Devanna described vision as “a conceptual

roadmap or set of blueprints for what the organization will look like in the future”

(Tichy & Devanna, 1986, p. 128). A new vision is only successful when it is openly

shared with stakeholders (Yukl, 2006). “The vision should be communicated at every

opportunity and in a variety of ways” (Yukl, 2006, p. 274). “To enlist people in a

vision, leaders must know their constituents and speak their language. People must

believe that leaders understand their needs and have their interests at heart” (Kouzes

& Posner, 2003b, p. 6; 2007, p. 17). “Leaders forge a unity of purpose by showing

constituents how the dream is for the common good. Leaders ignite the flame of

27

passion in others by expressing enthusiasm for the compelling vision of their group,

communicating their passion through vivid language, and an expressive style (Kouzes

& Posner, 2003b, p. 6).

Challenging the process means being willing to change the status quo and step

into the unknown. It includes being willing to innovate, grow, and improve.

Sergiovanni (1996) noted “Inquiry classrooms are not likely to flourish in schools

where inquiry among teachers is discouraged. A commitment to problem solving is

difficult to instill in students who are taught by teachers for whom problem solving is

not allowed” (p. 139). “Leaders venture out” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 18).

Exemplary leaders want to experiment and try new things. Leaders learn and lead

through trial and error. They take risks by constantly generating small wins and

learning from mistakes and failures to change the status quo. They are willing to take

risks to make things better. “Leaders are pioneers—people who are willing to step out

into the unknown. They search for opportunities to innovate, grow, and improve”

(Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 17). “Risk taking is necessary for leaders to rise above

followers, thereby expanding the followers’ capacity to envision greater things.

Leaders excite followers about going where they have not yet gone, and they provide

a plan to get there” (Goethals et al., 2004, p. 1335).

Kouzes and Posner (2002) listed four essentials for leaders in seeking

opportunities to challenge the process. These essentials are (1) seize the initiative, (2)

make challenge meaningful, (3) innovate and create, and (4) look outward for fresh

ideas. Change is painful; the new initiative of the unknown “common core” standards

28

is daunting; yet in order to move ahead, the status quo must be changed. Dynamic

change can increase stress on the system and create conflict with people. An old

Chinese proverb says, “If you stay in the same spot, you are just as bad as moving

backward.” Teachers need to challenge students to use higher order thinking to

challenge the learning process creatively and proactively. “Leaders who risk making

changes and moving away from the conventional standards of business practices

often find themselves forcing the world to adapt to them, instead of having to adapt to

the world” (Bennis & Townsend, 1995, p. 89). “Principals need to support their staff

members in trying innovative ideas such as new curriculum, new instructional

strategies and new assessments as they strive to meet the needs of all children”

(Starcher, 2006, p. 31). When exemplary leaders take risks, they do it one step at a

time, learning from their mistakes as they go. “Leaders are learners. They learn from

their failures as well as their successes, and they make it possible for others to do the

same” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 20).

Enable others to act: Outstanding leaders are effective at working with people

to enable others to follow them willingly by “building team spirit, establishing trust,

and maintaining strong relationships” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 20). “Building

relationships is understandably essential for an environment that embraces

collaboration, communication, and professional learning communities in schools”

(Gray & Streshly, 2008, p. 10). Exemplary leaders build trust with others and

promote collaboration. “Collaboration is the master skill that enables teams,

partnerships, and other alliances to function effectivel (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p.

29

242). Teamwork and cooperation are highly valued by these leaders. “Successful

organization change requires effective teamwork. The goal of using teamwork is to

achieve more results than an individual could” (Goethals et al., 2004, p. 1536). “It

takes 10 hands to score a basket (Wooden & Jamison, 2005, p. 117). “The most

successful principals engage their staffs and constituents in participative decision

making” (Cotton, 2003, p. 69). Blase and Blase (1994) noted that “successful

principals were those whose staffs had attained high levels of empowerment and

participative decision making” (p. 12).

“Leaders enable others to act not by hoarding the power they have but by

giving it away” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 21). They also allow others to make

choices, and support the decisions that others make. In short, they create

environments where people can feel good about their work and how it contributes to

the greater community. “Trust is the base on which credibility is built. To earn and

sustain credibility, leaders have to get to know their constituents and get their

constituents to know them” (Kouzes & Posner, 2011, p. 41). “The more leaders and

constituents comprehend each other’s perceptions, concerns, and values, the greater

their ability to work together” (Kouzes & Posner, 2011, p. 83). In order to “enable

others to act,” credible leaders create workplaces where people become friends and

make deep personal connections (Kouzes & Posner, 2011, p. 173). “Authentic

leadership is founded on trust, and the more people trust their leader, and each other,

the more they take risks, make changes, and keep organizations and movements alive.

30

Through that relationship, leaders turn their constituents into leaders themselves”

(Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 21).

According to Kouzes and Posner (2002), for people to follow someone

willingly, the majority of constituents must believe the leader is

1) Honest – It is clear that if people anywhere are to willingly follow

someone – whether it be into battle or into the boardroom, the front office

or the front lines – they first want to assure themselves that the person is

worthy of their trust.

2) Forward-looking – People expect leaders to have a sense of direction and a

concern for the future of the organization.

3) Competent – To enable others to act, we must believe that the person is

competent to guide us where we are headed. We must see the leader as

capable and effective.

4) Inspiring – We also expect our leaders to be enthusiastic, energetic, and

positive about the future. (pp. 24-32)

Encourage the heart: Leaders encourage the heart by rewarding others for

their accomplishments. Goleman (2006) noted that “The essential task of a school

leader comes down to helping people get into and stay in an optimal state in which

they can work to their best ability” (p. 80). Effective leaders are attentive to this need

and are willing to give praise to workers for jobs well done. They use authentic

celebrations and rituals to show appreciation and encouragement to others.

Encouraging the heart also means providing timely feedback and personalizing

31

recognition, being thoughtful in general, and simply having fun together (Kouzes &

Posner, 2007). Celebrating the little things does not mean lowering standards; it is

imperative that the small victories are victories that lead to the achievement of the

organization’s goals and objectives. Exemplary leaders set high expectations, because

they know that they’re much more likely to get high performance if they expect high

performance than if they expect low performance (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). “People

act in ways that are consistent with others’ expectations of them” (Kouzes & Posner,

2007, p. 283); therefore, in school, we should set higher standards and give students

rigorous curriculum. Passionately believing in people and expecting the best of them

is another prerequisite to encouraging the heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2003a).

Skipper and Bell (2006) administered the LPI-Self and LPI-Observer to two

groups of 40 construction project managers from a U.S. based organization. The

population for this study consisted of 335 construction project managers. The sample

consisted of two groups; the first group included 40 top performers (TP) identified by

senior executives and the second group consisted of construction project managers

(C) selected from the remaining 295. One objective of the study was to determine if

top performers assigned significantly different values of importance to potential

sources of leadership development than the control group. The researchers used a two

sample t-test to analyze this data. The results indicated that there were no significant

differences between the two groups in enabling others to act and encourage the heart;

thus both groups were similar in these two leadership practices. However, there was a

significant difference in modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, and challenging

32

the process. Results of the t-test, t (66) = 2.31, p <.01 for challenging the process

revealed that the first group (M = 44.28) differed significantly from the second

(M = 42.00). These results indicated that top performers were better at taking risks by

generating small wins, learning from their mistakes, and constantly searching for new

and innovative ways to change, grow, and improve.

Instructional Leadership

The concept of “instructional leadership” evolved from the early attempts of

effective schools research during the 1970s and early 1980s. The National

Association of Elementary School Principals identified six standards for effective

instructional leaders:

Leading schools to make student and the adult learning at the center; setting

high expectations and standards for all students and the performance of

teachers; demanding content and instruction to standards to ensure student

achievement; creating a culture of continuous learning for students and adults;

using multiple sources of data to assess learning; and inviting the

community’s support to create shared responsibility for school success.

(National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2001, p. 2)

Researchers agree that the principal must be a strong instructional leader,

though they do not always agree on a definition or the characteristics of an effective

instructional leader. Within the area of instructional leadership, the work of Hallinger

(2003) was considered as notable in terms of his collaboration on development of the

most thoroughly tested model, which was comprised of three components of

33

leadership practice: (1) defining school mission, (2) managing the instructional

program, and (3) promoting school climate. Sergiovanni (1991) defined instructional

leadership as principals who were able to develop educational programs to help

enhance teaching and learning. Instructional leadership has become a frequent

research topic in the scholarly journals in the last three decades; however, a lingering

question has remained as to which leadership behaviors had a more direct effect on

student academic achievement. Leithwood and Jantzi (1999b) explained instructional

leaders were teachers and school administrators who concentrated on the behaviors of

teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement.

Johnson (2004) conducted a study to collect empirical data regarding the

frequency with which principals engage in seven specific instructional leadership

behaviors that directly impact student achievement. The population for this study

consisted of 24 Virginia elementary principals working in schools identified as

having the highest percentages of students participating in Virginia’s Free and

Reduced Price Lunch program. All of the research questions required statistical

testing. A statistical significance level of p < .05 was used to test the null hypothesis

of each of the research questions.

The principals’ responses to the seven instructional leadership behaviors were

compared and tested using a paired samples t test. The alpha level selected for

determination of statistical significance and rejection of null hypotheses for the

purposes of the study was p < .05. The results revealed no significant statistical

34

differences among principals’ seven instructional leadership behaviors regarding their

impact on achievement (t = -.415, p =.70; t = .000 p = 1.0; t = .674, p =.53;

t = 1.19, p =.29; t = .307, p = .77; t = 1.46, p = .20; t = .542, p =.61).

Bartlett (2008) conducted a study to examine the effects of instructional

leadership practices performed by high school principals and student academic

achievement on the Tennessee Gateway Tests. Data for this study were collected

using the Instructional Leadership Practices Survey (ILPS) developed by the

researcher. One hundred and seven surveys were sent to public high school principals

in Tennessee. Fifty-two were returned to the researcher for a response rate of 48.59%.

The researcher used the Pearson r correlation coefficient and multiple regression

coefficients (R) to determine the degree of relationships between the principals’

responses and student achievement. The findings revealed that no relationship existed

between student achievement on the Tennessee Gateway Tests and the time a

principal spent in the classroom monitoring instruction (r =.308, p = .357). The

results also determined that there was no statistically significant relationship in

student achievement on the Tennessee Gateway Tests and the principal‘s frequency

of providing instructional feedback to teachers (r =.374, p = .181). Overall it was

determined that there was not enough evidence to state that a relationship existed

between individual principal leadership practices and student achievement

(r =.210, p = .836).

Haggard (2008) attempted to determine whether student learning outcomes

were influenced by teacher perceptions of the principal's instructional leadership.

35

Student achievement was measured at the school level by the Academic Performance

Index (API) which has a range of 200-1000. The sample included elementary school

principals in central California who had served in their school for no less than 2 years.

The sample also consisted of teachers who worked for these site administrators. This

study analyzed data on the 50 behaviors of instructional leadership, which formed 10

subscales on the PIMRS (Hallinger & McCary, 1990). The 10 subscales on the

PIMRS are as follows: (1) Frame the school goals, (2) Communicate the school goals,

(3) Supervise and evaluate instruction, (4) Coordinate the curriculum, (5) Monitor

student progress, (6) Protect instructional time, (7) Maintain high visibility, (8)

Provide incentives for teachers, (9) Promote professional development, and (10)

Provide incentives for learning. When all 10 subscales of the PIMRS were used in a

regression model, the results were not significant (F (10, 15) = 1.386, p = .275).

However, when the same subscales were entered in a stepwise model, the results were

significant (F (2, 23) = 6.174, p = .007). Significant predictors included protecting

instructional time (t = -3.088, p = .005) and supervision and evaluation of instruction

(t = 2.495, p = .020). The adjusted R2 for this model was .293. A 2 x 3 multivariate

ANOVA was run to test whether there were differences in means for the 10 PIMRS

subscales between principals and teachers. The MANOVA results showed no

difference between principals' and teachers' positions [Pillai’s Trace = .168,

F (10, 80) = 1.616, p = .117, Wilks' Lambda = .832, p = .117,

36

Hotelling's Trace = .202, p = .117, Roy's largest root = .202, p = .117]. There was also

no statistical significance to the interaction between position and the three coded

levels of SES [Pillai's Trace = .183, F (20, 162) = .814, p = .694,

Wilks' Lambda = .824, p = .693, Hotelling's Trace = .206, p = .693,

Roy's Largest Root = .157, p = .258].

Minus (2010) conducted a study to investigate the relationship between

middle school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement.

This quantitative study explored the strength of association between the variable of

student reading and mathematics achievement on the Maryland School Assessment

(MSA), and the variable of principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of principals’

instructional leadership behaviors. A total of 121 principals and 484 teachers were

surveyed. Of those, 62 principals and 298 teachers yielded usable data. This study

used Hallinger and Murphy (1987) PIMRS, an instrument that consists of 50

questions related to 10 specific job functions. A review of teacher mathematics data

correlation coefficients indicated a significant but small linear relationship within the

constructs Promoting Professional Development (r = .173, p < .05) and Protecting

Instructional Time (r = -.210, p < .05). A review of teacher reading data correlation

coefficients indicated a significant but small linear relationship within the constructs

Monitoring Student Progress (r = -.159, p < .01) and Protecting Instructional Time

(r = -.197, p < .05). A review of principal mathematics data correlation coefficients

indicated a significant but small linear relationship within the constructs Promoting

Professional Development (r = .173, p < .05) and Protecting Instructional Time

37

(r = -.210, p < .05). A review of principal reading data correlation coefficients

showed a moderate relationship within the constructs Framing School Goals

(r = .342, p < .01), Supervising and Evaluating Curriculum (r = .389, p < .01),

Protecting Instructional Time (r = .461, p < .01), Coordinating Curriculum (r = .333,

p < .05), and Maintaining High Visibility (r = .314, p < .05). Within mathematics

constructs, there was a weak to moderately correlation between Protecting

Instructional Time and the independent variable (r = .380, p < .05).

Webb (2012) conducted a study to determine the perceptions of 26 high

school principals on instructional leadership. These Wisconsin principals served

schools with enrollments between 326 and 598 students. In the study, they ranked the

importance of 21 leadership responsibilities developed by Marzano, Waters, and

McNulty. Then the researcher conducted a one-tailed t-test for statistical significance

on each of the 21 leadership responsibilities to find out how student achievement in

the schools they led were associated with those rankings. To determine high-

achieving and non-high achieving high schools, the American College Test (ACT)

scores in mathematics and English were used.

Results indicated principals from high achieving schools ranked seven

leadership practices as 4.5 or higher (culture, visibility, communication, situational

awareness, monitors/evaluates, ideals/beliefs, and change agent), compared to three

for non-high achieving school principals (communication, culture, and ideal/beliefs).

High achieving school principals listed six responsibilities below 3.83, and non-high

achieving school principals listed three as below 3.89. According to (Webb, 2012),

38

although the findings were not statistically significant, the researcher argued that the

difference was educationally significant.

Quinn (2011) conducted a study to examine the self-perceived instructional

leadership behaviors demonstrated by principals of 22 Distinguished Title I and 44

non-Title I elementary schools in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Using Larsen (1984) a

36-item Instructional Activity Questionnaire (IAQ). Instructional leadership

behaviors were negatively related to the 2007-2008 reading/language arts CRCT

scores (β = -.02, t = -.11, p = .91, R2 = .30), indicating a small and nonsignificant

influence on the reading scores, and they were positively related in 2008-2009

(β = .17, t = 1.14, p = .26, R2 = .33), indicating a small and nonsignificant influence

on the reading/language arts CRCT scores. The instructional leadership behaviors

were again positively related to the 2009-2010 scores (β = .07, t =.49, p = .63, R2 =

.48), indicating a small and nonsignificant influence on the reading/language arts

CRCT scores.

Instructional leadership behaviors were positively related to the 2007-2008

mathematics CRCT scores (β = .05, t = .36, p = .72, R2 = .46), indicating a small yet

nonsignificant association with mathematics performance in schools. As with the

2007-2008 mathematics CRCT scores, instructional leadership behaviors were again

positively related to the 2008-2009 scores (β = .11, t = .73, p = .47, R2 = .366),

indicating a small but nonsignificant impact on the mathematics CRCT scores. As

with the 2007-2008 and the 2008-2009 mathematics scores, instructional leadership

behaviors were again positively associated with the 2009-2010 mathematics CRCT

39

scores (β = .07, t = .45, p = .66, R2 = .32), indicating a small and nonsignificant

influence on the mathematics scores.

Schindler (2012) conducted a study to determine if a correlation existed

between perceived instructional leadership behaviors of high school principals and

student academic achievement. A total of 124 principals and 410 teachers completed

the School Leadership Behaviors Survey (SLBS), an instrument created from 21

principal instructional leadership behaviors that were related to student achievement

(Waters et al., 2003). The results indicated no statistically significant relationship

between principals’ self-perceived instructional leadership behaviors and student

achievement, ES = .03 (p ≥ .10). The results indicated no significant relationship

between teachers’ perceptions of principals instructional leadership behaviors and

student achievement, ES = .07 (p ≥ .10). The results indicated no significant

relationship between the congruence of principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of

instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement, ES = -.14 (p ≥ .10).

Transformational Leadership

The term “Transformational Leadership” was used for the first time by

Downton (1973) when he discussed the commitment and charisma needed by a

leader. In the book, Leadership (1978), James MacGregor Burns introduced the

concept of Transformational Leadership as a process for leaders to raise followers to

high levels of motivation and morality. The Transformational Leadership style gained

popularity and significant interest in the educational field in the early 1980s. It

emerged against the top-down nature of instructional leadership and educational

40

policies in 1980s (Hallinger, 2003). Transformational Leadership was originally

operationalized by Bass (1985) with three distinct behaviors: charisma, intellectual

stimulation, and individualized consideration. Through theory refinements and

research, Bass and Avolio (1990) added inspirational motivation as a fourth behavior.

Transformational Leadership is a process that often incorporates charismatic and

visionary leadership (Northouse, 2004, p. 169).

It is not enough, however, that a transformational leader has an understanding

of the values and principles of an organization. The leader must also communicate

these effectively to his or her followers. As a result, a transformational leader must be

adept at communication, and articulate clearly the goals and visions set forth for the

organization (Thompson, 2012). According to (Thompson, 2012), the effectiveness of

a leader’s communication skills is often manifested in the leader’s ability to engage

followers, and to have them become invested in the goals that the leader sets forth for

the organization. Sagnak (2010) added that charisma is an important characteristic

that will help a transformational leader accomplish these goals.

Smith and Piele (2006) characterized transformational leaders as providing

(a) idealized influence, which allows the leader to serve as a role model that

followers want to emulate; (b) inspirational motivation, which builds enthusiasm,

optimism, and team spirit; (c) intellectual stimulation, which encourages innovation

and creativity by questioning assumptions and supporting problem solving; and (d)

individualized consideration, in which personalized attention is given to each

individual. According to Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999a), Transformational

41

Leadership is mainly improving the performance of every follower individually to

his or her fullest potential. Based on the full range of leadership models constructed

by Bass and Riggio (2005), Transformational Leadership is based on four factors,

which are well-known as the Four i’s: 1) Idealized Influence (Charisma), 2)

Inspirational Motivation (Inspiration), 3) Individualized Consideration (Coaches

and Advisors), and 4) Intellectual Stimulation (Creative and Innovative).

Factors of Transformational Leadership

According to Balyer (2012), Transformational Leadership can be divided into

four factors. The first factor refers to how transformational leaders energize and

motivate their followers. This factor, known as inspirational motivation, relates to the

transformational leader’s capacity to set an example that individuals within an

organization must follow. For transformational leaders to become effective, they must

be perceived as those who follow their own recommendations. The transformational

leader is not exempt from the rules imposed on followers.

This facet of Transformational Leadership also incorporates the leader’s

charisma. The leader must have enough charisma to inspire followers to join in

supporting the organization’s common goal. Without setting an example and without

charisma, the effects of a Transformational Leadership may be lost with the followers

of a given organization (Balyer, 2012).

The second characteristic of Transformational Leadership is individualized

consideration. This component of Transformational Leadership emphasizes the power

of relationships. It involves the need for transformational leaders to create close

42

bonds with their followers. It is these bonds and relationships that allow leaders to

acquire their followers’ trust. Furthermore, maintaining close ties with followers also

results in gaining a better understanding, allowing the followers to more clearly see

why a leader behaves in a particular way and how adopting these behaviors

themselves can help achieve the goals set for the organization (Balyer, 2012).

These relationships operate reciprocally. For example, if transformational

leaders wish to gain the trust and understanding of their followers, they must also be

able to provide their followers with a sense of trust and understanding (Balyer, 2012).

If transformational leaders are able to understand their individual contexts and

struggles as members of the organization, the relationship between them will deepen.

This will make transformational leaders even more influential in their behaviors and

attitudes. Furthermore, if the transformational leaders understand each individual

follower, then they will be in a better position to judge where to best utilize the skills

and capacities of a particular individual for the sake of the organization’s success

(Balyer, 2012).

The third factor of Transformational Leadership is idealized influence. This

factor is similar to the first in that it pertains to the leader’s capacity to serve as an

example for followers. This factor involves the moral ascendancy of the leaders, as

well as how idealized they become in the minds and perceptions of the followers

within the organization. The leaders must ensure that their behaviors are ideal for

followers of the organization, giving them something to aspire to, and thus

43

influencing their behaviors and attitudes for the benefit of the organization and the

organization’s success (Balyer, 2012).

The fourth element of Transformational Leadership is intellectual stimulation

(Balyer, 2012). The transformational leader should understand the needs of followers

to grow and develop within the organization. Hence, transformational leaders should

be able to stimulate and challenge their followers intellectually, allowing them to take

part in discussions and tasks that force them to think of creative solutions or apply

themselves in innovative ways. As a result, an understanding of the individual

capacities of the followers is essential for a transformational leader. This relates to the

second factor of Transformational Leadership, wherein the value of the leader’s

relationship with followers is emphasized. It is only through these relationships that

the leaders can understand the individual skills and capacities of their followers.

Therefore, with such an understanding, the leader can better delegate tasks to

followers who will enhance their skills further and encourage growth and

development.

Transformational Leadership can be defined as a type of leadership that

motivates subordinates to go above and beyond their normal duties by educating them

on the importance of the direction of the overall organization (Avolio et al., 1999a).

The transformational approach defines leaders as change agents who provide visions

for the future. This concept covers society’s understanding of what leadership means

(Northouse, 2009, p. 187). Transformational models outline leadership as a mutual

process between followers and leaders. In contrast to other leadership approaches,

44

Transformational Leadership emphasizes the needs of the followers as a central focus.

Transactional Leadership focuses on extrinsic motivation of subordinates. In contrast,

the transformational approach goes a step farther and focuses attention on the demand

and growth of followers (Avolio et al., 1999a). Based on the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ), Transformational Leadership has a positive effect on

followers’ satisfaction, motivation, and performance, and can be used in a variety of

situations. Avolio and Bass (2004) stated that the MLQ has also been proven to help

leaders reflect on their own leadership style and identify areas of strength or

improvement.

Thus, “Building on the work of Burns (1978), Bass (1985), and Bass and

Avolio (1994), Leithwood (1994) developed the transformation model of school

leadership” (Marzano et al., 2005, p. 15). With this in mind, it is important to note

that “transformational leaders not only manage structure but they also purposely

impact the culture in order to change it” (Harris, 2003, pp. 16-17). Transformational

Leadership involves an engagement between leaders and followers bound by common

purpose (Burns, 1978). Transformational leaders are concerned with improving the

performance of followers and developing followers to their fullest potential (Avolio

et al., 1999a). Transformational leaders are able to inspire followers to transcend their

own self-interests and are capable of having a profound and extraordinary effect on

followers (Robbins & Judge, 2005). Feinberg, Ostroff, and Burke (2005) stated that

Transformational Leadership essentially motivates followers to transcend their self-

interest for the collective purpose, vision, and mission (p. 471).

45

Transformational Leadership behaviors include (a) developing a shared vision

by stakeholders, (b) developing subordinates into leaders, (c) sharing leadership

responsibilities, (d) motivating subordinates to meet the organizational goals, and (e)

promoting expectations of continuous improvement among teachers and staff (Evans,

1996). Evans’s study merged nicely with Kouzes and Posner’s five exemplary

leadership practices: (a) modeling the way; (b) inspiring the shared vision; (c)

challenging the process; (d) enabling others to act; and (e) encouraging the heart.

In 1991, Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass developed the Full-range Leadership

Theory (FRLT) and one of the leadership styles is Transformational Leadership.

Transformational Leadership is necessary to motivate employees to a high level of

effort and performance (Lee, 2005). The four components of Transformational

Leadership, (a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual

stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration, work together to produce employee

performance beyond specified expectations (Hall, Johnson, Wysocki, & Kepner,

2002). Many researchers have supported Transformational Leadership in the field of

education, acknowledging it to be one of the most effective leadership styles (Adams

& Hambright, 2005; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bass & Yammarino, 1989; Burns, 1978;

Tichy & Devanna, 1986).

Thus, leaders help their followers grow through individual changes. One

example of this could be a leader who needs a project to be managed. Instead of

managing it himself, he designates one of the subordinates to become the project

46

manager. This motivates the subordinate to take on more responsibility and become

better in the end.

Numerous scholarly articles have been written and further research studies

have been conducted specifically with regards to the theories of Transformational

Leadership and how they relate to the educational setting, as well as the role of the

principal. The work of present day principals is based on their education and

experiences. Their behaviors, decisions, and skills are under scrutiny due to the

passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, which sought to raise the

standard of education and the academic performance of schools in the United States.

Student achievement is measured on a yearly basis using standardized test scores that

ultimately determine whether schools are exhibiting expected performance. Schools

that consistently underperform are placed within government mandated programs for

educational improvement. As a result, principals are under significant pressure to

ensure that their schools’ educational performance is comparable to state expectations

(Butler, 2008).

Breaker (2009) attempted to measure Transformational Leadership based on

the concept of self-perception. The researcher administered the MLQ 5X to 118

secondary school principals to ascertain their levels of Transformational Leadership.

Next, the researcher administered the Educational Leadership Improvement Tool,

which measured the effectiveness of leadership as a whole, and on each of the 10

individual facets of leadership. The researcher’s multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA) indicated that there was a significant difference between the level of

47

Transformational Leadership that the principals exhibited, and the effectiveness of

their leadership. Results from the MANOVA found that the average ratings across all

10 leadership performance areas differed significantly by principals' level of

Transformational Leadership, Wilks' Lambda .73, F (18, 264) = 2.497, p < .01.

In a study by Hamzah, Yakop, Nordin, and Raahman (2011), 285 teachers

were given surveys regarding their perceptions on the leadership of the principals

who supervised them and the development of the schools to which they belonged.

The researchers computed the perceived levels of Transformational Leadership by

using descriptive statistics, and by comparing the means of the different dimensions

of Transformational Leadership. According to the researchers, principals in their

schools overall exhibited high levels of Transformational Leadership, posting a mean

score of 3.72 on a scale of 0 to 5. With respect to the relationship between the factors

of Transformational Leadership and the use of practices that fostered a strong

learning environment, the researchers used inferential statistics such as Pearson’s r for

analysis. According to the researchers, each aspect of Transformational Leadership

had a moderately strong positive correlation with the use of these practices at a

significance level of p < .05: idealized influence (r = .525), inspirational motivation

(r = .560), intellectual stimulation (r = 0.545), individualized consideration (r = .552).

High Performing Schools

Benkovitz (2008b) acknowledged the reality that not all schools are equal in

their performance, especially with respect to minimizing gaps in the achievement of

students from different socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. The researcher also

48

emphasized that achievement gaps are increasing in schools, and that there is an

ongoing debate as to how best to fulfill the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act and

improve the academic performance of all students. The researcher pointed out that

there are schools that are able to achieve this goal, and subsequently explored the

processes and attitudes that made them “high performing,” as per national standards.

The researcher conducted a review of the existing literature, identifying certain

factors as crucial to the performance and success of schools. In general, according to

Benkovitz (2008b), high performing schools emphasize academics and academic

goals. They give their students lofty academic standards, while also espousing the

belief that the standards are achievable. According to Benkovitz (2008b), past

researchers have proven that schools with a heavier emphasis on academics generally

have better-performing students, regardless of their socioeconomic or racial

backgrounds.

Benkovitz (2008b) also drew themes from research that could be used as

frameworks to review the factors that affect a particular school’s performance. Based

on the researcher’s study of academic literature, it was determined that three

important facets of a school as an organization influence the performance of students,

including school policies, school practices, and school attitudes. According to the

researcher, schools with smaller achievement gaps tend to have similar policies,

practices, and attitudes, while schools with larger achievement gaps also tend to have

similar policies, practices, and attitudes. The researcher recommended that schools

49

review these three factors to assess how they can improve their overall functioning in

order to become high performing educational institutions.

Kurland, Peretz, and Hertz-Lazarowitz (2010) averred that successful schools

were most likely the product of the kind of leadership that governed them. Moreover,

the researchers stated that successful schools usually had teachers who were inspired

and motivated by their principals into committing to the specific goals of the school.

Once teachers were committed to the school’s vision, they functioned as a

community, working together in order to achieve and to improve themselves, fully

aware that their actions directly affected whether or not the school would succeed or

fail.

Kurland et al. (2010) stated that based on the existing literature, it seemed that

three factors led to the success of academic institutions: leadership, vision, and

organizational learning. In order to substantiate this claim, Kurland et al. (2010)

conducted a quantitative study which delved into the relationship among these three

variables. The researchers wanted to quantify the effects that the schools’ leadership

had on the ability of the school to engage in organizational learning, with the use of a

single unified vision as a mediating factor.

Kurland et al. (2010) gathered data among 1,474 teachers from 104

elementary schools in Israel. The teachers evaluated their schools and their principals

using a 77-item questionnaire on principals’ leadership style, school vision, and

school organizational learning. Analyses showed a significant relationship between

teachers’ perceptions (F = 2.37, 1.86, 2.40, 2.28, 2.46 and p < .001) of their

50

principals’ leadership style, vision, and organizational learning. The correlation

coefficient of all four scales was high (r = .76 to .89, p < .001). As a mediating

variable, however, the researcher found that vision only partially influenced the effect

of Transformational Leadership on organizational learning.

Barnes (2011) illustrated the impact of the principal’s leadership style on the

academic achievement of students. The researcher compared the scores of principals

from high performing schools in the leadership practice inventory (LPI) to academic

standards. The researcher also correlated the scores of principals on the LPI with the

academic achievement of students in mathematics and the sciences. Barnes (2011)

selected 69 participants–principals from different schools in Tennessee. These

principals were chosen because they led schools that achieved Adequate Yearly

Progress for 2 consecutive years prior to the study. These principals were leaders of

these schools for 3 years prior to the study to ensure that they played a role in the

success of these schools. The researcher administered the LPI to these principals and

correlated their scores to the standardized tests in mathematics and science.

The results showed a significant moderate correlation between the principals’

model the way leadership practice and mathematics achievement: r (N = 38) = .373,

p =.021, r2 = .138), a significant moderate correlation between principals’ model the

way leadership practice and science achievement: r (N = 38) = .420, p =.009,

r2 = .176), a significant moderate correlation between the principals’ enable others to

act leadership practice and mathematics achievement: r (N = 38) = .342, p =.036,

51

r2 = .116) and significant moderate correlation between principals’ enable others to

act leadership practice and science achievement: r (N = 38) = .392, p =.015,

r2 = .153). The results also identified a significant moderate correlation between

principals’ encourage the heart leadership practice and science achievement:

r (N = 38) = .332, p =.042, r2 = .11). The Pearson’s correlation showed no

relationship between the principals’ inspire a shared vision leadership practice and

mathematics achievement: r (N = 38) = .314, p =.055, r2 = .098). The Pearson’s

correlation showed no significant relationship existed between the principals’

encourage the heart leadership practice and mathematics achievement:

r (N = 38) = .299, p =.068, r2 = .089). There was no relationship between principals’

inspire a shared vision leadership practice and science achievement:

r (N = 38) = .207, p =.212, r2 = .042). There was no relationship between the

principals’ challenge the process leadership practice and mathematics achievement:

r (N = 38) = .143, p =.393, r2 = .02). There was no relationship between principals’

challenge the process leadership practice and science achievement: r (N = 38) = .114,

p =.494, r2 = .013).

The results of the test and the analyses carried out by (Barnes, 2011) showed

that principals from high performing schools generally scored higher on the LPI. This

comparison indicates that principals from high performing schools made use of the

exemplary leadership practices measured by the LPI more than their counterparts.

The study also revealed significantly positive correlations between the scores of the

principals on the LPI and the scores of their students on mathematics and science

52

standardized tests. This correlation means that the more principals make use of the

exemplary leadership practices outlined by the LPI, the more their students tend to

score higher on mathematics and science achievement tests.

Hill (2011) compared the different leadership practices of principals from two

high performing schools (met AYP), as well as the practices of principals from two

underperforming schools (did not meet AYP). Hill (2011) randomly chose 100

elementary school teachers from the state of Georgia to participate; 84 teachers

responded to the survey. The schools selected for the study had similar characteristics

in size, demographics, and staff members’ years of service; moreover, the principals

who supervised them had similar lengths of tenure. The leadership practices of

principals presented in Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)

were modified by the researcher. A 12-item survey was used to investigate leadership

practices in these distinct areas: 1) modeling the way, 2) inspiring a shared vision, 3)

challenging the process, 4) enabling others to act, and 5) encouraging the heart.

Findings from Pearson Chi-Square test indicated there was no significant difference

between satisfactory schools (met AYP) vs. unsatisfactory schools (did not meet

AYP), [r = 1.03 and p = .598]. The independent t test also indicated there was no

significant difference in leadership practices in unsatisfactory and satisfactory schools

[t (81) = .617, p =.539]. The results on the simple t test showed that there was no

significant difference in leadership practices between elementary schools that did not

meet AYP and elementary schools that met AYP [t (34) = -.225, p = .82]. The results

of the t test [t (45) = 3.43, p = .001] indicated there was a significant difference in

53

leadership practices between successful schools and unsuccessful schools, yet the

Pearson Chi-square showed no relationship [r =2.7, p = .446]. Despite the heavy

emphasis that literature has placed on the importance of principals’ leadership

practices on the academic performance, the chi-square showed that the leadership

practices of principals did not significantly affect the performance of schools or of

their students, neither for high performing nor underperforming schools.

Academic Achievement

In the wake of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, there has been a

heightened awareness of the achievement gaps that exist in schools. These

achievement gaps are characterized by significant differences in the academic

performance of students, varying along socioeconomic and racial factors (Benkovitz,

2008a). For the most part, students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds

perform at lower levels in their academics as compared to students from more

privileged families. Likewise, students belonging to racial minorities perform at lower

achievement levels compared to their White peers. Hence there is a need to explore

through scientific research the various mechanisms which can contribute positively to

the academic performance and achievement of all students regardless of their

socioeconomic background or racial identity.

Dorward (2009) studied the relationship between the Transformational

Leadership behavior of principals and change in student performance on the New

York State Comprehensive English Regents Exam (CERE). In order to control for

variability, only those schools in the Similar Schools Group, as defined by the New

54

York State Education Department (NYSED), were used as part of the data pool. This

study used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) as the survey

instrument. The MLQ was developed by one of the well-known leadership experts,

Bernard Bass, with the help of Bruce Avolio. The MLQ 5X measures three areas of

leadership behavior: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. This study

examined the relationship between the Transformational Leadership behavior of

principals and change in student performance between the 2003 and 2005 New York

State Comprehensive English Regents Exam (CERE) which is given at the end of

eleventh grade.

This study also examined the role of Transformational Leadership regarding

levels of teacher satisfaction, teacher perception of leader effectiveness, and teacher

willingness to give extra effort. The first set of data was gathered from the NYSED

website which contains links to CERE results from the 2003-2005 school years. The

NYSED website contains 169 schools, of which only 43 met the requirements of the

study. The second set of data collected was information on the leadership styles of the

school administrators, using the online version of the MLQ 5X. The third set of data

was demographic data that was used along with data from the MLQ 5X. Findings did

not indicate any clear relationship between these two data sets. These findings

appeared to have no correlation at all between the Transformational Leadership

scores attributed to participating principals and changes in the percentage of students

in their schools that achieved mastery on the CERE.

55

Crain (2010) conducted a study to determine whether or not a statistically

significant relationship exists between leadership styles, flexibility and effectiveness

of principals, and student academic achievement as perceived by principals. For the

purpose of the study, the Leader Behavior Analysis II (LB All) Research, Validity,

And Reliability Of The Self And Other Forms was used to measure the independent

variables of leadership style, effectiveness, and flexibility. This study incorporated a

causal comparative research design which included 117 principal surveys and

demographic questionnaires and 585 teacher surveys. Sixty-one principals and 301

teachers returned the surveys. A Multiple Linear Regression was used to determine if

there was a statistical relationship between perceived leadership flexibility and

effectiveness of principals, and student academic achievement. The Alpha level for

all statistical tests was set at .05. ANOVA results found no significant relationship

between principal perceived effectiveness and flexibility and the dependent variable,

student achievement [F = 1.066, p = .351, R2 = .035]. ANOVA results also found no

significant relationship between teacher perceived effectiveness and flexibility and

the dependent variable, student achievement [F = .584, p = .561, R2 = .020]. Also the

study revealed that neither the coefficient for flexibility nor effectiveness was a

significant predictor of student achievement [flexibility: t = -.1.066, p = .318 and

effectiveness: t = .767, p = .446].

Gamble (2009) conducted a quantitative explanatory correlational study to

determine if there was an association between the principals’ leadership style as

measured by the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and the schools’

56

ability to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) standards as measured by the

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) achievement tests. A sample

population of 60 elementary principals and 480 teachers was administered a survey.

Within the sample were 60 principals from elementary schools that included the

following: (a) 20 high performance schools exceeding AYP benchmarks, (b) 20 target

schools showing improvement, and (c) 20 high priority schools not meeting AYP

standards. Each of the 60 principals randomly selected eight teachers from his or her

faculty, who were asked to rate their own principal’s leadership style. The variables

examined (a) Transformational, (b) Transactional, and (c) Laissez-Faire Leadership

styles. A stepwise regression procedure indicated there was a moderate correlation

between the leadership style of principals as measured by the MLQ and the students’

TCAP achievement test scores in mathematics [R2 = .301, F (1, 45) = 19.376,

p < .001]. There was also a moderate correlation between the leadership style of

principals as measured by the MLQ and the students’ TCAP achievement test scores

in reading [R2 = .304, F (1, 45) = 19.376, p < .001]. The results showed a significant

difference between the three leadership styles and the three levels of schools, with p =

.0421, using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

Gulbin (2008) conducted a study to examine the relationship between the

Leithwood model of Transformational Leadership of Pennsylvania secondary school

principals and Adequate Yearly Progress based on the Pennsylvania System of State

Assessments (PSSA) in mathematics and reading. The population for this study

consisted of all Pennsylvania secondary school principals located in a district that

57

qualifies for Title I funding that has more than 30% low-income students.

Transformational Leadership was measured by the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire, Form 5x-Short (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Of the 265 questionnaires

mailed, 132 returned, a rate of almost 50%. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated

no relationship between the Leithwood model of Transformational Leadership and

achievement in mathematics (r = .01, p = .96), reading (r = .01, p = .96), attendance

(r = -.46, p = .13), or 4-year graduation rates (r = .07, p = .48).

Greb (2011) surveyed principals in Milwaukee to determine if a relationship

existed between Transformational Leadership and student academic achievement.

This model is somewhat unique as research has typically been conducted on each

leadership construct independently, with little research conducted with the two

constructs together. Thirty-one principals participated, 14 male and 17 female. The

student achievement data were obtained from the Wisconsin Information Network for

Successful Schools (WINSS). This study suggested that principals who exhibited

Transformational Leadership showed small positive relationships in three curricular

areas, as measured by the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam (r = .159,

p = .392 for reading, r = .102, p = .586 for language arts, and r = .117, p = .531 for

mathematics). A post-hoc analysis revealed statistically significant correlational

coefficients between management-by-exception passive and student achievement

(r = .515 for reading, r = .479 for language arts, and r = .567 for mathematics with

n = 31 and p < .05, two tailed).

58

Lea (2011) conducted a study to determine the relationship between the

Transformational Leadership behaviors of high school principals in the suburban

Chicago, Illinois area and student achievement on the Illinois Prairie State

Achievement Examination (PSAE). Thirty-three high schools comprised the study

sample, and 1,130 teachers voluntarily participated in the study. The study results and

findings showed a significant, positive relationship between principal

Transformational Leadership and the PSAE-driven student achievement measures.

Overall, the relationship between Transformational Leadership and Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP) on all three of the variables, Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and

Satisfaction, was significant and accounted for 39% of the variance in AYP [R2 = .39,

F (3, 29) = 6.19, p < .01]. The relationship between Transformational Leadership and

AYP in Reading was significant and accounted for 30.1% of the variance in

predicting AYP reading percentages [R2 = .301, F (3, 29) = 4.17, p < .05], and the

relationship between Transformational Leadership and AYP in Mathematics was

significant and accounted for 37.6% of the variance in predicting AYP mathematics

percentages [R2 = .376, F (3, 29) = 5.84, p < .01].

Beaver (2011) conducted quantitative research to examine the relationship

between student achievement and leadership styles demonstrated by school

principals. Beaver used the Bolman and Deal Leadership Orientations Instrument

(Self). Principals from 401 elementary schools in Mississippi participated in the

study. The researcher mailed questionnaires. The total number of elementary school

principals who participated in the analysis was 126 (N = 126). A one-way MANOVA

59

was used to determine the relationship between frames of leadership and student

achievement. The political frame result was [F (4, 121) = 1.052, p = .384]. The

structural frame result was [F (4, 121) = .458, p = .766]. The symbolic frame result

was [F (4, 121) = .201, p = .937]. The human resource frame result was

[F (4, 121) = 1.275, p = .284]. There was no significant relationship between any of

the leadership frames and student achievement. Another one-way MANOVA was

used to determine if a difference existed between a combination of the leadership

frames and student achievement. No significant effect was found [F (16,484) = .627,

p = .863]. There was no significant difference between the leadership frames

collectively and student achievement.

Starcher (2006) conducted a study to determine if a significant relationship

existed between each of Kouzes and Posner’s five leadership practices and student

achievement in mathematics and reading. The leadership practices of principals were

identified using Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI-self) and

student scores on the reading and mathematics portions of the West Virginia

Educational Standards Test (WESTEST). One hundred and eighty-seven surveys

were returned for a rate of 52.8%. The ANOVA results yielded no significance

between five exemplary leadership practices and student achievement in both

mathematics and reading.

Stobaugh (2003) conducted a study to investigate teacher perceived leadership

of principals in Kentucky by examining relationships between different forms of

leadership and student outcomes. There were a total of 60 schools that participated in

60

the study. Principal leadership was measured through the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) that had been revised by Bass and Avolio (1995). The

independent variables were principals’ Transformational Leadership, transactional

leadership, and laissez-faire leadership styles. The dependent variables were the level

of student achievement as measured by the Commonwealth Accountability Testing

System (CATS) and teachers' perceptions of their satisfaction, effectiveness, and

extra effort as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.

Transformational Leadership did not significantly relate to CATS scores [change in

R2= .03, F (1, 35) = 2.09, p = .16]. However, Transformational Leadership was found

to positively relate to perceived teacher extra effort (r = .97, p < .01), teacher

perceived effectiveness (r = .94, p < .01), and teacher perceived satisfaction (r = .95,

p < .01). When transformational principals positively impact teachers, they perceive

themselves to be more effective, satisfied, and devote extra effort. Teachers then

become more empowered and collaborate with colleagues to improve their

instructional capacities. All of these intervening variables may then relate to student

achievement.

Griffith (2004) examined the direct effect of Transformational Leadership of

principals on school outcomes, such as school staff turnover and school performance,

and the indirect effect on these outcomes through school staff job satisfaction. One

hundred and seventeen urban elementary schools in one large school district

participated in the study. Questionnaires were administered to 3,291 staff members,

assessing their principals’ Transformational Leadership and job satisfaction. Data

61

obtained from surveys of school staff provided data for the Structural Equation

Modeling (SEM) and Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analyses. To determine

performance progress, initial (Grade 3) test scores were regressed on current (Grade

5) test scores. The three components of Transformational Leadership served as

predictor variables of staff job satisfaction and organizational performance:

(1) Charisma or inspiration. The ability of leaders to provide a clear sense of

mission, which they in turn convey to followers and develop a sense of

loyalty and commitment.

(2) Individualized consideration. The leader's willing delegation of projects

to followers to stimulate and create learning experiences and the leader's

treatment of each follower as unique individuals.

(3) Intellectual stimulation. The leader's provision of opportunities for

followers to rethink traditional procedures and to examine situations in

new and novel ways. (Griffith, 2004, p. 6)

Results indicated that principal behaviors could be described in terms of three

leadership domains of Transformational Leadership: charisma/inspiration (F = 5.16,

p < .001), individualized consideration (F = 5.15, p < .001), intellectual stimulation

(F = 5.09, p < .001), and staff job satisfaction (F = 4.97, p < .001). As such, schools

in which principals were perceived as transformational leaders had school staff that

were more satisfied with their jobs and had greater achievement progress.

Leithwood and Jantzi (1999b) replicated an earlier study that examined the

effects of Transformational Leadership practices on school organizational conditions

62

and student engagement. Data were collected from 2,424 teachers and 7,251 students

in one school district (94 elementary schools) in Canada. One survey asked teachers

about the status of seven organizational conditions in their schools, as well as the

relative influence of principal and teacher sources of leadership. Another survey

asked students about their engagement with school as well as the status of their family

culture. Leithwood and Jantzi (1999b) reported Transformational Leadership had

strong direct effects on school conditions (.80) which, in turn, had strong direct

effects on classroom conditions (.62). Transformational Leadership had a weak (.17)

but statistically significant effect on student identification; its effects on student

participation are not significant (.11).

Di Vincenzo (2008) conducted a study to determine if there was a relationship

between the leadership styles of high school leaders and the achievement scores of

their students. The sample of participants consisted of 125 public high school

principals and assistant principals and 87 private or independent high school

headmasters and assistant headmasters from the state of New Jersey. The Leadership

Practices Inventory (LPI) was used to gather data from the participants regarding their

leadership styles. In general, the participants in the study exhibited either

transformational or transactional leadership styles at their respective schools. The

researcher found no significant correlation between Transformational Leadership

style and the achievement scores of students. A 95% confidence level (p ≤ .05) was

used to determine significance. The researcher, however, did not rule out the

possibility that Transformational Leadership may in some instances have a positive

63

relationship with student achievement, stating that perhaps the current use of the

leadership style is merely misdirected or misplaced. The sum of the leader scores

(r = -.02, p = .87) indicated there was no significant correlation between school

performance and Transformational Leadership. None of the individual leader

practices were statistically significant: Model the Way (r = -.003, p = .98); Inspire a

Shared Vision (r = -1.0, p = .36); Challenge the Process (r = -.08, p = .42); Enable

Others to Act (r = .17, p = .10); and Encourage the Heart (r = -.003, p = .98).

Estapa (2009) conducted a study to analyze if there was a relationship

between principals’ Transformational Leadership behaviors and student achievement

as measured by Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test in the

English/language arts (ELA GCRCT) and the eleventh grade students’ Georgia High

School Graduation Test in English/language arts (ELA GHSGT). The study measured

each of the eight principals’ Transformational Leadership behaviors based on

teachers’ responses to The Nature of School Leadership survey. Two hundred

teachers went online to answer the survey, and 176 completed the survey. The survey

questions were grouped according to the eight characteristics of the transformational

leader as defined by Leithwood and Jantzi (1995). The eight leadership dimensions

are as follows:

1. Develops a widely shared vision for the school

2. Builds consensus about school goals and priorities

3. Holds high performance expectations

4. Models behavior

64

5. Provides individualized support

6. Provides intellectual stimulation

7. Strengthens school culture

8. Builds collaborative structures (Estapa, 2009, pp. 50-51)

This study found no statistically significant correlation between

Transformational Leadership behaviors of principals and student achievement on

standardized tests. The results from the regression analysis indicated that the teachers’

overall leadership ratings of their principals did not significantly predict student

proficiency (R = .19, p = .09). In fact, the overall leadership scores explained only

4.0% of the variance in student proficiency levels. The multiple linear regression

model also indicated a lack of significant predictive ability with the inclusion of all

eight leadership dimension scores [R = .26, p = .74].

Leithwood and Sun (2012) used meta-analytic review techniques to synthesize

the results of 79 unpublished studies about the nature of transformational school

leadership (TSL) on student achievement. Six different models of Transformational

Leadership were included and 11 specific leadership practices were examined. A total

of 93 analyses reported in 33 studies examined TSL effects on six types of student

outcomes: 1) achievement, 2) attendance, 3) college-going rate, 4) drop-out rate, 5)

graduation rate, and 6) percentage of time removed from regular classes.

The results of TSL effects on student achievement suggested that effect sizes

were grouped according to direct or indirect effects. Studies using direct effects

examined the relationship between TSL and student achievement only, whereas

65

indirect effects also included either mediating or moderating variables. The effects of

individual TSL on student achievement were small but significant (r = .09) with a

95% confidence interval around the mean effect size ranging from .04 to .14. The

TSL’s impacts on achievement in reading (r = .15) and mathematics (r = .18) yielded

slightly larger positive effects. The two dimensions of Transformational Leadership

had significant direct effects on student achievement: building collaborative

structures (weighted mean r = .17) and providing individualized support (weighted

mean r = .15). These results were consistent with earlier findings from published TSL

research by Leithwood and Jantzi (2005), which showed a low effect of TL on

student achievement.

Influence of Principals’ Leadership

The study conducted by Marks and Printy (2003) emphasized exactly how

delicately principals must balance their leadership behaviors in order to create

positive change and development in their schools. In their study, the researchers

gathered survey data from 910 teachers from 24 elementary and middle schools in the

United States which were undergoing reform. The teachers were surveyed on their

perceptions of the principals who led them. The data gathered from the participants

were used to identify any significant correlations between the leadership of the

principals and the quality of schools. Based on Pearson’s correlation, the researchers

were able to show that poor leadership among principals correlated strongly and

negatively with pedagogical quality (r = -.67) and actual achievement of students

66

(r = -.83). On the other hand, when principals exhibited Transformational Leadership

integrated with certain aspects of instructional leadership, strong correlations were

shown with pedagogical quality (r = .86) and actual achievement (r = .85).

Because development and improvement in schools is a process that takes

place over a period of time, one of the ways to identify and measure the real effects of

a principal’s leadership on the quality of schools is through a longitudinal study.

Longitudinal studies track the differences in subjects over time. Sammons, Gu, Day,

and Ko (2011) conducted a longitudinal study regarding the influence of principals’

leadership on the quality and improvement of different primary and secondary

schools over a period of 3 years. The researchers used survey responses from a wide

sampling of schools which included 378 primary schools and 362 secondary schools.

The researchers used confirmatory factor analysis as well as structural

equation models in order to quantify the relationships between principals’ leadership

and the quality and improvement of schools over time. According to the analyses of

the researchers, the leadership of school principals and the processes and policies

which they adopt have a significant impact on the performance of students and of

schools in general.

Chin (2007) used a meta-analysis technique to synthesize the results of 28

independent studies and to investigate the overall relationship between

Transformational Leadership and three measures of school outcomes: teacher job

satisfaction, school effectiveness as perceived by teachers, and student achievement.

This study used a quantitative meta-analysis to estimate the effect size of

67

Transformational Leadership. First, the study focused on the general effectiveness of

schools in delivering the necessary services and education to faculty and students.

This factor was generally measured in the studies using the perceptions of teachers.

Second, the study explored student achievement, as measured by standardized test

score results among students in different schools. Third, the study included the factor

of job satisfaction among teachers. The results of Chin’s analysis revealed significant

effects caused by Transformational Leadership on each of the three criteria. That is,

when a school leader has high levels of Transformational Leadership, different facets

of school performance improve. Specifically, the aforementioned facets of overall

effectiveness as perceived by teachers, job satisfaction, and student achievement were

positively affected. The results from the three meta-analyses in terms of effective size

(r) indicated that transformational school leadership had a positive and significant

effect on teacher job satisfaction (r = .707 with the range -.060 to .950), school

effectiveness as perceived by teachers (r = .695 with the range .219 to .940), and

student achievement (r = .487 and the range was .010 to .893). It can be concluded

that the overall relationship between TSL and measures of school outcomes seemed

fairly robust.

Valentine and Prater (2011) conducted a study that compared the different

forms of leadership exhibited by school principals and the effects of each on the

academic achievement and performance of their students. The researchers conducted

a survey regarding the leadership styles of principals and correlated these with the

academic performance and achievement of their students. In order to identify and

68

compare the effects of different forms of leadership, data were organized and

analyzed based on the leadership style exhibited by a particular public school

principal in the disposition of his tasks.

According to Valentine and Prater (2011), Transformational Leadership was

strongly and positively correlated with academic performance. Three

Transformational Leadership factors, “providing a model” (R2 = .382), “identifying a

vision” (R2 = .361), and “fostering group goals” (R2 = .413), most frequently

explained student achievement scores in this study. The more leaders exhibited

behaviors adhering to the Transformational Leadership model, the more likely their

students would exhibit higher academic achievement scores. This was relative to the

correlations found between two other forms of leadership, namely, instructional

leadership and managerial leadership. These two forms of leadership were not

significantly or positively correlated with the academic performance of students.

Valentine and Prater (2011) also identified specific aspects of

Transformational Leadership that strongly and positively correlated with student

academic achievement. According to the researchers, one of the strongest correlates

of student academic achievement was the principal’s ability to identify a vision for

the school as well as for the teachers who followed. This finding emphasized the

importance of having a unified school goal or vision, as this strongly correlates with

the students’ future performance in academics. The researchers also found that the

principals’ ability to properly model behaviors and to compel the members of faculty

and staff to emulate such behaviors were strongly correlated with student academic

69

performance. Furthermore, the researchers were able to show that a principal’s

educational level correlated strongly with different leadership factors. This means that

the more academic preparation the principals have prior to leading their schools, the

more they are likely to exhibit ideal leadership behaviors that positively influence the

institution and its students.

Marks and Nance (2007) extended the discussion of the influence of

principals’ leadership on academic achievement by looking at various forms of

accountability which they must meet, and the different institutions and organizations

imposing them. Specifically, the study looked into how states, local school boards,

school districts, school councils, and parents’ associations have affected the amount

of influence that principals have and how this influence in turn affects the academic

achievement of students. The researchers made use of survey responses collected

from principals regarding how much influence they had on their schools, and how

much influence other bodies and organizations exerted within their schools.

The researchers made use of survey data from 8,524 school principals. In

order to ensure proper representation of the population, these survey responses were

taken from elementary school, middle school, and high school principals.

Furthermore, in order to properly represent the population of principals, the

participants hailed from schools of various levels of income and socioeconomic

background. Based on the analysis of the researchers, different principals are affected

differently by the modes of accountability imposed upon them. For the most part, the

researchers were able to indicate that the amount of influence principals had on

70

student achievement varied significantly along the different kinds of accountability

measures imposed upon them by their states, local boards, councils, and parents’

associations.

Influence of Technology Availability

According to Gulek and Demirtas (2005), the effects of technology on student

achievement are relatively well established. According to the researchers, it has been

shown in past research that technology increases student performance and

achievement. In fact, when students are provided with their own access to technology

such as laptops, they are able to immerse themselves in academic work, and

collaborate more with their peers in different academic endeavors.

Mosbacker (2005) explored the relationship between leadership styles and

technology availability in schools. The researcher attempted to identify the predictors

for the presence and availability of technology within schools. In order to conduct the

study on school technology availability, Mosbaker administered the Leadership

Practices Inventory (LPI) to 514 school officials, in addition to surveys on the

technological status of the schools that they supervised and administrated. According

to the researcher’s correlational analysis, there were significantly positive correlations

between the scores of principals on the LPI and the availability of technology within

schools. While correlations do not prove causation, this study indicated that the

higher a principal scores on leadership scales, and the more effective his or her

leadership behaviors and practices are, the more likely it is that technology will be

made available within schools.

71

Mosbacker also pointed out that, apart from the principal’s leadership, one

other factor is a strong predictor of the presence of technology within school

environments. This factor was the amount of money spent on and devoted to each

student in the school. In schools with more funds to devote to each individual

student, technology will be more readily available. Conversely, in schools with fewer

funds, technology may not be as available to students.

Influence of Instructional Coaching

Instructional coaching occurs when a school employs individuals for the sole

task of improving the teaching capacity of its educators (Arrington, 2010).

Instructional coaching attempts to develop the necessary skills and capacities that

effective educators should have in order to improve the learning and the performance

of the students under their tutelage.

Arrington investigated instructional coaching in terms of its relation to the

Transformational Leadership style of school principals. The study was quantitative,

using correlational analysis to decipher whether or not any relationship existed

between the two variables, and if so, the nature of the relationship. The researcher

conducted a study using two questionnaires administered to teachers in a west central

school district in Georgia. The first questionnaire allowed teachers to rate the level of

Transformational Leadership practiced by their principals. The second questionnaire

asked the participating teachers to provide feedback on the perceived effects of

instructional coaching.

72

The participants in the study rated principals in their district as being

transformational leaders, with scores ranging from the neutral to the positive end of

the Transformational Leadership scale provided in the survey. However, the

participants rated the effects of instructional coaching as neutral. This meant that they

perceived instructional coaching as having neither positive nor negative effects on

their teaching capacities and on the performance of their students. However, the

relationship between the data of the two surveys revealed a small and significant

positive correlation between the Transformational Leadership of principals and the

positive effects of instructional coaching. This means that the more principals practice

Transformational Leadership, the more likely instructional coaching will yield

positive results for their teachers and students. Specifically, Arrington was also able

to identify a similar positive relationship between Transformational Leadership and

several domains of instructional coaching: Offering Individualized Support,

Demonstrating High Performance Expectations, Building School Vision and Goals,

and Providing Instructional Support. While these results are encouraging, it should be

emphasized that the data on the positive effects of instructional coaching were

primarily derived from the perceptions of teachers, and not from a careful measure of

the performance of their students on standardized tests.

Influence of Socioeconomic Status

Living in poverty can be expressed as an economic state characterized as a life

without basic needs, such as adequate food, clothing, and housing (Faitar, 2011).

However, the argument regarding the negative and unpredictable impact of poverty

73

on the physical growth, emotional development, and the overall health of children is

as much related to the unique environment or culture of poverty as it is with the

finances of poverty (McConney & Perry, 2010). Scholars claimed that environmental

deprivations and the lack of basic needs create the culture of poverty, which

consequently spur social issues such as students’ academic failure, struggling

families, gangs, drugs, and violence (Caldas & Bankston, 1997; Faitar, 2011).

Family income remains a consistent influence and indicator of a student’s

academic success in school. Since the early 1980s, studies have shown relationships

between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Findings of robust

research would indicate weak to moderate correlations. To refute the argument that

poverty hinders student success in school, White (1982) conducted a meta-analytical

review of 200 studies that examined the relationship of the variables of

socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Results of the findings disproved

that socioeconomic status has a strong relationship with academic achievement.

However, White noticed that results and variance of analysis could be associated with

the erroneous conceptual definitions of socioeconomic status. White stated that

income of the head of the family, mother’s educational achievement, and home

environment are typically used and associated with the individual’s interest in

learning. The study showed that the relationship of socioeconomic status and

academic achievement remains to be proven.

White’s study was refuted by the meta-analysis study of Sirin (2005). Of the

74 independent studies published in the 1990s, Sirin found a correlation between

74

socioeconomic status and academic achievement that showed a medium to strong

relationship. Relevant factors that are also attributed to socioeconomic status include

the level of school, ethnicity, and location of the institution.

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2010), in all

academic subject areas, students of all ages and grades from wealthy homes

outperform those living in poverty. In more current research, the same trend is true:

children of more affluent households outperform children of low socioeconomic

status on standardized tests (NCES, 2010). Many other factors influence achievement,

including parents’ education level, reading material in the home, life experiences,

quality of food, and a two-parent household (Vellymalay, 2012).

In 2010, nearly 25% of American children lived in poverty, which represents

one of the highest rates of poverty in the developed world. According to Moller,

Mickelson, Stearns, Banerjee, and Bottia (2013), of all the types of educational

disadvantage, children who live in extreme poverty often are homeless or transient

and are among the most difficult for the American educational system to serve

adequately. One of the greatest challenges in America is the ability to provide an

educational experience characterized by adequate resources in a quality facility for

every child, irrespective of their racial or socioeconomic background (National

Center for Children in Poverty, 2011).

Palumbo and Sanacore (2009) conducted a study involving intermediate and

middle school grade teachers to investigate how to combine literacy instruction and

content information for students living in poverty. They found that most students

75

living in poverty have a limited vocabulary, and their shift from word recognition

abilities to comprehension and applied learning is slow. Their findings suggested that

teachers can help minority children and those living in poverty to close the

achievement gap in writing by fusing literacy instruction and content-area material.

Their research showed that this connection improves reading and writing

achievement, as well as increases comprehension of information (National Center for

Children in Poverty, 2011).

Because children of poverty also represent one of the fastest-growing

segments in the public school population, educators must make every effort to meet

the needs and develop the abilities and talent of these underachieving learners.

Research shows that students of low-income families score below the proficiency

level on statewide standardized tests (Moller et al., 2013).

Educational institutions are faced with changing populations of students, and

many schools are challenged to educate a majority of students who come from

poverty (Aud et al., 2011). Traditionally, schools were designed to serve middle class

residents who have the tools or wherewithal to provide experiences that increase the

likelihood of success in school. Families who find themselves in economically

deprived situations normally cannot access the necessary resources or experiences to

prepare their children for the school experience. Understanding the world of poverty

from which some children come is essential for educators who wish to address

difficulties in helping children achieve in schools that are traditionally based on and

directed to support middle class values (Aud, Hussar, & Kena, 2012).

76

Influence of Professional Learning Communities

Schools nationwide are facing serious problems ranging from random

outbreaks of violence and crumbling facilities to staff shortfalls and chronically low

academic expectations. School principals and teachers are held accountable for

academic achievement. In the last two decades, the business world transitioned from

Taylor’s factory model to the 21st century work place. Education has also had to deal

with the changing society that involves the shift of emerging globalization,

immigration, technology, and the shortage of a skilled workforce. Professional

Learning Communities (PLC) have been established in schools to encourage

collaboration among teachers to improve the quality of instruction and other services

for all students. In the PLC, the principal facilitates the process to make sure all

teachers work collaboratively and all students learn. Principals guide professional

learning communities by establishing a common set of beliefs and values, serving as a

resource person and sharing decision making with all professionals in the school.

The big ideas of PLC, according to DuFour (2004) are ensuring that students

learn, a culture of collaboration, and a focus on results. Three important questions

drive all of the stakeholders in PLC: 1) What do we want each student to learn? 2)

How will we know when each student has learned it? 3) How will we respond when a

student experiences difficulty in learning? Schools should quickly identify students

who need additional time and support; teachers should provide students with help as

soon as they experience difficulty rather than relying on summer school, retention,

and remedial courses. In PLC schools, teachers work collaboratively and share best

77

practices in teaching and learning. Teachers get together to create and share lesson

plans, develop common formative assessments, study curriculum guides as well as

state and national standards, and give feedback and monitor each student’s mastery of

the essential outcomes. Lastly, PLC schools use data frequently to support teaching,

turning data into useful and relevant information.

Tignor (2008) conducted a study to determine if a relationship exists between

the student achievement in elementary schools that have been awarded the Illinois

State Board of Education’s Spotlight award and the elements of professional learning

communities. Student achievement was measured by utilizing the Illinois Standards

Achievement Test (ISAT) reading and mathematics scores in Illinois Elementary

Spotlight Schools. All 269 Illinois Elementary Spotlight Schools from 2005 were

recruited and invited to participate in the study. Seventy-six principals responded to

the survey. The researcher used School Professional Staff as Learning Community

developed by Hord in 1996 as the survey instrument.

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if a relationship

existed between schools functioning as professional learning communities and 2005

ISAT reading and mathematics scores. The findings showed no significant

relationships between ISAT third and fifth grade reading and mathematics scores in

elementary schools with functioning professional learning communities.

Long (2008) conducted a study to exam the relationship between student

scores on the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) achievement test and the type of

Missouri high school attended, PLC or NPLC. The population for this study consisted

78

of all students enrolled in the public high schools of Missouri with a typical ninth

through twelfth grade configuration. Students in the tenth grade were assessed in the

mathematics portion of the MAP test. Students in the eleventh grade were assessed in

the communication arts portion of the MAP test.

The Regression Coefficients showed no substantially significant relationship

between TYPE of Missouri high school, PLC or NPLC, and 2006 MAP

Communication Arts scale scores [β = -.355, t = -1.172, p= .241]. The Regression

Coefficients showed no substantially significant relationship between TYPE of

Missouri high school, PLC or NPLC, and 2007 MAP Communication Arts scale

scores [β = -8.679E-02, t = - .314, p= .754]. The Regression Coefficients also showed

no substantially significant relationship between TYPE of Missouri high school, PLC

or NPLC, and 2006 MAP scale score in 2006 mathematics [β = -.637,

t = -1.493, p= .135]. However, the Regression Coefficients showed a significant

relationship between TYPE of Missouri high school, PLC or NPLC, and 2007 MAP

mathematics scale scores [β = .958, t = 2.392, p= .017].

Summary

Principals of schools across the U.S. are subjected to various accountability

measures and national educational standards that must be upheld (Benkovitz, 2008).

Given the increased scrutiny of the performance of schools and principals due to No

Child Left Behind Act, this study aims to identify the elements that influence

students’ academic performance. It also seeks to identify the effects that a principal’s

79

leadership has on that performance. This chapter has provided a background of the

existing literature necessary for this study.

First, because this study will aim to identify the existence of relationships

between the school principals’ level of Transformational Leadership and the

academic achievement of the students, Chapter II examined the concept of

Transformational Leadership as well as the different factors that comprise it. Second,

relationships exist between the school principals’ level of transformational leadership

and the performance of students. Various studies were presented on the relationship

between Transformational Leadership and student achievement. Finally, because the

study will look into other factors that may affect the performance of students, the

chapter included studies regarding the effects of technology on student performance,

the effects of individualized coaching on student performance, and the influence of

socioeconomic status and professional learning communities on student achievement.

Chapter III describes the participants, the research methods, the

instrumentation, and the data analysis. Chapter IV presents the research findings, data

analysis, and the statistical procedures of the research questions and hypotheses.

Chapter V discusses the summary of results of this study as they pertain to relevant

literature. It also presents conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further

studies based on the findings in chapter IV.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction



academic achievement. First, this study attempted to identify if any correlations exist

between the school principals’ perceived level of Transformational Leadership

practices and the academic achievement of their students. Second, this study

attempted to identify if differences exist in the self-perceived Transformational

Leadership practices between principals of high performing schools and principals of

low performing schools. Finally, this study examined other factors that may affect the

performance of students, including (1) student participation in the free and reduced

price meal program, (2) utilization of instructional coaches, (3) presence of


Chapter III describes the sample, the methods used to carry out the study, information

about the instruments, and data analysis techniques.

Sample

This study sampled principals from among 3,622 middle and high school

principals in California (California Department of Education, 2013). California is a

very diverse state ethnically; of the 6,220,933 students enrolled in 2011-2012, 26.6%

were White, 51.4% Hispanic or Latino, 8.5% Asian, 6.7% Black, and 0.7% American

80

81

Indian. English learners were 21% of the student population and students on free and

reduced price meals accounted for 58% of all who were enrolled (Ed-Data, 2011-

2012). During 2012-2013 school year, 6,226,989 students were enrolled; 53% were

White, 12% Hispanic or Latino, 20% Asian, 9% Black, and 1% American Indian.

English learners were 19% of the student population and students on free and reduced

price meals accounted for 46% of all who were enrolled. California English learners

speak more than 50 different languages. About 85% of the English learners speak

Spanish (ED-Data, 2012-2013).

As stated in the fourth edition of the Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology,

(Vogt & Johnson, 2011, p. 348), the minimum sample size to run a multiple

regression analysis is 50 cases plus 8 times the number of independent variables.

Vogt (2007) also stated, “The price of using a sample that is too small is reduced

statistical power; that is, increased risk of Type II error, which means you could fail

to detect an actual relations in population” (p. 84). Therefore, the minimum sample

size for this survey would include at least 138 high school and middle school

principals. Once principals agreed to participate, they provided information regarding

their school’s percent of students receiving free and reduced price meals, the

utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of professional learning

communities, and the number of students per computer. 2011-2012 and 2012-2013

API scores, 2012-2013 Similar Schools Decile Rankings, and 2012-2013 CAHSEE

(mathematics and ELA) scores were retrieved from the CDE website in order to

address all of the research questions.

82

Methods

After approval from the California State University, Stanislaus Institutional

Review Board, an invitation was emailed to 3,622 principals in California high

schools and middle schools explaining the study and asking for their commitment to

complete the survey. Once a principal responded, he or she was sent a link to the

instructions for establishing an account and completing the survey. Principals were

given one week to respond to the invitation.

Once the principal agreed to participate, he or she was added to Kouzes and

Posner’s website as a leader. The principals set up their own passwords with their e-

mail addresses as user names and then completed the survey. Once the principals

submitted the survey, the responses were not changed.

The e-mail invitations sent to principals asked them to indicate if the school

used professional learning communities and if coaches were employed to enhance

student learning. In addition, information about the participation of students in the

free and reduced price meal program and the school’s number of students per

computer were requested.

Instrumentation

Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)

A number of instruments that measure leadership practices based on the

theory of Transformational Leadership were examined for possible use in this study.

Selection of the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) for measurement of leadership

practices was based on several factors. Reports of high reliability coefficients and

83

evidence of construct validity suggest the trustworthiness of the LPI in measuring

Transformational Leadership practices. Kouzes and Posner (2007) developed the LPI,

which has been used in thousands of studies over two decades. The LPI has been

compared to other leadership behavior instruments, and has consistently received

high ratings from reviewers for its sound psychometric properties (Huber, Maas,

McCloskey, Goode, & Watson, 2000). The LPI was selected because “a large number

of researchers have used it in their investigations of various leadership issues”

(Leong, 1995, p. 16).

The Leadership Practices Inventory is a 30-question quantitative instrument

designed by Kouzes and Posner through a triangulation of qualitative and quantitative

research methods and through interviews and case studies (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).

The general framework is based on those in-depth interviews and case studies written

from personal-best leadership experiences and consists of five categories of

leadership practices: 1) challenging the process, 2) inspiring a shared vision, 3)

enabling others to act, 4) modeling the way, and 5) encouraging the heart. Each of the

five leadership categories or sets of behaviors consists of two strategies (See Figure

1). The five categories in the LPI are actions that were translated into behavioral

statements. Following several repetitious psychometric processes, the LPI was

created, and to this day, has been administered “to over 350,000 managers and

nonmanagers across a variety of organizations, disciplines, and demographic

backgrounds” and has been demonstrated to be reliable in highlighting the behaviors

that contribute to leaders’ effectiveness (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 2).

84

Figure 1. Characteristics of the Leadership Practices Inventory.

Source: Kouzes and Posner (2007)

The LPI is a self-administered instrument. The practices in each leadership

category are scored on a 10-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 “Almost Never”’

to 10 “Almost Always.” It consists of 30 practices focused on the five leadership

categories. Each demographic question was answered in a checkbox format. Table 1

presents the Likert Scale used in the LPI-Self Instrument.

85

Table 1

Likert Scale Used in the LPI-Self Instrument

Instrument Ordinal Value Qualitative Attribute

1 Almost Never 2 Rarely

3 Seldom

4 Once in a While

5 Occasionally

6 Sometimes

7 Fairly Often

8 Usually

9 Very Frequently

10 Almost Always Source: Kouzes and Posner (2007)

Kouzes and Posner (2007) defined effective leadership as a “a relationship

between those who aspire to lead and those who chose to follow” (p. 24). They found

a “fundamental pattern of leadership behavior that emerged when people were

accomplishing extraordinary things in organizations” (pp. 310-311). The Leadership

Practices Inventory (LPI) was designed by Kouzes and Posner to assess approaches to

leadership as measurable, teachable, and learnable.

In addition to indicating the self-perceived application of 30 Transformational

Leadership practices, participants were asked to answer three demographic questions

related to gender, age, and management experience. The instrument was designed in

such a way that six practices correlated to each of the five categories on the survey.

Each of the five categories of leadership consists of two commitments. Table 2

displays the two commitments for each leadership category; Table 3 classifies the

instrument items related to each leadership category. Table 4 illustrates the leadership

practices inventory self-form.

86

Table 2

The Five Practices and 10 Commitments of Leadership

Categories Commitment

Model the Way Find your voice by clarifying your personal values.

Set the example by aligning actions with shared

values.

Inspire a Shared Vision Envision the future by imagining exciting and

enabling possibilities.

Enlist others in a common vision by appealing to

shared aspirations.

Challenge the Process Search for opportunities by seeking innovative

ways to change, grow, and improve.

Experiment and take risks by constantly generating

small wins and learning from mistakes.

Enable Others to Act Foster collaboration by promoting cooperative

goals and building trust.

Strengthen others by sharing power and discretion.

Encourage the Heart Recognize contributions by showing appreciation for individual excellence.

Celebrate the values and victories by creating a spirit

of community.

Source: (Kouzes & Posner, 2010)

Table 3

Leadership Practices Inventory Category Questions

Leadership Category Leadership Practices

Model the Way 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26 Inspire a Shared Vision 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, 27

Challenge the Process 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28

Enable Others to Act 4, 9, 14, 19, 24, 29

Encourage the Heart 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 Source: Kouzes & Posner (2007)

87

Table 4

Leadership Practices Inventory – Self-Form

Leadership Category Item # Leadership Practice

Model the Way

1

Sets a personal example of what is expected.

6 Makes certain that people adhere to agreed-on

standards

11 Follows through on promises and commitments.

16 Asks for feedback on how his/her actions affect people’s performance.

21 Builds consensus around organization’s values.

26 Is clear about his/her philosophy of leadership.

Inspire a Shared

Vision

2

Talks about future trends influencing our work.

7 Describes a compelling image of the future.

12 Appeals to others to share dream of the future.

17 Shows others how their interests can be realized.

22 Paints “big picture” of group aspirations.

27 Speaks with conviction about meaning of work.

Challenge the process 3 Seeks challenging opportunities to test skills.

8 Challenges people to try new approaches.

13 Searches outside organization for innovative ways to improve.

18 Asks “What can we learn?

23 Makes certain that goals, plans, and milestones are

set.

28 Experiments and takes risks.

Enable Others to Act 4 Develops cooperative relationships.

9 Actively listens to diverse points of view.

14 Treats people with dignity and respect.

19 Supports decisions other people make.

24 Gives people choice about how to do their work.

29 Ensures that people grow in their jobs.

Encourage the Heart 5 Praises people for a job well done.

10 Expresses confidence in people’s abilities.

15 Creatively rewards people for their contributions.

20 Recognizes people for commitment to shared

values.

25 Finds ways to celebrate accomplishments.

30 Gives team members’ appreciation and support.

Source: Kouzes and Posner (2007)

88

Means and standard deviations for each LPI scale for leaders (Self) are

presented in Table 5 below. Based upon mean scores, Enabling Others to Act is the

leadership practice most frequently reported being used. This is closely followed by

Modeling the Way, with the average scores for Challenging the Process and

Encouraging the Heart being fairly similar. Inspiring is perceived as the leadership

practice least frequently engaged in (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 4).

Table 5

Reliability Coefficients of the Leadership Practices Inventory

Leadership Practices

Dimension

LPI N = 36,226

LPI Self

N = 5,298

Test-Retest

N = 157

Challenge the Process .80 .70 .93

Inspiring a Shared Vision .87 .80 .93

Modeling the Way .81 .71 .95

Enabling Others to Act .85 .75 .94

Encouraging the Heart .91 .85 .93

Source: (Posner & Kouzes, 1993)

In order for a research study to be accurate, its findings must be reliable and

valid. Reliability of the instrument was determined through sound psychometric

procedures. Each scale was found to be internally reliable with each item highly

correlated within the scale. Test-retest reliability for the five practices in the studies

conducted by Kouzes and Posner has been at the .93 level and above. They also found

that LPI scores are not related to various demographic factors (for example, age,

years of experience, educational level) or with such organizational characteristics as

size (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).

The LPI has been demonstrated to be a reliable instrument in assessing

89

leadership effectiveness. Using Cronbach’s coefficient to measure internal reliability,

all of the scales are above the .75 level as shown in Table 6. According to Kouzes and

Posner (2002), reliability refers to the extent to which an instrument contains

“measurement errors” that cause scores to differ for reasons unrelated to the

individual respondent (p. 5). Fewer errors indicate a higher degree of validity of an

instrument, and instrument reliabilities above .60 are considered acceptable. The

reliabilities for the LPI are consistently above these criteria (see Table 6).

Table 6

Internal Reliability Coefficient of LPI-Self, LPI Means and Standard Deviations

Practices of Leadership

Mean Standard

Deviation

Internal Reliability

(Cronbach Alpha)

Coefficient

Model the Way 47.0 6.0 .77

Inspire a Shared Vision 40.6 8.8 .87

Challenge the Process 43.9 6.8 .80

Enable Others to Act 48.7 5.4 .75

Encourage the Heart 43.8 8.0 .87

Source: Kouzes & Posner (2002)

Posner conducted a psychometric update in August 2008 and 2009, which

confirmed the instrument was still reliable several years after initial implementation.

Content validity was established for the LPI based on participants’ comments on their

personal best experiences. Kouzes and Posner (2002) stated that the LPI has both

content validity and predictive validity and as such is suitable for making predictions

about leadership effectiveness. Empirical validity for the LPI was determined using

principal component analysis with varimax rotation resulting in a five-factor structure

that supported the five categories in the LPI. Each factor yielded eigenvalues greater

90

than 1.0 and they accounted for 60.5% of the variance. “Concurrent validity of the

leadership scores from the LPI is consistently associated with work group

performance, team cohesiveness, commitment, satisfaction, and credibility” (Kouzes

& Posner, 2002, p. 15). Kouzes and Posner cited dozens of such studies in a wide

variety of leadership settings. Notably, Knab (1998)conducted a study of principals

in Blue Ribbon Award winning schools. The LPI scores of these principals were

significantly higher than the scores of principals in schools that had not won the

award. To establish discriminant validity, the LPI scores were used to examine how

managers could be grouped into performance-based categories and the lowest and

highest scores on the LPI were the same as the low and high performing categories in

92.6% of the known cases at p < .001.

The examples on the studies of concurrent validity, construct validity, and

discriminant validity as well as their outcomes are explained in Table 7.

91

Table 7

Validation of the LPI

Validity Study Outcomes

Concurrent Validity

A comparative study of

Public Health Leaders

examining the

relationship between

leaders’ effectiveness and

leadership practices

(p.17)

The regression equation was

highly significant (F = 318.88,

p < .0001) and LP explained

over 55 percent (adjusted R2

= .756) of the variance around

constituents’ assessments of

their managers’ effectiveness.

(p.15)

Construct Validity Studies among LPI and

effectiveness and

credibility of school

principals, high and low

performing schools,

principals in effective and

ineffective schools etc.

(p. 17)

Strong positive correlations

with other sociological and

psychological instruments

Discriminant Validity How well LPI

differentiate between

high and low performing

managers.

(pp.15-16)

It correctly classified 92.6

percent of the known cases and

77.8 percent of the cases in the

holdout sample.

Source: Kouzes & Posner (2002)

Academic Performance Index (API)

The Academic Performance Index (API) is a numeric index (or scale) that

ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1,000 and is used to measure the overall

academic progress of districts, schools and their significant subgroups. The statewide

API performance target for all schools is 800. Annual API targets for districts,

schools, and their significant subgroups are based on 5% of the difference between

current API and the statewide performance target of 800. A school that has reached

92

the state’s goal must maintain its API of 800 or higher (California Department of

Education, 2013).

In addition to use of the LPI, this study examined the Academic Performance

Index (API) scores available through the California Department of Education website.

A school's API is based primarily on CST scores at the elementary level and the

CAHSEE at the secondary level, and is an indicator of a school's performance level.

California’s EC Section 52056 (a) requires API ranking of schools.

The Similar Schools Decile Rankings compare a school against 100 other

schools in California with similar demographic profiles (including parent education

level, poverty level, student mobility, and student ethnicity). Each rank ranges from 1

to 10, with a score of 10 meaning that the school's API is in the top 10%.

According to 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 API data files, California statewide

had a API score of 781 in 2012 and 771 in 2013. The base scores of Asian students

were 905 and 906 respectively; White, 852 both academic years, with no change; and

Hispanic-Latino, 740 and 743 respectively. English Learner students’ base scores

were 716 and 717 respectively, and students with disabilities, 605 and 616

respectively. Table 8 below gives detailed information. Much improvement has been

made since NCLB became law in 2001; more effort is still needed to narrow the

achievement gap.

93

Table 8

Number of Students Tested by Ethnic Group in 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 API

Scores

Ethnicity Students Tested 2011-2012API

Students Tested 2012-2013 API

2011-2012

API

2012-2013

API

African American 307,779 298,394 706 707 American Indian 31,391 30,423 741 742 Asian 405,041 407,138 905 906 Filipino 125,013 121,231 869 867 Hispanic 2,425,555 2,446,247 740 743 Pacific Islander 26,571 25,431 774 773 White 1,227,389 1,203,251 852 852 Two or More 88,418 112,819 849 845 SES Disadvantaged 2,797,194 2,842,908 737 742 English Learners 1,536,445 1,463,551 716 717 Disabilities 529,144 557,092 605 616

Source: DataQuest: 2010 API data file.

California Education Code (EC) Section 60850 (a), enacted in 1999,

authorized the development of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). By

law, each part is aligned with California’s Academic Content Standards adopted by

the State Board of Education (SBE). The passing score for the mathematics part of the

CAHSEE is approximately 55% of items correct or a scaled score of 350. The passing

score for the ELA part of the CAHSEE is approximately 60% of items correct or a

scaled score of 350. In California all general education high school students, English

language learners (ELs), and students with disabilities must pass the exam in orde

r to receive a high school diploma. Table 9 shows the 2012-2013 test results on the

California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). This report displays the percent of

students passing either the mathematics or English language arts (ELA) portion of the

exam.

94

Table 9

California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Results for Mathematics and English

Language Arts (ELA) by Student Classification, 2012-2013

Subject All

Students

Special

Education

English

Learner

Reclassified

Fluent

English

Economically

Disadvantaged

Not

Economically

Disadvantaged

Mathematics Tested

459,159 37,623 58,021 109,801 254,165 174,772

Mathematics

Passing

386,071 15,918 31,456 101,777 199,022 161,520

ELA

Tested 461,150 39,644 58,837 109,891 255,345 175,446

ELA

Passing

383,723 15,692 24,449 102,796 195,584 62,579

Source: (Data Quest 2012)

Data Analysis

The Likert type scale values of the responses to each completed Kouzes and

Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) were calculated to determine (1) an

overall score of each category of Transformational Leadership and (2) an overall

combined score of all categories. These scores were used to test the hypotheses in

Chapter IV. Data were analyzed using the statistical packages for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) 22.0. An alpha level of .05 was used for all analyses.


What impact does a school principal’s level of Transformational Leadership

style have on student academic achievement?

Multiple regression analyses were conducted using one set of predictors. The

independent variable was the school principals’ perceived level of Transformational

Leadership practices, and the dependent variable was student academic achievement

95

(measured by schools’ Similar School Decile Ranking for H1A-H1C, schools’ API

ranking for H1D-H1I, and the high school pass rates on the CAHSEE for H1J-H1K).

For research question one and the related hypotheses, multiple linear regressions

tested H1A-H1K. Specifically, bivariate relationships were investigated on all

hypotheses.


How do principals’ leadership practices differ between high performing


Independent sample t-tests were used to determine if there are differences in

Transformational Leadership between principals of high performing schools and

principals of low performing schools (H2A-H2B). The combined Transformational

Leadership scores from Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)

were compared between principals who lead high performing schools with those who

lead low performing schools. Also, LPI scores by category of Transformational

Leadership practices were compared between principals who lead high performing

schools with those who lead low performing schools (H2C-H2L).


How do other factors beyond the Transformational Leadership style of

principals impact academic achievement?

Multiple regression analyses using two ordered sets of predictors were used to

test H3A-H3D. The first set consisted of one predictor, Transformational Leadership

(as a single independent variable), practiced by the principals who responded to the

96

survey. The second set of predictors included four independent variables that included

(1) student participation in the free and reduced price meal program, (2) utilization of

instructional coaches, (3) presence of professional learning communities, and (4) the

number of students per computer. The data for the dependent variables (schools’ API

score H3A-H3B, the percent of CAHSEE pass rate H3C-H3D) were retrieved from

the California Department of Education.

Summary

Chapter III described the participants, the research methods, the

instrumentation, and the data analysis. Chapter IV presents the research findings, data

analysis, and the statistical procedures of the research questions and hypotheses.

Chapter V discusses the summary of results of this study as they pertain to relevant

literature. It also presents conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further

studies based on the findings in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between

the self-perceived Transformational Leadership practices of principals and student

academic achievement. Multiple regressions were used to test 11 hypotheses for

Research Question One. Independent samples t-tests were used to test 12

hypotheses for Research Question Two. Multiple regressions were used to test four

hypotheses for Research Question Three. This chapter presents the results of the

statistical analyses.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The following research questions and their respective hypotheses were

investigated:




Hypothesis 1A. There is a strong positive relationship between the

principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’


Hypothesis 1B. At the middle school level, there is a strong positive


97

98

the schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic school year.

Hypothesis 1C. At the high school level, there is a strong positive


and the schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic

school year.

Hypothesis 1D. There is a strong positive relationship between principals’



Hypothesis 1E. There is a strong positive relationship between principals’



Hypothesis 1F. At the middle school level, there is a strong positive



Hypothesis 1G. At the middle school level, there is a strong positive



Hypothesis 1H. At the high school level, there is a strong positive



Hypothesis 1I. At the high school level, there is a strong positive


99


Hypothesis 1J. At the high school level, there is a strong positive


and the schools’ percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in mathematics for

2012-2013 academic school year.

Hypothesis 1K. At the high school level, there is a strong positive


and the schools’ percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in English language

arts (ELA) for 2012-2013 academic school year.




Hypothesis 2A. There is a difference in the principals’ overall

Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they lead high


Hypothesis 2B. There is a difference in the principals’ overall

Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they lead high performing


Hypothesis 2C. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and



2012 API scores.

100

Hypothesis 2D. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and



2013 API scores.

Hypothesis 2E. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Inspiring a Shared Vision category of Transformational Leadership practices

based on whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using


Hypothesis 2F. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Inspiring a Shared Vision category of Transformational Leadership



Hypothesis 2G. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Challenging the Process category of Transformational Leadership practices



Hypothesis 2H. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Challenging the Process category of Transformational Leadership



Hypothesis 2I. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Enabling Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership practices

101



Hypothesis 2J. There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Enabling Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership



Hypothesis 2K. There is a difference in principals’ use of Kouzes and

Posner’s Encouraging the Heart” category of Transformational Leadership



Hypothesis 2L. There is a difference in principals’ use of Kouzes and







Hypothesis 3A. The percent of students receiving free and reduced

price meals, the utilization of instructional coaches, the presence of

professional learning communities, and the number of students per computer

each contributed to schools’ 2011-2012 API scores, above and beyond the

principals’ Transformational Leadership practices.

102

Hypothesis 3B. The percent of students receiving free and reduced price





Hypothesis 3C. At the high school level, the percent of students receiving




mathematics, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational Leadership

practices.

Hypothesis 3D. At the high school level, the percent of students receiving



contribute to the percent of students who passed the 2012-2013 CAHSEE in English

language arts (ELA), above and beyond the principals’ Transformational Leadership

style practices.

Description of Study Variables

This section provides a descriptive analysis of the variables consisting of the

cumulative scores for each of the five categories of Transformational Leadership

practices, schools’ Similar Schools Decile Rankings and API scores, frequency of

instructional coaches and professional learning communities, percentage of

103

students eligible for free and reduced price meals, and the number of students per

computer.

Table 10 shows the number of principals who responded to the survey, the

range of cumulative response scores, the mean cumulative response score, and

standard deviation for each category of Transformational Leadership. Table 11

shows the range, mean, and standard deviation of Similar Schools Decile Rankings

and 2011-2012 API scores and 2012-2013 API scores of the schools led by the

principals who responded to the survey. Table 12 shows the frequency and

percentage of middle schools led by principals who responded to the survey and the

frequency and percentage of high schools led by principals who responded to the

survey.

Table 10

Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation

Model the Way 154 34.0 60.0 51.39 4.90

Inspire a Shared Vision 154 31.0 60.0 48.56 6.74

Challenge the Process 154 20.0 59.0 47.88 6.32

Enable Others to Act 154 43.0 60.0 53.05 3.87

Encourage the Heart 154 30.0 60.0 49.35 6.77

Transformational

Leadership Practices 154 37.4 58.2 50.05 4.61

104

Table 11

School Scores


Deviation

School Decile Ranking 136 1.0 10.0 6.05 2.86

2011-2012 API scores 154 460.0 993.0 785.13 103.55

2012-2013 API scores 154 449.0 995.0 783.92 113.28

Table 12

School Type

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

High School 93 60.4 60.4 60.4

Middle School 61 39.6 39.6 100.0

Total 154 100.0 100.0

Tables 13 shows the frequency and percentage of schools that performed

at or above 800 on the API and those that performed below 800 on the API for

the 2011-12 academic year. Table 14 shows the frequency and percentage of

schools that performed at or above 800 on the API and those that performed

below 800 on the API for the 2012-2013 academic year.

Table 13

API Scores (2011-2012)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Low Performing 84 54.5 54.5 54.5

High Performing 70 45.5 45.5 100.0

Total 154 100.0 100.0

105

Table 14

API Scores (2012-2013)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Low Performing 77 50.0 50.0 50.0

High Performing 77 50.0 50.0 100.0

Total 154 100.0 100.0

Tables 15 and 16, respectively, show the frequencies and percentages

tables of instructional coaches and professional learning communities for the

schools that are led by the principals who responded to the survey; Tables 17 and

18, respectively, show the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced

price meals and the number of students per computer.

Table 15

Utilization of Instructional Coaches


Yes 77 50.0 50.0 50.0

No 77 50.0 50.0 100.0

Total 154 100.0 100.0

Table 16

Presence of Professional Learning Communities


Yes 133 86.4 86.4 86.4

No 21 13.6 13.6 100.0

Total 154 100.0 100.0

106

Table 17

Percentage of Students Eligible for Free Meals


Deviation

Eligible Free Meals

(K-12) Oct. 2012

154 .80 100.0 44.16 24.39

Table 18

Students per Computer


Deviation

Students per Computer 151 .40 621.0 16.51 55.08




Hypothesis 1A

There is a strong positive relationship between the principals’ level of

Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking

for the 2012-2013 academic school year.

The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are 1)

Model the Way, 2) Inspire a Shared Vision, 3) Challenge the Process, 4) Enable

Others to Act, and 5) Encourage the Heart. Middle school and high school principals

were asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding

leadership practices associated with each category of effective Transformational

107

Leadership. Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for this

analysis.

A multiple regression analysis using one set of predictors was conducted to

determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices associated

with effective Transformational Leadership and the Similar Schools Decile

Rankings. The five categories of practices were the independent variables for this

analysis. The Decile Ranking of the principals’ respective schools was the dependent

variable.

Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that

no two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the

relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type I

Error (.05/15 =.003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so there

was no need to omit any variables. Table 19 summarizes the pair-wise correlations.

Table 19

Pair-Wise Correlations for the Categories of Transformational Practices Included in

Multiple Regression Analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Similar Schools Ranking - 2. Model the Way .06 -

3. Inspire a Shared Vision .04 .68** -

4. Challenge the Process -.07 .58** .67** -

5. Enable Others to Act .13 .50** .42** .53** -

6. Encourage the Heart .02 .63** .46** .54** .50**

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

The regression equation with all five categories of effective Transformational

Leadership showed no significant relationship to the Similar Schools Decile Ranking,

108

[R = .23, R2

= .05, R2adj = .02, F(5, 130) = 1.48, p = .20], which accounts for only 5%

of the variance in school scores as measured by the similar schools ranking. The

results of this analysis suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist


Similar Schools Decile Ranking.

It does not appear that principals’ self-perceived implementation level of

Transformational Leadership practices offers much predictive information about

their schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking. Zero-order and partial correlations

were considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the effects of possible

mediator or moderator variables. Examination of a zero-order and partial

correlations revealed that none of them was an individually significant predictor of

the Similar School Ranking (see Table 20).

Table 20

The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 Similar School

Rankings)

Predictors

Zero-Order

Controls All Other

Predictors

Model the Way .06 .05

Inspire a Shared Vision .04 .06

Challenge the Process -.07 -.19*

Enable Others to Act .13 .17

Encourage the Heart .02 -.02

Dependent variable: Similar School Ranking; *p < .05

Hypothesis 1B

At the middle school level, there is a strong positive relationship between

109

the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’


The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are

(1) Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process, (4)

Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. Middle school principals were

asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding


Leadership. Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for

this analysis.

A multiple regression analysis was conducted using one set of predictors to


with effective Transformational Leadership and the Similar Schools Decile

Rankings at the middle school level. The five categories of practices were the

independent variables for this analysis. The middle school Decile Ranking of the

principals’ respective schools was the dependent variable.



relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for

Type I Error (.05/15 =.003). The pair-wise correlation for Challenge the Process

and Inspire a Shared Vision was greater than .70. These two variables are strongly

related and may overinflate the relationship in the model. Table 21 summarizes the

pair-wise correlations.

110

Table 21



1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Similar Schools Ranking 2. Model the Way .20 -



5. Enable Others to Act .29* .43** .41** .48** -

6. Encourage the Heart .04 .57** .45** .56** .51** * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

The regression equation with all five categories of effective

Transformational Leadership showed a significant relationship to the Similar

Schools Decile Ranking, [R2

= .20, R2

adj = .13, F(5, 52) = 2.66, p = .03], which

accounts for 20% of the variance in school scores as measured by the Similar

Schools Ranking. The results of this analysis suggest that while the five categories

of Transformational Leadership have significant predictive power as a set,

examination of the zero-order and partial correlations revealed that only the

category of Enable Others to Act was an individually significant predictor of

Similar School Ranking (see Table 22).

111

Table 22


Rankings of Middle Schools)

Predictors

Zero-order

Controls All Other

Predictors

Model the Way .20 .06

Inspire a Shared Vision .06 -.00

Challenge the Process -.05 -.26


Encourage the Heart .04 -.13


Hypothesis 1C

At the high school level, there is a strong positive relationship between the

principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ Similar

Schools Decile Ranking for the 2012-2013 academic school year.



Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. High school principals were




this analysis.

A multiple regression analysis was conducted using one set of predictors

112

to determine if there is a relationship between five categories of practices

associated with effective Transformational Leadership and the Similar Schools

Decile Rankings at the high school level. The five categories of practices were

the independent variables for this analysis. The high school Decile Ranking of

the principals’ respective schools was the dependent variable.




Type I Error (.05/15 =.003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found,

so there was no need to omit any variables. Table 23 summarizes the pair-wise

correlations.

Table 23



1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Similar Schools Ranking - 2. Model the Way -.02 -



5. Enable Others to Act -.01 .56** .43** .58** -

6. Encourage the Heart .03 .66** .46** .53** .50** ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)


Leadership showed no significant relationship to the Similar Schools Decile

Ranking, [R2

= .04, R2

adj = -.03, F(5, 72) = .53, p = .75], which accounts for only

4% of the variance in school scores as measured by the similar schools ranking. The

113

results of this analysis suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist

between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the high

schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking.


Transformational Leadership practices offer much predictive information about the

high schools’ Similar Schools Decile Ranking. Zero-order and partial correlations




the similar school ranking (see Table 24).

Table 24


Rankings of High Schools)

Predictors

Zero-Order

Controls All Other

Predictors

Model the Way -.02 -.10

Inspire a Shared Vision .04 .14


Enable Others to Act -.01 .05

Encourage the Heart .03 .09


Hypothesis 1D

There is a strong positive relationship between principals’ level of

Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking for the 2011-2012

academic year.

114

The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are (1)

Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process, (4) Enable

Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. Middle school and high school principals




analysis.



with effective Transformational Leadership and the schools’ API scores. The five

categories of practices were the independent variables for this analysis. The 2011-

2012 API scores of the principals’ respective schools were the dependent variable.




Error (.05/15 =.003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so there

was no need to omit any variables. Table 25 summarizes the pair-wise correlations.

115

Table 25



1 2 3 4 5 6

1. 2011-2012 API Score

2. Model the Way

-

-.05

-

3. Inspire a Shared Vision -.05 .68** -



6. Encourage the Heart -.04 .63** .46** .54** .50**



Leadership showed no significant relationship to the 2011-2012 API scores,

[R2

= .007, R2

adj = -.03, F (5, 148) = .20, p = .96], which accounts for only .7% of the

variance in school scores as measured by the API scores. The results of this analysis

suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist between the principals’ level

of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ 2011-2012 API scores.


Transformational Leadership practices offer much predictive information about

the schools’ 2011-2012 API scores. Zero-order and partial correlations were

considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the effects of possible



API scores (see Table 26).

116

Table 26

The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2011-2012 API Scores)

Predictors

Zero-Order

Controls All Other

Predictors


Inspire a Shared Vision -.05 .12


Enable Others to Act -.04 .00

Encourage the Heart -.04 .01

Hypothesis 1E

There is a strong positive relationship between principals’ level of

Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking for the 2012-2013

academic year.



Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. High school and middle school

principals were asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application

regarding leadership practices associated with each category of effective

Transformational Leadership. Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category

was used for this analysis.



with effective Transformational Leadership and the 2012-2013 API scores. The five

117


2013 API scores of the principals’ respective schools were the dependent variable.




Type I Error (.05/15 =.003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found,

so there was no need to omit any variables. Table 27 summarizes the pair-wise

correlations.

Table 27



1 2 3 4 5 6

1. 2012-2013 API scores -

2. Model the Way -.05 -




6. Encourage the Heart -.04 .63** .46** .54** .50** **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)


Transformational Leadership showed no significant relationship to the 2012-2013

API scores, [R2

= .005, R2

adj = -.03, F(5, 148) = .16, p = .98], which accounts

for .5% of the variance in school scores as measured by the 2012-2013 API scores.

The results of this analysis suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist



118


Transformational Leadership practices offer much predictive information about their

schools’ 2012-2013 API scores. Zero-order and partial correlations were considered and

an Rp value was reported to examine the effect of possible mediator or moderator

variables. Examination of a zero-order and partial correlations revealed that none of them

were an individually significant predictor of the API scores (see Table 28).

Table 28

The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 API Scores)

Predictors

Zero-Order

Controls All Other

Predictors




Enable Others to Act -.05 -.01


Dependent Variable: 2012-2013 API Score; *p < .05

Hypothesis 1F

At the middle school level, there is a strong positive relationship between the

principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking

for the 2011-2012 academic year.

The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices are (1)

Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process, (4) Enable

Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. Middle school principals were asked

119

on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding leadership

practices associated with each category of effective Transformational Leadership.

Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for this analysis.



with effective Transformational Leadership and the middle school 2011-2012 API

scores. The five categories of practices were the independent variables for this

analysis. The 2011-2012 API scores of the principals’ respective schools were the

dependent variable.




Type I Error (.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were

found, so there was no need to omit any variables. Table 29 summarizes the pair-

wise correlations.

Table 29



1 2 3 4 5 6

1. 2011-2012 API scores - 2. Model the Way -.03 -





120


Leadership showed no significant relationship to the 2011-2012 API scores, [R2

= .02,

R2

adj = -.07, F (5, 55) = .22, p = .95], which accounts for only 2% of the variance in

school scores as measured by the 2011-2012 API scores. The results of this analysis

suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist between the middle school

principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ 2011-2012

API scores.



middle schools’ 2011-2012 API scores. Zero-order and partial correlations were

considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the effects of possible mediator

or moderator variables. Examination of a zero-order and partial correlations revealed

that none of them was an individually significant predictor of the API scores (see

Table 30).

Table 30

The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2011-2012 API Scores of

Middle Schools)

Predictors

Zero-Order

Controls

All Other

Predictors







121

Hypothesis 1G

At the middle school level, there is a strong positive relationship between

the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API

ranking for the 2012-2013 academic year.



Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. Middle school principals were




analysis.



with effective Transformational Leadership and the 2012-2013 API scores. The five


2013 API ranking of the middle school principals’ respective schools was the

dependent variable.




Error (.05/15 =.003). The pair-wise correlation for Challenge the Proces Inspire a

Shared Vision was greater than .70. These two variables are strongly related and

may overinflate the relationship in the model. Table 31 summarizes the

122

pair-wise correlations.

Table 31



1 2 3 4 5 6







Leadership showed no significant relationship to the 2012-2013 API scores,

[R2

= .025, R2

adj = -.06, F (5, 55) = 1.482, p = .92], which accounts for only 2.5% of

the variance in school scores as measured by the similar schools ranking. The results

of this analysis suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist between the

principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the middle schools’ 2012-

2013 API scores.



the middle schools’ 2012-2013 API scores. Zero-order and partial correlations



correlations revealed that none of them was an individually significant predictor

of the API scores (see Table 32).

123

Table 32


Middle Schools)

Predictors

Zero-Order

Controls All Other

Predictors







Hypothesis 1H


principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API ranking

for the 2011-2012 academic year.

The five categories of effective Transformational Leadership practices

are (1) Model the Way, (2) Inspire a Shared Vision, (3) Challenge the Process,

(4) Enable Others to Act, and (5) Encourage the Heart. High school principals




this analysis.



associated with effective Transformational Leadership and the 2011-2012 API

124


analysis. The 2011-2012 API scores of the high school principals’ respective

schools were the dependent variable.




Type I Error (05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were


wise correlations.

Table 33



1 2 3 4 5 6





6. Encourage the Heart -.09 .66** .46** .53** .50** ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)


Leadership showed no significant relationship to the 2011-2012 API scores, [R2

= .02,

R2

adj = -.04, F (5, 87) = .30, p = .91], which accounts for only 2% of the variance in

school scores as measured by the similar schools ranking. The results of this analysis

suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist between the principals’ level

of Transformational Leadership style and the high schools’ 2011-2012 API scores

125

.It does not appear that principals’ self-perceived implementation level of


high schools’ 2011-2012 API scores. Zero-order and partial correlations were

considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the effects of possible mediator

or moderator variables. Examination of a zero-order and partial correlations revealed

that none of them was an individually significant predictor of the API scores (see

Table 34).

Table 34


High Schools)

Predictors

Zero-Order

Controls All Other

Predictors





Encourage the Heart -.09 -.02

Dependent Variable: 2011-2012 API Score (High Schools); *p < .05

Hypothesis 1I


principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ API

ranking for the 2012-2013 academic year.



126





this analysis.



associated with effective Transformational Leadership and the 2012-2013 API


analysis. The 2012-2013 API scores of the principals’ respective schools was the

dependent variable.




Error (.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so

there was no need to omit any variables. Table 35 summarizes the pair-wise

correlations.

127

Table 35



1 2 3 4 5 6





6. Encourage the Heart -.09 .66** .46** .53** .50**



Transformational Leadership showed no significant relationship to the 2012-2013

API scores, [R2

= .02, R2 adj = -.04, F(5, 87) = .27, p = .93] which accounts for only

2% of the variance in school scores as measured by the similar schools ranking.

The results of this analysis suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist

between the principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the high

schools’ 2012-2013 API scores.



their schools’ 2012-2013 API scores. Zero-order and partial correlations were

considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the effects of possible


correlations revealed that none of them was an individually significant predictor

of the API scores (see Table 36).

128

Table 36

The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 API Scores

of High Schools)

Predictors

Zero-Order

Controls All Other

Predictors





Encourage the Heart -.09 -.01

Dependent variable: 2012-2013 API Scores; *p < .05

Hypothesis 1J


principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ percent of

students who passed the CAHSEE in mathematics for 2012-2013 academic school

year.




asked on a survey to indicate their perceived level of application regarding leadership

practices associated with each category of effective Transformational Leadership.

Each respondent’s cumulative score for each category was used for this analysis.



129

with effective Transformational Leadership and the CAHSEE pass rate in

mathematics. The five categories of practices were the independent variables for

this analysis. The CAHSEE pass rate in mathematics of the principals’ respective

schools was the dependent variable.

Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that no

two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the relationships in

the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type I Error

(.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so there was

no need to omit any variables. Table 37 summarizes the pair-wise correlation.

Table 37



1 2 3 4 5 6

1. High School CAHSEE - 2. Model the Way -.04 -






Leadership showed no significant relationship to the CAHSEE pass rates in

mathematics, [R2 = .02, R2adj = -.05, F (5, 79) = .24, p = .94], which accounts for only

2% of the variance in school scores as measured by the CAHSEE. The results of this

analysis suggest that a strong positive relationship does not exist between the

principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the high schools’ CAHSEE

130

pass rates in mathematics (see Table 38).

It does not appear that high school principals’ self-perceived

implementation level of Transformational Leadership practices offer much

predictive information about their schools’ CAHSEE pass rates in mathematics.

Zero-order and partial correlations were considered and an Rp value was reported to

examine the effects of possible mediator or moderator variables. Examination of a

zero-order and partial correlations revealed that none of them was an individually

significant predictor of the CAHSEE pass rates in mathematics.

Table 38

The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors (2012-2013 CAHSEE Pass

Rates in Mathematics)

Predictors

Zero-Order

Controls All Other

Predictors


Inspire a Shared Vision -.06 -.02




Dependent variable *p < .05

Hypothesis 1K


principals’ level of Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ percent of

students who passed the CAHSEE in English language arts (ELA) for 2012-2013

academic school year.

131







analysis.



with effective Transformational Leadership and the CAHSEE pass rate in English

language arts (ELA). The five categories of practices were the independent variables

for this analysis. The CAHSEE English language arts pass rate of the principals’

respective schools was the dependent variable.




Error (.05/15 =.003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so


correlations.

132

Table 39



1 2 3 4 5 6

1. High School CAHSEE - 2. Model the Way -.05 -






Transformational Leadership showed no significant relationship to the CAHSEE

pass rate in English language arts, [R2

= .01, R2

adj = -.05, F(5, 79) = .18, p = .97],

which accounts for only 1% of the variance in school scores as measured by the

CAHSEE pass rate in ELA. The results of this analysis suggest that a strong

positive relationship does not exist between the principals’ level of

Transformational Leadership style and the schools’ CAHSEE pass rate in ELA.



their high schools’ CAHSEE pass rates in English-language Arts. Zero-order and

partial correlations were considered and an Rp value was reported to examine the

effect of possible mediator or moderator variables. Examination of a zero-order

and partial correlations revealed that none of them was an individually significant

Predictor of CAHSEE pass rates in ELA (see Table 40).

133

Table 40


Rates in ELA)

Predictors

Zero-Order

Controls

All Other

Predictors






Dependent variable *p < .05


How do principals’ leadership practices differ between high performing

schools and low performing schools?

Hypothesis 2A

There is a difference in principals’ overall Transformational Leadership



Middle and high school principals were asked on a survey to indicate their

perceived level of application regarding leadership practices associated with

effective Transformational Leadership. Also, the respondents provided

demographic information about their respective schools.

Principals were placed into one of two groups for the statistical analysis.

Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2011-2012) were

placed in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API

134

(2011-2012) were placed in the other group. The mean cumulative survey

scores of two groups of principals based on their overall perceived level of

application of Transformation Leadership practices were compared using a t-test

for independent samples. The level of significance was set at .05. The results

showed no significant difference between the means. The results showed no

significant difference in principals’ overall Transformational Leadership practices

between high and low performing schools (see Table 41).

Table 41

Independent Samples t-test, Transformational Leadership and 2011-2012 API Scores

N Mean Standard

Deviation

t P

Low Performing 84 50.13 4.75 .255 .799

High Performing 70 49.94 4.46

Hypothesis 2B

There is a difference in principals’ overall Transformational Leadership









135


(2012-2013) were placed in the other group. The mean cumulative survey scores of

the two groups based on the principals’ overall perceived level of application of

Transformation Leadership practices were compared using a t-test for independent

samples. The level of significance was set at .05. The results showed no significant

difference between the means. The results showed no significant difference in

principals’ overall Transformational Leadership practices between high and low

performing schools (see Table 42).

Table 42

Independent Samples t-test, Transformational Leadership and 2012-2013

API Scores

N Mean Standard t P

Deviation

Low Performing 77 49.95 4.75 -.265 .791


Hypothesis 2C

There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Modeling

the Way category of Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they

lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-2012 API scores.





136




(2011-2012) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the two

groups based on the principals’ overall perceived level of application of

Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of Modeling the

Way were compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of

significance was set at .05. The results showed no significant difference between the

means. The results showed no significant difference in principals’ Transformational

Leadership practices between high and low performing schools (see Table 43).

Table 43

Independent Samples t-test, Model the Way and 2011-2012 API Scores

N Mean Standard

Deviation

t P

Low Performing 84 51.36 4.78 -.090 .929


Hypothesis 2D

There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Modeling

the Way category of Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they

lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2012-2013 API

scores.



137








Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of Modeling the

Way were compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of




Table 44

Independent Samples t-test, Model the Way and 2012-2013 API Scores

N Mean Standard

Deviation

t P

Low Performing 77 51.12 4.74 -.656 .513


Hypothesis 2E

There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Inspiring

a Shared Vision category of Transformational Leadership practices based on

whether they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-

2012 API scores.


138









Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of Inspiring a

Shared Vision were compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of




Table 45

Independent Samples t-test, Inspire a Shared Vision and 2011-2012 API Scores

N Mean Standard

Deviation

t P

Low Performing 84 48.71 6.92 .300 .764


Hypothesis 2F

There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Inspiring

a Shared Vision category of Transformational Leadership practices based on


139

2013 API scores.










Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of Inspiring a

Shared Vision were compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of




Table 46

Independent Samples t-test, Inspire a Shared Vision and 2012-2013 API Scores

N Mean Standard

Deviation

t P

Low Performing 77 48.51 6.55 -.107 .915


Hypothesis 2G

There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s

140

Challenging the Process practices category of Transformational Leadership based on


2012 API scores.










Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of Challenging the

Process were compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of




Table 47

Independent Samples t-test, Challenge the Process and 2011-2012 API Scores

N Mean Standard

Deviation

t P

Low Performing 84 48.04 6.90 .341 .733


141

Hypothesis 2H

There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Challenge

the Process category of Transformational Leadership practices based on whether they

lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2012-2013 API scores.






Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2012-2013) were placed

in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API (2012-

2013) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the two groups

based on the principals’ perceived level of application of Transformation Leadership

practices associated with the category of Challenge the Process were compared using

a t-test for independent samples. The level of significance was set at .05. The results

showed no significant difference between the means. The results showed no

significant difference in principals’ Transformational Leadership practices between

high and low performing schools (see Table 48).

142

Table 48

Independent Samples t-test, Challenge the Process and 2012-2013 API Scores

N Mean Standard

Deviation

t P

Low Performing 77 47.88 6.73 .013 .990


Hypothesis 2I

There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Enabling

Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership practices based on whether

they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2011-2012 API

scores.









groups based on the principals’ perceived level of application of Transformation

Leadership practices associated with the category of Enabling Others to Act were

compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of significance was set

143

at .05. The results showed no significant difference between the means. The results

showed no significant difference in principals’ Transformational Leadership

practices between high and low performing schools (see Table 49).

Table 49

Independent Samples t-test, Enable Others to Act and 2011-2012 API Scores

N Mean Standard

Deviation

t P

Low Performing 84 53.11 3.56 .193 .847


Hypothesis 2J

There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s Enabling

Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership practices based on whether

they lead high performing schools or low performing schools using 2012-2013 API

scores.










144

Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of Enabling

Others to Act were compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of




Table 50

Independent Samples t-test, Enable Others to Act and 2012-2013 API Scores

N Mean Standard

Deviation

t P

Low Performing 77 53.04 3.37 -.042 .967


Hypothesis 2K

There is a difference in principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s

Encouraging the Heart practices based on whether they lead high performing








placed in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the

API (2011-2012) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the

145

two groups based on the principals’ perceived level of application of

Transformation Leadership practices associated with the category of

Encouraging the Heart were compared using a t-test for independent samples.

The level of significance was set at .05. The results showed no significant

difference between the means. The results showed no significant difference in

principals’ Transformational Leadership practices between high and low

performing schools (see Table 51).

Table 51

Independent Samples t-test, Encourage the Heart and 2011-2012 API Scores

N Mean Standard

Deviation

t P

Low Performing 84 49.45 6.99 .204 .839


Hypothesis 2L

There is a difference in the principals’ use of Kouzes and Posner’s

Encouraging the Heart category of Transformational Leadership practices based on


2013 API scores.






146

Principals of schools that scored at or above 800 on the API (2012-2013) were placed

in one group and principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API (2012-

2013) were placed in the other group. The mean survey scores of the two groups

based on the principals’ overall perceived level of application of Transformation

Leadership practices associated with the category of Encouraging the Heart were

compared using a t-test for independent samples. The level of significance was set

at .05. The results showed no significant difference between the means. The results

showed no significant difference in principals’ Transformational Leadership practices

high and low performing schools (see Table 52).

Table 52

Independent Samples t-test, Encourage the Heart and 2012-2013 API Scores

N Mean Standard

Deviation

t P

Low Performing 77 49.18 7.08 -.309 .758





Hypothesis 3A

The percent of students receiving free and reduced price meals, the



2011-2012 API ranking, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational

147






A multiple regression analysis using two ordered sets of predictors was

conducted to determine how much of the Transformational Leadership practiced by

principals who responded to the survey contributed to the 2011-2012 API scores of

their respective schools after controlling for demographic factors. The first set

consisted of one predictor, Transformational Leadership (as a single variable),

practiced by the principals who responded to the survey. The second set of predictors

included four factors that included (1) student participation in the free and reduced

price meals program, (2) utilization of instructional coaches, (3) presence of


Correlation coefficients were compared across the variables to ensure that no

two variables were so strongly related that they might overinflate the relationships

in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type I Error

(.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so there was

no need to omit any variables. Table 53 summarizes the pair-wise correlations.

148

Table 53

Pair-Wise Correlations of Transformational Leadership Practices and Other factors

Included in Multiple Regression Analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. 2011-2012 API scores -

2. Transformational

Leadership -.05 -

3. Participation in Free and

Reduced Price Meals -.16 -.06 -

4. Utilization of

Instructional Coaches -.38 -.00 -.04 -

5. Presence of

Professional Learning

Communities

-.35 .02 -.00 .37 -

6. Students Per Computer .08 .07 .05 -.08 -.03

As a separate set, the perceived leadership style of the principals did not

significantly explain performance on the 2011-2012 API scores of the principals’

respective schools, [R2 = .002, F (1, 149) =.325, p = .57]. The other factors

significantly explained performance on the API scores [R2 change = .23,

F (4, 145) = 10.667, p < .01]. While the other four factors had significant predictor

power as a set, examination of the zero-order and partial correlations revealed that

three of the four were individually significant predictors of the 2011-2012 API scores.

The factors of student participation in the free and reduced price meal program,

utilization of instructional coaches and presence of professional learning communities

each had a significant negative correlation to API scores (see Table 54).

149

Table 54

The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors with 2011-2012 API Scores

Predictors

Zero-Order

Controls

All Other

Predictors

Transformational Leadership -.05 -.07

Participation in Free

and Reduced Price Meals -.16 -.20

Utilization of Instructional Coaches -.38 -.29

Presence of Professional Learning

Communities -.35 -.25

Students Per Computer .08 .07

Hypothesis 3B



communities, and the use of technology each contributed to schools’ 2012-2013

API ranking, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational Leadership

practices.







principals who responded to the survey contributed to the 2012-2013 API scores of

150

their respective schools after controlling for other factors. The first set consisted of

one predictor, Transformational Leadership (as a single variable), practiced by the

principals who responded to the survey. The second set of predictors included four

factors: (1) student participation in the free and reduced price meal program, (2)

utilization of instructional coaches, (3) presence of professional learning

communities, and (4) students per computer.



relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type

I Error (.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so


correlations.

151

Table 55

Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and other Factors

Included in Multiple Regression Analysis

1. 2012-2013 API scores 2. Transformational

Leadership

3. Participation in Free

and Reduced Price Meals

4. Utilization of Instructional

Coaches

5. Presence of Professional

Learning Communities

6. Students Per Computer


significantly explain performance on the 2012-2013 API scores of the principals’

respective schools [R2 = .002, F (1, 149) = .298, p = .59]. The other factors

significantly explained performance on the API scores [R2 change = .24, F (4, 145) =

11.277, p < .01]. While the other four factors had significant predictor power as a set,

examination of the zero-order and partial correlations revealed that three of the four

were individually significant predictors of the 2012-2013 API scores. The factors of

student participation in the free and reduced price meal program, utilization of

instructional coaches and presence of professional learning communities each had a

significant negative correlation to API scores (see Table 56).

1

2

3

4

5

6

-

-.05 -

-.17 -.06 -

-.37 -.00 -.04 -

-.37 .02 -.00 .37 -

.08 .07 .05 -.08 -.03

152

Table 56

The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors with 2012-13 API Scores

Predictors

Controls All Other

Zero-Order Predictors








Hypothesis 3C

The percent of students receiving free and reduced price meals, the utilization

of instructional coaches, the presence of professional learning communities, and the

students per computer each contributed to the percent of students who pass the

CAHSEE in mathematics, above and beyond the principals’ Transformational








principals who responded to the survey contributed to the CAHSEE pass rates in

mathematics of their respective schools after controlling for demographic factors.

153

The first set consisted of one predictor, Transformational Leadership (as a single

variable), practiced by the principals who responded to the survey. The second set of

predictors included four demographic factors: (1) student participation in the free and

reduced price lunch program, (2) utilization of instructional coaches, (3) presence of

professional learning communities, and (4) students per computer.



relationships in the model. A Bonferroni approach was applied to control for Type

I Error (.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were found, so

there was no need to omit any variables (see Table 57).

Table 57

Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and Other

Factors Included in Multiple Regression Analysis

1. 2012-2013 CAHSEE

2. Transformational

Leadership



4. Utilization of Instructional

Coaches



6. Students Per Computer

1 2 3 4 5 6

-

-.03 -

-.04 -.02 -

-.42 -.01 -.10 -

-.46 .11 -.06 .42 -

.07 -.20 .18 -.04 -.01

154


significantly explain performance regarding the percent of students who passed the

CAHSEE in mathematics at their respective schools [R2 = .001, F (1, 81) =.068,

p = .795]. The other factors significantly explained performance regarding the percent

of students who passed the CAHSEE in mathematics [R2 change = .28,

F (4, 77) = 7.594, p < .01]. While the four factors had significant predictor power as a

set, examination of the zero-order and partial correlations revealed that two of the

four were individually significant predictors regarding the percent of students who

passed the CAHSEE in mathematics. The factors of utilization of instructional

coaches and presence of professional learning communities each had a significant

negative correlation to the percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in

mathematics (see Table 58).

Table 58


Rates in Mathematics)

Predictors

Controls All Other


Transformational Leadership -.03 .02







155

Hypothesis 3D



communities, and the students per computer each contributed to the percent of

students who pass the CAHSEE in English language arts (ELA), above and beyond

the principals’ Transformational Leadership practices.







principals who responded to the survey contributed to the percent of students who

passed the CAHSEE in English language arts (ELA) at their respective schools after

controlling for other factors. The first set consisted of one predictor,

Transformational Leadership (as a single variable), practiced by the principals who

responded to the survey. The second set of predictors included four factors that

included: (1) student participation in the free and reduced price meal program, (2)

utilization of instructional coaches, (3) presence of professional learning

communities, and (4) students per computer.



156


Type I Error (.05/15 = .003). No pair-wise correlations greater than .70 were


wise correlations.

Table 59

Pair-Wise Correlations for Transformational Leadership Practices and Other

Factors Included in Multiple Regression Analysis

e


significantly explain performance regarding the percent of students who passed the

CAHSEE in English language arts at their respective schools [R2 = .005,

F (1, 81) =.432, p = .513]. The other factors significantly explained performance on

the percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in English language arts

[R2 change = .234, F (4, 77) = 5.933, p < .01]. While the other four factors had

significant predictor power as a set, examination of the zero-order and partial

correlations revealed that two of the four were individually significant predictors of

the percent of students who passed the CAHSEE in English language arts. The factors

of utilization of instructional coaches and presence of professional learning

1. 2012-2013 CAHSEE

2. Transformational

Leadership



4. Utilization of InstructionalCoach

1 2 3 4 5 6

-

-.07 -

-.08 .02 -

s -.42 -.01 -.10 -



-.37

.11

-.06

.42

-

6. Students Per Computer .06 -.20 .18 -.04 -.01

157

communities each had a significant negative correlation to the percent of students

who passed the CAHSEE in English language arts (see Table 60).

Table 60


Rates in ELA)

Predictors

Controls All Other









Summary

This study involved the testing of 27 hypotheses to determine whether

relationships and differences exist between the self-perceived Transformational

Leadership practices of principals and student academic achievement. A series of

multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to address the first research

question and its respective hypotheses; independent samples t-tests were performed

to address the second research question and its respective hypotheses, and a series of

multiple linear regression analyses were performed to address the third research

question and its respective hypotheses. Implications of these results will be discussed

in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

Chapter V summarizes this dissertation and synthesizes its findings to

determine the effects of self-perceived Transformational Leadership practices of

principals on student academic achievement. The results of this study may help in the

determination of whether effective school leadership practices improve student

performance on standardized exams in California. The chapter begins by presenting a

summary of this study. Next, this researcher responds to the three research questions.

The results of the quantitative tests are discussed in relationship to current research

and the implications for Transformational Leadership and student academic

achievement. Finally, this researcher offers recommendations for further study.

Summary

The NCLB Act of 2002 renewed the call for increased accountability,

standardized testing, and closing of the achievement gap from kindergarten through

high school (NCLB, 2002). Academic success is typically determined by how well

students perform on standardized tests. The increased accountability of school

principals prompted the examination of innovative ways to raise student test scores.

Kline and Saunders (1993) stated that principals must stay informed of innovative

approaches to make a difference in student achievement. In fact, many believe that

school principals are essential players in school reform efforts to boost student

158

159

academic achievement (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2000; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a). It is

through this understanding that educational researchers have begun studying the

specific leadership styles of principals who have made a genuine difference in school

effectiveness and student achievement (Gordon, 2011). Scholars have viewed the

challenge of improving student achievement through effective school leadership

(Marzano et al., 2005).



academic achievement. The results may benefit a wide array of educational

stakeholders such as school board members and superintendents regarding the

selection and retention of principals. Other possible contributions of this study

include the potential to influence administrative practices, principal training, and

leadership development programs. Also, this study may be used to identify the

professional development needs of principals or highlight best practices. Ultimately,

the students may benefit academically from better-trained principals.

The behaviors of the principal vary according to the extent of their work

responsibilities. School principals have become instructional leaders, focusing on

raising student achievement (Butler, 2008). Studies presented in Chapter II have

shown that educational leaders in California may be able to raise the academic

performance of teachers by improving the administrators’ practices on improving

student achievement. However, few studies show the degree to which the leadership

styles of school principals and other factors affect student achievement. This study

160

attempted to bridge this gap in the literature by responding to three research

questions: (1) What impact do the school principals’ level of Transformational

Leadership practices have on student academic achievement? (2) How do the

principals’ leadership practices differ between high performing schools and low

performing schools? and (3) how do other factors beyond the Transformational

Leadership style of principals’ impact academic achievement?

The population included 3,622 middle and high school principals in

California. One hundred and fifty-four principals responded to the LPI survey.

Leadership practices were measured using the Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI), a

self-administered, 30-question (10-point Likert-type scale) instrument. This particular

assessment was used since it is widely endorsed in the literature (Leong, 1995).

Academic Performance Index (API) scores were retrieved from the California

Department of Education website. Multiple regressions were used to determine if

Transformational Leadership is predictive of student academic achievement.

Independent sample t-tests were used to determine whether differences exist in

Transformational Leadership practices between principals of high performing schools

and principals of low performing schools and multiple regressions were used to

determine if the use of instructional coaches, presence of professional learning

communities, percent of students eligible for free and reduced price meals, and the

number of students per computer are indicative of student academic achievement over

and above Transformational Leadership. IBM Statistical Package for the Social

161

Sciences (SPSS) 22.0 was the statistical tool used in analyzing the data. All analyses

were conducted at the .05 level of significance.

Conclusions




The first research question was analyzed through multiple regressions that

tested 11 hypotheses. The independent variable included the five categories of

effective Transformational Leadership while the dependent variable was student

academic achievement. Student academic achievement was measured through the

Similar Schools Decile Ranking, API, and the percentage of students who passed the

California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) in mathematics and English

language arts (ELA) for various years.

The results suggest that Transformational Leadership has no significant

impact on student academic achievement as measured by the Similar Schools Decile

Ranking, API, or the percentage of students who pass the CAHSEE exams in

mathematics and ELA. However, the results of one multiple regression suggest that

the Enabling Others to Act category of Transformational Leadership influenced

middle school student achievement as measured by the Similar Schools Decile

Ranking.

Kouzes and Posner (2007) stated that a good transformational leader should

enable others to follow them willingly through team spirit, trust, and strong

162

relationships. Educational staff should be included in decision making (Cotton, 2003).

By allowing teachers to make their own choices and receive support for the choices

they make, principals may help teachers create an effective learning environment for

middle school students which translates to higher academic achievement.

This study corroborated the findings of Beaver (2011), Crain (2010),

Di Vincenzo (2008), Dorward (2009), Estapa (2009), Gulbin (2008), Starcher (2006),

and Stobaugh (2003) that showed Transformational Leadership had no effect on

student academic achievement. Gulbin (2008) conducted a study to examine the

relationship between Transformational Leadership and student academic

achievement. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated no relationship between the

Leithwood model of Transformational Leadership and achievement in mathematics

(r = .01, p = .96), reading (r = .01, p = .96), attendance (r = -.46, p = .13), or 4-year

graduation rates (r = .07, p = .48). Dorward (2009) studied the relationship between

the Transformational Leadership behavior of principals and change in student

academic performance. Findings suggested no correlation between the

Transformational Leadership scores attributed to participating principals and changes

in the percentage of students in their schools that achieved mastery on the

standardized tests. The results of the study conducted by Crain (2010) found no

significant relationship between perceived effectiveness and flexibility of the

principals and the dependent variable, student achievement (R2 = .035, p = .351).

Beaver (2011) conducted quantitative research to examine the relationship between

student achievement and leadership styles demonstrated by school principals. Beaver

163

(2011) used the Bolman and Deal Leadership Orientations Instrument (Self) and

found no significant effect was found [F (16, 484) = .627, p = .863]. There was no

significant relationship between the leadership frames collectively and student

achievement. Starcher (2006) conducted a study to determine if a significant

relationship existed between each of Kouzes and Posner’s five categories of

Transformational Leadership and student achievement in mathematics and reading.

The results yielded no significance between the five categories and student

achievement in both mathematics and reading. Stobaugh (2003) conducted a study to

investigate teacher-perceived leadership of principals in Kentucky by examining

relationships between different forms of leadership and student outcomes.

Transformational Leadership did not significantly relate to standardized test scores,

[R2= .03, F (1, 35) = 2.09, p = .16].




The second research question was tested using independent samples t-tests on

12 hypotheses. The principals were placed into one of two groups. Principals of

schools that scored at or above 800 on the API were placed in one group and

principals of schools that scored less than 800 on the API were placed in the other

group. The mean scores of the two groups based on the principals’ overall perceived

level of application of Transformation Leadership practices as well as their scores in

each of the five categories of Transformational Leadership were compared using a t-

164

test for independent samples. The level of significance was set at .05. The results of

the independent samples t-tests suggest there are no significant differences overall

regarding the perceived application of effective Transformational Leadership

practices between principals of high and principals of low performing schools in

terms of API.

The failure to accept all the hypotheses for the second research question may

indicate that the perceived leadership practices of principals has no impact on how

well a school generally fares on standardized tests. Hill (2011) showed that a

principal’s leadership practices did not affect the performance of schools or of their

students significantly, for neither high performing nor underperforming schools.

(Benkovitz, 2008a) argued that how well schools perform was not dependent

on the leadership practices employed but on several demographic factors that

included socioeconomic status and race. Generally, students who were poorer and

were not White performed worse than their richer and White peers. Benkovitz

(2008a) said that schools that put more emphasis on academics generally had better-

performing students regardless of both leadership practices and socioeconomic

factors. The results corroborated Benkovitz’s conclusion that leadership practices do

not play a role in determining whether a school has students who excel academically.

Regardless of what leadership practice a principal employs, what is important is the

vision and direction of the school focuses on increasing the chances of students

excelling academically.

165


How do other factors beyond the Transformational Leadership style of

principals impact academic achievement?

Multiple regressions were conducted to determine how much of the self-

perceived Transformational Leadership practiced by principals who responded to the

survey and other factors contributed to API scores and CAHSEE pass rates of their

respective schools. The first set consisted of one predictor, Transformational

Leadership (as a single variable), practiced by the principals who responded to the

survey. The second set of predictors included four other factors that included (1)

student participation in the free and reduced price meal program, (2) utilization of

instructional coaches, (3) presence of professional learning communities, and (4)

number of students per computer. As a separate set, the perceived Transformational

Leadership style of the principals did not significantly explain the 2011-2012 and the

2012-2013 API scores of the principals’ respective schools. However, the factors

other than Transformational Leadership significantly explained performance on API

scores. Although all four factors had predictive power as a set, the examination of the

zero-order and partial correlations revealed three individually significant predictors of

the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 API scores. These were student participation in the free

and reduced price meal program, utilization of instructional coaches and the presence

of professional learning communities. all four factors had predictive power as a set,

the examination of the zero-order and partial correlations revealed two individually

significant predictors of the 2012-2013 CASHEE scores. These were utilization of

166

instructional coaches and the presence of professional learning communities.

Implications

The results of the study failed to champion the cause of Transformational

Leadership and its effects on student academic achievement. However, it should be

noted that the scope of the study involved 154 principals in California. Since the

sample population hardly represented the entire principal population in California, the

results should not be generalized to the entire population. Results may be different if

the same set of parameters and hypotheses were tested across a larger geographic

region. Broadening the sample size serves as a recommendation for additional

research on Transformational Leadership.

Recommendations for Further Research

The scope and limitations of the study gave particular focus on middle schools

and high schools in California. It would be insightful for future researchers to widen

the scope of this study by analyzing more schools across a larger geographical region

or delve into the effects of leadership across a wide array of educational institutions.

This researcher recommends the following:

1. Conduct a study that uses different measurements of academic achievement or

school effectiveness.

2. Conduct a mixed-methods case study that gathers insight from the principals on

how they perceive their leadership style affects student academic achievement.

3. Conduct a study to examine the use of leadership components that effectively

train coaches and mentors of new principals.

167

4. Conduct a study to compare principals’ self-perceived Transformational

Leadership practices with the perceptions of teachers regarding their principals’

application of Transformational Leadership.

5. Replicate this study using different instruments, such as the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) or Bolman and Deal Leadership

Orientations Instrument (Self).

6. Replicate this study using a large sample size across a broader region.

REFERENCES

169

REFERENCES

Adams, K. L., & Hambright, W. G. (2005). Helping teachers become

transformational leaders. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(2), 90-93

Anderson, G. L. (2004). William foster’s legacy: Learning from the past and

reconstructing the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(2), 240-

258. doi: 10.1177/0013161x03261225

Arrington, C. B. (2010). The relationship between transformational leadership and

instructional coaching. (Ph.D. 3446173), Auburn University, United States --

Alabama. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social

Sciences Collection database.

Aud, S., Hussar, W., & Kena, G. (2012). The condition of education 2012: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K.

(2011). The condition of education 2011. Nces 2011-033. National Center for

Education Statistics

Avolio, Bass, & Jung. (1999a). Re-examining the components of transformational

and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462

Avolio, Bass, & Jung. (1999b). Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462

170

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (mlq). Mind

Garden

Balyer, A. (2012). Transformational leadership behaviors of school principals: A

qualitative research based on teachers’ perceptions. International Online

Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 581-591

Barnes, J. K. (2011). Leadership styles of principals in successful middle schools in

tennessee (Ed.D. 3490934), Lincoln Memorial University, United States --

Tennessee. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social


Bartlett, J. C. (2008). Principal leadership practices: A correlation study of specific

instructional leadership practices and student achievement on the Tennessee

Gateway Tests. (3297430 Ed.D.), Liberty University, United States --

Virginia. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and

Social Sciences Collection database.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York,

London: Free Press; Collier Macmillan.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to

share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992

and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5)

171

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Mlq multifactor leadership questionnaire .

Redwood City. CA: Mind Garden

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2005). Transformational leadership: Psychology Press.

Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1989). Transformational leaders know themselves

better: DTIC Document.

Beaver, H. O. (2011). The relationship between situational leadership and student

achievement. (3455428 Ph.D.), The University of Southern Mississippi, Ann

Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social


Benkovitz, J. (2008a). Schools of excellence and equity: Closing achievement gaps

through academic emphasis. (Ed.D. 3310962), The University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States -- North Carolina. ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection

database.

Benkovitz, J. (2008b). Schools of excellence and equity: Closing achievement gaps

through academic emphasis: ProQuest.

Bennis, W. G., & Townsend, R. (1995). Reinventing leadership: Strategies to

empower the organization (1st ed.). New York: Morrow.

172

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher

development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly,

35(3), 349-378. doi: 10.1177/0013161x99353003

Blase, J., & Blase, J. R. (1994). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do.

CA: corwin.

Breaker, J. L. (2009). Transformational leadership and the leadership performance of

oregon secondary school principals (Ed.D. 3383803), Seattle University,

United States -- Washington. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The

Humanities and Social Sciences Collection database.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Butler, K. (2008). Principal preparation programs. District Administration, 44(10),

66-70

Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic

status on individual academic achievement. The Journal of Educational

Research, 90(5), 269-269

California Department of Education. (2013). Standardized testing and reporting (star).

Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/

Chin, J. M.-C. (2007). Meta-analysis of transformational school leadership effects on

school outcomes in taiwan and the USA (transformational). Asia Pacific

Education Review, 8(2), 166-177

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/

173

Cook, J. W. (2011). Examining leadership styles in ten high poverty elementary

schools. (Ph.D. 3454918), Loyola University Chicago, United States --

Illinois. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social


Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says.

Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cotton, K., & Savard, W. G. (1980). The principal as instructional leader. Research

on School Effectiveness Project: Topic Summary Report.

Crain, F. S. (2010). The effect of leadership style on student achievement in Title I

elementary schools. (Ed.D. 3411203), Louisiana Tech University, United

States -- Louisiana. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and


Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide

for educators of adults (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. T. (2007). Preparing

school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership

development programs. School leadership study. Executive summary.

Stanford Educational Leadership Institute

De Pree, M. (1997). Leading without power : Finding hope in serving community (1st

ed.). San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.

174

Di Vincenzo, R. J. (2008). School leadership and its relation to school performance

(lpi-no impact). (D.M. 3323345), University of Phoenix, United States --

Arizona. ABI/INFORM Complete; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The

Humanities and Social Sciences Collection database.

Dorward, P. N. (2009). A study of the relationship between principal leadership style

and student achievement (mlq). (Ph.D. 3350024), Capella University, United

States -- Minnesota. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and


Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the

revolutionary process. New York: Free Press.

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a "professional learning community"? Educational

Leadership, 61(8), 6-11

Ed-Data. (2011-2012). Fiscal, demographic, and performance data on California k-12

schools. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://www.ed-

data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layout

s/EdDataClassic/profile.asp?Tab=1&level=04&reportNumber=16

ED-Data. (2012-2013). Fiscal, demographic, and performance data on California k-12

schools.

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

Shanker Institute Washington, DC.

175

Estapa, A. L. (2009). The relationship between the transformational leadership

characteristics of principals, as perceived by teachers, and student

achievement on standardized tests. (Ph.D. 3378413), Capella University,

United States -- Minnesota. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities

and Social Sciences Collection database.

Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-

life problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Faitar, G. M. (2011). Socioeconomic status, ethnicity and the context of achievement

in minority education. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 5, 1-8

Feinberg, B. J., Ostroff, C., & Burke, W. W. (2005). The role of within‐group agreement in understanding transformational leadership. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(3), 471-488

Freedberg, L. (2010). Number of failing schools in California increases dramatically.

Retrieved from http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/number-failing-schools-

california-increases-dramatically-4684

Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8),

581

Gallos, J. V. (2008). Making sense of organizations: Leadership, frames, and

everyday theories of the situation. Business Leadership: A Jossey-Bass

reader, 161-179

http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/number-failing-schools-

176

Gamble, P. C. (2009). The relationship between principals' leadership styles and

student achievement that meet adequate yearly progress goals. (Ed.D.

3370939), University of Phoenix, United States -- Arizona. ProQuest


database.

Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G. J., & Burns, J. M. (2004). Encyclopedia of leadership.

Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Goleman, D. (2006). The socially intelligent leader. Educational Leadership, 64(1),

76-81

Gordon, P. J. (2011). Achievement spirals: Understanding academic achievement

differences in an urban school. (Ph.D. 3481804), Rutgers The State University

of New Jersey - Newark, United States -- New Jersey. ProQuest Dissertations

& Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection database.

Gray, S. P., & Streshly, W. A. (2008). From good schools to great schools: What

their principals do well. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Greb, W. (2011). Principal leadership and student achievement: What is the effect of

transformational leadership in conjunction with instructional leadership on

student achievement? (3468985 Ph.D.), Marian University, United States --

Wisconsin. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and


177

Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff

job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of

Educational Administration, 42(3), 333-356

Gulbin, K. M. (2008). Transformational leadership: Is it a factor for improving

student achievement in high poverty secondary schools in pennsylvania? .

(D.Ed. 3303551), Indiana University of Pennsylvania, United States --

Pennsylvania. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social


Gulek, J. C., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop

use on student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and

Assessment, 3(2), 1-39

Haggard, R. L. (2008). The instructional leadership practices of principals in K-8

schools and their impact on student learning outcomes. (Ed.D. 3329704),

California State University, Fresno and University of California, Davis,

United States -- California. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities


Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A., & Kepner, K. (2002). Transformational leadership:

The transformation of managers and associates. Retrieved august 3, 2006.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of

instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of

education, 33(3), 329-352

178

Hallinger, P., & McCary, C. E. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of

instructional leaders. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 89-108

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1987). Assessing and developing principal

instructional leadership. Educational leadership, 45(1), 54-61

Hamzah, M., Yakop, F., Nordin, N., & Raahman, S. (2011). School as learning

organisation: The role of principal's transformational leadership in promoting

teacher engagement. World Applied Sciences, 14(Special Issue of Innovation

and Pedagogy for Diverse Learners), 58-63

Harris, A. (2003). Effective leadership for school improvement. London; New York:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Hill, A. (2011). The impact of leadership practices on the academic achievement of

elementary students in satisfactory schools and unsatisfactory schools in

georgia. (Ed.D. 3489195), South Carolina State University, United States --

South Carolina. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social


Huber, Maas, McCloskey, Goode, & Watson. (2000). Evaluating nursing

administration instruments. Journal of Nursing Adminstration, 30(5), 251-272

Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). Why do high-poverty schools have difficulty staffing their

classrooms with qualified teachers? : Center for American Progress, Institute

for America's Future.

179

Johnson, R. L., II. (2004). A study of instructional leadership behaviors of principals

and student achievement. (3149147 Ed.D.), University of Virginia, Ann

Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social


Kline, P., & Saunders, B. (1993). Ten steps to a learning organization. Arlington,

Va.: Great Ocean Publishers.

Knab, D. K. (1998). Comparison of the leadership practices of principals of blue

ribbon schools with principals of randomly selected schools. (Ph.D.), United

States -- District of Columbia. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The

Humanities and Social Sciences Collection database. (9826676)

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting

extraordinary things done in organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003a). Encouraging the heart: A leader's guide to

rewarding and recognizing others (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003b). The Jossey-Bass academic administrator's

guide to exemplary leadership (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006). A leader's legacy (1st ed.). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

180

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2010). The truth about leadership: The no-fads,

heart-of-the-matter facts you need to know (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2011). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why

people demand it. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make

extraordinary things happen in organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Kurland, H., Peretz, H., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010). Leadership style and

organizational learning: The mediate effect of school vision Journal of

Educational Administration, 48(1), 7-30. doi: 10.1108/09578231011015395

Lake, R. J., Hill, P. T., O'Toole, L., & Celio, M. B. (1999). Making standards work:

Active voices, focused learning: Center on Reinventing Public Education, UW

Graduate School of Public Affairs.

Larsen, T. J. (1984). Identification of instructional leadership behavior and the

impact of their implementation on academic achievement (effective schools,

high achieving schools; Los Angeles county, California). (Educat.D.

8508956), University of Colorado at Boulder, United States -- Colorado.

181

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences

Collection database.

Lea, P. G. (2011). High school principal leadership and student achievement: The

effects of transformational leadership on the illinois prairie state achievement

examination (Ph.D. 3457284), Capella University, United States -- Minnesota.

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences


Lee, J. (2005). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 655-672

Leithwood, K. (1993). Contributions of transformational leadership to school

restructuring. ERIC, 58. doi: ED367061

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518. doi:

10.1177/0013161x94030004006

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1995). Toward an explanation of how teachers'

perceptions of transformational school leadership are formed. ED386785

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999a). The relative effects of principal and teacher

sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 679-706. doi: 10.1177/0013161x99355002

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999b). Transformational school leadership effects: A

replication. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 10(4), 451-479

182

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership

research 1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199

Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school

leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423. doi:

10.1177/0013161x11436268

Leong, F. (1995). Review of the leadership practices inventory. The twelfth mental

measurements yearbook, 555-556

Long, C. N. (2008). A comparison of student achievement between Missouri

professional learning community project participants and non-participants.

(Ed.D. 3330538), Liberty University, United States -- Virginia. ProQuest


database.

Lopez, S. (2011). Shaking up the status quo in Los Angeles schools. Retrieved from

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/06/local/la-me-1106-lopez-schools-

20111106

Marks, H. M., & Nance, J. P. (2007). Contexts of accountability under systemic

reform: Implications for principal influence on instruction and supervision.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 3-37

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance:

An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. doi: 10.1177/0013161x03253412



183

Marzano, Waters, & McNulty. (2005). School leadership that works: From research

to results. Alexandria, VA.

Maxwell, J. C. (2002). Leadership 101. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Maxwell, J. C. (2007). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership workbook: Follow them

and people will follow you (Rev. and updated 10th anniversary ed.). Nashville,

Tenn.: Thomas Nelson.

Maxwell, J. C. (2011). The five levels of leadership : Proven steps to maximize your

potential (1st ed.). New York: Center Street.

McConney, A., & Perry, L. B. (2010). Socioeconomic status, self-efficacy, and

mathematics achievement in australia: A secondary analysis. Educational

Research for Policy & Practice, 9(2), 77-91

McNeil, M. (2012). Waiver plans would scrap parts of nclb. EdWeek, 31, 28-29.

Merriam-Webster Inc. (2011). Merriam-Webster's collegiate encyclopedia.

Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster.

Minus, E. L. (2010). Leading in the middle: Leadership behaviors of middle level

principals that promote student achievement. (Ed.D. 3397616), The George

Washington University, United States -- District of Columbia. ProQuest


database.

Moller, S., Mickelson, R. A., Stearns, E., Banerjee, N., & Bottia, M. C. (2013).

Collective pedagogical teacher culture and mathematics achievement:

184

Differences by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Sociology of

Education, 86(2), 174-194. doi: 10.1177/0038040712472911

Mosbacker, B. L. (2005). An investigation of technology and school leadership in

Christian schools in the United States (Ed.D. 3161849), The University of

North Carolina at Charlotte, United States -- North Carolina. ProQuest


database.

Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership : Creating a compelling sense of direction for

your organization (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2001). Leading learning

communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do.

Alexandria, VA: Collaborate.

National Center for Children in Poverty. (2011). Child poverty in United States.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010). The nation's report card.

NCES. (2010). Digest of educaiton statistics, 2010 (nces 2011-015). Retrieved May

26, 2012, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=147

NCLB. (2002). No child left behind act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education

Nord, C., Roey, S., Perkins, R., Lyons, M., Lemanski, N., Brown, J., & Schuknecht,

J. (2011). The nation’s report card: America’s high school graduates (nces

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=147

185

2011-462). Washington, dc: Us department of education. National Center for

Education Statistics

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

Calif.: Sage Publications.

Northouse, P. G. (2009). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. Los

Angeles: Sage Publications.

OECD. (2010). OECD factbook 2010: OECD Publishing.

Palumbo, A., & Sanacore, J. (2009). Helping struggling middle school literacy

learners achieve success. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational

Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(6), 275-280

Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1993). Psychometric properties of the leadership

practices inventory--updated. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

53(1), 191-199

Quinn, R. R. (2011). The effect of elementary principals' self-perceived instructional

leadership behaviors on reading and math student achievement. (Ed.D.

3483953), Regent University, United States -- Virginia. ProQuest


database.

Robbins, & Judge. (2005). Organizational behavior (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

186

Sagnak, M. (2010). The relationship between transformational school leadership and

ethical climate. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(2), 1135-1152

Sammons, P., Gu, Q., Day, C., & Ko, J. (2011). Exploring the impact of school

leadership on pupil outcomes. The International Journal of Educational

Management, 25(1), 83-101. doi: 10.1108/09513541111100134

Schindler, K. A. (2012). An analysis of the relationship of perceived principal

instructional leadership behaviors and student academic achievement.

(3511656 Ed.D.), Tarleton State University, United States -- Texas. ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences


Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (2nd

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different?: Why

is it important? (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Elliott, D. L. (1975). Educational and organizational leadership

in elementary schools. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic

review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453. doi:

10.3102/00346543075003417

187

Skipper, C., & Bell, L. (2006). Leadership development of construction project

managers. Paper presented at the 2 nd Specialty Conference on Leadership

and Management in Construction.

Smith, S. C., & Piele, P. K. (2006). School leadership: Handbook for excellence in

student learning (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.

Smith, W. F., & Andrews, R. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals

make a difference: ERIC.

Starcher, S. L. (2006). The relationship between leadership practices of principals

and student achievement. (Ed.D. 3243222), Marshall University, United

States -- West Virginia. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities


Stobaugh, R. R. (2003). School reform, transformational leadership, and student

achievement (Ph.D. 3120082), University of Louisville, United States --

Kentucky. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social


Thompson, J. (2012). Transformational leadership can improve workforce

competencies. Nursing Management (Harrow, London, England: 1994),

18(10), 21-24

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York:

Wiley.

188

Tignor, J. S. (2008). The relationship between the elements of professional learning

communities and student achievement of Illinois Spotlight Schools. (Ed.D.

3338884), Western Illinois University, United States -- Illinois. ProQuest


database.

Tzu, S. (2007). The art of war: Pax Librorum Pub. H.

Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial

leadership and student achievement: High school principals make a difference

NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 5-30. doi: 10.1177/0192636511404062

Vellymalay, S. K. N. (2012). The impact of parent’s socioeconomic status on parental

involvement at home: A case study on high achievement Indian students of a

Tamil school in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in

Business and Social Sciences, 2(8), 11-24

Vogt, W. P. (2007). Quantitative research methods for professionals. Boston, MA:

Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American

Psychologist, 62(1), 17

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30

years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student

achievement: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning Aurora,

CO.

189

Webb, G. H. (2012). High school principal perceptions of instructional leadership:

Their rankings on the importance of the Marzano et al. 21 leadership

responsibilities and the impact of leadership on student achievement.

(3539639 Ed.D.), Edgewood College, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection database.

White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic

achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 461-481. doi: 10.1037/0033-

2909.91.3.461

Wooden, J., & Jamison, S. (2005). Wooden on leadership (1st ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Zinn, H. (2010). A people's history of the United States: 1492 to present:

HarperCollins.

APPENDICES

191

January 29, 2014

Sharon Chen

2124 Whitney Court

Atwater, CA 95301

APPENDIX A

PERMISSION LETTER

Dear Ms. Chen:

:

Thank you for your request to use the LPI®: Leadership Practices Inventory® in your dissertation. This letter grants

you permission to use either the print or electronic LPI [Self/Observer/Self and Observer] instrument[s] in

your research. You may reproduce the instrument in printed form at no charge beyond the discounted one-time

cost of purchasing a single copy; however, you may not distribute any photocopies except for specific research

purposes. If you prefer to use the electronic distribution of the LPI you will need to separately contact Ryan Noll

([email protected]) directly for further details regarding product access and payment. Please be sure to review the

product information resources before reaching out with pricing questions.

Permission to use either the written or electronic versions is contingent upon the following:

(1) The LPI may be used only for research purposes and may not be sold or used in conjunction with any compensated

activities;

(2) Copyright in the LPI, and all derivative works based on the LPI, is retained by James M. Kouzes and

Barry Z. Posner. The following copyright statement must be included on all reproduced copies of the instrument(s);

"Copyright © 2013 James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights

reserved. Used with permission";

(3) One (1) electronic copy of your dissertation and one (1) copy of all papers, reports, articles, and the like which

make use of the LPI data must be sent promptly to my attention at the address below; and, (4) We have the right to

include the results of your research in publication, promotion, distribution and sale of the LPI and all related products.

Permission is limited to the rights granted in this letter and does not include the right to grant others permission to

reproduce the instrument(s) except for versions made by nonprofit organizations for visually or physically handicapped

persons. No additions or changes may be made without our prior written consent. You understand that your use of the

LPI shall in no way place the LPI in the public domain or in any way compromise our copyright in the LPI. This

license is nontransferable. We reserve the right to revoke this permission at any time, effective upon written notice to

you, in the event we conclude, in our reasonable judgment, that your use of the LPI is compromising our proprietary

rights in the LPI.

Best wishes for every success with your research project.

Cordially,

Ellen Peterson

Permissions Editor

One Montgomery, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104-459

mailto:[email protected]


192

APPENDIX B

IRB APPROVAL

February 6, 2014

Institutional Review Board CSU Stanislaus One University Circle, MSR 250 Turlock, CA 95382

Telephone: (209) 667-3784 Email: [email protected] IRB BOARD MEMBERS

Jarrett Kotrozo, Ph.D., CHAIR Business Administration

Sharon S. Chen 2124 Whitney Ct.

Atwater, CA 95301

Dear Sharon,

Re: Protocol #1314-094

Susan Eastham, Ph.D. Kinesiology

Huan Gao, Ph.D. Criminal Justice

John Garcia, Ph.D. Social Work

Brian Jue, Ph.D.

Mathematics

Xun (Sunny) Liu, Ph.D.

Communication Studies

Susan Neufeld, Ed.D.

Advanced Studies

Jen Rinaldo, Ph.D.

Nursing

Brent Powell, Ph.D.

Kinesiology

Robin Ringstad, Ph.D.

Social Work

Gary Jones

Community Representative

Shawna Young

Research & Sponsored Programs

(non-voting)

IRB Administration

Julie Johnson, JD

Campus Compliance Officer

Heidi Britt

UIRB & AW Administration

Congratulations. Your research has been designated Expedited and can be conducted as detailed in your research protocol, “The Effects of the Transformational Leadership of Principals on Student Academic Achievement.”

Your approval to conduct research expires February 6, 2015. If you anticipate that you will need more time to complete your research, please apply for renewal at least 30 days prior to the expiration date.

If you have any questions regarding this designation, please contact UIRB at (209) 667-3493.

Please Note: Human subjects research liability protection from the university only covers IRB-approved research by faculty, students, and employees of CSU Stanislaus. If your employment or student status changes during the year or if you make changes to your methods, subject selection, or instrumentation, please discontinue your research and notify the IRB to obtain the appropriate clearances.

If any research subject experiences a serious adverse or unexpected event during or following participation, please notify Campus Compliance immediately.

Best regards,

Jarrett Kotrozo, Ph.D., Chair


193

APPENDIX C

EMAIL INVITATION

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, STANISLAUS

Department of Advanced Studies in Education Doctorate in Educational

Leadership Program

One University Circle, Turlock, CA 95382

Dear Principals,

As a requirement for my Doctorate in Educational Leadership at California State

University, Stanislaus, I am conducting a dissertation study to determine if

relationships exist between transformational leadership practices of school

administrators and student academic achievement and other areas of school

performance. Your participation in this study is voluntary and entirely confidential.

This survey instrument addresses transformational leadership practices and will take

approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. I am requesting that you grant me

permission by replying to this e-mail that you are interested in this study and

willing to be placed in an anonymous pool of potential participants. After receiving

your reply to this email, you will be contacted to participate in this study. Please feel

free to contact me by phone (408) 506-0384 or e- mail ([email protected]), or my

principal dissertation advisor Dr. John Borba at (209) 648-3570 or e-mail

[email protected].

Your contribution to this research would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Sharon S.Chen

Sharon S. Chen, Candidate

Doctorate in Educational Leadership Program

California State University, Stanislaus



THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP OF … · 2017-02-04 · Transformational Leadership...

Documents

Transcript of THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP OF … · 2017-02-04 · Transformational Leadership...